School shooting at taft high school in california

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

You notice how these shootings happen in clusters? That's because they aren't worth reporting about until a major one happens. Then, for a few months, the media will run wild with any shooting that occurs in the country. If not for Sandy Hook, this never would have made the national news. Statistically,school kids are twice as likely to get struck by lighting then killed by a classmate. These things aren't common, just over reported.

With the way the media reports on these shootings, its impossible for people to grasp that they are statistically insignificant. There is a fatal car accident every 15 minutes in America, could you imagine if every 15 minutes there was a breaking report on TV about "another fatal car accident", and that went on for 365 days a year? Travel would shut down as everyone remained locked in their house, terrified to get behind the wheel.

Oh, and people would be screaming for stricter car ownership laws.

The Plunk:
Oh, I see. Because, obviously, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and pals had assault rifles in mind when creating the Second Amendment.

You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Well, there's no examples of someone committing murder via telekinesis, but that does not mean it can not happen.

A strawman? Really? C'mon, be realistic here.

Smagmuck_:

You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Then why did it not amend the amendment to say "The right to keep and bear small arms..." then? To, you know, make sure the amendment is clear and cannot be misinterpreted?

Vegosiux:
Then why did it not amend the amendment to say "The right to keep and bear small arms..." then? To, you know, make sure the amendment is clear and cannot be misinterpreted?

It's a long and hard process to amend the constitution.

No one wants to waste valuable time and energy adding just two words.

Captcha: Know your rights

Well, that's kinda creepy.

Smagmuck_:

Vegosiux:
Then why did it not amend the amendment to say "The right to keep and bear small arms..." then? To, you know, make sure the amendment is clear and cannot be misinterpreted?

It's a long and hard process to amend the constitution.

No one wants to waste valuable time and energy adding just two words.

The issue here is, "just two words" can make a whole lot of a difference in a country's foundation of law, and if that difference is assumed, it really helps if it's also spelled out. I'm not familiar with the process of amending the US constitution, that much I'll admit, but it still seems as something that would just make sense to me. So I kind of threw it out there.

I mean, over here, legally recognizing homosexual marriage would also mean "just striking two words out" from the relevant legislation, but some people still stirred up a fuss over it. When it comes to these matters, it's never "just words".

Vegosiux:
The issue here is, "just two words" can make a whole lot of a difference in a country's foundation of law, and if that difference is assumed, it really helps if it's also spelled out. I'm not familiar with the process of amending the US constitution, that much I'll admit, but it still seems as something that would just make sense to me. So I kind of threw it out there.

I mean, over here, legally recognizing homosexual marriage would also mean "just striking two words out" from the relevant legislation, but some people still stirred up a fuss over it. When it comes to these matters, it's never "just words".

It is incredibly hard to amend the constitution, a kind of fail safe so that no one party or group can railroad an amendment easily and throw things into a serious cluster fuck. You can read about it here.

Vegosiux:

Smagmuck_:

Vegosiux:
Then why did it not amend the amendment to say "The right to keep and bear small arms..." then? To, you know, make sure the amendment is clear and cannot be misinterpreted?

It's a long and hard process to amend the constitution.

No one wants to waste valuable time and energy adding just two words.

The issue here is, "just two words" can make a whole lot of a difference in a country's foundation of law, and if that difference is assumed, it really helps if it's also spelled out. I'm not familiar with the process of amending the US constitution, that much I'll admit, but it still seems as something that would just make sense to me. So I kind of threw it out there.

I mean, over here, legally recognizing homosexual marriage would also mean "just striking two words out" from the relevant legislation, but some people still stirred up a fuss over it. When it comes to these matters, it's never "just words".

The constitution isn't taken absolutely literally anymore. You are citing tentherism, something that hasn't existed in the US since the days of kids working in coal mines.

Smagmuck_:

The Plunk:
Oh, I see. Because, obviously, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and pals had assault rifles in mind when creating the Second Amendment.

You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Then citizen firepower will never be on par with the government.

Well, there's no examples of someone committing murder via telekinesis, but that does not mean it can not happen.

A strawman? Really? C'mon, be realistic here.

Am I not entitled to make outlandish claims to prove a point?

Quaxar:
A shotgun? Well, that's something. Don't these things only have a few shots before reload and are far slower to reload than magazine-based weaponry?

Exactly. In doesn't take much logic to see that if he had been armed with the same weapon used in Aurora, the death toll would be a LOT higher than zero.

Guns like this are fine in my opinion. Lot harder to kill many people with a gun you have to reload every 2-4 shots.

Smagmuck_:
So a five year old can put up stiff resistance to a line backer?

You'd be amazed at how much people can take. In any case, guns cause more violence, and spree crime with firearms is a lot more deadly than spree crime without violence.

I mean, are we still arguing this? You're talking like you think this is a cartoon, where someone can perform an epic bitchslap of doom +99 and instantly kill people with it.

Smagmuck_:
I am simply saying that the human body, when controlled by a mind that has the know how, can match someone who's an armchair warrior with an AR-15 or equivalent scary black rifle.

Because if you can't get past the barrel and fuck them up before they open fire, the coward with the gun will kill you, no matter how big or how hard you are.

This is why standing training for security guards say that the moment a weapon is drawn, all bets are off and any and all forms of violence are legal. Mind you: That's training under Dutch law, which takes an extremely dim view on violence of any kind. If someone sneaks into your house, shoves you and you strike them with a baseball bat, you're in trouble.

But if someone pulls a gun and you break their nose, or slam their head into a wall, that's perfectly acceptable.

Should give an idea of how much danger guns create, that a legislator with such a staunch anti-violence stance thought it legal to use all available force against gun owners.

cthulhuspawn82:
Statistically,school kids are twice as likely to get struck by lighting then killed by a classmate. These things aren't common, just over reported.

It's been consistently dozens of victims every year. I doubt dozens of schoolkids are struck by lightning every year, so you must be wrong.

Smagmuck_:
You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Which was a rubbish ruling that had everything to do with legitimising a situation that already existed, and had nothing to do with what the constitution actually said.

If you look at how close the wording of that amendment emphasises it being part of a government militia, you can safely say the supreme court had it all wrong. Just like for instance Korematsu vs United States got it all wrong. Not just ethically, but also constitutionally, because a presidential order that orders concentration camps in the desert for an entire ethnicity, is not due process no matter how one wants to spin it.

Much like that, an unlimited right to have murder weapons isn't covered anywhere in the US constitution.

I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons are legal to own if you register it first.

It's one of those things that regulates itself because they are impossible to find to purchase and would probably cost an insane amount of money anyway.

It's the same with tanks, fighter jets, and artillery. You just need to register them when you get them.

Blablahb:

farson135:
The Spanish fought against everybody. Thousands of Jews were saved by armed citizens in Belorussia.

Maybe you should take some history lessons. Eastern Europe had it's very own holocaust independant of the nazis, because they also hated the Jews well before the war.

You know how these people were able to kill Jews? Because they had firearms. If they hadn't been the NRA type gun owner, they'd have had nothing to threaten the local Jews with, and anyone in a region where it wasn't aided by the German army would've escaped.

Strasbourg massacre, the Basel Massacre, the Erfurt massacre. Oh sorry, I'm thinking of all the other times where Jews were attacked and killed by angry European mobs. The difference, guns had not been invented yet when these all occurred and yet, several hundred jews were rounded up and either forced to convert to Christiniaty or were burned at the stake. Heck, in the Strasbourg massacre alone, its estimated that 900 people were burned alive. While the methods on which carry out such massacres have changed, I can guarantee you that, if they wanted to kill the jews that badly, they were going to do it with or without firearms. But wait, why didn't they run away? Because its kinda fucking hard to run away from an angry mob that has you pinned in your own home. This was just an unruly riot, you think you have a chance of escaping an organized group of men who come to your home and drag you away before you even know whats going on? There's a reason we have very few people who actually escaped the Holocaust.

Blablahb:
Also you'll note most of the people you mention weren't the "I fear the niggers, so I sleep with a gun under my pillow" kind of gun owner who's very common in the US these days.

Okay, Blab, we've been over this before, but you're constant play of stereotypical gun owners is both wrong and also extremely offensive to myself as I have family members, friends and may even be planning on owning a gun myself one day. By stating this shit, you assume that my father,my uncles, my aunts, my neighbors, my best friend and even my grandfather are racists who are afraid of minorities. I don't want to see that said again, and if I do, we're gonna have a problem, so unless you have proof that gun owners are majority racist, stop playing on stereotypes.

maddawg IAJI:
Okay, Blab, we've been over this before, but you're constant play of stereotypical gun owners is both wrong and also extremely offensive to myself

And what sort of a problem would that be? I don't mention percenages for a reason, but it's quite possible to back up the claim that gun owners purchase and use deadly weapons because they fear minorities, and harbour a racist hatred against them.

For a start I've argued succesfully on several occasions about how buying guns against crime is an act which can be classified as paranoid. The chances of mortal risk to a person are so neglicably small that fearing it can be classified as a delusional fear. Unless crime statistics change, that claim will stand firm.

Second, if you don't want to be asociated with that group, you don't have to be. Being a gun owner is a free choice. If you take offense to an accurate characterisation, that's not anyone else's problem.

But just to be better than the gun lobby and back that racist thinking that gun owners have going, up with facts, here's some racist gun owners for you:
Gun owner and Sikh temple shooter acted from racist motive, is apparently white supremacist

The murderer Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin is said to have had a racist motive. One thing that's elevated above all discussion is that he only saw a black kid and went after him for that reason. That coupled with his paranoid delusions, like calling the police over windows being open (documented from 911 calls the killer made) makes a pretty strong case for racist thinking.

Two gun owners going on a rampage have been said to have been taken revenge against 'the blacks' for a motive.

The anti defamation league reports that various racist groups want to go playing vigilante (meaning they're all gun owners) after the murder. One of the groups mentioned is the National Socialist Movement. I wish anyone good luck arguing that this group of gun owners is non-racist.

And another gun owner 'defended himself' by murdering a 13 year old black boy whom he accused of burglary, just before heroically shooting him in the back, is said to have had a racist motive, and for certain holds racist beliefs if he thinks without evidence that a 13 year old burgled his home and deserves to be murdered for that. (are any of the forum members who indicated they think murdering burglars is justified reading this? That news report could be about you in a few years. The guy holds beliefs identical to yours)


Note that all these cases are from 2012, just a single year, and I spent no more than five minutes compiling the list. Imagine what turns up if you widened this search.

I have several confirmed cases, you have nothing. It would seem that characterising gun owners as purchasing and using weapons out of racism is a very accurate statement, which justifies ridiculing them over it. If you feel offended, then I guess you know what to do: Being a gun owner is a free choice. You can choose to be part of that group, or not. One thing that's not possible however is enter the group by free choice and then complain to others that they're saying accurate not so nice things about the group and you feel offended. If you choose to not be a gun owner, a good, ethical choice, then none of the characterisations of that group will apply to you.

Heck, that would be like me joining a neonazi group and then being offended by you if you said nazis are racists...


I'm kind of done backing up all my statements on a large scale, only to have gun lobbyists or pro-gun violence peeps responding with empty accusations, false hurt emotions and bogus falsified statistics.

Blablahb:

maddawg IAJI:
Okay, Blab, we've been over this before, but you're constant play of stereotypical gun owners is both wrong and also extremely offensive to myself

And what sort of a problem would that be? I don't mention percenages for a reason, but it's quite possible to back up the claim that gun owners purchase and use deadly weapons because they fear minorities, and harbour a racist hatred against them.

For a start I've argued succesfully on several occasions about how buying guns against crime is an act which can be classified as paranoid. The chances of mortal risk to a person are so neglicably small that fearing it can be classified as a delusional fear. Unless crime statistics change, that claim will stand firm.

Second, if you don't want to be asociated with that group, you don't have to be. Being a gun owner is a free choice. If you take offense to an accurate characterisation, that's not anyone else's problem.

But just to be better than the gun lobby and back that racist thinking that gun owners have going, up with facts, here's some racist gun owners for you:
Gun owner and Sikh temple shooter acted from racist motive, is apparently white supremacist

The murderer Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin is said to have had a racist motive. One thing that's elevated above all discussion is that he only saw a black kid and went after him for that reason. That coupled with his paranoid delusions, like calling the police over windows being open (documented from 911 calls the killer made) makes a pretty strong case for racist thinking.

Two gun owners going on a rampage have been said to have been taken revenge against 'the blacks' for a motive.

The anti defamation league reports that various racist groups want to go playing vigilante (meaning they're all gun owners) after the murder. One of the groups mentioned is the National Socialist Movement. I wish anyone good luck arguing that this group of gun owners is non-racist.

And another gun owner 'defended himself' by murdering a 13 year old black boy whom he accused of burglary, just before heroically shooting him in the back, is said to have had a racist motive, and for certain holds racist beliefs if he thinks without evidence that a 13 year old burgled his home and deserves to be murdered for that. (are any of the forum members who indicated they think murdering burglars is justified reading this? That news report could be about you in a few years. The guy holds beliefs identical to yours)


Note that all these cases are from 2012, just a single year, and I spent no more than five minutes compiling the list. Imagine what turns up if you widened this search.

I have several confirmed cases, you have nothing. It would seem that characterising gun owners as purchasing and using weapons out of racism is a very accurate statement, which justifies ridiculing them over it. If you feel offended, then I guess you know what to do: Being a gun owner is a free choice. You can choose to be part of that group, or not. One thing that's not possible however is enter the group by free choice and then complain to others that they're saying accurate not so nice things about the group and you feel offended. If you choose to not be a gun owner, a good, ethical choice, then none of the characterisations of that group will apply to you.

Heck, that would be like me joining a neonazi group and then being offended by you if you said nazis are racists...


I'm kind of done backing up all my statements on a large scale, only to have gun lobbyists or pro-gun violence peeps responding with empty accusations, false hurt emotions and bogus falsified statistics.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

50% of america is racist.

Also, what about guns used to hunt or defend the home from wild animals, as I have pointed out in other threads? Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and biggest of all Alaska. As I've pointed out previously, these places have decentralized populations and wild animals that can be quite dangerous; to use an example I've used previously, I have a cousin who lives on a farm in rural nebraska, several miles form the nearest town. There's been reports of wild cats in the area (the big kind) as they've recently been reintroduced, and she's already lost several ducks and a dog to them.

She also has young children. Under your theory, the only reason she would ever own a gun is some racist paranoia; but she owns a gun because she feels the need to be able to respond if some animal comes onto her land to try and harm her children, or husband, or her animals.

Another example: I have a friend who lives in rural Alaska, whose family farm the land in order to sustain themselves (not because they're poor, but because they choose that lifestyle) and they can and have been cut off from civilization for weeks on end. They had to shoot a bear that had wandered onto the property and was threatening. They don't do it lightly.

There are also people on the lower end of the economic scale who hunt in order to have enough protein in their diet. My mother was one of them; she used to hunt in her area with a revolver since it was the only weapon she had and couldn't afford another one.

Bentusi16:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
50% of america is racist.

You're misinterpreting my ridicule of the gun lobby. Perhaps a re-read is in order?

Bentusi16:
Also, what about guns used to hunt or defend the home from wild animals, as I have pointed out in other threads? Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and biggest of all Alaska.

I've never put any ideas forward that would stop the ability for pest control.

But applying for a permit to own a non-automated hunting rifle, preferably one that one fires light buckshot, isn't enough for the gun lobby is it? They want weapons that are very lethal to humans. That's because pest control is just a smokescreen to want to own weapons and kill people with them.

And that's the whole point of a weapons ban: To stop people murdering one another.

The Plunk:
Then citizen firepower will never be on par with the government.

But also, larger weapons are not explicitly banned. There is just a lot of red tape and paper work to get one.

For example, a citizen of the US is within the law to buy an actual M16. But, on average they cost about $12,000 and up, has to be made before 1986, and comes with years worth of paper work that needs to be filled out and tax stamps to be paid.

Blablahb:
If you look at how close the wording of that amendment emphasises it being part of a government militia, you can safely say the supreme court had it all wrong. Just like for instance Korematsu vs United States got it all wrong. Not just ethically, but also constitutionally, because a presidential order that orders concentration camps in the desert for an entire ethnicity, is not due process no matter how one wants to spin it.

Much like that, an unlimited right to have murder weapons isn't covered anywhere in the US constitution.

Presidential Order =/= Amendment

Was it unconstitutional? Yes, yes it was. And was repealed rather quickly after that realization.

Second Amendment:
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.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

I've explained this before. The United States Government explicitly states that every able bodied male between ages 17 to 45, is legally considered militia, who in turn can be called upon to help their fellow citizens in times of great need, which can range from helping the National Guard secure an area for Red Cross after a natural disaster, or press the reset button of the Federal Government. But until such time, they are free to sit around at ranges across the country and use their firearms as long range paper hole punches, and depending on the state, carry them on their person.

And insulting a mod? Do you really think that's going to end well?

Blablahb:

cthulhuspawn82:
Statistically,school kids are twice as likely to get struck by lighting then killed by a classmate. These things aren't common, just over reported.

It's been consistently dozens of victims every year. I doubt dozens of schoolkids are struck by lightning every year, so you must be wrong.

There is an average of 400 people struck by lighting every year in the US. It would take over 15 Sandy Hooks to match that. Of course the average number of people who actually die from lightning per year in America is about 50, only twice what Sandy Hook was.

Zeus and Thor are a bigger threat to us then school massacres.

Smagmuck_:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Before I write any serious response: Is this about insulting anyone who thinks gun violence is a bad thing, or about a discussion about interpreting legal texts for you?

cthulhuspawn82:
There is an average of 400 people struck by lighting every year in the US. It would take over 15 Sandy Hooks to match that. Of course the average number of people who actually die from lightning per year in America is about 50, only twice what Sandy Hook was.

Zeus and Thor are a bigger threat to us then school massacres.

It was quite specifically about children. If you want to count all lightning strikes, you also need to count all victims of firearms possession, which is more than 30.000 each year, and probably a lot higher because legitimised forms of murder do not get counted towards those statistics.

In that case: 30.000 > 400

Blablahb:
I don't mention percenages for a reason

Because you do not have any proof and are just making shit up.

but it's quite possible to back up the claim that gun owners purchase and use deadly weapons because they fear minorities, and harbour a racist hatred against them.

Then do it.

For a start I've argued succesfully on several occasions about how buying guns against crime is an act which can be classified as paranoid. The chances of mortal risk to a person are so neglicably small that fearing it can be classified as a delusional fear. Unless crime statistics change, that claim will stand firm.

So you are arguing that my keeping a hurricane survival kit is paranoid because the chances of the Gulf Coast of Texas getting hit so hard that I would need that kit are very low. You are not the first to say it but then Katrina and Rita hit (we only got the edge of Katrina but Rita hit us almost full on).

Also, guns are not only used for self defense against crime. Hunting, collecting, and sport shooting.

Second, if you don't want to be asociated with that group, you don't have to be. Being a gun owner is a free choice. If you take offense to an accurate characterisation, that's not anyone else's problem.

But it is not an accurate characterization.

Note that all these cases are from 2012, just a single year, and I spent no more than five minutes compiling the list. Imagine what turns up if you widened this search.

So you pointed out 5 people and say that that is ultimate proof that 80 million gun owners are racist.

Ok, I will play. You are a white man who used the word nigger against a group of people which includes many minorities and the post where you used the word was aimed at a person who is a minority. You say that 5 people out of 80 million is proof that gun owners are racist. Well guess what, the only white people I know who use the word nigger (outside of plays and similar) are racists. So are you going to admit that you yourself are a racist?

I have several confirmed cases

Confirmed? Or guess work? The latter.

It would seem that characterising gun owners as purchasing and using weapons out of racism is a very accurate statement, which justifies ridiculing them over it.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that this Hispanic family bought a gun because they are racist- http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

And of course this woman protecting her child from kidnapping, well she is just a goddamn racist right Blab?- http://monachuslex.com/?p=1678

If you feel offended, then I guess you know what to do: Being a gun owner is a free choice. You can choose to be part of that group, or not. One thing that's not possible however is enter the group by free choice and then complain to others that they're saying accurate not so nice things about the group and you feel offended. If you choose to not be a gun owner, a good, ethical choice, then none of the characterisations of that group will apply to you.

You know Blab, it seems to me that you associating with you home nation makes you far more of a racist than me. After all, your people are a part of the reason that my people and many of my friends do not have a home anymore. You are associated with a group of people who had a large hand in the slave trade, who attacked and murdered members of my people, who persecuted and murdered innocent people for being of a different religion and on. Therefore, you must believe that because you associate with them you are guilty of racism.

Your people have committed crimes against humanity and you built your cities using the blood and sweat of slave labor. And now, you have the audacity to attack members of the peoples you have destroyed of the very crime that your nation is guilty of. And you know what, your crimes have continued well into the modern era. Your crimes in Indonesia have led to a near perpetual race war and the rest of your colonies have never recovered. Although I suppose you would justify it by saying you civilized them.

BTW people, in case you are wondering this is still an attack on Blablahb and these arguments are for him alone. Every other Dutch person on this site as well as everyone else on earth can ignore these arguments because only in Blablahb's twisted logic do they even work. If I am guilty because I share a vague association with some people then he is very guilty for having a direct association with his home country.

Blablahb:
Before I write any serious response: Is this about insulting anyone who thinks gun violence is a bad thing, or about a discussion about interpreting legal texts for you?

Nope, gun violence is a serious issue, I think we can all agree on that. I just happen to believe we can solve it without infringing on someone's rights.

In that case: 30.000 > 400

That's only half true.

PolitiFact:
Because the U.S. is so big, it's better to compare the frequency of firearm homicides per capita, usually expressed as firearm homicides per 100,000 in national population.

According to the U.N., the U.S. had 3.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 in population in 2009. But there were 14 other nations that had higher rates in 2009, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean: Honduras (57.6), Jamaica (47.2), St. Kitts and Nevis (44.4), Venezuela (39.0), Guatemala (38.5), Colombia (28.1), Trinidad & Tobago (27.3), Panama (19.3), Dominican Republic (16.9), Bahamas (15.4), Belize (15.4), Mexico (7.9), Paraguay (7.3) and Nicaragua (5.9). Three other nations had higher rates in 2008: El Salvador (39.9), Brazil (18.1) and Ecuador (12.7).

So the U.S. doesn't rank no. 1 when firearm homicides are adjusted for population.

The only time the US hits #1, is when it's compared to 1st world nations, when your broaden that to include most nations in general, we drop down several rankings.
[Source]

The Plunk:

Smagmuck_:

The Plunk:
Oh, I see. Because, obviously, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and pals had assault rifles in mind when creating the Second Amendment.

You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Then citizen firepower will never be on par with the government.

Well, there's no examples of someone committing murder via telekinesis, but that does not mean it can not happen.

A strawman? Really? C'mon, be realistic here.

Am I not entitled to make outlandish claims to prove a point?

Military guns don't exist. There are just guns, and unless its a .50 cal sniper or an automatic, they use the same guns.

Even then, the military has easy to ransack armories. A smart rebellion will take over those first, since they are often not that protected and have parked tanks and howitzers in the front yard.

So now the rebellion has guns, tanks, and howitzers. All while the government struggles to field them because of no supply lines since America' infrastructure is old an falling apart or so open ambushes will be common.

Smagmuck_:

Blablahb:
Before I write any serious response: Is this about insulting anyone who thinks gun violence is a bad thing, or about a discussion about interpreting legal texts for you?

Nope, gun violence is a serious issue, I think we can all agree on that. I just happen to believe we can solve it without infringing on someone's rights.

So then if I say that you can easily have a militia which doesn't involve the uncontrolled spread of firearms through the population, so you can have both the 2nd amendment and a gun ban, you'll agree with me?

Blablahb:
So then if I say that you can easily have a militia which doesn't involve the uncontrolled spread of firearms through the population, so you can have both the 2nd amendment and a gun ban, you'll agree with me?

The Supreme Court declared attempting to ban certain types of firearms unconstitutional, so it doesn't look like that's a possibility.

Blablahb:

maddawg IAJI:
Okay, Blab, we've been over this before, but you're constant play of stereotypical gun owners is both wrong and also extremely offensive to myself

And what sort of a problem would that be? I don't mention percenages for a reason, but it's quite possible to back up the claim that gun owners purchase and use deadly weapons because they fear minorities, and harbour a racist hatred against them.

For a start I've argued succesfully on several occasions about how buying guns against crime is an act which can be classified as paranoid. The chances of mortal risk to a person are so neglicably small that fearing it can be classified as a delusional fear. Unless crime statistics change, that claim will stand firm.

Second, if you don't want to be asociated with that group, you don't have to be. Being a gun owner is a free choice. If you take offense to an accurate characterisation, that's not anyone else's problem.

But just to be better than the gun lobby and back that racist thinking that gun owners have going, up with facts, here's some racist gun owners for you:
Gun owner and Sikh temple shooter acted from racist motive, is apparently white supremacist

The murderer Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin is said to have had a racist motive. One thing that's elevated above all discussion is that he only saw a black kid and went after him for that reason. That coupled with his paranoid delusions, like calling the police over windows being open (documented from 911 calls the killer made) makes a pretty strong case for racist thinking.

Two gun owners going on a rampage have been said to have been taken revenge against 'the blacks' for a motive.

The anti defamation league reports that various racist groups want to go playing vigilante (meaning they're all gun owners) after the murder. One of the groups mentioned is the National Socialist Movement. I wish anyone good luck arguing that this group of gun owners is non-racist.

And another gun owner 'defended himself' by murdering a 13 year old black boy whom he accused of burglary, just before heroically shooting him in the back, is said to have had a racist motive, and for certain holds racist beliefs if he thinks without evidence that a 13 year old burgled his home and deserves to be murdered for that. (are any of the forum members who indicated they think murdering burglars is justified reading this? That news report could be about you in a few years. The guy holds beliefs identical to yours)


Note that all these cases are from 2012, just a single year, and I spent no more than five minutes compiling the list. Imagine what turns up if you widened this search.

I have several confirmed cases, you have nothing. It would seem that characterising gun owners as purchasing and using weapons out of racism is a very accurate statement, which justifies ridiculing them over it. If you feel offended, then I guess you know what to do: Being a gun owner is a free choice. You can choose to be part of that group, or not. One thing that's not possible however is enter the group by free choice and then complain to others that they're saying accurate not so nice things about the group and you feel offended. If you choose to not be a gun owner, a good, ethical choice, then none of the characterisations of that group will apply to you.

Heck, that would be like me joining a neonazi group and then being offended by you if you said nazis are racists...


I'm kind of done backing up all my statements on a large scale, only to have gun lobbyists or pro-gun violence peeps responding with empty accusations, false hurt emotions and bogus falsified statistics.

So by getting a gun I associate myself with jackasses because they made a similar purchase? To me thats about as much of an association as having the same favorite food as Hitler. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the item (whether food or firearm) itself.

Shock and Awe:
So by getting a gun I associate myself with jackasses because they made a similar purchase?

Yeah, pretty much. Free choices sometimes have consequences.

On the bright side, it's a free choice you can undo at any time of your choosing if you find the asociation uncomfortable. You don't need guns, and owning them is a free choice, one you can reverse whenever you like.

Kind of like I choose to be liable for harsher judging if I ever commit assault because I practise kickboxing, and practitioners of the sport are held to higher standards regarding proportionality of violence. I don't like that either. But when I read about Badr Hari (some thug with a criminal record the size of my arm) again I can't really dispute the asociation itself... At the same time, I can cancel my membership whenever I like if I find it that bad to be held to that higher standard, and if I beat someone up half a year later it would never even come up.

Smagmuck_:
The Supreme Court declared attempting to ban certain types of firearms unconstitutional, so it doesn't look like that's a possibility.

The Supreme Court declared attempting to put an entire people in concentration camps to be constitutional, so it doesn't look like the US will never be able to stop putting entire ethnicities in concentration camps.

Or maybe I'm right, and interpretations of laws can change?

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
So by getting a gun I associate myself with jackasses because they made a similar purchase?

Yeah, pretty much. Free choices sometimes have consequences.

On the bright side, it's a free choice you can undo at any time of your choosing if you find the asociation uncomfortable. You don't need guns, and owning them is a free choice, one you can reverse whenever you like.

Kind of like I choose to be liable for harsher judging if I ever commit assault because I practise kickboxing, and practitioners of the sport are held to higher standards regarding proportionality of violence. I don't like that either. But when I read about Badr Hari (some thug with a criminal record the size of my arm) again I can't really dispute the asociation itself... At the same time, I can cancel my membership whenever I like if I find it that bad to be held to that higher standard, and if I beat someone up half a year later it would never even come up.

Smagmuck_:
The Supreme Court declared attempting to ban certain types of firearms unconstitutional, so it doesn't look like that's a possibility.

The Supreme Court declared attempting to put an entire people in concentration camps to be constitutional, so it doesn't look like the US will never be able to stop putting entire ethnicities in concentration camps.

Or maybe I'm right, and interpretations of laws can change?

When the USSC overrules itself, it's usually because they gave to little freedom, not too much. After all, Browers was overturned in Lawrence, and Plessy was overturned in Brown. Baring a major shift of demographic, I think the court is going to stay pro gun.

But please, continue to compare internment of Japanese people with allowing people to own handguns in their own home for self defense. It does my side good.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
So by getting a gun I associate myself with jackasses because they made a similar purchase?

Yeah, pretty much. Free choices sometimes have consequences.

On the bright side, it's a free choice you can undo at any time of your choosing if you find the asociation uncomfortable. You don't need guns, and owning them is a free choice, one you can reverse whenever you like.

Kind of like I choose to be liable for harsher judging if I ever commit assault because I practise kickboxing, and practitioners of the sport are held to higher standards regarding proportionality of violence. I don't like that either. But when I read about Badr Hari (some thug with a criminal record the size of my arm) again I can't really dispute the asociation itself... At the same time, I can cancel my membership whenever I like if I find it that bad to be held to that higher standard, and if I beat someone up half a year later it would never even come up.

Well if all it takes to be associated with somebody is a similar purchase then the association loses all meaning and doesn't matter at all. I can apply the same to food, to cars, to hairstyles, to operating systems for computers, ect, ect. Whats the point of bringing it up?

Blablahb:
The Supreme Court declared attempting to put an entire people in concentration camps to be constitutional, so it doesn't look like the US will never be able to stop putting entire ethnicities in concentration camps.

Or maybe I'm right, and interpretations of laws can change?

I don't see how you can equate the legality of an complex object to legality of internment camps.

Blablahb:
Kind of like I choose to be liable for harsher judging if I ever commit assault because I practise kickboxing, and practitioners of the sport are held to higher standards regarding proportionality of violence. I don't like that either. But when I read about Badr Hari (some thug with a criminal record the size of my arm) again I can't really dispute the asociation itself... At the same time, I can cancel my membership whenever I like if I find it that bad to be held to that higher standard, and if I beat someone up half a year later it would never even come up.

You claim to be a moral person and yet YOU stated that you associate yourself with a criminal. Hypocrisy much? You insult all gun owners because a few of them use their firearms to kill another. Your chosen sport is one that developed from multiple practical martial arts that include potentially very harmful attacks. Yet you consider yourself above us. I happen to know that kickboxing shares many elements with Muay Thai, which is a combat art that was used by Siamese soldiers for centuries. So do you associate yourself with every single soldier and every single person killed using the original forms of your martial art? If so, you are a very amoral person. You have the lives of at least hundreds on your head. If you include the crimes by your associated government it rises to millions. You are worse than any serial killer on the planet. And of course you have already admitted to assaulting one of your co-workers. You just keep piling on your sins.

The Supreme Court declared attempting to put an entire people in concentration camps to be constitutional, so it doesn't look like the US will never be able to stop putting entire ethnicities in concentration camps.

The Supreme Court also declared that the US government owned reparations to the survivors of those camps. What has your government done to pay for its crimes? Why do you continue to associate yourself with a criminal government when you consider yourself so moral?

Argument still just for Blablahb and not the rest of the world.

Or maybe I'm right, and interpretations of laws can change?

Usually in favor of freedom.

I don't know why nobody brings this up, but the biggest argument against the banning of assault weapons is that the Virginia Tech shooter caused more damage than even Holmes and all he had was two normal handguns.
Indeed, if you actually want to make a real change in our society, you'll need to ban all guns, it's all or nothing, because otherwise the only thing you'll accomplish in banning assault weapons is annoying the gun fans who like to buy them... but I think a lot of these short sighted anti-gun folk are petty enough to be fine with that.

Blablahb:
The Supreme Court declared attempting to put an entire people in concentration camps to be constitutional, so it doesn't look like the US will never be able to stop putting entire ethnicities in concentration camps.

Or maybe I'm right, and interpretations of laws can change?

The irony here sir, is that it's these kinds of historical decisions made by our government that reminds us of the real reason we need our second amendment; so the government doesn't go rogue and arbitrarily take away our rights. To the best of my knowledge the Japanese internment is still upheld by the Supreme Court, meaning that it's legal ever since for the government to intern anyone just because they were perceived as a threat. Why did they even pass the 2012 NDAA when they could have just reminded us of what they did to the Japanese?

The point is that the government couldn't get away with that today because the people are too well connected, too well armed, and not too racist, to let it happen again.

And while I'm on the subject of NDAA and how the US is slowly becoming fascist, I just saw this vid earlier today:
the beginning is just a recreation

Hammartroll:
The irony here sir, is that it's these kinds of historical decisions made by our government that reminds us of the real reason we need our second amendment; so the government doesn't go rogue and arbitrarily take away our rights.

Calm down. The government isn't out to get you. You don't need guns, because the US army is not coming for you tomorrow.

Smagmuck_:
I don't see how you can equate the legality of an complex object to legality of internment camps.

Both an unlimited right to own murder weapons, and a right to lock up an entire ethnicity were considered constitutional and good at some point in time.

One isn't anymore, it has changed. The other is, it hasn't changed yet. You think that will never change, and I think it can.

The only question is how many more innocent children need to die before it happens.

farson135:
You claim to be a moral person and yet YOU stated that you associate yourself with a criminal. Hypocrisy much?

Just because we argue over the internet doesn't mean we asociate mate, sorry.

farson135:
I happen to know that kickboxing shares many elements with Muay Thai, which is a combat art that was used by Siamese soldiers for centuries.

Nope, that was krabbi krabong. It has nothing to do with muai boran except it borrowed a few unarmed techniques from it. Then again, is "punch dude in the face" something you can attribute to one style, or just how people fight?

I'm obviously from Dutch kickboxing, as introduced from Japan by Jan Plas and a few other pioneers, after which the Dutch form in turn spread back to Japan and replaced it. It is an entirely different sport, with a different scoring system, different distinct style and own region of spreading. Also there's no room for superstition like in muai thai.

But it was a nice try. Gun owners still perpetrate 100% of all gun crime however, and more than a few are motivated by questionable things like racism or paranoid delusions. A gun owner who doesn't like to belong to that group can choose to leave it, just like I can choose to leave the group of fighting sports practitioners if I think they've gotten too bad an image.

There's a lot more crazy gunmen than that there's Badr Hari's out there however, so I'm safe, how about you?

Blablahb:
Snip

Never in my years here have I legitimately seen someone try to compare apples to oranges.

Bravo.

Gun owners still perpetrate 100% of all gun crime however.

And all MMA practitioners perpetrate 100% of assaults.

Oh look, I can do that too.

as bad as it is to say, This is rather run of the mill into today's global society. I guess im just desensitized to this stuff, because honestly the most interesting part of the article to me is a link to This Article instead.

Smagmuck_:
And all MMA practitioners perpetrate 100% of assaults.
Oh look, I can do that too.

Your comparison is not correct, as people who don't practise that sport still perpetrate assault.

My statement is correct, as you need a firearm and thus be a gun owner, to shoot someone with a firearm. You can't shoot someone with your bare hands remember?

But I'm glad to see you agree that interpretations of laws can change, so the second amendment isn't necessary a right to shoot up the classroom with assault rifles. Now if only we can bridge that last divide towards instituting a gun ban, the saving of lives can begin.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here