What's your opinion of gun control?

[blablahblah]

The 2nd Amendment, like it or not, does not say that ownership of firearms may be permitted in such a manner as to yield the lowest possible number of gun deaths. 

Any reasonable person understands the reality that protection against everyday crime as well as the more dramatic mass killings that each get 1 minute of news coverage requires a percentage of the population to be armed.

Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that restricting guns will lean things in that direction.

That's the "gun control issue" in a nutshell.

+1
By that standard we should not have free speech rights. Free speech and protesting is dangerous and should not be allowed. Look at what happened with the Arab spring. It would be a far safer place if we were placed in cages and monitored. It would also eliminate the much, much greater problem of auto accidents. Which kill way more people than guns. Everyone please return to the safety of your cages!

Why should the world be so simple that a universal standard must apply equally and everywhere? Oh, because extremism requires that it's either one extremist position, or another extremist position.

If it's not Anarcho-Capitalism, then it must be Communism instead.

Well, no. Improved gun control doesn't automatically mean they must be banned, or that a robotic banning mindset must also be applied equally and everywhere else where might be safety concerns. If you can't see that, then you're being unreasonable.

[1714051384]

1714051384

[1714051384]

1714051384

[1714051384]

1714051384

[1714051384]

1714051384

[1714051384]

1714051384

[RodeoX]

Why should the world be so simple that a universal standard must apply equally and everywhere? Oh, because extremism requires that it's either one extremist position, or another extremist position.

If it's not Anarcho-Capitalism, then it must be Communism instead.

Well, no. Improved gun control doesn't automatically mean they must be banned, or that a robotic banning mindset must also be applied equally and everywhere else where might be safety concerns. If you can't see that, then you're being unreasonable.

I feel we already have reasonable gun control. It's just that there is no way to keep people from killing each other. It is normal human behavior and has always been a part of societies. No law is going to change that, some people do not obey laws.  So a new rule is only going to be honored by the people you don't have to worry about and makes the work of criminals easier. People who carry to protect themselves are not the problem. The increasingly violent society we live in and those who act out and hurt others are. I see no logic in disarming victims to control the behavior of perpetrators.

If you really want to do something of value then consider what YOU are willing to pay.  It is hollow to think up rules for others to obey and pay for. Easy to take away someone eases rights, but what are YOU willing to do?
Will you pay for mental health services? Pay for drug treatment? Share the wealth of our country with the urban poor? That is where the killing is happening. It is NOT happening in places where/by people who legally carry guns.
If only it was as easy as banning a product.

[Beliathon]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

[misterycoins]

We can't pretend that more stringent gun laws are going to prevent 100% of tragedies 100% of the time. No matter what laws are put in place, some criminals are still going to be able to obtain a weapon.

[Spendulus]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

Beliathon, you have actually, if only for once, said something that makes sense.

[TECSHARE]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

Beliathon, you have actually, if only for once, said something that makes sense.

Too bad it is completely utopian like most of his arguments. He has plenty of good ideas, the problem is almost none of them are actually viable in reality.

[tvbcof]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

Once immortality is available through trans-humanism (or whatever-the-fuck it's called) it should be quite possible to convince a lot of Utopian greenies to drink the cool-aid and thus save Mother Gaia for the whole.  I can't wait.  I'd crack a beer, BBQ a steak, and watch the entertainment.  I may even fire off a few rounds into the air in celebration.

[Wilikon]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

Once immortality is available through trans-humanism (or whatever-the-fuck it's called) it should be quite possible to convince a lot of Utopian greenies to drink the cool-aid and thus save Mother Gaia for the whole.  I can't wait.  I'd crack a beer, BBQ a steak, and watch the entertainment.  I may even fire off a few rounds into the air in celebration.

If everyone is immortal why waste rounds into the air for celebration?

 

[tvbcof]

The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream.

This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet.

This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP.

Once immortality is available through trans-humanism (or whatever-the-fuck it's called) it should be quite possible to convince a lot of Utopian greenies to drink the cool-aid and thus save Mother Gaia for the whole.  I can't wait.  I'd crack a beer, BBQ a steak, and watch the entertainment.  I may even fire off a few rounds into the air in celebration.

If everyone is immortal why waste rounds into the air for celebration?

 

I've no interest in immortality of either the Abrahmaic or red-dot Indian type or whatever, or of the technobabble trans-human type.  To me they are equally ludicrous sales pitches and put forward for very similar goals.  I'm personally planning on a future most of which is spent as worm-dirt.  Might as well burn off my extra ammo in the time period while my biological mechanisms are relatively active.  The reason why the Utopian's escape to the great beyond would be cause for celebration to is simply because there would be fewer of them around to bother me.

[TECSHARE]

-Gun suicides:

So is this a gun problem, or a mental health problem? Do you really think if some one wants to die they need a gun to do it? Say we disarm everyone but the police and military... ever heard of suicide by cop? There are still plenty of buildings to jump off of, buses to jump in front of, and drugs to OD on without guns in the picture.

"Mental health" is a modern phenomenon, possibly a huge fad, and there's no solid proof that it even exists outside of a society's need to self-correct by correcting individual people's behaviour. There's a lot of good material that could be discussed on mental health: the failure to change minds with involuntary therapy, "you versus the outside world" philosophical issues, commercial incentives leading to iatrogenics, over-prescribing, profiteering from hypochondria and the creation of entirely new mental illnesses that didn't exist before. And, controversially, whether or not suicide constitutes a mental health problem at all -- is enlightened euthanasia a legitimate thing? Is the question even answerable, given that death is an unknown unknown? At least for the living.

Rephrasing: "so is this a gun problem, or a people problem?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has been covered.

Yes, you are right, there is no such thing as insane people. All of those mass shooters were perfectly sane, and they certainly weren't 9 times out of 10 on psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs known to cause suicidal tendencies. People losing their mind and becoming homicidal is nothing but a modern invention. A collapsing economy, world wars, and corrupt government certainly isn't causing people so much stress they are just snapping. Also it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Americans are on at least 1 prescription medication. Funny how in Sweden guns are in every household by law, yet they don't have those same problems. I guess it must be the guns and not the psychological state of the people pulling the trigger.

BTW, when you reduce an argument to a cliche, then argue against the cliche that is a fallacy known as a straw man.

-Over-availability:

Do you really think making laws restricting the legal ownership of guns will make criminals stop using them? Illegal weapons are available all over the planet, ESPECIALLY in countries where guns are banned. Banning drugs worked so well, I am sure it will work just as well for guns! Illegal drugs certainly aren't available everywhere are they?

2 completely different issues.
The US is the world's biggest manufacturer and exporter of guns. There's only so much (little) onlookers can do if the US chooses to keep flooding the market. I can see how guns have become a Libertarian 'darling' because without scratching the surface it looks like regulation fails to work. And it's so convenient that criminals don't respond well to being shouted at. But who's shouting at the likes of Lockheed Martin to reduce production? No-one! When it comes to petty consumer-level criminals, the availability is completely unregulated.

As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind.

Why are they two completely different issues? Because you declare them as such? I find them VERY closely related, because without guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we are nothing but potential targets for criminals waiting to become victims. BTW, by definition, criminals do not follow regulation. It is not a difficult concept. If you can afford to pay for it, you can get it. The same goes for ANY contraband from drugs to uranium. Pretending regulations will some how prevent criminals from acquiring guns is a fairy tale. The war on drugs worked so well reducing the availability of drugs, I guess we should try regulating guns too!

BTW the idea that the sale of firearms are not regulated in the US is a complete myth.

-Decreased availability causes decreased mortality:

Decreased mortality for whom? Criminals and crazy people? Even if your little utopian idea of banning guns some how magically making them less available worked, literally the only people you have disarmed are those that obey the law. Then you can watch the crime rate go up again along with the mortality and the over all violent crime rates.

Where did I say banning?
Did you read the link? It's the law-abiding citizens that cause the most gun deaths. The criminal side is just a red herring. Change regulations at the consumer level, and suddenly there's less criminals, or more criminals. So what? Did it force Lockheed to supply less guns onto the market?

"Regulations don't work" is complete fallacy. You're not even trying to reduce supply. The main similarity with that and the drug war is that regulators have achieved the same ends by different means. They've castrated themselves by making drugs outright illegal, and therefore also unregulated.

Gun sales in the USA are already regulated. You are arguing for more regulation and reduction of availability of firearms. By default you are arguing for the restriction of supply of firearms by law. Considering that there is a tremendous actual supply of firearms globally, and that won't change any time soon, so what you are arguing for then is the removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals will always find ways around laws and regulations, that's why they are called criminals.

Of course the stats say that law abiding citizens cause the most gun deaths. You know why? Those stats include self defense, police shootings, and suicides, and you parrot it as if they are all murders. After that the most murders using guns are from gang activity, and gangs will always find a way to kill with or without guns.

The criminal side is far from a red herring, because it is real fucking easy to sit outside the country and let us be the victims of violence while you poo poo us about gun ownership. BTW WTF does Lockheed Martin have to do with any of this? Last time I checked they don't make small arms (guns and rifles) for consumer use, only military (like miniguns and rocket launchers). If you have a gripe with the way our military works that is completely another subject.

Also I never said "Regulations don't work", that is all you. BTW that is a nice straw man again attributing a statement to me and then arguing against it. The USA already has plenty of gun regulations, making more is not going to improve the situation as I explained criminals just seem to not care about laws, furthermore most regulations punish people AFTER THE FACT, so it is not preventing anything anyway. Funny how that works.

-Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today:

I don't know what country you are from, but I am fairly confident it is not the USA. I am not sure where you get off making those choices for a country you do not even live in, and pretending you understand our culture intimately from the outside.
Defending ourselves from government tyranny is the NUMBER ONE REASON people are buying guns over the past 10 years. Just watch any time Obama makes some comment about gun control everyone buys a shitload of guns in preparation for the tyranny which is very clearly rooted in the US government. This is the furthest thing from a joke as it has been since the civil war. Of course if you are safely within the borders of another nation, it is still a joke to you.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that... Who am I to say that your culture is paranoiac and delusional? You guys are smoking the "gun dope", but only you have the power to tell yourself to cut down. I can't fix your denial.

Is this even an argument? It looks to me like another fallacy, this time an ad hominem attack. You can believe whatever you like and call us names, it doesn't change the facts or provide substance to your argument. Also, how the fuck would you know anything about our internal politics as an outsider? Do you think they talk about this shit on TV? You are claiming more knowledge than you could possibly have.

-The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories:

Hmm, I dunno about that. They seem to be doing a pretty good job holding off our modern military with small arms in Afghanistan. This argument is just a fallacy. Modern technology doesn't make you bullet proof.

Because your troops don't want to get killed just because civilians back home are too lazy to make real changes like regulating the weapons manufacturers. It's all US versus Russia proxy fighting, and dragging it out for years is probably the best they can do to avoid massacring the civilians caught in between. But yeah, it's totally those anti-tank pistols that are defeating the troops.

WHAT IN THE FUCK are you talking about? What does this have to do with the availability of firearms in the US? As I said before if you have a gripe with our military that is completely another topic. BTW, not every soldier is issued a tank on arrival to Afganistan, sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe actually talk to ANY SOLDIER ever deployed to Afganistan and ask them if they were afraid of getting shot with rifles. Modern technology does not make people invincible to bullets.

[blablahblah]

-Gun suicides:

So is this a gun problem, or a mental health problem? Do you really think if some one wants to die they need a gun to do it? Say we disarm everyone but the police and military... ever heard of suicide by cop? There are still plenty of buildings to jump off of, buses to jump in front of, and drugs to OD on without guns in the picture.

"Mental health" is a modern phenomenon, possibly a huge fad, and there's no solid proof that it even exists outside of a society's need to self-correct by correcting individual people's behaviour. There's a lot of good material that could be discussed on mental health: the failure to change minds with involuntary therapy, "you versus the outside world" philosophical issues, commercial incentives leading to iatrogenics, over-prescribing, profiteering from hypochondria and the creation of entirely new mental illnesses that didn't exist before. And, controversially, whether or not suicide constitutes a mental health problem at all -- is enlightened euthanasia a legitimate thing? Is the question even answerable, given that death is an unknown unknown? At least for the living.

Rephrasing: "so is this a gun problem, or a people problem?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has been covered.

Yes, you are right, there is no such thing as insane people.

Your claim, not mine.

All of those mass shooters were perfectly sane, and they certainly weren't 9 times out of 10 on psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs known to cause suicidal tendencies. People losing their mind and becoming homicidal is nothing but a modern invention. A collapsing economy, world wars, and corrupt government certainly isn't causing people so much stress they are just snapping. Also it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Americans are on at least 1 prescription medication. Funny how in Sweden guns are in every household by law, yet they don't have those same problems. I guess it must be the guns and not the psychological state of the people pulling the trigger.

BTW, when you reduce an argument to a cliche, then argue against the cliche that is a fallacy known as a straw man.

Being cliche does not imply falsehood. Actually, blaming mental health for impinging on your lifestyle choices is pretty damn arrogant and selfish. There is no "natural law" that gives "gun freedom" politics any priority over social problems such as mental health, and you have not made a case for guns to be so liberally available in the first place. If you want to make the case, be my guest.

You're shooting yourself in the foot anyway. Since mental health problems are so bad with everyone on prescription medication and people "snapping" for tin-foil-hat excuses... could you remind me why you thought an over-abundance of easily-available deadly weapons would be a good idea in that kind of environment?? Oh right, because you need to give everyone a steady supply of toys to defend yourself against the naughty kids, who use the toys to attack you. Nice circular argument you've got going there. Where do I buy stocks in these companies?

-Over-availability:

Do you really think making laws restricting the legal ownership of guns will make criminals stop using them? Illegal weapons are available all over the planet, ESPECIALLY in countries where guns are banned. Banning drugs worked so well, I am sure it will work just as well for guns! Illegal drugs certainly aren't available everywhere are they?

2 completely different issues.
The US is the world's biggest manufacturer and exporter of guns. There's only so much (little) onlookers can do if the US chooses to keep flooding the market. I can see how guns have become a Libertarian 'darling' because without scratching the surface it looks like regulation fails to work. And it's so convenient that criminals don't respond well to being shouted at. But who's shouting at the likes of Lockheed Martin to reduce production? No-one! When it comes to petty consumer-level criminals, the availability is completely unregulated.

As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind.

Why are they two completely different issues? Because you declare them as such? I find them VERY closely related, because without guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we are nothing but potential targets for criminals waiting to become victims. BTW, by definition, criminals do not follow regulation. It is not a difficult concept. If you can afford to pay for it, you can get it. The same goes for ANY contraband from drugs to uranium. Pretending regulations will some how prevent criminals from acquiring guns is a fairy tale. The war on drugs worked so well reducing the availability of drugs, I guess we should try regulating guns too!

Can you quote me where I recommended more decrees and banning rhetoric?
I've repeatedly talked about restricting supply at the source. If it's not Lockheed, then it's some other brand name that's totally irrelevant to the point you're missing. Which part of "reduce supply" do you not understand?

That brings up another important point, which is:
why the hell should all the profits from gun and bullet sales be kept in private hands, while everyone else is expected to subsidise the social costs of your lifestyle choices?!

It's the same argument as with cigarette addicts and alcohol abusers clogging up the health-care systems, and making more work for public servants.

It's fucking hypocritical for a site that's filled with tax-hating Libertarians when this time you're the parasites! For every gun sold, there's a moderate chance it could get into the wrong hands. Of course it's a lottery, and so is lung cancer. Are you sure you want to do the sums?
What's a life worth? $100k? $1M?
How many avoidable deaths occur every year because of mental health problems "accidentally colliding" with gun ultra-liberalism?
How much social work, police cars standing around, paperwork, and other expensive shit is caused by those avoidable deaths?
Oh damn, I forgot that only the murders matter, and black lives. So don't let the suicides and widows on foodstamps get in the way of your cost calculations.

[blablahblah]

As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind.

Why are they two completely different issues? Because you declare them as such? I find them VERY closely related, because without guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we are nothing but potential targets for criminals waiting to become victims.

THAT's a fallacy.
Potential targets... waiting to become victims... listen to yourself. Are those the words of an enlightened adult who maybe visits a gun range from time to time? Someone who accepts that guns have downsides and is willing to compromise? No, it's a fucking unhealthy fear-based mindset.

BTW, by definition, criminals do not follow regulation.

At least you're learning. A bit slow, but there seems to be progress.
Now, take the next step, and think about what practical measures would be required to reduce a criminal's ability to access guns. Hint: it's in the price.

It is not a difficult concept. If you can afford to pay for it, you can get it.

I'm not interested in your utopian bullshit. You're so steeped in your idealism -- that must be why the idea of simply taxing the damn things escapes you.

The same goes for ANY contraband from drugs to uranium. Pretending regulations will some how prevent criminals from acquiring guns is a fairy tale. The war on drugs worked so well reducing the availability of drugs, I guess we should try regulating guns too!

You sure that's a straw man? Looks like the giant marshmallow man from Ghostbusters.
Call it a tax on the steel coming in to the gun factories, if it makes you feel better. That way it's not the guns being regulated, it's the raw materials

Gun sales in the USA are already regulated. You are arguing for more regulation and reduction of availability of firearms.

Yes.

By default you are arguing for the restriction of supply of firearms by law.

Correct.

Considering that there is a tremendous actual supply of firearms globally, and that won't change any time soon, so what you are arguing for then is the removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens.

It's the indignant, self-righteous "law abiding citizens" wanting to have guns AND have them dirt cheap, which enables criminals to also have cheap access.

Criminals will always find ways around laws and regulations, that's why they are called criminals.

That's a nice theory you got.

Of course the stats say that law abiding citizens cause the most gun deaths. You know why? Those stats include self defense, police shootings, and suicides, and you parrot it as if they are all murders. After that the most murders using guns are from gang activity, and gangs will always find a way to kill with or without guns.

All that "criminals will always find a way" crap is crap. Why should normal law abiding citizens be less capable of finding a way? Criminals are in NO WAY superior to anyone else. They're typically poor, hungry, desperate, failures who made mistakes or were unlucky in life.

Also, nice to hear that you don't give a shit about "other" deaths if it's not murder. Why not just call it collateral damage?

The criminal side is far from a red herring, because it is real fucking easy to sit outside the country and let us be the victims of violence while you poo poo us about gun ownership.

LOL!
It's like you're complaining about rampant alcoholism and broken bottles in your society, but when I suggest an excise tax, you're like "piss off! You and your sober ideas!"

BTW WTF does Lockheed Martin have to do with any of this?

Substitute whatever other brand names.

Also I never said "Regulations don't work", that is all you. BTW that is a nice straw man again attributing a statement to me and then arguing against it. The USA already has plenty of gun regulations, making more is not going to improve the situation as I explained criminals just seem to not care about laws, furthermore most regulations punish people AFTER THE FACT, so it is not preventing anything anyway. Funny how that works.

Where there is a will, there's a way.
But first there needs to be a will.

[Spendulus]

As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind.

Why are they two completely different issues? Because you declare them as such? I find them VERY closely related, because without guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we are nothing but potential targets for criminals waiting to become victims.

THAT's a fallacy.
Potential targets... waiting to become victims... listen to yourself. Are those the words of an enlightened adult who maybe visits a gun range from time to time? Someone who accepts that guns have downsides and is willing to compromise? No, it's a fucking unhealthy fear-based mindset.

BTW, by definition, criminals do not follow regulation.

At least you're learning. A bit slow, but there seems to be progress.
Now, take the next step, and think about what practical measures would be required to reduce a criminal's ability to access guns. Hint: it's in the price.

It is not a difficult concept. If you can afford to pay for it, you can get it.

I'm not interested in your utopian bullshit. You're so steeped in your idealism -- that must be why the idea of simply taxing the damn things escapes you.

The same goes for ANY contraband from drugs to uranium. Pretending regulations will some how prevent criminals from acquiring guns is a fairy tale. The war on drugs worked so well reducing the availability of drugs, I guess we should try regulating guns too!

You sure that's a straw man? Looks like the giant marshmallow man from Ghostbusters.
Call it a tax on the steel coming in to the gun factories, if it makes you feel better. That way it's not the guns being regulated, it's the raw materials

Gun sales in the USA are already regulated. You are arguing for more regulation and reduction of availability of firearms.

Yes.

By default you are arguing for the restriction of supply of firearms by law.

Correct.

Considering that there is a tremendous actual supply of firearms globally, and that won't change any time soon, so what you are arguing for then is the removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens.

It's the indignant, self-righteous "law abiding citizens" wanting to have guns AND have them dirt cheap, which enables criminals to also have cheap access.

Criminals will always find ways around laws and regulations, that's why they are called criminals.

That's a nice theory you got.

Of course the stats say that law abiding citizens cause the most gun deaths. You know why? Those stats include self defense, police shootings, and suicides, and you parrot it as if they are all murders. After that the most murders using guns are from gang activity, and gangs will always find a way to kill with or without guns.

All that "criminals will always find a way" crap is crap. Why should normal law abiding citizens be less capable of finding a way? Criminals are in NO WAY superior to anyone else. They're typically poor, hungry, desperate, failures who made mistakes or were unlucky in life.

Also, nice to hear that you don't give a shit about "other" deaths if it's not murder. Why not just call it collateral damage?

The criminal side is far from a red herring, because it is real fucking easy to sit outside the country and let us be the victims of violence while you poo poo us about gun ownership.

LOL!
It's like you're complaining about rampant alcoholism and broken bottles in your society, but when I suggest an excise tax, you're like "piss off! You and your sober ideas!"

BTW WTF does Lockheed Martin have to do with any of this?

Substitute whatever other brand names.

Also I never said "Regulations don't work", that is all you. BTW that is a nice straw man again attributing a statement to me and then arguing against it. The USA already has plenty of gun regulations, making more is not going to improve the situation as I explained criminals just seem to not care about laws, furthermore most regulations punish people AFTER THE FACT, so it is not preventing anything anyway. Funny how that works.

Where there is a will, there's a way.
But first there needs to be a will.

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

[RodeoX]

Here is an example of the bias found in reporting on criminal violence. This week's nut-job killer at a Tennessee movie theater was described as a "gunman" in all the initial media reports. But why was he not described as a "hatchetman" or a bomber? The only gun he had was a bb gun. He did hatchet some people and had apparently planed on blowing the place up, but these things do not fit the presumption that banning guns is the same as banning violence.  As always, it's a mentally disturbed person with a long criminal history who everyone knew was going to kill someone sometime.
Since nobody want's to spend a dime on treating the vast numbers of homeless mentally ill or give up any right they want to use, the call for banning guns is touted in the press as some sort of response. It's always what others should do and never what I am going to do or give up. You will never see a ban on propane tanks or hatchets, Those are things everyone uses and no connection is drawn between the violence and these items. But people with zero experience in crime and zero knowledge of guns immediately link their ignorance of guns too their ignorance of the criminal mind. It looks foolish to those who know what they are talking about. It is no different that a ban on propane because someone somewhere could blow something up.

[Spendulus]

Here is an example of the bias found in reporting on criminal violence. This week's nut-job killer at a Tennessee movie theater was described as a "gunman" in all the initial media reports. But why was he not described as a "hatchetman" or a bomber? The only gun he had was a bb gun. He did hatchet some people and had apparently planed on blowing the place up, but these things do not fit the presumption that banning guns is the same as banning violence.  As always, it's a mentally disturbed person with a long criminal history who everyone knew was going to kill someone sometime.

Actually they argue the exact opposite.

[RodeoX]

Here is an example of the bias found in reporting on criminal violence. This week's nut-job killer at a Tennessee movie theater was described as a "gunman" in all the initial media reports. But why was he not described as a "hatchetman" or a bomber? The only gun he had was a bb gun. He did hatchet some people and had apparently planed on blowing the place up, but these things do not fit the presumption that banning guns is the same as banning violence.  As always, it's a mentally disturbed person with a long criminal history who everyone knew was going to kill someone sometime.

Actually they argue the exact opposite.

Do you mean "banning violence is the same as banning guns"? My sentence is not very clear here.
The point I was hoping to make is that it is not logical to equate a tool used in a violent act with violence. A hammer is not capable of violence as it is an inanimate object. People are violent and may use any number of tools in a violent act.
I think it stems from a supernatural belief in the evil power of an object. A mistaken idea that this violence somehow comes from the gun itself.  You can hear it in the way shootings are described.

"Your honor, my client had no intention of killing the store clerk. But when the clerk grabbed his gun they struggled and the gun went off" 

That's what a guilty person says about a shooting. "The gun went off" rather than " I shot him to death".

[tvbcof]

Here is an example of the bias found in reporting on criminal violence. This week's nut-job killer at a Tennessee movie theater was described as a "gunman" in all the initial media reports. But why was he not described as a "hatchetman" or a bomber? The only gun he had was a bb gun. He did hatchet some people and had apparently planed on blowing the place up, but these things do not fit the presumption that banning guns is the same as banning violence.  As always, it's a mentally disturbed person with a long criminal history who everyone knew was going to kill someone sometime.
Since nobody want's to spend a dime on treating the vast numbers of homeless mentally ill or give up any right they want to use, the call for banning guns is touted in the press as some sort of response. It's always what others should do and never what I am going to do or give up. You will never see a ban on propane tanks or hatchets, Those are things everyone uses and no connection is drawn between the violence and these items. But people with zero experience in crime and zero knowledge of guns immediately link their ignorance of guns too their ignorance of the criminal mind. It looks foolish to those who know what they are talking about. It is no different that a ban on propane because someone somewhere could blow something up.

As usual, the guy ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.

Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations.  That I am quite confident of.

In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies.  Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous.  Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.'  The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses.  Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.

Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.

Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or dead people.  Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about?  I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things.  The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations.  Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.

edits: slight from posting when I got a phone call.

[RodeoX]

As usual, the guy conveniently ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.

Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations.  That I am quite confident of.

In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies.  Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous.  Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.'  The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses.  Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.

Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.

Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or people.  Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about?  I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things.  The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations.  Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.

I do not believe anything like that is happening. It's always fun to think up some conspiracy. But the evidence points to a very banal, unsexy and expected truth. We turn the insane out on the street, they go off their meds, then they split from reality. It happens all the time and been this way throughout human history.
In fact (despite a spike this year) the murder rate is at historic lows. You have to go back 50 years to find a lower rate.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

As usual, the guy conveniently ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.

Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations.  That I am quite confident of.

In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies.  Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous.  Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.'  The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses.  Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.

Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.

Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or people.  Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about?  I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things.  The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations.  Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.

I do not believe anything like that is happening. It's always fun to think up some conspiracy. But the evidence points to a very banal, unsexy and expected truth. We turn the insane out on the street, they go off their meds, then they split from reality. It happens all the time and been this way throughout human history.
In fact (despite a spike this year) the murder rate is at historic lows. You have to go back 50 years to find a lower rate.

Both of those can be true at the same time though.

Also, why would the press release photoshopped photos?

Original Images:

3 images in 1

Bedroom with a flag with pole


You can go to http://fotoforensics.com and input any image, and see where changes have been made. They usually show up as very bright. You can look up how to tell the difference and start checking out photos yourself.

Notice there is no pole in the mirror?





Looks like the whole flag in the middle picture was probably added, but at least the fire part.

[Spendulus]

As usual, the guy conveniently ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.

Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations.  That I am quite confident of.

In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies.  Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous.  Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.'  The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses.  Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.

Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.

Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or people.  Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about?  I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things.  The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations.  Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.

I do not believe anything like that is happening. It's always fun to think up some conspiracy. But the evidence points to a very banal, unsexy and expected truth. We turn the insane out on the street, they go off their meds, then they split from reality. It happens all the time and been this way throughout human history.
In fact (despite a spike this year) the murder rate is at historic lows. You have to go back 50 years to find a lower rate.

This dates back to a change in attitude about how to handle the mentally ill during the Reagan years.  Progressives thought that the mentally ill had rights and were people too; and they dumped them out on the streets and closed the mental hospitals.  That was the beginnings of the homeless population of the USA.

But the (bolded above) today it's different than the rest of human history, because the psychoactive drugs that are supposed to keep these people stable, if they are not taken, will result in immediately crazy and dangerous people.  This is not well understood.

Go back to old movies or descriptions of "insane asylums" from before the introduction of the first drug used to sedate this population, Thorazine.  You will see what a "Lunatic" was.  And they were something to see.   Thorazine made them into babies, as far as handling them went.  It turned people that had to be put in padded rooms, into semi druggy glazed eye half zombie creatures that were pretty harmless.