Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."

As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)

Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!

I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.

Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.

Clear enough?

Two questions:

1) What freedoms are you saying that we've lost? Be specific.

2) What makes you think that gun owners are OK with losing any freedoms at all?

The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targetted party out of power. Bridgegate.

 Frazzled wrote:

The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targetted party out of power. Bridgegate.

Check AR15.com...most guys over there are livid about most of these.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The first problem is that you assume we are ok with it.

I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.

And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?

Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.

Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.

You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.

When everyone's armed, who decides when everything else has failed?

The person with the biggest and the most guns? Soooo... the government?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."

As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.

We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targeted party out of power. Bridgegate.

The 1st Amendment got hit when the Patriot Act went into play.
The 4th Amendment "getting shredded" was done under the umbrella of that same Act and expanded provisions associated with it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."

As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.

We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.

You have just about as good a chance as being killed in a mass shooting as being struck by lightning.

Emotional reactions to these events are simply that - emotional reactions.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/

The FBI's definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths. According to that statistic, as of December 2013, around 900 people had died in the past 7 years. That's under 130 people per year. In a country of 314 MILLION people, that's completely insignificant. Certainly not sufficiently significant to trample the rights of an entire nation.



Let's not forget that, arguably, the most devastating "mass attack" of any kind of 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombings as measured in terms of the sheer number of people affected, didn't require firearms. And, because there were "only" 3 fatalities, it wouldn't count as a mass shooting even if a firearm were used. But 264 injured? That's huge.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."

As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.

We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.

You have just about as good a chance as being killed in a mass shooting as being struck by lightning.

Emotional reactions to these events are simply that - emotional reactions.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/

The FBI's definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths. According to that statistic, as of December 2013, around 900 people had died in the past 7 years. That's under 130 people per year. In a country of 314 MILLION people, that's completely insignificant. Certainly not sufficiently significant to trample the rights of an entire nation.



Let's not forget that, arguably, the most devastating "mass attack" of any kind of 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombings as measured in terms of the sheer number of people affected, didn't require firearms. And, because there were "only" 3 fatalities, it wouldn't count as a mass shooting even if a firearm were used. But 264 injured? That's huge.

Thanks for making my point for me. Before you even fully replied, you already went to the well of "You're more likely to be killed by X than a mass shooting".

Just because it's not likely to happen to every single person in the US, does that mean that the situation should be ignored or that we should somehow pretend that any reaction to them is an "emotional reaction"?

We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.

I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?

As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.

I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Sure, the shooters definitely have a share of blame. They made the choice to do what they did after all.

But do you think the Aurora theater shootings would have happened if he had to use a knife? What about Sandy Hook?

As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.

Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sure, the shooters definitely have a share of blame.

That's honestly one of the most hilarious things I've ever read here.

They made the choice to do what they did after all.

But do you think the Aurora theater shootings would have happened if he had to use a knife? What about Sandy Hook?

If the Aurora guy had had to use a knife? No.

If he'd gone with pressure cookers filled with ball bearings? Would've been even worse.

Sandy Hook? Yeah, I think that could've been done with a knife.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.

I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?

As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.

I dont often agree with seaward,

but when I do,

its because he is correct...


for some reason the anti 2nd amendment types seem to think its impossible to support all the amendments... and believe the democrats havent expanded the patriot act/NSA spying/ect ect to trample the 1st and 4th amendment as well as the republicans.

Read it lound and clear people, the people standing up for the 2nd amendment have also been standing up for the other ones... its the height of will full ignorance to just blanket every supporter of the 2nd amendment as a detractor of the 1st/4th.

mass murder is NOT an american problem, nor is it a gun problem,

plenty of mass murders DO happen with knives, bats, gasolene, and other incindiaries.

below are two, of MANY examples of worse mass murders, with more mundane objects... the TOOL is not the problem, the PERSON and their mental state is.

"A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]"

"Chinese police said Saturday that a disgruntled man set a fire that roared through a commuter bus Friday in Xiamen, leaving 47 people dead including himself, Chinese state media reported."
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/08/world/la-fg-wn-chinese-authorities-arrest-man-for-setting-fatal-bus-fire-that-killed-47-people-20130608

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.

Neither did the Democrats until they decided they didn't like Bush.

Now that Obama's doing it, of course, they're quite mum.

Which makes what point, exactly? Just because one political group or another doesn't call it overreach means it's not overreach? No. Of course it's overreach. If a certain segment of the country's too stupid to realize that, now or then, I don't particularly care, as it doesn't change the facts.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.

Neither did the Democrats until they decided they didn't like Bush.

Now that Obama's doing it, of course, they're quite mum.

Which makes what point, exactly? Just because one political group or another doesn't call it overreach means it's not overreach? No. Of course it's overreach. If a certain segment of the country's too stupid to realize that, now or then, I don't particularly care, as it doesn't change the facts.

The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".

Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?

Not trying to deflect, I'm genuinely curious.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targetted party out of power. Bridgegate.

Check AR15.com...most guys over there are livid about most of these.

Oh yea, to be clear your average hard core gun guy is just this side of Thomas Paine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."

As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.

We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.

Mmm...the police state guy supports gun control. Derp derp who would have guessed.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".

Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?

Not trying to deflect, I'm genuinely curious.

No, because it couldn't have been sold as, "This will let us keep an eye on dangerous foreigners," the way the Patriot Act was. I also think it would be impossible to have a mass shooting inflict anywhere near the economic or psychological damage of 9/11.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".

Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?

Not trying to deflect, I'm genuinely curious.

No, because it couldn't have been sold as, "This will let us keep an eye on dangerous foreigners," the way the Patriot Act was. I also think it would be impossible to have a mass shooting inflict anywhere near the economic or psychological damage of 9/11.

The economic damage? Absolutely not.
The psychological damage? It would depend on where the shooting took place I think. The Beltway Sniper definitely seemed to do a psychological number on DC/Maryland/Virginia.

I do agree with you on what the main reason the Patriot Act succeeded was though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The psychological damage? It would depend on where the shooting took place I think. The Beltway Sniper definitely seemed to do a psychological number on DC/Maryland/Virginia.

I do agree with you on what the main reason the Patriot Act succeeded was though.

Having been in the region when the Beltway sniper crap went down, I'd disagree completely. Nobody was glued to the television for weeks, nobody was not going to school or work, etc. Even the news wasn't covering it non-stop.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Thanks for making my point for me. Before you even fully replied, you already went to the well of "You're more likely to be killed by X than a mass shooting".

Just because it's not likely to happen to every single person in the US, does that mean that the situation should be ignored or that we should somehow pretend that any reaction to them is an "emotional reaction"?

We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?

You clearly do not understand the mathematics involved here.

The above, in bold, does not even begin to approach the improbability of the situation. The odds are something like 1 in 2 and a half MILLION. That is so statistically improbable as to be completely absurd to even consider in your every day life especially when compared with the myriad other things that can kill you.

Your argument is based on irrational emotions. Or, at the very least, it is not founded in reality.



I'm not going to bother to address your second point as you're either trolling or didn't read my other posts in this thread. I'm not OK with ANY government overreach. Most gun owners are livid about things like the Patriot Act, Net Neutrality, etc.

Now half of these guys are already signing and presumably zoning out while he's talking... but still

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c

I think it's funny, seeing all the anti gun people on here saying guns are bad because they kill people, yet alcohol kills way more people in a year and from the posts of a lot of them, they use it and serve it to others. Funny.

I have actually never seen a weapon pick itself up and fire off into a crowd all by lonesome self. Never sprouted arms or eyeball...no hovering around traversing to kill zone...now I have seen someone drop a weapon and have it go off but that resulted in butt hurt for the weapon carrier...for locking the bolt back and loaded magazine..but there is always a human behind the trigger....well a primate can do it to...9lbs trigger squeeze..

Wait a few years. That gun may indeed be shooting itself...

I for one welcome our new Skynet Overlords...

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

I would pay money to see a live debate between the people here on Dakka over a good many subjects, this being one of them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

I don't think that was really his point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I would pay money to see a live debate between the people here on Dakka over a good many subjects, this being one of them.

It'd be fun to discuss over a few beers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.

I'm not misunderstanding, I'm pointing out that ballot boxes, activism and effective court systems have provided a strong check on government over a long period of time... while guns haven't. Ever.

Because there just isn't a nice, easy point where government just starts being a bunch of dicks that everyone can clearly point to and say 'yep, everyone get your guns let's do this'.

And when government does go bad enough long enough that you get a decent number of people wanting to attempt armed resistance, then getting your hands on guns isn't the hard bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression,

That's true. It was all the speech laws to make everybody more PC.

I have no idea if I'm laughing because you told a good joke or because you're serious.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.

That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.