Off-Topic Mass killings

[Ajcane8]

You can find their words in more places than the CONUS. There's not much need to infer what they meant.

Must’ve been Federalist 86 where Madison said “everything I write should be taken literally from now until the end of time”

 

[JD08]

Then why is it in places that restrict guns they haven't had multiple school pressure cooker bombings . I get what you're saying but given the choice between any other weapon and a gun, killers will choose guns. Easy to get and easy to use. Yes homicides wouldn't disappear if guns did. It's a lot harder to kill 19 with a knife

McVeigh chose Oklahoma City and a fertilizer bomb.

This guy posted his intent on Facebook 15 minutes before he did it. Wouldn't it be nice if tgat was flagged and forwarded to the police instantly?

 

[Roncaneefc]

Yes. Just like England has easy access to knives. They have “mass stabbings”

What? One mass stabbing event? 2020/21 there where 235 homicides involving knives or sharp instruments. In a country of about 65 million. Gun control works.

 

[Roncaneefc]

So you're okay with mass killings as long as the number of victims isn't too high?

No he's saying that if someone approaches a group of people with a knife they have a reasonable chance of fighting back.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

I don’t have a side. I don’t have a gun, never owned one or even wanted one. If you’re speaking of voting I’ve never registered in my 43 years on earth. I normally roll with the Malcom X thinking “ fox and the wolf”. I will say the last couple years I do agree with one sides policies more. Just like I used to agree with more polices of the other side before that. I don’t treat it like a cult like most. At the end of the day they’re all about filling their pockets and playing off emotions.

I’m on record saying I’m just fine with stricter gun laws and background checks I just don’t think it’ll work. Then after it doesn't work we’ll move on to the next political dog and pony show for even stricter laws. Rinse repeat. Rather than looking at all the other issues going on causing youngsters to kill themselves and others at a crazy rate.

I am talking about your posts attacking the wokesters. If you don't think that makes you part of the divide, then IDK what to tell you.

 

[JD08]

No he's saying that if someone approaches a group of people with a knife they have a reasonable chance of fighting back.

In an elementary school?

 

[nobeastofburden]

What? One mass stabbing event? 2020/21 there where 235 homicides involving knives or sharp instruments. In a country of about 65 million. Gun control works.

Out of curiosity, how many firearm homicides did they have before they banned guns? I would imagine it was pretty low but I honestly have no idea.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

We can argue the "intent" of men dead for two and a half centuries for another two and a half centuries. Besides, the people that drafted the document in question were prescient enough to realize that their intent (such that it was in the year of our lord 1788) might be meaningless 20, 50, 250 years later - hence writing into said the document the framework to amend that document.

That said, the document clearly states "...a well regulated militia..." When we have a million man+ standing army (and hundreds of thousands of reservists), how necessary is a militia?

Unless you think (for whatever reason) that one day that same million man army will be pointing its guns (tanks, drones, jets, submarines, helicopters...) at you - in which case, you'll have bigger problems to deal with than whether or not unfettered (or barely fettered) access to means of war is a fundamental "right" granted to each and every American.

The 2nd amendment is about citizenry arming itself so the government does not have a monopoly on force, and enslave it.

You, along with plenty of other people might think that’s funny, but the DC sniper shut down an entire city. The Dallas cop shooters did the same thing. No government in the world, including ours, could fend off an insurgence from 50 million people.

 

[mirvin88]

Pressure cooker bombs? It naive to think that homicides wouldn't decrease if there were no guns.

This isn't what I was replying to

 

[MidnightCane]

^You’re only saying this because you’re a Russian bot and a Putin stooge.

Am I doing it right?

 

[We the Boss]

I'm aware. It was a snarky reply to the poster who's blaming Indiana for Chicago's problem.

LOL should have known was flying thru the thread quick.

I agree with your premise that behavior such as distracted driving have likely caused several fold more morbidity and mortality than unstable criminals with assault rifles.

I disagree that we (as a society) have ignored this problem because it is “not ****.” Driving is heavily regulated compared to gun ownership. Although the effectiveness of these regulation is debatable, there is plenty of data showing that seatbelts, air bags, speed limits, drunk driving regulations, and hands free calling requirements have saved lives. In Florida, I’ve even seen police creating random checkpoints to check all drivers for DUI infractions…

google traffic fatalities from the summer of 2020

 

[MidnightCane]

The 2nd amendment is about citizenry arming itself so the government does not have a monopoly on force, and enslave it.

You, along with plenty of other people might think that’s funny, but the DC sniper shut down an entire city. The Dallas cop shooters did the same thing. No government in the world, including ours, could fend off an insurgence from 50 million people.

 

[MidnightCane]

What? One mass stabbing event? 2020/21 there where 235 homicides involving knives or sharp instruments. In a country of about 65 million. Gun control works.

So 235 out of 65 million is acceptable? Why not ban knives too so you can have a perfect utopia.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Then why is it in places that restrict guns they haven't had multiple school pressure cooker bombings . I get what you're saying but given the choice between any other weapon and a gun, killers will choose guns. Easy to get and easy to use. Yes homicides wouldn't disappear if guns did. It's a lot harder to kill 19 with a knife

The Bride says hold my beer.

 

[MidnightCane]

We're also third in the world per 100,000 population in mental illness prevalence and #1 in gun ownership. Unfortunately a deadly combo.

Our civilized nation includes the right to bear arms....good luck mirroring the other nations handling of guns. Maybe everyone should just turn them over like Australia and then be controlled as a police state whenever the government wants

 

[BlastUla]

The difference here is, if someone kills someone in a DUI accident, everybody blames the person, not the alcohol or vehicle. You are comparing the regulations on guns to alcohol? LOL. So you think it is harder to obtain alcohol than a gun? Minors/criminals/mentally ill people etc. Firearm rights have saved countless lives too.

1) I am not comparing the two, the author that I was replying to compared automotive accident related fatalities as being “not ****” to work on as compared to Gina related fatalities. My point was that many civil servants have spent a lot of time on this “not ****” work to help reduce fatalities ranted to MVAs.

2) I was comparing regulations on alcohol to regulations on guns. I was comparing regulation on driving a vehicle to regulations on owning a gun. It is much easier to legally obtain and use gun than it is to legally obtain a license and drive a car.

3) When a driver causes a fatal accident I blame the driver, just as when a gunman shoots innocent people, I blame the shooter. I am NOT anti gun rights. I own shotguns and enjoy using them. I am however for regulation of gun ownership and usage. For example; should the homeless schizophrenic guy living under a bridge (clearly dangerous and justifiably in need of protection) be able to carry an assault rifle while he begs for money at the exit ramp of a highway? My answer is no… gun ownership and use needs some regulation.

 

[Empirical Cane]

1) I am not comparing the two, the author that I was replying to compared automotive accident related fatalities as being “not ****” to work on as compared to Gina related fatalities. My point was that many civil servants have spent a lot of time on this “not ****” work to help reduce fatalities ranted to MVAs.

2) I was comparing regulations on alcohol to regulations on guns. I was comparing regulation on driving a vehicle to regulations on owning a gun. It is much easier to legally obtain and use gun than it is to legally obtain a license and drive a car.

3) When a driver causes a fatal accident I blame the driver, just as when a gunman shoots innocent people, I blame the shooter. I am NOT anti gun rights. I own shotguns and enjoy using them. I am however for regulation of gun ownership and usage. For example; should the homeless schizophrenic guy living under a bridge (clearly dangerous and justifiably in need of protection) be able to carry an assault rifle while he begs for money at the exit ramp of a highway? My answer is no… gun ownership and use needs some regulation.

Is the solution to the root cause increased access to quality mental health and more draconian mental health policies?

Maybe.

 

[Ajcane8]

I've not said this at all and the answer is no.

"you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?"

A police state involves the government, not citizens armed to defend against one another. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a police state in having the ability to form militia against a repressive government.

The Chinese sure could use this right about now.

Would you rather live in the United States or Australia? Not to sound crass but if your issue is with constitutional amendments there plenty of other countries to move to.

Again, we can debate the purpose/intent of the 2d amendment forever. I disagree with your interpretation. Whoever is “right” though, it won’t change the facts (ie “ordinary” citizens using means of war to murder 20 school children) as they are, today.

What, exactly, could China use right about now? Small arms in the hands of a small percentage of their population? That would help, how?

I live in America and have no designs on leaving. Just a man that thinks the second amendment is not infallible. It can be changed (*cough*amended*cough*). Gun control laws work in, at the very least, curbing (often stopping) this very specific form of killing - again, as evidenced by the rest of the “advanced democracies” on the planet.

 

[nobeastofburden]

1) I am not comparing the two, the author that I was replying to compared automotive accident related fatalities as being “not ****” to work on as compared to Gina related fatalities. My point was that many civil servants have spent a lot of time on this “not ****” work to help reduce fatalities ranted to MVAs.

2) I was comparing regulations on alcohol to regulations on guns. I was comparing regulation on driving a vehicle to regulations on owning a gun. It is much easier to legally obtain and use gun than it is to legally obtain a license and drive a car.

3) When a driver causes a fatal accident I blame the driver, just as when a gunman shoots innocent people, I blame the shooter. I am NOT anti gun rights. I own shotguns and enjoy using them. I am however for regulation of gun ownership and usage. For example; should the homeless schizophrenic guy living under a bridge (clearly dangerous and justifiably in need of protection) be able to carry an assault rifle while he begs for money at the exit ramp of a highway? My answer is no… gun ownership and use needs some regulation.

Other than the bolded part, which I don't think it is accurate, all logical points. Millions of people drive without a license still. Isn't that kind of the point about this whole convo and law. No amount of regulations will stop people from breaking them, there are tons already. If you take guns away, or make it so difficult to obtain one, people in higher crime rate areas will be the most afflicted. Guns are a necessary evil, and I personally believe they are a great equalizer for women and people that have limited physical ability, easiest targets in society.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Again, we can debate the purpose/intent of the 2d amendment forever. I disagree with your interpretation. Whoever is “right” though, it won’t change the facts (ie “ordinary” citizens using means of war to murder 20 school children) as they are, today.

What, exactly, could China use right about now? Small arms in the hands of a small percentage of their population? That would help, how?

I live in America and have no designs on leaving. Just a man that thinks the second amendment is not infallible. It can be changed (*cough*amended*cough*). Gun control laws work in, at the very least, curbing (often stopping) this very specific form of killing - again, as evidenced by the rest of the “advanced democracies” on the planet.

There is no serious legitimate debate on purpose of 2A.