.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

Sending my thoughts to the Families of the victims, and the first responders! Hope the wounded officer recovers swiftly.

 

Its time to stop this ''praying for this, or for that'' its time America stands up and goes to war with these goat fuckers and just kill them all plus their pet goats, but its also time America wakes up and stops these gun free zones, and allow law aibing people carry guns whereever they feel its needed and America needs better gun laws as who gets guns, if this guy was being watched by the FBI, his guns should have been stripped as soon as he was being watched. 

 

>Kill goat fuckers

> Better gun laws

>Arm Law aibing citizens 

>Carry on with our lives

 

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by DogShoe13

16 minutes ago, DogShoe13 said:

> Better gun laws

>Arm Law aibing citizens

Except, I don't think more gun laws and arming more citizens really fit well together... Not to mention, how do you know who is truly a "law abiding" citizen? You don't.

10 minutes ago, Lundy said:

Except, I don't think more gun laws and arming more citizens really fit well together... Not to mention, how do you know who is truly a "law abiding" citizen? You don't.

You're right, no one knows and anybody can turn on us. 

 

That's a wall we run into with these types of issues and it sucks.

8 hours ago, Prophet said:

Not gonna continue with this -Snip- measuring contest with you. You keep making me Kek.

Let me just add this last bit. When I leave the house with my wife, I know for certain I have the opportunity to protect myself, her and possibly others in the event of a shooting, only because I practice concealed carry.

That is something you can't argue.

This is an argument that actually is quite funny. You say you need a gun to protect yourself. Sure, why not, your opinion, quite disputable, I understand it, though do not agree with it.

But what about the police and law enforcement then? Aren't they actually paid to protect you and your family? Don't you trust them to protect you and them? To intervene fast enough? To get rid of the threat without having to put your or your wife's life in danger trying to play the hero?

That's a bit of a schyzophrenic loop. "Oh yes, I trust my police department with my life, they can protect me and take care of my safety. But I need a gun still to protect myself." This, actually makes me kek and is quite kekable overall.

Also, using 'kek' is not a really polite way to say you disagree with someone, and is actually quite rude, especially in a debate on a serious matter. My two cents. 

32 minutes ago, Hystery said:

This is an argument that actually is quite funny. You say you need a gun to protect yourself. Sure, why not, your opinion, quite disputable, I understand it, though do not agree with it.

But what about the police and law enforcement then? Aren't they actually paid to protect you and your family? Don't you trust them to protect you and them? To intervene fast enough? To get rid of the threat without having to put your or your wife's life in danger trying to play the hero?

That's a bit of a schyzophrenic loop. "Oh yes, I trust my police department with my life, they can protect me and take care of my safety. But I need a gun still to protect myself." This, actually makes me kek and is quite kekable overall.

Also, using 'kek' is not a really polite way to say you disagree with someone, and is actually quite rude, especially in a debate on a serious matter. My two cents. 

Law enforcement is subservient to the Government and their laws. If I was in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't trust the law enforcement to look after me or my family. Governments and the ruling class change all the time, and their laws can vary dramatically.

As far as I understand, the right to bear arms is enshrined in being a protection force against hostile Government. It's a bit like why every Swiss citizen by law has to have a gun, and keep ammo inside their house. They are a standing defense force against any hostile invasion force or a hostile Government. 

1 minute ago, Cyan said:

Law enforcement is subservient to the Government and their laws. If I was in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't trust the law enforcement to look after me or my family.

Yeah, but this is not Saudi Arabia, this is the US. I mean, especially on this very website, many people are supporting the law enforcement agencies, so when you are supporting something or someone, that means you trust them to do what they're supposed to do, efficiently, and/or that you agree with what they do. So, either they're not totally honest and actually do not trust their police department to come and help them when they need to, or they don't need a gun. You can't trust something and not trust it at the same time, it doesn't make sense.

As for Switzerland, I believe this is an entire different matter due to cultural differences and, most of all, their famous neutrality. Even though I'm pretty sure a random citizen with a rifle couldn't do much against a tank, a bomb or a missile if an hostile invasion force or government indeed decided to roll in.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

Yeah, but this is not Saudi Arabia, this is the US. I mean, especially on this very website, many people are supporting the law enforcement agencies, so when you are supporting something or someone, that means you trust them to do what they're supposed to do, efficiently, and/or that you agree with what they do. So, either they're not totally honest and actually do not trust their police department to come and help them when they need to, or they don't need a gun. You can't trust something and not trust it at the same time, it doesn't make sense.

As for Switzerland, I believe this is an entire different matter due to cultural differences and, most of all, their famous neutrality. Even though I'm pretty sure a random citizen with a rifle couldn't do much against a tank, a bomb or a missile if an hostile invasion force or government indeed decided to roll in.

I don't think that's an argument. Just because the US currently has favorable laws, does not mean it will continue to do so. You can look at the how Iran and Afghanistan used to be around the 60s compared to what they degenerated into.

I think everyone here has respect for law enforcement and complete trust that they will enforce law. For example, if Trump gets in, decides to go crazy and make a law that deports every single Muslim from the US, law enforcement would just be doing their job by helping this venture.

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Yeah, but this is not Saudi Arabia, this is the US. I mean, especially on this very website, many people are supporting the law enforcement agencies, so when you are supporting something or someone, that means you trust them to do what they're supposed to do, efficiently, and/or that you agree with what they do. So, either they're not totally honest and actually do not trust their police department to come and help them when they need to, or they don't need a gun. You can't trust something and not trust it at the same time, it doesn't make sense.

Even though I'm pretty sure a random citizen with a rifle couldn't do much against a tank, a bomb or a missile if an hostile invasion force or government indeed decided to roll in.

I agree, I trust and I support, and yet when I'm attacked at night in an alleyway I'm not going to lie down and wait for the police to arrive, even though I believe they will promptly solve my murder. 

They're not 'random citizens'. Switzerland has compulsory army service for men. 

Well, if there's one thing this topic (and all the previous ones on the same subject) makes clear, it's why nothing major has been done to prevent shootings like this.. Since people, both on here and in politics, do not agree with each other on what to do, no change is made, and stuff like this keeps happening and is likely to keep happening until someone comes up with a solution that pleases everyone involved. I doubt that will happen anytime soon though. Then again, who knows. Things can change in an instant. 

8 hours ago, Riley24 said:

We'll never know. Just as we'll never know how many people would've survived if he couldn't get his hands on those guns. But in the grand scheme of things, the risks of arming that many business owners across the country far outweigh the likelihood of one of these attacks.

It is actually that simple. The federal government is perfectly capable of implementing improved systems for federalized background checks on all legal gun sales, they just haven't because of gun manufacturer's influence on our democracy.

I haven't suggested banning guns, or even implied it. But if laws made it tougher for criminals to buy guns in the country, would a certain number of them find them being sold by foreign smugglers? Maybe. But imagine how hard that would be, and how expensive and dangerous it would become for them. 

 

At the risk of sounding insulting, I'm not sure that you understand how laws work. Its not just "writing something down on a sheet of paper". Laws can drastically effect the way gun markets work in the country.They work because manufacturers, retailers, and law abiding citizens follow them. And when they do, they narrow avenues through which criminals get their guns. You also seem very confident in the prevalence of illegal guns, but have you ever thought about where they come from (apart from the few that are smuggled in)? Glock makes a gun legally at a factory, and sells it to a retailer. That retailer sells it to a person. If that person is a criminal, that criminal now has a gun. That gun can be sold privately hundreds of times, and now becomes an "illegal gun". But if that gun store sold it to a law-abiding citizen, that gun could be stolen. Boom, illegal gun. If its not stolen, that law abiding citizen (in a state like Florida for example) could simply sell it to someone else. Citizens can't exactly do background checks, so a certain number of those buyers will be criminals, and a certain number of them will sell it to criminals. Right now, we have hundreds of millions of guns flowing through circulation. Would tougher laws reduce the flow of guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals? Absolutely. Guns come from somewhere, they don't just magically appear in the hands of criminals.

And I'm all for increasing mental health care, if that's what you mean by "Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun?". 

And OK, lets say President Obama decides that all young men are FORCED to enlist for military service, but they get to keep their rifle afterwards (or however it works in Switzerland). You really think that goes over well? Or does the entire right wing FREAK out about King Obama sending all our kids to war? I think I know how that ends.

And Switzerland's program wouldn't work here because of our selective service laws. If you then put a rifle in the home of that percentage of Americans, it ends VERY badly. You've now introduced hundreds of millions of high powered rifles into a population that is untrained and probably doesn't even want the rifle. Many people would get killed. Bad idea all around.

You're willing to make the assumption that a decrease in the number of guns and restricting access would stop shootings (Which has been disapproved as noted by examples of Switzerland and Chicago, which you claim aren't valid but are completely valid), but you aren't willing to assume that increasing the number of armed guards or armed staff members would have decreased the number of casualties? If there were no armed guard in the club, more people would have died. If there were more armed guards, less people would have died. Why: because they would have been able to take down the terrorist fast enough. This case, as someone else previously stated, also isn't a very good one to use as an example for restricting guns. This wasn't just your normal shooting, this was a terrorist attack. Business owners have every right to hire armed security guards and train their staff in firearms. If I were a business owner I most certainly would hire armed guards or train my staff to use firearms that we possess on the property. If a business owner chooses not to protect their business then it's their own decision. It's like wearing a seat-belt. You can't force every single driver in the entire nation to wear a seat-belt. You can pass laws and increase punishments, but if people don't want to wear it they won't wear it. They'll just have to suffer the consequences if they get into a crash.

Implementing a system of background checks is something that I can easily agree with. My problem isn't with increased common sense measures in an attempt to decrease gun violence. My problem is with people that believe banning guns and even restricting them will decrease the crime. A background check isn't necessarily a restriction, it's more of a common sense measure. If you have a criminal record, you shouldn't have a gun.

Right, but that is more of an assumption. You are assuming that criminals aren't going to be satisfied with purchasing weapons from foreign smugglers because of the cost, and the challenges of smuggling items into the country. That's to be determined on a gang by gang, person by person basis. We have no real and logical way of determining if criminals are going to be willing to do that. I'm not a gang member so I can't tell you how they'd smuggle weapons in. I assume probably the same way drugs are smuggled into the country, and that's been working out just splendid for years. There's also a freedom with purchasing an illegal firearm versus a legal firearm. They don't have to pay for a license, they don't have to renew and maintain that license, they don't have to keep a good criminal record, and the government isn't watching them. They can purchase the gun, be done with it, and no one would ever know.

Then where does restricting the right to own a gun come into play when it's the gun manufacturers, as you say, selling the guns illegally to criminals? Restricting the right to own a gun won't stop manufactures from selling guns to the wrong people. Just because someone is a law abiding citizen doesn't mean that their status cannot change. If someone purchases a gun legally and then sells it out of the back of their van to a gang, they should be punished for that. They should lose their license, they are no longer a law abiding citizen. They've broken the law and that's just something you'll have to deal with. With every system there will always be those that break the law, guns are no different. Those that break the law should be prosecuted, and the rest shouldn't be punished as a result. It's literally impossible to 100% permanently stop shootings in the United States. It's just not possible.

My point with mentioning wasn't so that we could copy them. My point was that they have guns practically everywhere and they have one of, if not the, lowest crime rate in the world. Switzerland has a unique system of national defense, similar to that of the United States. Just as the Swiss see owning a gun as a call to defend their country, Americans see it as a call to defend their civil liberties and protect their loved ones.

Then you would simply train the population, and only allow firearms into the homes of those that meet a certain criteria regarding their criminal record, their physical location, etc. There's no possible way for anyone to tell whether more guns would increase or decrease the crime because there are so many different examples. Places in the United States that have more legal guns generally have less crime, while areas that have more illegal guns have more crime. I don't only think it's a simple matter of whether a gun is in the picture or not. I also think that the legality of the gun plays a role.

1 hour ago, SuperStumpje said:

Well, if there's one thing this topic (and all the previous ones on the same subject) makes clear, it's why nothing major has been done to prevent shootings like this.. Since people, both on here and in politics, do not agree with each other on what to do, no change is made, and stuff like this keeps happening and is likely to keep happening until someone comes up with a solution that pleases everyone involved. I doubt that will happen anytime soon though. Then again, who knows. Things can change in an instant. 

Because the liberal solution is to take away the guns. The conservative solution is the target the person holding the gun. It's simply a matter of opinion, and the 2nd amendment doesn't make it any easier for the left.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

 

My point with mentioning wasn't so that we could copy them. My point was that they have guns practically everywhere and they have one of, if not the, lowest crime rate in the world

Don't forget that your country doesn't do too bad either when it comes to crime rates, considering you have Mexico, where the world 'legal' is a joke, right next to you.

On the other hand, mass shootings are the US phenomena. Has to do something with the people, I guess. Sheckley had predicted this 70 years ago. Solving it definitely is much more complicated than 'increasing gun control'. 

2 hours ago, SuperStumpje said:

stuff like this keeps happening and is likely to keep happening until someone comes up with a solution that pleases everyone involved.

Which is exactly right.

There is an opposing argument for every question that people bring up:

Well why can't we just ban guns? Because the country would turn into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Can't we just make it harder to get guns? No, because the criminals will be even more motivated to get them then.

Well why don't we just give everyone guns then? Because then it would be SUPER easy for criminals to get one, plus you would have hundreds of thousands of people getting into shootouts because "he tried to steal my phone and I shot him / I shot her because she shot me for something stupid like stealing a phone"

--

I'm no mathematician, but to find a solution that the entirety of the US gun culture community would be happy with is slim to none. I can't think of a solution because of the amount of guns in America is pretty high (and most are owned by law abiding citizens) so banning them is completely out of the question. In Australia we were pretty lucky to have a low amount of guns when they were banned, so there are few circulating in the underground world. The only way to combat this problem in America is by stopping it before it happens. The US government should be investing more money into the digital world of law enforcement because thats where everything is nowadays. I don't know how you would go about gathering intel without invading millions of people's privacy, that is the expert's job to figure out.

I would also like to pay my respects to the victims and especially the families they leave behind. Let's hope there doesn't have to be more massacres to cause change.

.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

33 minutes ago, SkillfulCorpse said:

The US government should be investing more money into the digital world of law enforcement because thats where everything is nowadays. I don't know how you would go about gathering intel without invading millions of people's privacy, that is the expert's job to figure out.

 

Great idea, but invest what money? The US government is broke and continues to get even more broke. 

people still fall for the media propaganda? unbelievable...I thought we lived in 2016 with a wealth of information available on the internet and alternative media....the media never tells you about how many shootings there are in Chicago and new York and they also don't talk about the shootings that have been prevented because of a good armed civilian and they also don't tell you how all these shootings happened in gun free zones..gee what a coincidence...nothing to see here move along and keep drinking the kool-aid

2 minutes ago, A knight said:

people still fall for the media propaganda? unbelievable...I thought we lived in 2016 with a wealth of information available on the internet and alternative media....the media never tells you about how many shootings there are in Chicago and new York and they also don't talk about the shootings that have been prevented because of a good armed civilian and they also don't tell you how all these shootings happened in gun free zones..gee what a coincidence...nothing to see here move along and keep drinking the kool-aid

You don't need to watch medias to have an opinion, on whatever it might be. No need to yell at propaganda just because people disagree with you 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

You don't need to watch medias to have an opinion, on whatever it might be. No need to yell at propaganda just because people disagree with you 

fox news and the other main stream media are corporate run...meaning they don't care about the people only serving as a mouth piece for the goverments agenda which is total disarment...you may not understand our second amendment, our right to bear arm but that's probably because you live in a country with gun control...tell me...how did that work out few years ago? facts are crime in the united states is at an all time low according to the fbi report and fact....states that don't have gun control laws have less crime...you cant debate that fact, don't make me pull out George bush sr's speech he made on 9/11/91

Fox news is like, crazy republican, you really think they're going to agree with Obama? C'mon man, now if you want to throw conspiracy theories, at least do it good =/

Anyway, that's not the topic, so I'll let you conspire 

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by Hystery

Crime is actually at an all time low, and it's gradually decreasing as the years go by.