Narcissus

I, personally, would take a different route. I'd give them all the publicity they want. On an adult only channel, created for just such a purpose, have these lunatics face the worst atrocities man's sick mind can invent. 24/7/365 A racist? Live streaming of being sodomized by whatever race you despise (with sentence decreases as reward for those who volunteer). A Muslim? Wrapped in bacon while female inmates beat you. A rapist? Slow castration. Murderer? The victim's family can choose/participate. Etc... Think of the revenue that would generate as well... can anyone else say 'bye bye deficit'? We wouldn't even have to end all the entitlement programs the left loves! All joking aside. There is a noted difference in the way that these things are covered by the news. Ask one hundred people off the street about the following names and see what names they recognize: Devin Patrick Kelley (The murderer) Stephen Willeford (The hero who stopped him) Frank Pomeroy (The pastor of the church) Annabelle Pomeroy (The pastor's 14 year old daughter who died that day - or any other victim's name) I don't think there is any doubt which name or picture would be recognized by almost all questioned and others would get zero recognition at all. Many of the ideologically driven could care less, but many of the others do these things for fame and recognition. EDIT: Also forgot to mention that my mother, bless her heart, told me that the pastor will be holding service today. That he wants the congregation to relocate and start having services again, immediately. Can you imagine?!? My heart aches for him and the others who have lost so much.

Took me a minute to find... BE WARNED... it is quite emotional. Not for the easily upset. Again, we, especially towards the end, were crying like babies.

My apologies. My quote and his post weren't removed when I posted that. Again, my sincere apologies. To get the subject back on track... I watched an interview with the man that stopped the killings. He was interviewed by Stephen Crowder (find it on youtube) and I warn you, it is heart wrenching. My family was crying during the telling of his story.

I'm not trying to belittle people who disagree with me. Disagree with me all you want. If I wanted my head in an echo chamber, I would be elsewhere. I understood the point and I disagree with your premise. You can't equate the two to set up an argument and then when I point out the absurdity of the comparison, then cry wolf about 'the point' you were making. Again, we agree to disagree. If the federal government tried to take away my rights, then yes... guns are required. Does everything political require force? I would hope not! However when a government tries to take away your freedom, then absolutely. You can't separate the two so easily. This is a major difference in the culture of Americans vs those found elsewhere. Our short history (in comparison with the rest of the world) is predicated on fighting government tyranny when it encroaches on our inherent rights. I didn't try to put the EU and guns together to prove a point. That is another lie. The conversation was about taking away guns and the loss of freedoms that could ensue. You popped off with a comment about how that would apply to most of Europe. I popped off with a comment about how giving away your sovereignty hardly makes you a glaring example of freedom. On and on until now. There was no vain hope to prove a point... I merely demonstrated how someone from a country who freely gives away their rights is hardly in a situation to opine on what freedom should look like. Stick to facts, please. Where did I say that? There is a huge difference between taxing a populace for government to function and taxing certain groups of the populace to give it to others. One is an intrinsic requirement for a government to exist and the other is theft. Any requirement of the government beyond it's function of existing and providing national defense is a quickly graying area. There are many instances of the U.S. government stealing and redistributing wealth and I find it abhorrent. We, however, have just dipped our toes into the pool that is socialism. There are a series of reasons why Donald Trump got elected as our president and this is one of them. A large portion of us are tired of the slow encroachment towards socialism. It is the antithesis to what made this country the land of freedom and wealth that it is today. We are losing those things daily as we sink towards government models that you might find in, say, France. You might like armed thieves stealing from you and yours, but we don't. Wait. So because I'm intelligent and can answer a few questions and correct a lot of falsehoods, I'm a know-it-all? As far as the tell of the tape on who was right and who was wrong... it is all here for anyone to see. I've been wrong about tons of things... just not here in this thread. You have. So ad hominem away, it doesn't change anything that has been said. Okay. So after getting proved wrong, you just move the goal post. Clever as a finger in the door! You can't decrease gun ownership over all 50 states to get your stats. It cannot happen without a complete ratification of the second amendment which would just start another civil war. So you are asking for stats that are impossible to give. If I asked for stats of every newborn baby in France being murdered for the next ten years, and what the growth rate of your country would be for the following ten years... you couldn't answer it. That is what you are asking for: an impossible scenario. Australia is a VERY interesting case study and I'll gladly have that debate with you, but I think that would need its own thread. The mandatory buy-back changed a lot and it isn't what most people see it as. I also love how you take such a precarious perch on your moral high ground calling us savages and hoping we would learn to control ourselves. Amazingly snide! <clap> Yes, it is... when every data point we have available says the exact opposite. You can armchair postulate all you want, but there are hundreds of thousands of cases EACH YEAR where armed citizens use their firearms to save lives, stop crime, defend themselves, and stop mass shootings, yet there is a complete absence of data to backup your desire for gun owners to be the savages you so desire us to be. The "I didn't beat her to begin with" was the exact answer I gave to your loaded, biased, and inane questions and statements. That was my point. If you preload a question filled with your statistically inaccurate fluff, you can't demand an answer. The answer is simply: you preloaded it with your biased drivel. Wait... so because I used a right leaning site, you pull out theguardian?!? Hell, why not throw in snopes, vox, and huffpo as well. Really? There is a difference between using a site that leans in a direction (as all do), and using a propaganda machine that contradicts itself over and over again. No one ever said that all policemen everywhere in this country are a monolith and behave and believe in the same way!!!!one111!!1 Quote me saying that. You can't? Interesting how you keep telling me all the things that I said and yet you can quote none of them. That dang interwebs and it's finicky magics! That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of police fully support the 2nd amendment, conceal carriers, etc. That has been proven several times now. Finding anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that the majority agree with us, not you and your beliefs. Even your anecdotal evidence had the guy saying he believes in the right to bear arms! Rofl! Ad hominem. More of the same. You are right! Everyone... a moment of silence! Well, sort of. Your facts are right, but your conclusion is wrong. The problem is, he was the exception, not the rule. No system is perfect and finding the balance between allowing free citizens the ability to express those rights and preventing these types of tragedies from happening is a slippery slope. While I wish that it hadn't happened, I still don't believe that restricting our rights more than they already are is a worthy trade-off. Again, this was the exception. Still, you don't understand what a right is. A right means that nothing should prohibit my usage of whatever that right is. No one said that a right was a need. No one said that everyone should carry a gun since it is their right to do so. YET AGAIN, where did I say that. Quote it? You can't? Interesting... What does it matter what you do with your water if it is your right to have it. This is the perfect example where you misunderstand what a right is.Your right is to have it... not you can have it as long as you do what we say, when we say, how we say it. That isn't a right, that is a prequalified permission. Permission given by your government and nothing at all like what an inherent right is. I also made it clear that I was asking if you would balk at them telling you, not due to anything other than their authority ... a completely different question than the intentionally twisted version you gave back. Again... please stop telling me what I said when I never said the things you imply. It is obvious you have to subvert my words. Why? You claim I say things I never did. You pretend I asked a different question than the mock one you describe. Why? Are my words and questions too hard to answer and reply back to without your tinkering with them? Interesting... Famous last words. You can find it dumb all you want, it doesn't change the reason why the 2nd amendment was written as a protection from the government. Wait. Again. So you make a childish and flippant remark based on zero understanding of what you are talking about and when I comment back the same to you, in reply... I need to grow up? Makes sense. I should just sit back and let you continue making biased, unfounded claims, derisive comments towards something you obviously don't understand and not give you facts, stats, and a general dose of reality? Not gonna happen today, friend. You don't consider your culture superior to others, huh? Great! Care to explain to me why you are here attacking one of the core philosophies of my culture again? Do you do the same to certain refugees that are pouring into your country? Is their culture equal to yours as well? Get off the moral high ground. You have no right to be there. Lecture me more about humility and respect while you are continuously shown as either ignorant of everything that we have been speaking about, or an intentional liar. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming which one again. Ad hominem ad infinitum. You are more than welcome to stay and more than welcome to join in. I simply ask that you make a better showing next time around. I wish you luck in getting them. I would love to hear some as well.

@Hystery I'm not ignoring you... I'm rather busy atm. Will reply asap. @willpv23 I agreed with him about victim blaming. Blaming the victim in a mass shooting is beyond absurd. That was why I was avoiding that 'debate' while it was happening. I understood both sides, agreed with the ideas that both sides were trying to put across, but because of the language used... I chose to stay away from it because I saw the direction it was heading. Regardless, that doesn't change why I quoted Sam. What Sam did was intellectually dishonest. He used an extreme example that is the exception of the exception, applied grossly unrealistic behaviors to the actors in that scenario, and then ended with a false statement... and that was his example of why he was right. He was right, in essence, but his scenario and claims were inaccurate. If I used an example of why an orange was red and flat to prove that the Earth is round, does that make my argument accurate? The Earth is round, right? Conflating something correct with something incorrect doesn't change that the incorrect thing is still wrong. Sorry. I'm doing the opposite of 'ignoring certain facts to prove my point'. My point was that while victim blaming the victims of a mass shooting is wrong, his scenario is inaccurate.

I love the comparison of the states vs federal government, and the false equivalency to the EU. You were a sovereign nation beholden to your government only. Now you are beholden to your government who is now beholden to the EU... yet that is somehow comparable to our system of government?!? Do you even remember when the great idea that was the EU started? It was supposed to be financial in nature... yet look at it now. I. can't. do. this. Hyperbole much? So, because your houses weren't robbed by the state, neither you nor anyone else had wealth in one form or another taken from you and given to another? Correlation. Causation. Socratic Method. One is not necessarily indicative of the other. Redistribution, of any kind, is theft. You are stealing it at the point of a gun and giving it to others. That is theft. It is evil, wrong, and immoral. Forced altruism isn't altruism. Just an FYI. The difference being that I have established myself as a critical thinker. You have not. You HAVE been wrong on every single point I mentioned. You don't directly refute it because you can't. Instead, you try and twist away to demonstrate that I am doing what I accused you of doing. I have not. Taking from group A and giving it to group B is theft. I didn't assume that you were wrong from the beginning, I allowed you to prove it. Sure. https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ The short version: 54% of US counties had ZERO murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders. Those 2% hold the strictest gun laws in the country. This also goes back to what I mentioned earlier about a tiny sub-set of the population (less than 7%) being the cause of ~50% of violent crime. I can't prove or disprove the latter part of this because it is filled with the same absurd mental gymnastics you attempted earlier. It is a loaded question... like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife. You can't answer yes or no because either answer adheres to the fallacy that you are a wife beater. (I'm assuming here that you aren't) The first part is simple to prove as it was already proven by TheDivineHustle earlier in this same thread. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers-overwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/ This isn't easily refutable because until it happens, it is a negative and a negative cannot be proven. This is merely a weak willed attack at something you don't understand and was explained earlier, by me, to you, in numerous ways, that you refused or were unable to understand. Your opinion, having demonstrated your lack of understanding of U.S. laws, statistics, and form of government, holds as much credibility as it deserves. First off, your snide little comments are as worthless as your critical thinking skills. Firearms are not toys. There are already background checks... in what way should they be more thorough? No background check, psychological evaluation, etc will ever stop everyone who shouldn't have access to firearms, from getting access. There has to be a balancing act between restricting the right of a free citizen and making sure that everyone is checked. We do that already. While it isn't fool proof, it never will be. It is the same as criminals getting guns in a banned country. Nothing can stop them all. The very premise of your statement relies on your ignorance of the fact that here, in the U.S., firearm ownership is a RIGHT. It is an inherent right. Neither the government, nor anyone else, has the authority to take away that right. Something you have failed to understand from the beginning of this thread. Can your government limit how much water you have in your refrigerator? Water being, I assume, a right that you have... would you balk at them telling you, not due to anything other than their authority, that you can only have two bottles of water at any one time? Of course you would balk at that! Well, you are from France... but MOST people would balk at a right being limited. Having said all that, you again fail to understand another part of the 2nd amendment which has been explained to you in numerous different ways: our right to bear arms is, in very large part, so that we can fight our government if it becomes too tyrannical. Having that same government tell us that we can only have XYZ (of whatever ilk happens to be catchy today), goes against the very reason the 2nd amendment was written. Obviously, you don't understand this and for your lack of understanding, I'm sorry. Which is all that you have done since the thread started. Every time you were proven wrong, you just came back with something else... ignoring your failed attempts at subverting facts for your failed ideologies. Did I say that you were lesser? Inferior? I said that the understanding of something you have never had is beyond your kin. Obviously, it is. Let me make it simple so you understand: If man A meets man B... man A from an ocean village and man B from a mountain village... man B, having never seen the ocean and lacking any understanding of what it is other than man A trying to explain it to him... man B will never fathom what it means to stand on the shore and be awed by it. The vastness, the smell, the feel, the beauty. Those things are beyond man B's kin. That doesn't imply that man A is superior to man B. Hell, man B knows about the soaring mountain vistas that are beyond man A's kin. Neither is better than the other. Stop trying to be a victim and take offense. Do I think my culture is superior to yours? Indubitably! Without question, hesitation, or equivocation! Just as, I'm sure, you feel the same way about your culture. It 'feels' like I'm always right and the person I'm refuting is always wrong because, in this context... it is true. Holding a different opinion doesn't make either of us right or wrong... however, when facts are twisted or outright made up to fit those opinions, that is wrong. See previous 5 pages as example. Yes, I told you to educate yourself. The reason being: your arguments are vapid and without merit or truth. 95% of what you have said in this thread has been flat out debunked because you were factually wrong. Note the difference. I'm not saying that holding a different opinion makes you wrong... you are welcome to disagree with me all day long. I'm saying what you have claimed as truth was, in fact, wrong. Either you need to educate yourself, or you are intentionally lying in an attempt to prove your ideologies. So... was I wrong in making the assumption that you were just wrong? Should I have assumed the constant non-truths that you spewed over and over again were lies? I'm sorry... I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in believing you to be ignorant rather than a liar. Was I wrong to do so? Even here, I'm forced to 'prove your statements wrong' rather than you doing the same. Why is the onus on me? I'm an American, you aren't. I understand the 2nd amendment. You do not. I understand the form of government we have here. You do not. I have studied the facts and statistics regarding gun ownership. You, obviously, have not. I would love to say that I'm sorry that I come across as smug and haughty, but that wouldn't entirely be the truth. I might come across that way because not a single thing I have said has been shown to be wrong and yet virtually every disagreeing statement against my views has been. I'm sorry that you feel it is toxic, but it is frustrating to hear people who hold a different ideology state half truths and non-truths to tear down something they don't even understand. It is so very frustrating. Perhaps if you stuck to facts rather than failed ideology, perhaps if you stopped making your snide little quips, perhaps if you weren't intentionally framing questions based on personal bias and not facts... well, perhaps we could debate without the animosity. I usually treat people as equals, but when their lack of understanding of a subject demonstrates that, at least on those subjects, we aren't equal... I won't tip toe and shy away from stating the facts. If that makes you feel unequal... educate yourself. As I advocated you do. Look... if you learn nothing from this, please at least take away this: The stats of gun violence, murder rates, rape, and even violent crime in the U.S. is grossly altered by a few very select areas. Those areas, predominately black communities, skew the statistics for the rest of the country beyond belief. It is a culture of violence and it cannot be addressed without the term racist coming up within seconds. This is why the legal gun owners feel so much fervor on this topic... in the vast majority of the country, there is so little crime. It isn't racism to point it out. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Read up on it... that is all I ask. Understand that the boundaries of political correctness prevent any real discourse from taking place. If we could clean up those areas, I think the world would be amazed at the reality of our crime rates... including gun homicides and the like.

Yes, look at Europe. How is the EU treating you? Losing your sovereignty is hardly an example of how free you are. The only contradiction is the one you imply because I disagree with your world view. My views HARDLY come out of Hollywood as Hollywood does everything it can to show Socialism in the best light. Socialism, at it's very core, is based on the premise of theft. Stealing is evil and wrong. Sorry. When a form of government derives it's very basic ideology on stealing, I don't see how it can go any direction but down. Democracy is only a tiny step better as it is premised on majority rule, and woe to the ones that find themselves outside the majority. I love how you avoid all the things that I've said in this topic that demonstrated how absolutely absurd your claims were and yet you neither acknowledge your mistakes or try to refute me. You just continue bouncing around throwing baseless assumptions and childish comments in the hopes that something will stick. You have been wrong on every aspect of how the U.S. government works, the 2nd amendment, statistics on gun violence, and every other subject that you decided to opine on... yet here you are, still attempting to argue because you don't like that someone argued back with facts. Forget everything else and just listen to me... The 2nd amendment is beyond your kin. It is a freedom you have never been afforded and likely never will. You simply cannot understand what it means to fight against losing something that you have never had and never will. You have likely spent your whole life hearing the most outrageous things about gun ownership in the U.S., the vast majority being untrue and the rest being outliers and hyperbolic nonsense. I do not blame you for not understanding. Hell, there are many citizens here that don't comprehend it... it would be unrealistic to assume that you would. I do take umbrage with your caustic attitude towards things you don't know anything about. Educate yourself. You have correlated rumor and innuendo with facts and represented them as such. You remind me of a person who swears that shark attacks are caused by eating ice cream. Don't believe it? Look at the graphs! Every time there is an increase in the consumption of ice cream... there is also an increase in shark attacks! Aghast! Ice cream causes shark attacks! Forget the fact that both gain an increase due to warmer weather and a decrease in colder weather. No, no, no! Ice cream causes it!!!! Learn the difference between correlation and causation. Learn how a system of government works before commenting on it. Learn what the Socratic Method is. Learn how to use it to reach obvious conclusions. Learn how to base arguments on facts, statistics, and reality rather than wants. Most importantly. Learn Google.com.

When you hear an American refer to the greatness of democracy, you are talking with a person who has had the wool pulled over their eyes by watching too many Hollywood films and listening to far too much mainstream news. We are not and never have been a democracy. The ONLY form of government more inherently evil than democracy is socialism, and not by much. The 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of giving the populace the means and the will to defend themselves. That very much included, and was even specifically in response to, our own government. Anyone who has done even light reading into our history should know this. It was and is inaccurate, I'm sorry. You selectively chose a scenario that is extreme in it's uniqueness and then made a bunch of false assumptions that are not backed by any data, just your idea of what it might be like... ending with a claim that is the polar opposite of what the facts are. That is the very definition of inaccurate! If there are so many scenarios that could happen from an armed person in the crowd, then it should surely be easy to find a few to support your claims. Where are they? The FACTS are that it is almost unheard of for armed civilians to be anything except a boon to law enforcement. That is why police are so pro-gun/pro-2nd amendment. I'm not saying that there have never, ever, ever, ever been a mistaken identity, or that there have never been any issues with conceal carry individuals, but the numbers of those situations are so amazingly low when compared with how many times every single year that they are drawn and used in real life scenarios. Anyone can wax poetic about a subject and make it sound like it would be reasonable, but presenting any type of relevant data point is much harder. I can pop a few words into google and show you twenty+ scenarios where mass murderers were stopped by conceal carry people and it never got news time. I can get you hundreds and hundreds of where a violent crime, etc was stopped as well. I challenge you to supply these scenarios where a conceal carry interfered in a negative way or caused the mass confusion that you postulated about. You are making my argument for me! There in nothing deceptive in my facts. States with higher gun volume = lower rate of violent crime. States with lower gun volume = higher rate of violent crime. A higher rate of murders committed by firearms is an ancillary fact that has no bearing on the argument. Yes, there are more gun murders where there are guns available, but the murder rate didn't increase, it was just the tool used to commit the murder. That is the exact point being made. If you follow the statistics down that rabbit hole you will find that the inverse is usually true... more guns = lower murder. So more guns equates to, in the majority of cases, a lower crime rate, a lower murder rate... BUT a higher rate of gun deaths which are part of the statistics just listed. How is not pointing that out being selective in my facts? It is irrelevant. Who cares what a murderer used to commit his act if the overall rates decline with higher ownership? Gun control is the same stick, just the opposite side of it. Gun control doesn't prevent violent crime in any way and statistically speaking has an inverse reaction. Again... that is the whole point and isn't deceptive or obfuscating in any way. If my stats are selective and being presented in a way to produce a bias, please show me stats that I am obfuscating. Statistics can be applied to further an agenda, yes. That is a statement of fact. Unfortunately, you are a victim of doing exactly what you claim, above. Stating that gun homicides increases in areas where there are more guns means what exactly? Nothing. The murder rate and violent crime rates went down, but gun homicides increased. And? What selectively hidden info was used in that statement beyond drawing an innate bias against guns by singling it out? The stats are in my favor. Overwhelmingly so. You are conflating gun homicide with homicide, first of all. Why? Is a murder by gun somehow more evil than a murder by stabbing or beating or drowning? Just because a certain tool was used, doesn't imply that without the gun, the murder wouldn't have happened. The exact opposite is usually true in that availability of guns decreases the rates of murder and violent crime overall. Also, please keep in mind the fact that I touched upon earlier. Almost 50% of our violent crimes are committed by less than 7% of our population. It is abhorrent that such facts get ignored, because the rates that America suffers from is directly and negatively affected by a tiny sub-set of our population. Due to the slavery in our past and the victimization mindset prevalent today, it is considered racist to point these things out, but they adversely hurt the real statistics that the rest of the country lives by. It isn't a race issue, for any budding white supremacists reading this, it is a culture issue. Blacks that get away from the culture that is cultivated in those societies rapidly decrease the rates at which they commit violent acts. Again, it isn't a race issue, but a culture one. The rate of crimes committed by this tiny sub-set of our population can not be addressed due to the accusations of racism when simple facts are mentioned. Until we, as a nation, can have an honest talk about the issue, it is not likely to change or get any better. Those areas are controlled by those that don't want change. So please keep in mind that when you compare the U.S. stats to other countries, the majority of the U.S. has nowhere near as an alarming number as it at first appears. Consider it akin to your Muslim refugee problem. Until it can be openly discussed and in an honest format, it will not get better and will likely continue to get much worse. This is more disinformation biased by a certain ideal of what would transpire rather than what actually happens. Where are the reports of this happening? Where are these hypothetical crazed gun owners who are drawing their firearms and indiscriminately firing at whomever he thinks is a threat during a moment of cusp? I can tell you. They are in your imagination because they aren't real. If that were the case, then stories would be all over the place of maniacal gun owners. The mainstream news are extreme left leaning people who would be salivating at the mouth for a story that berates gun owners and gun ownership, so where are the data points or stories outside of your own conjecture? Look, I'm not saying that every single person in America who carries a gun or owns them even, are pure angels who never do any wrong... but the fact remains that once you strap on a firearm to your ankle, waist, or shoulder... you are faced with a very real and palatable understanding that your actions carry an irreversible set of consequences. Most that own firearms don't act in the way that you guys keep trying to portray them and this is demonstrably shown by an amazing lack of evidence for your arguments. As many gun owners that use their guns every year in a multitude of ways... yet there is a gaping, empty hole of data and stories where your versions of gun owners should be. Interesting, eh?

Yes... the old "you can't beat a standing army" comments. Yes, we have an impressive military. Yes, it has a massive budget. Yes, it has aircraft and ships and missiles and ad infinitum. So tell me, Hystery... when has the US military defeated a large group of insurgents? Insurgents that know the full capabilities of said military? Insurgents that are better armed than any other in the world? Insurgents that can easily pass through checkpoints without raising alarm? Insurgents that have the military at a great disadvantage as the military would not be eager to fight the civilians they are supposed to protect? Enough said, but I'll say more. Do you think that those of us that fight so ardently for our 2nd and 1st amendment rights would be daunted by failure? Do you think that because we would lose, we would give up our arms and just acquiesce? No, we will fight to the last of us if that was our only option. That isn't bravado, that is a belief system that you will never understand. If any country has a history of bowing down, I figure you might know quite well who that would be. Obviously, I'm not talking about the U.S.

Look up some of the guns I listed earlier. I think you will be quite surprised by their capabilities. Sure, they can't stack up to modern weaponry by any means, but the point that they would have excluded such weapons if they had known of them isn't realistic. They had very surprising rates of fire, ammo capacity, etc. They knew and were fans... big fans. The 2nd amendment is for protecting us from an over reaching government. Forcibly, if necessary. Look throughout the world's history. At no time did anyone believe that those actions could happen during their time... times had changed and the world wasn't the same. What people don't understand is there is a false dichotomy between the people on one side and the big bad government on the other. That isn't how authoritative regimes come to power and that is how true tyrannical governments always start. Disarm the populace after finding common ground with one group of the 'people' over another... it is a slow and steady change that has a lot of support from the 'people'. So, do I think it is going to happen? I honestly don't know. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but the separation of the populace is happening and the government is siding predominately with one of the two main sides. Am I a prepper who thinks the government is a boogeyman out to get me? No. However, these rights are to protect us and I don't care to give that right up because of the actions of some nutters. I want that right to be there when my daughter has daughters or sons of her own... it is a protection that goes on protecting us as long as we fight for it. There are laws that limit government power, but it decays each time the government slightly over reaches its authority. Our rule of law is defined not just by the letter of the law, but also by precedents. If it happened before and wasn't stopped, it is likely okay now to do it. The founders knew this, and prepared for it by creating the first and second amendments. Those amendments don't give us the rights, they simply protect them in as strong of language as could be conceived. So, no matter the date, a government that no longer fears it's populace learns to control it. Our government hasn't feared us in a long time. So again... do I think it will happen? I don't know. I do however believe in being prepared. I also appreciate that the 2nd amendment affords me the ability to protect myself in other situations as well. Even if the government were a docile, well-meaning creature... I would still fight for the right to defend myself. As a disabled individual, the only way that happens is through the 2nd amendment. It is very inaccurate. Generic statements like that are why I created this account... if something is repeated enough, it gets believed. Do you honestly think that there weren't conceal carry citizens who ignored the gun-free policy and were carrying? I can't legally say that I would ignore those gun-free policies *cough*, but most CCWers I know intentionally 'forget' or mistakenly 'forget', I should say. Gun free zones are where nearly every mass attack has happened, and foregoing that protection is something many of us 'forget' to do. Yet because noone saw the shooter, there were zero reported cases of weapon wielding whackos running around causing havoc. True, this is pure speculation, but I would bet that there were a number of people armed in that crowd of country western music fans. I agree that restricting our rights is more and more common here. Hence the soft revolution that created the situation that elected our commander and chief. We are getting to the boiling point and anyone 'outside the political system' is seen as a chance to restore the values that have made us what we are. I don't believe that non violent felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights for the exact reason that you listed. It is a fairly unpopular view to hold, but a guy who messed up years ago, did their time, and was released should have their rights returned to them. Time served, rights reinstated. If we don't trust that they are rehabilitated and willing to obey the laws, then why release them? Multiple offenders excluded, obviously. Again, your information is wrong. AR-15s and the like are NOT the predominate weapon used in mass murders. That is an intentional misleading lie that is pushed at every chance available. The vast majority (I believe it is like 90% but don't hold me to that) are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles. Also, a semi-automatic pistol is virtually every handgun used today. Even revolvers act in much the same way (double action), so saying that ar-15s and semi auto pistols are very effective is a glorified and shock inducing way of saying virtually any modern weapon available. Yes, the supply here is much, much greater. However, nothing would change (or should for that matter) most of our minds on the 2nd amendment. Even if the statistics were the opposite and demonstrated that higher gun volumes increased violent crimes, etc... I would still fight to defend my right to carry. That is what people don't understand. The statistics are in our favor by magnitudes, but even if they weren't... I would be here arguing my right to carry. Holding a viewpoint that is the right one requires resolve, regardless of convenience of the situation. Agreed. Look at the Judicial branch creating laws and repeatedly overriding the executive branch for political purposes as modern examples. When the supreme court creates laws, we have a problem. When the House is an empty and weak shell that doesn't even have the power of the purse any longer, we have problems. Losing rights and watching branches of the government act in ways it was never meant to have authority over is not a trade-off, that is the beginning of a tyrannical government that could do bad, bad things. The rule of law applies to both citizen AND government. That is a founding premise of the constitution... to keep the government's power limited.

The argument isn't stupid simply because the logical conclusion is one you didn't already believe or like. You took an extreme outlier of an extremely rare even and then applied absolutely incorrect parameters to such an extreme example... and the only facts that you made claim to were historically inaccurate. Look, I understand that you don't understand. I don't even blame you for not knowing the facts, the statistics, or even the rationale. It is a different mindset based on a different culture based on freedoms that you don't have or understand in the way that we do. I get it and don't blame you for that. I even, in no small part, agree about victim blaming. While I understand and even support his statements, the way he did so made it seem that he was blaming the victims rather than stating that protection should come from yourself rather than rely on others. What I do take issue with was the inaccurate and grossly biased scenario that you set up to prove your point... not even considering the fact that it was historically innacurate and goes against every real data point available. Those 'incidents' happen constantly but they are almost exclusively kept off of the news. Guns being readily available do not force a whacko from being a whacko. If someone wants to do harm, they will. Look at the stats I listed of the UK as a perfect example. Every culture is different, I admit that... but assuming that because guns are available, people will do bad things is absurd. Restricting an inherent right to possibly reduce some murders (historically the opposite is true) is as anti-American as any idea can be. The problem is that every series of 'common sense' legislation leads to even more 'common sense' legislation. It doesn't stop. There is never a point where the following would be said: 'enough safety' has been reached so taking away rights can stop now. What would they have changed if they could have seen the future? Hmmm? Guns get more bullets?!? Guns fire even faster?!? No... restrict guns now!!! No. They had weapons that fired extremely fast back then... that held massive amounts of rounds back then... hell, they didn't just know about them, they were FANS. Read up on the Lewis and Clark expedition. They knew that technology wasn't going to suddenly stop and that even if it did... 'assault style weapons' were available back then. It isn't an excuse not to change the law... the law doesn't grant us a thing other than protecting us from an over reaching government. Those men may seem like traitors to you, but to us they were brilliant men. Brave men. The constitution was created in the exact way that it was to prevent this exact type of thing from happening. You say they couldn't see the future, yet I think they did a quite great job in preparing us for it.

If you would have used the google, you never would have made the above comment. Just because you don't hear about it on main stream media outlets, doesn't mean it isn't true. Google it. I dare ya. Hundreds of thousands of times a year, armed citizens protect themselves and others. Not in total, which would be fantastic, but each year. Google is your friend.

Welcome to the fray, Sam. First off, I didn't mean to exclude women. I was typing as fast as my one hand can go which is slow. They serve just as much as the men and never meant any exclusion. Anyways... you are taking an extreme example (read: the exception) and applying a ton of inferences that aren't real and mixing it in a bowl of not true to sorta' have an example of what things might be like. Maybe. First of all, police are some of the most pro 2nd amendment believers that we have in this great country. Why? Because higher gun ownership relates DIRECTLY to less police killings. Police are some of our strongest advocates for conceal carry for the exact same reasons. So stating how awful the police would see that scenario is unrealistic and simply not factual. Most anyone that has spent time around us conceal carry type people would realize that the majority of us are not waving our guns around all willy nilly and acting like the cartoon-esque characters you try and represent us to be. Feel like using google and looking something up? Look up the number of crimes, violent and otherwise that are stopped by firearm carrying citizens every year. After picking up your pride... try and find me even a handful of examples where they handled themselves in any way other than efficient and professional. Anyone want to lay odds on percentages? Now look at how many of those stories went out to mainstream media... now how much time/comment did they receive? So you used an extreme example (the las vegas shooting) that is an anomaly of an extremely rare event and then applied your unfounded perceptions of how people would behave and then implied how that would be even more unbearable for the police when the exact opposite has historically been true... all to sorta' make a point... that was the opposite of what virtually every real world scenario has demonstrated. My whole argument is predicated on the fact that the founders believed that our right to bear arms is an inherent one and not one given by the government. My whole premise of the 2nd amendment is based directly on the words of those who wrote it and why. Your hyperbolic and inflammatory comments aren't deluding the fact that the point we are arguing is whether the 2nd amendment gave us the right or defending an inherent right (irrespective of your belief in God). You are trying to twist the point every way you can because you were wrong. The 2nd amendment protects (from the government) our inherent right to defend ourselves, not grant the right.

Why debate my facts rather than demonstrate an absurd hyperbolic comment? No need. I look cool when I make absurd comments and skip the real argument which was their intent and which is what the 2nd amendment was based on. Pfft. Silly Narcissus... trying to get a debate on facts rather than outrageous comments that have no bearing! What was I thinking !!!

Yes, it is. I demonstrated that even the supreme court ruled that police are not obligated to protect you. You, rather than admit you were wrong, double down and slip the argument into law breaking rather than protection. Relying on police to protect you is absurd. They will try their best because they are mostly brave men, but they should never be your only line of defense.

The 2nd amendment was a protection FOR the people in case of a tyrannical government. Just like the 1st amendment. These are rights that were and are believed to be inherent rights (attributable by whatever means necessary, but they said God) and those are protections of those rights. They grant nothing outside of protection from an over reaching government.

No. It is a God given right to protect yourself... even the founders believed so hence the comments about the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe in God, then say your natural law given right or what have you... but the second amendment does not grant you a right... it DEFENDS that inherent right against the government trying to take it.

Ben... you know nothing of the founding fathers. They EXPRESSLY stated that it was a God given right and that the 2nd amendment was to protect that right, not grant it. See note above to Kallus.

I don't mean to sound rude, but Kallus... you are wrong. Even the Supreme Court found that officers are not constitutionally bound to protect. To serve and protect is a slogan and nothing more. I love the men in blue for what they do, but relying on them to protect you is not only silly, but wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html Maybe learn more on a topic before committing your opinions on said topic? Or express your opinions as just what they are, opinions.

A changing time doesn't remove the God given right to defend yourself, your home, or your country. More - see below. Mental illness is a big factor in mass shootings. What law was removed that banned mentally ill from buying guns? Surely you aren't talking about the one that was rescinded by Trump?!? Do you understand how our legal system works? How our rights work? It was unconstitutional (read:illegal and immoral) because it subverted due process... in laymen's terms: it refused a guaranteed right without the need to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty is another of our beliefs that we hold in the U.S. and that went directly against it. That said you were guilty unless you could afford to prove your innocence. Saying that the times have changed and that the government would never turn against it's own people is a statement that has been proclaimed by governments since the inception of governments. But THIS TIME it really is different? Rather than risk it... how about we stick to the rights that were defended by our founders just to make certain? Yeah... good idea. Guess what. The argument about how guns have changed has been debunked more than virtually anything else. When the constitution was written, single fire muskets were NOT the only weapons. There were numerous weapons that fired numerous rounds per and held numerous rounds per. From the Belton Flintlocks (fired approx 20 rounds per trigger pull in less than 5 secs) to the Girandoni air rifle (22 round capacity ~30 seconds to empty) and even the Puckle gun (gatling gun), and on and on and on and on. The only difference was the cost to produce them was extremely high. So that is debunked... please stop saying that they never knew 'assault style' weapons would exist. Yes, the gun laws in the UK are very tight... yet lets look a bit closer... There was a severe increase in the homicide rate after the gun ban which was then followed by a gradual decline when police forces were strengthened to an all time high. Since, there has only been a single year where the homicide rate was lower than it was before the ban. There was ~90% increase in gun crime from 1999 to 2009, which happened after the ban. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott found a direct correlation between higher firearm ownership and reduced police killings. Care about cops? Increase gun ownership.

It has been tried, in a way... I take it you didn't review any of the links provided earlier. In our country, the ease of locally (and legally) obtaining a firearm are directly inverse to the local crime rate. The easier it is, the lower the crime rate. The more difficult, the higher. This is just a small list, but look at some of the highest crime rate cities here and compare that with the rules and regulations to obtain a firearm: Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc. So in a round-about way, your idea has been tried and has failed miserably. Our culture revolves around our freedoms, and it is difficult to explain to someone that either isn't from here or who doesn't understand what we have here... but the right to have firearms is not going away. Even if the stats were the opposite of what they are, we would not give up our right... I firmly believe that.

Just got off the phone with my mother... evidently she just watched a press conference on the shooting. I didn't watch it, so this is all second hand information, but apparently the shooter was stopped in the middle of his spree by a nearby armed citizen. The armed citizen shot the murderer who then dropped his gun and fled the scene. I only wish he could have gotten there sooner and saved more lives. There was an 18 month old who was a victim, apparently. It was hard to make out what she was saying as almost the whole conversation she was sobbing. She carries, by the way. She ardently defends our rights as well. She must be pretending to be sad and cry and grieve over the lost lives so that she can feel good about 'clutching' her guns.

Freedom of travel is a universal right, I can agree to that within certain limitations. Freedom of flying, unfortunately, is not. Ever hear of the no-fly list? No court, no argument, no debate. Someone with power puts your name down and you can't fly. So... again, what I said was factual. Flying is not a universal right. Not wearing shoes can hurt your feet, yes. That doesn't mean that wearing shoes is a universal right. Owning firearms and having the ability to defend yourself is, obviously, not a universal right. Don't take my word for it... ask some of the countries whose populations were disarmed. Yeah, I just made that statement. Luckily, I never said universal right. I said constitutional right. There, my french friend, lies the difference. We, as Americans, believe that we have rights beyond what our government tells us we can have. Here, owning firearms is as important as another of our freedoms that many don't have: freedom of speech. So, again, what I said was factual and 100% correct. I'm sorry that you don't truly understand our rights and don't understand the ideal of an inherent right over a government given one. To YOU, owning firearms is not a necessary right. Which is one of the cultural differences between what makes us different from you. To YOU, your way is better and my way is silly. To ME, our way is better and your way is silly. See the difference? My argument isn't nonsensical, it is just alien to someone that has never had that freedom. As I stated in my first post: most people outside the US just can't understand. I also wasn't trying to belittle your argument... I was simply showing you how absurd your argument was by mimicry. Everything I said was true... I just copied your way of saying it. Funny how ugly things look different in a mirror, eh? I've stated my beliefs on gun ownership. I've stated my beliefs on solutions. Just because I don't see disarmament as an option hardly qualifies as an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. Wanting to preserve a freedom, a right, against rhetoric against those rights is hardly ignoring what is around me. In fact, I would argue that it is the exact opposite. Far too long have those of my mindset been quiet and not stood up for what we believe because we were afraid to ruffle anyone's feathers. No more. Holding true to my beliefs is exactly what I am doing... the same as you. Yes. Crybabies. We don't care about human life in the face of losing these guns! Ad hominem stacked with the standard guilt trip. Why refute anything I've said? No... far too easy. You, being the enlightened moderator that you are, instead revert to name calling and personal attacks. Someone said something you disagree with and did so in an intelligent manner? No recourse left... ATTACK! <clap>

Ahhh, gotcha. I noticed it and was wondering (the Canadian flag). Anyways... You confused me. You say that this epidemic is unique to the US. I agree that it is more prevalent here, although I don't know that I would call it an epidemic (above was mostly tongue-in-cheek to make my point). It is more prevalent here as we have a constitution that protects our right to own firearms. We have almost as many firearms as we do citizens (this is arguable as the real numbers are likely quite higher than our population) so, admittedly, there is greater access to firearms here. Is that your contention? There are too many guns and we need to disarm the people to create a safer environment? Anyways, you say that you don't know the solution... noone seems to know... yet just before that you state that "clearly there is something we can do". That is what confused me. What is so clear that noone seems to know? The fact is, short of disarming the nation and violating one of the two basic ideals that make us who we are... I don't see anything that we clearly can do. So, again, is that your stance? Disarm and trash our 2nd amendment protections? Flying isn't a constitutional right. Wearing shoes isn't a constitutional right. Owning firearms is a constitutional right. ('sing')"One of these things isn't like the other... one of these things, doesn't belong"('/sing') I've read something funny on Twitter. "Why did the chicken cross the road? The weight of a stone on the Moon is less than on the Earth." Sums up the whole thing to me.

Guns are inanimate objects. Are they used to do terrible things? Yes. Are they the problem? No. My problem with your statement is that you offer nothing besides demands, wishful thinking, and virtue signaling. Believing that "THE GOVERNMENT" should protect you, yet there is no easy solution is inane and frankly, childish. I, personally, am not offering solutions to this dreadful dilemma because I have none. I see no solution that will not infringe upon the freedoms that make us what we are. The reason why I am posting here is to try and demonstrate that our rights matter and our freedom matters and to try and stop, or at least curb, posts that demand action yet offer no viable solution. To state opinions that are contrary to the ones that show a total disregard and disrespect to our freedoms and rights. I am the counter-weight to what I see as an awful, dreadful, and scary attitude that pervades the less critical thinkers of today. Yes... it is an epidemic of mass shootings. Yes, it is terrible. Yes, I wish it wasn't so. No, I do not see value in attacking our president (for this, anyways). No, I don't see value in demanding action without an even hypothetical suggestion of what that action would look like. Absurd cries and demands for action of a government enforced solution while covering your eyes and ears is like covering your head with your blanket when you hear a noise... I'm curious. Your location is New York, you are flying the Canadian flag, yet you say that we can't protect 'us from ourselves'... are you a visiting Canadian or a Canada loving New Yorker? I'm thinking the former, but the latter is still possible. Especially with the state of Canada and the viewpoint of most New Yorkers.