Mass Shooting in Germany

[Denny Crane]

They have banned certain weapons. Assault rifles, for example. It's obviously a slippery slope kind of thing with the ultimate ban of all guns.

The debate often references nations where guns are banned to somehow prove it's a good idea here.

Unlike cars, the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights and shall not be infringed.

Just as those on the left claim they want "reasonable" infringement of the right, there are those on the right that would impose "reasonable" restrictions on abortions, like a 24 hrs waiting period. Both have the intent to ban. One step at a time, incrementally. You know, like ObamaCare is the next step toward single payer.

Abortion rights are found in the bill of rights, too. Yet guess who howls and whines if it's their oxe being gored?

Infringe neither and you favor those who matter: law abiding gun owners and women seeking to control their own bodies.

 

[Natebishop3]

They have banned certain weapons. Assault rifles, for example. It's obviously a slippery slope kind of thing with the ultimate ban of all guns.

The debate often references nations where guns are banned to somehow prove it's a good idea here.

Unlike cars, the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights and shall not be infringed.

Just as those on the left claim they want "reasonable" infringement of the right, there are those on the right that would impose "reasonable" restrictions on abortions, like a 24 hrs waiting period. Both have the intent to ban. One step at a time, incrementally. You know, like ObamaCare is the next step toward single payer.

Abortion rights are found in the bill of rights, too. Yet guess who howls and whines if it's their oxe being gored?

Infringe neither and you favor those who matter: law abiding gun owners and women seeking to control their own bodies.

What it boils down to is that people get upset when something like Orlando happens. They want to take action. They want to do SOMETHING, so they grasp at the only thing they think they CAN do, which is regulate guns. They don't seem to understand that the "common sense" gun laws that they are pushing for would have zero effect on the events that they're upset about.

There's only one action that might make a difference - ban all guns and confiscate all guns. That's the only thing that might reduce shootings.

The problem is:

1) Getting rid of guns completely is unrealistic.

2) Trying to get rid of guns completely could potentially throw us into a state of civil war. I know a lot of people who list the 2nd amendment as their line in the sand. If the government tries to take their guns, they will resist.

The thing is, it doesn't take an "assault rifle" to have a "mass shooting." The silly definition of "mass shooting" is 4 people (including the shooter.) You could easily have a mass shooting with a revolver under those terms.

 

[Denny Crane]

What it boils down to is that people get upset when something like Orlando happens. They want to take action. They want to do SOMETHING, so they grasp at the only thing they think they CAN do, which is regulate guns. They don't seem to understand that the "common sense" gun laws that they are pushing for would have zero effect on the events that they're upset about.

There's only one action that might make a difference - ban all guns and confiscate all guns. That's the only thing that might reduce shootings.

The problem is:

1) Getting rid of guns completely is unrealistic.

2) Trying to get rid of guns completely could potentially throw us into a state of civil war. I know a lot of people who list the 2nd amendment as their line in the sand. If the government tries to take their guns, they will resist.

The thing is, it doesn't take an "assault rifle" to have a "mass shooting." The silly definition of "mass shooting" is 4 people (including the shooter.) You could easily have a mass shooting with a revolver under those terms.

They banned (or tried to) guns in Washington D.C. and Chicago. That is their intent.

The so-called common sense laws already in place haven't stopped shootings or bombings or stabbings. Their deliberate effect is to make a pain in the ass out of compliance.

 

[DaLong]

What it boils down to is that people get upset when something like Orlando happens. They want to take action. They want to do SOMETHING, so they grasp at the only thing they think they CAN do, which is regulate guns. They don't seem to understand that the "common sense" gun laws that they are pushing for would have zero effect on the events that they're upset about.

There's only one action that might make a difference - ban all guns and confiscate all guns. That's the only thing that might reduce shootings.

The problem is:

1) Getting rid of guns completely is unrealistic.

2) Trying to get rid of guns completely could potentially throw us into a state of civil war. I know a lot of people who list the 2nd amendment as their line in the sand. If the government tries to take their guns, they will resist.

The thing is, it doesn't take an "assault rifle" to have a "mass shooting." The silly definition of "mass shooting" is 4 people (including the shooter.) You could easily have a mass shooting with a revolver under those terms.

To be clear, people affected by the shootings are rarely talking about guns. In fact, they are completely trying to change the conversation. They've been trying repeatedly over and over but the media won't drop their MO.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Unlike cars, the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights and shall not be infringed.

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. If I heard someone say that in person I would start laughing so hard.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. If I heard someone say that in person I would start laughing so hard.

Ok, I'll bite.

Why?

The framers felt gun ownership so important they put it in the Bill of Rights, seemingly high priority - second.

There's no mention of cars or roads. They did have streets and roads.

 

[barfo]

Ok, I'll bite.

Why?

The framers felt gun ownership so important they put it in the Bill of Rights, seemingly high priority - second.

There's no mention of cars or roads. They did have streets and roads.

If the framers had internet porn, they probably would have put the right to fast download speeds in the constitution.

I think you realized while writing that that cars aren't in the constitution because they hadn't been invented yet.

It's so bizarre to assume that the priorities 200 years ago (or 2000 years ago, if you want to be religious about it) should be exactly the priorities today.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

It's so bizarre to assume that the priorities 200 years ago (or 2000 years ago, if you want to be religious about it) should be exactly the priorities today.

Really! What priorities have changed? The Bill of rights could reflect that change if it is indeed different.

 

[MarAzul]

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. If I heard someone say that in person I would start laughing so hard.

Do you want to tell us what would make you laugh?

 

[Denny Crane]

If the framers had internet porn, they probably would have put the right to fast download speeds in the constitution.

I think you realized while writing that that cars aren't in the constitution because they hadn't been invented yet.

It's so bizarre to assume that the priorities 200 years ago (or 2000 years ago, if you want to be religious about it) should be exactly the priorities today.

barfo

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas

Transportation was invented. I'm pretty sure they had porn back then, too.

It's so bizarre that you can't be satisfied tending to yourself that you have to hassle as many other people far away from you as you can manage.

 

[MARIS61]

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

When I lived in Hollywood my neighbor stabbed his friend to death with a fork while they were having dinner.
Killing unarmed American citizens does not require a gun, and it has been on a steady decline for the last 40 years anyway.

It is much easier to kill Americans if they do not have a gun. It is really the only reason anyone could have for preventing American citizens from owning guns. To make it easier/safer/more efficient to slaughter them.

Defending America against a treasonous government/military coup would obviously require guns in the hands of Real Americans. This is why The Second Amendment was conceived and written. This is the only reason The Second Amendment was conceived and written. This is the only reason mentioned in The Second Amendment. This is why it was written to be permanent, absolute and unalterable.

Government representatives seeking to infringe on gun ownership by American citizens in any way should be recognized for the treasonous acts they have chosen to commit and prosecuted for them.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/f...get-beaten-to-death-than-killed-with-a-rifle/

The FBI’s report for violent crime in 2014 revealed that only 248 people were killed from any form of rifle including rifles in the AR-15 platform.

In contrast, 3,827 people were killed from being stabbed or beaten to death. That means that you are 15.4 times more likely to die from a stabbing or beating than a rifle. Handguns accounted for the vast majority of firearms deaths.

The numbers also indicated that murder with all guns has been on a steady decline, and was at a new recent low in 2014, with 8,103 total firearm murders committed. That is a decline of 351 murders since 2013, and a decline of 1,096 from 2010.

(or gun murders were about 2x more than stabbing or beating murders)

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Ok, I'll bite.

Why?

The framers felt gun ownership so important they put it in the Bill of Rights, seemingly high priority - second.

There's no mention of cars or roads. They did have streets and roads.

Mostly I think it would just sound funny to hear someone say.

But also... This country and the world are entirely different than it was almost 250 years ago, and while the founders of the country were smart dudes, they absolutely weren't infallible and they couldn't see the future. Gun rights activists always bringing it up is just an extremely weak argument in my opinion. It means nothing to me. And saying cars weren't mentioned... Of course they weren't. Why even say that? Were cell phones mentioned? How about computers? Airplanes? The Internet?

 

[MarAzul]

they couldn't see the future.

It seems they saw the future really well, they wrote and passed the 2nd amendment. We really need it now, probably much more than in their day. Thanks to their vision we have it and I for one appreciate it.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

I typed practically an essay. What a waste of time; my mistake.

You guys keep citing these statistics that are red herrings.

I can kill you with my fists, ergo nuclear weapons are ok, is the logical extreme of your argument. I understand that you don't see your argument as sounding as absurd, but to me the logical dissonance of "stabbing deaths are more common, therefore don't take my guns", makes me wince.

But your arguments make sense if one understands that there are no reasonable gun laws, because you want to "watch the world burn" someday.

ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) You guys want to be able to have as powerful a weapon as you can afford the bullets for, so that when the Rapture/Armageddon/Meggido/Apocalypse/Democrats win, you will be able to flex if you feel the need?

Ok, things make much more sense now. You don't want to relinquish your weapons because you will need them in an "emergency", such as when the Mexicans get zombified from the secret government lab virus that will enable the to climb over the Trump Wall like in the movie World War Z.

Thanks for not beating around the bush with how you feel, Maris61. You did us ALL a favor.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Mostly I think it would just sound funny to hear someone say.

But also... This country and the world are entirely different than it was almost 250 years ago, and while the founders of the country were smart dudes, they absolutely weren't infallible and they couldn't see the future. Gun rights activists always bringing it up is just an extremely weak argument in my opinion. It means nothing to me. And saying cars weren't mentioned... Of course they weren't. Why even say that? Were cell phones mentioned? How about computers? Airplanes? The Internet?

Yeah, specious and disingenuous arguments. It's tiresome. Nobody is fooled by these arguments guys. They make absolutely no sense. The framers were not gods, guys! Stop putting them on a pedestal and stop making the constitution in to some infallible document. You guys are sounding like Islamic jihadists.

 

[Denny Crane]

Mostly I think it would just sound funny to hear someone say.

But also... This country and the world are entirely different than it was almost 250 years ago, and while the founders of the country were smart dudes, they absolutely weren't infallible and they couldn't see the future. Gun rights activists always bringing it up is just an extremely weak argument in my opinion. It means nothing to me. And saying cars weren't mentioned... Of course they weren't. Why even say that? Were cell phones mentioned? How about computers? Airplanes? The Internet?

The constitution has been amended 27 times. That is how they planned for 250 years from then.

If we didn't adhere to it, there would be no rules at all, nothing out of bounds for government to do to us. Only a fool would trust government to do the right thing. Hello Iraq, $20,000,000,000,000,000 in debt. If it weren't for the constitution, W would be president for life with the powers of a king.

Guns were, and still are, among the most sacred of our liberties. Nothing has changed in 250 years to change that.

Cell phones are mentioned. 4th amendment, 1st amendment. You're reaching.

 

[Denny Crane]

I typed practically an essay. What a waste of time; my mistake.

You guys keep citing these statistics that are red herrings.

I can kill you with my fists, ergo nuclear weapons are ok, is the logical extreme of your argument. I understand that you don't see your argument as sounding as absurd, but to me the logical dissonance of "stabbing deaths are more common, therefore don't take my guns", makes me wince.

But your arguments make sense if one understands that there are no reasonable gun laws, because you want to "watch the world burn" someday.

ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) You guys want to be able to have as powerful a weapon as you can afford the bullets for, so that when the Rapture/Armageddon/Meggido/Apocalypse/Democrats win, you will be able to flex if you feel the need?

Ok, things make much more sense now. You don't want to relinquish your weapons because you will need them in an "emergency", such as when the Mexicans get zombified from the secret government lab virus that will enable the to climb over the Trump Wall like in the movie World War Z.

Thanks for not beating around the bush with how you feel, Maris61. You did us ALL a favor.

Tell us more about this "logic" thingy. Don't see any of it in your posts.

 

[Denny Crane]

People do kill, period. With fists, with knives, with guns, by arson, poison, cars, push you in front of a moving train or out a window, or blow up foot races with pressure cookers, buildings with airliners, and government buildings with fertilizer.

None of that means the straw man, I want nukes. Gimme a break.

 

[Natebishop3]

Mostly I think it would just sound funny to hear someone say.

But also... This country and the world are entirely different than it was almost 250 years ago, and while the founders of the country were smart dudes, they absolutely weren't infallible and they couldn't see the future. Gun rights activists always bringing it up is just an extremely weak argument in my opinion. It means nothing to me. And saying cars weren't mentioned... Of course they weren't. Why even say that? Were cell phones mentioned? How about computers? Airplanes? The Internet?

Has the world changed that much? Yes, but not in the way that you're thinking.

The framers built the country in way to protect your freedom.

The Bill of Rights.

Checks and balances.

The ability for states to govern themselves to a certain extent.

The world HAS changed. It has become vastly more dangerous and easier for governments to intrude on your privacy. Control your flow of information.

The 4th amendment is sooooo crucial. It's currently being shitted on by the US Government. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." We aren't even doing anything about it. The NSA and FBI are recording phone calls and using companies like Google and Facebook to track your browsing. Why is nobody upset about this? The framers were smart enough 200+ years ago to put an amendment in place to prevent the government from violating your privacy... and yet..... here we are.

The 6th amendment..... "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." How the fuck are we putting US citizens on "no fly lists" and "terrorist watch lists" without accusing them in public court? How are we putting people in Guantanamo Bay without a trial for years? All the government has to do is accuse you of terrorism and you will disappear.

I don't think people understand that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It's not about personal self-defense. It's a deterrent to keep the government from trying to rule absolutely. The Revolutionary War started because the British tried to disarm the people of Boston. They marched on two locations where the colonists were storing arms. The Framers worded the 2nd amendment very clearly. Their intent was to keep the American people armed so that the rest of the amendments could not fall. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Let me say that again, A FREE STATE.

Let's see how the framers defined freedom - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence is crystal clear about human rights, and what the people should do if those rights are infringed. How exactly are you going to alter or abolish a destructive government if you have no guns? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

 

[barfo]

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas

Insightful.

It's so bizarre that you can't be satisfied tending to yourself that you have to hassle as many other people far away from you as you can manage.

No idea what you are talking about. Who am I hassling?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I don't think people understand that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It's not about personal self-defense. It's a deterrent to keep the government from trying to rule absolutely. The Revolutionary War started because the British tried to disarm the people of Boston. They marched on two locations where the colonists were storing arms. The Framers worded the 2nd amendment very clearly. Their intent was to keep the American people armed so that the rest of the amendments could not fall. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Let me say that again, A FREE STATE.


The Declaration of Independence is crystal clear about human rights, and what the people should do if those rights are infringed. How exactly are you going to alter or abolish a destructive government if you have no guns? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

Well, you could alter or abolish it with

fists, with knives, by arson, poison, cars, push you in front of a moving train or out a window, or blow up foot races with pressure cookers, buildings with airliners, and government buildings with fertilizer.

You know, all those things that 2nd amendment fans say people will kill with if they don't have guns. Well, if those things are such good killing machines, you can defend the free state with them.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, you could alter or abolish it with



You know, all those things that 2nd amendment fans say people will kill with if they don't have guns. Well, if those things are such good killing machines, you can defend the free state with them.

barfo

I'm sure that you understand the difference between killing one person with a knife, and keeping the country from becoming an oppressive regime. How much easier do you think it would be for the government to rule absolutely if there were zero guns in the United States? Conversely, how much easier do you think it would be to mount a guerrilla war against an oppressive regime if we have access to guns?

Right now there is an estimated 300 million guns in the US. The government doesn't know where most of them are. That's a hell of a deterrent.

You think we don't need to keep the government honest? I think it's extremely concerning the direction that our government is going. The most recent development is US Customs wanting to collect social media account info when you cross the border. Why the fuck does the US Customs need social media account information?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/1...rol-online-account-twitter-facebook-instagram

Or how about the FBI wanting access to your internet browser history without a warrant? Is that not concerning?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...257328-2c0d-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html

That just allows me to circle back around to that seemingly forgotten 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But what the fuck do some old dudes who wrote this shit 200+ years ago know?

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Tell us more about this "logic" thingy. Don't see any of it in your posts.

"I can kill you with my fists, ergo nuclear weapons are ok, is the logical extreme of your argument." - Bandwagonfansince77

is in response to Maris61 and yourself, Denny.

So, Maris61, has an anecdote that establishes that people can kill people with every day household items.

"When I lived in Hollywood my neighbor stabbed his friend to death with a fork while they were having dinner." - Maris61

Then says that we should have guns to protect ourselves, because it's harder to protect yourself without one.

"It is much easier to kill Americans if they do not have a gun." - Maris61

You cited statistics saying there are fewer deaths from rifles than from stabbing or beating someone to death, then conclude:

"That means that you are 15.4 times more likely to die from a stabbing or beating than a rifle." - Denny Crane

So you both start with a somewhat similar comment. His is, you can kill an unarmed man with anything including your fists, so you need guns
to protect yourself. Yours is, since you are more likely to die from stabbing or a beating, a rifle/AR-15 platform rifle is less dangerous by comparison and nothing
to be worried about. Correct me if that isn't at least close to what you mean.

Then Maris61 continues:

"Defending America against a treasonous government/military coup would obviously require guns in the hands of Real Americans." - Maris61

This statement implies that more than mere handguns are needed. In fact, if a serious defense were necessary you would certainly need real firepower which is likely an
alterable rifle one could make fully automatic. That is a logical extension. Handguns can kill, and fully automatic weapons can kill even better. Fair enough so far?

Since you, Denny, mention AR-15, I can safely assume that you don't have a problem with semi-automatic rifles and I think it's somewhat safe to say that you lament that fully
automatic weapons are generally unavailable and that conversion of these AR-15 in to fully automatic shouldn't be illegal?

So if I can assume the following premises based on what you two have stated.


You two feel that since you could die from any number of mundane methods, this gives you ammunition for saying guns of all types, even up to fully automatic weapons, are not
unreasonable to own for any law-abiding citizen.


Is this close to your position?

So I will now take your statement and take it to it's logical extreme, so that we all can see with a greater clarity if the premise makes sense or just seems to make sense. In other
words a specious argument.


Since one could die from getting punched, this gives me the right under the 2nd Amendment to own a nuclear weapon as they are not unreasonable to own for any law-abiding citizen.


I think that should give everyone a jolt as to how silly it sounds. Clearly there is a limit to the amount of firepower that is reasonable for a citizen to own even if they are part of
a militia and intend to be at the ready when the tyrants start doing something some militia groups don't like. Who put them in charge of the revolt anyway?

But since we can agree that nuclear weapons are way beyond what is reasonable for a citizen to have, we can throw out the premise used entirely because it is logically flawed.
Just because there are other more mundane ways to kill someone and those methods end up killing more people than AR-15 platform weapons doesn't mean that AR-15 are a reasonable
weapon for the populace to own. There might be valid reasons and rationale for citizens to have an AR-15, and that is what I'm curious to hear, but the premises used by you two in this
specific case are weak arguments.

If my logic is flawed, please let me know in the most demeaning way possible. I need my bubble burst from time to time.

 

[Natebishop3]

"I can kill you with my fists, ergo nuclear weapons are ok, is the logical extreme of your argument." - Bandwagonfansince77

is in response to Maris61 and yourself, Denny.

So, Maris61, has an anecdote that establishes that people can kill people with every day household items.

"When I lived in Hollywood my neighbor stabbed his friend to death with a fork while they were having dinner." - Maris61

Then says that we should have guns to protect ourselves, because it's harder to protect yourself without one.

"It is much easier to kill Americans if they do not have a gun." - Maris61

You cited statistics saying there are fewer deaths from rifles than from stabbing or beating someone to death, then conclude:

"That means that you are 15.4 times more likely to die from a stabbing or beating than a rifle." - Denny Crane

So you both start with a somewhat similar comment. His is, you can kill an unarmed man with anything including your fists, so you need guns
to protect yourself. Yours is, since you are more likely to die from stabbing or a beating, a rifle/AR-15 platform rifle is less dangerous by comparison and nothing
to be worried about. Correct me if that isn't at least close to what you mean.

Then Maris61 continues:

"Defending America against a treasonous government/military coup would obviously require guns in the hands of Real Americans." - Maris61

This statement implies that more than mere handguns are needed. In fact, if a serious defense were necessary you would certainly need real firepower which is likely an
alterable rifle one could make fully automatic. That is a logical extension. Handguns can kill, and fully automatic weapons can kill even better. Fair enough so far?

Since you, Denny, mention AR-15, I can safely assume that you don't have a problem with semi-automatic rifles and I think it's somewhat safe to say that you lament that fully
automatic weapons are generally unavailable and that conversion of these AR-15 in to fully automatic shouldn't be illegal?

So if I can assume the following premises based on what you two have stated.


You two feel that since you could die from any number of mundane methods, this gives you ammunition for saying guns of all types, even up to fully automatic weapons, are not
unreasonable to own for any law-abiding citizen.


Is this close to your position?

So I will now take your statement and take it to it's logical extreme, so that we all can see with a greater clarity if the premise makes sense or just seems to make sense. In other
words a specious argument.


Since one could die from getting punched, this gives me the right under the 2nd Amendment to own a nuclear weapon as they are not unreasonable to own for any law-abiding citizen.


I think that should give everyone a jolt as to how silly it sounds. Clearly there is a limit to the amount of firepower that is reasonable for a citizen to own even if they are part of
a militia and intend to be at the ready when the tyrants start doing something some militia groups don't like. Who put them in charge of the revolt anyway?

But since we can agree that nuclear weapons are way beyond what is reasonable for a citizen to have, we can throw out the premise used entirely because it is logically flawed.
Just because there are other more mundane ways to kill someone and those methods end up killing more people than AR-15 platform weapons doesn't mean that AR-15 are a reasonable
weapon for the populace to own. There might be valid reasons and rationale for citizens to have an AR-15, and that is what I'm curious to hear, but the premises used by you two in this
specific case are weak arguments.

If my logic is flawed, please let me know in the most demeaning way possible. I need my bubble burst from time to time.

Valid reason #1 - I enjoy shooting targets. .223 caliber ammo is cheap and fun to shoot.

Valid reason #2 - There are sooooo few deaths from AR-15 rifles every year. Significantly fewer than handguns (mostly because people don't use AR's to kill themselves.) You guys get so fixated on what a gun looks like. Just because a gun can have a telescoping stock, or a laser, or a red dot doesn't mean it's suddenly more dangerous. At that point you're just worried about mag capacity, but how many shootings like Orlando happen? Most shootings involve just a handful of people, and that could be done with literally any gun.

Question - which gun should be banned?

 

[barfo]

I'm sure that you understand the difference between killing one person with a knife, and keeping the country from becoming an oppressive regime. How much easier do you think it would be for the government to rule absolutely if there were zero guns in the United States? Conversely, how much easier do you think it would be to mount a guerrilla war against an oppressive regime if we have access to guns?

How easy would it be to defend against alien attack if the only thing that killed aliens was a spork? Shouldn't you be stocking up on sporks? I mean as long as you are going to worry about extremely farfetched scenarios...

Right now there is an estimated 300 million guns in the US. The government doesn't know where most of them are. That's a hell of a deterrent.

Yeah. It definitely would be if there was any threat to deter that was deterred by guns.

You think we don't need to keep the government honest? I think it's extremely concerning the direction that our government is going. The most recent development is US Customs wanting to collect social media account info when you cross the border. Why the fuck does the US Customs need social media account information?

Same reason the government needs to scan you before you get on a plane. Turns out that terrorists use social media.

It seems that those 300 million guns aren't much of a deterrent to terrorists. Imagine that.

Or how about the FBI wanting access to your internet browser history without a warrant? Is that not concerning?

Isn't terrorism concerning? How many terrorists have you shot today with your 300 million guns? None? So I guess that's why the FBI is trying to do it for you. They might not be doing great at it, but they are at least trying.

You act like government is the ONLY threat. It's probably not even in the top 100 at present.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

How easy would it be to defend against alien attack if the only thing that killed aliens was a spork? Shouldn't you be stocking up on sporks? I mean as long as you are going to worry about extremely farfetched scenarios...



Yeah. It definitely would be if there was any threat to deter that was deterred by guns.



Same reason the government needs to scan you before you get on a plane. Turns out that terrorists use social media.

It seems that those 300 million guns aren't much of a deterrent to terrorists. Imagine that.



Isn't terrorism concerning? How many terrorists have you shot today with your 300 million guns? None? So I guess that's why the FBI is trying to do it for you. They might not be doing great at it, but they are at least trying.

You act like government is the ONLY threat. It's probably not even in the top 100 at present.

barfo

Oh please... how many actual terrorist attacks have we had? The most recent in Orlando wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a man who couldn't deal with his own homosexuality. Even the attack in California was questionable. It's not like we live in Israel. The big terrorist boogieman isn't going to get you.

We can't allow the government to break the 4th amendment because they simply suspect someone of terrorism. That's why we have warrants. The 4th amendment should guarantee our privacy online, as well as in our mail or phone calls.

I guess you're one of those people who say, "I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if the government has access to all of my personal information."

 

[barfo]

Oh please... how many actual terrorist attacks have we had? The most recent in Orlando wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a man who couldn't deal with his own homosexuality. Even the attack in California was questionable. It's not like we live in Israel. The big terrorist boogieman isn't going to get you.

Correct. Especially living in Portland, the chances are very low. If I lived in midtown Manhattan, I might be slightly more concerned.

Nevertheless, I rate the chances of dying by terrorism higher than the chances of government oppressing me because I don't own enough guns.

We can't allow the government to break the 4th amendment because they simply suspect someone of terrorism. That's why we have warrants. The 4th amendment should guarantee our privacy online, as well as in our mail or phone calls.

I guess you're one of those people who say, "I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if the government has access to all of my personal information."

No, I actually agree with you about the 4th. I just disagree about the 2nd. I was merely explaining that some people think data collection is valuable in terrorist-hunting.

My chances of dying at the hands of some stupid yahoo with a gun are much, much greater than either terrorism (foreign or domestic) or government oppression.

barfo

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Oh please... how many actual terrorist attacks have we had? The most recent in Orlando wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a man who couldn't deal with his own homosexuality. Even the attack in California was questionable. It's not like we live in Israel. The big terrorist boogieman isn't going to get you.

We can't allow the government to break the 4th amendment because they simply suspect someone of terrorism. That's why we have warrants. The 4th amendment should guarantee our privacy online, as well as in our mail or phone calls.

I guess you're one of those people who say, "I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if the government has access to all of my personal information."

I'm with you on this. I know you directed it towards Barfo, but I am not one of those that make the mistake of giving carte blanche to the government. I don't trust the government just as I don't trust business nor just about any other entity other than my closest friends. I agree also about 4th amendment. For me, this is the daily relevant amendment that I find critical to our daily lives and wouldn't want to live under a regime that didn't value our privacy. We are already headed to a country that is ready to give up our rights for the illusion of safety. Anyway...

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm with you on this. I know you directed it towards Barfo, but I am not one of those that make the mistake of giving carte blanche to the government. I don't trust the government just as I don't trust business nor just about any other entity other than my closest friends. I agree also about 4th amendment. For me, this is the daily relevant amendment that I find critical to our daily lives and wouldn't want to live under a regime that didn't value our privacy. We are already headed to a country that is ready to give up our rights for the illusion of safety. Anyway...

We already live under a regime that doesn't value or privacy. They have proven that again and again. Nobody does anything about it.