active shooter in california

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:34 am #137873

Bottom post of the previous page:

Apparently, the shooting was muslims

Post by **lumipharon** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:37 am #137875

USA has x32 more gun related homicides per capita, then australia does.

Takeguru · Post by **Takeguru** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:49 am #137879

Steelpoint wrote:(who needs a automatic weapon?)

I'm just going to be that guy for a second(amendment)
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:55 am #137881

Usa does a lot of things wrong when it comes to crime, it has real problems - an absurd homicide rate, and also an absurd home invasion rate. I recall a statistic (from some Discovery channel show, so take it with a grain of salt) that the average American has a 1/3 chance of getting their home invaded at least once in their life. In terms of mass shootongs though, they are mostly irrelevant in the big picture. Most gun crime happens within families, when disturbances escalate. And here there are two common arguments: That if disturbances escalate and there are no guns, the person will use a knife instead. This argument doesn't hold water in most cases, as a knife is much more difficult to use than a knife, and also much easier to defend against. A novice gun owner might misfire or miss the target or hurt themselves, sure, but they have a much higher chance of success than a novice knife user. The other common argument is that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will do it no matter if guns are available or not. This one is completely true, but a constant factor with or without guns. These make up the minority of murders. They are not the ones gun control lessens - the ones that it does lessen are "sudden rage" murders, which are the most common ones. (I researched this stuff like 2 years ago from the FBI records, I really don't want to go through that again)

The solution is neither mental health nor gun control but a mixture and probably even more. See, I doubt any gun enthusiast who advocates for mental health requirements would agree to yearly mental health checks. Plus I heard arguments about homicide rates going down, which is true, but they are so far above the norm from the rest of the world that the argument isn't sufficient. They may still plateau before reaching normal levels. It's encouraging, don't get me wrong, but isn't sufficient evidence that the current way things are done solves the issue.

The reason Europe and Australia are fine is that they never got themselves into this mess in the first place. I guess we know how to avoid this mess, we don't have a clue how to fix it though. Nobody does. We can high horse as much as we want about how and why things are better here, but the situation in the US is a problem which needs a curative solution. We only know the preventative solution.

DrPillzRedux · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:05 am

California has a 10 day rule for gun purchases. You pay for the gun up-front, get a background check, and then you must wait 10 days to pick up the gun. It's to prevent "crimes of passion" where someone could just go out and buy a gun in an hour then go gun down their wife or whatever. It doesn't do much and neither does all the restrictions on gun mechanisms and the magazine capacity limit. AR style rifles and handguns must be on a CA approved list to even be sold here. You have to register all purchases and the weapons serial number with your local government as well. Most of the gun deaths around here are either gangbangers using weapons smuggled in through the border or idiots not checking their guns before cleaning them.

It all boils down to humans being humans. If someone wants to kill someone they will. A gun ban is impossible in the US anyway since civilians own 10x more firepower than the military and, if a civil war actually happened, I doubt most of those in service would be willing to gun down or bomb their fellow countrymen.

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:18 am #137887

I highly doubt the US citizenry would be able to beat the US military. Actually... I think it's completely impossible. The most elite forces and command of the US military are extremely intertwined and checked from all angles. This is to ensure no coup attempts happen and to prevent intelligence leakage. The ones who control the deadliest weapons the US forces have - from armour, air power to warships and all the way to the nuclear arsenal - are trained to only listen to military orders. The highest command of the US is under no pretense that it only listens to the president of the US.

Now I'm sure the structure is way more leaky than I claim here, but even so I think that if the whole national guard and 50% of the rest of the army (excluding command) turned against the government, the government would still win.

The weapons today are organization and information, not guns. And the government has absolute dominance of those.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:30 am #137892

LiamLime wrote:I highly doubt the US citizenry would be able to beat the US military. Actually... I think it's completely impossible. The most elite forces and command of the US military are extremely intertwined and checked from all angles. This is to ensure no coup attempts happen and to prevent intelligence leakage. The ones who control the deadliest weapons the US forces have - from armour, air power to warships and all the way to the nuclear arsenal - are trained to only listen to military orders. The highest command of the US is under no pretense that it only listens to the president of the US.

Now I'm sure the structure is way more leaky than I claim here, but even so I think that if the whole national guard and 50% of the rest of the army (excluding command) turned against the government, the government would still win.

The weapons today are organization and information, not guns. And the government has absolute dominance of those.

The people don't have to get a military victory
If every time the military tries to do shit, there's a civilian they have to shoot(Who may shoot back and score a lucky hit), it is going to weigh very heavily on morale. A couple of sandpeople with AKs managed to give the US military a shitload of trouble for decades now. The US has a LOT of rural land too, and the infrastructure functions on a 'hope nobody notices its vulnerable' principle.

If they ever get even a few organisations to start shit, the economy is dead, the army will be demoralised for having to shoot their own citizens, and they'd worry that any time they walk across the street someone might shoot them. The feeling that there is nowhere that they're safe at all will get to them in time.
And that's without the political issues resulting from something like that

That is the power of the second amendment as far as preventing tyranny goes.
They can't take out the military in a straight up fight, but they sure as fuck can make life for said military and the politicians hell

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:39 am #137893

I think you're overestimating the citizenry's power and making quite incorrect assumptions about some of the military's loyalty, as well as underestimating some of its power. The most a civil resistance movement could do in the US would be to occupy some military installations and then get blown to shit by the air wing. That would stop any further attempts at revolution dead in its tracks.

The military is also extremely good at pumping its fighters full of hatred for "the other". It convinced itself that dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian city was the right thing to do in WW2. It convinced itself that "the only good communist is a dead communist". You really seem to underestimate the military's ability to convince its pawns on their superiority and "the other"-s evil. And much like they've done in the past, so could they for the revolutionaries. They could easily label them with some word and make that word enemy #1. The rebels would thus no longer be known as "Americans", instead being known by this new word - much like american citizens who believed in communism were known as "communists", and not "American citizens".

And in terms of guerrilla warfare: Sure, fine, revolutionaries could do some guerrilla damage, much like they do in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is no chance these attacks could weaken the government enough for it to fall. At most they would be an annoyance to them, which would likely hurt the American people more than the government.

The 2nd amendment gives zero protection against the government.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:45 am #137896

People joke about tinfoil hat wearing militia men but the sad fact is we actually do need our right to private ownership of firearms because our government has the potential and history to be that fucking awful.

Eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

To say nothing of the multiple instances in which justice would've been better served if an armed citizen had shot and killed a police officer to prevent them from murdering them in their own homes over a case of mistaken identity or wrongful intrusion.

Or the times when the people we incorrectly assume to be better than us and always protect us and more responsible with firearms turn out to be just as fucked and insane as anyone else

Tell me how banning firearms would've prevented those incidents or made those people more safe from gun violence?

These are the people that are okay to have guns? We don't need to protect ourselves when we have people like these watching over us?

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:49 am #137897

LiamLime wrote:I think you're overestimating the citizenry's power and making quite incorrect assumptions about some of the military's loyalty, as well as underestimating some of its power. The most a civil resistance movement could do in the Us was occupy some military installations and then get blown to shit by the air wing. That would stop any further attempts at revolution dead in its track.

The military is extremely good at pumping its fighters full of hatred for "the other". It convinced itself that dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian city was the right thing to do in WW2. It convinced itself that "the only good communist is a dead communist". You really seem to underestimate the military's ability to convince its pawns on their superiority. And much like they've done in the past, so could they for the revolutionaries. They could easily label them with some word and make that word enemy #1. The rebels would thus no longer be known as "Americans", instead being known by this new word - much like american citizens who believed in communism were known as "communists", and not "American citizens".

The 2nd amendment gives zero protection against the government.

Why would a civil resistance movement occupy a military installation?
They may as well just line up and execute themselves if they're going to do that. If there's a resistance movement, they're going to target the infastructure. Bridges, phone lines, and so on. This may not stop the military, but it's going to fuck the economy hard.
I believe you may be underestimating how much of a human soldiers stay. They're going to find that soldiers really don't like shooting people who live in the same country, in similar communities, and may even be distantly related to them. Propaganda sure didn't do shit in convincing the world that ISIS is just moderate rebels and Assad is a torturing bully, and it will work even less if it's being used against americans. Soldiers are not automatons, they're people still. And no amount of this drilling and propaganda will convince them all

Even during WW2 there were soldiers defecting and in many cases trying to get to neutral grounds such as Switzerland. From both sides. And that's not even counting all the soldiers drinking themselves silly after they returned home with PTSD across all ages

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:49 am #137898

There is a case to be made about police assumptions though. Because people can and do have guns on them in the US, police are way quicker on the trigger than they are in Europe - simply for their own safety. In Europe, a police officer's assumption isn't that the perpetrator is armed by default, so their approach can be much less aggressive, while remaining safe for them. The same actually applies to street robbery and home invasion. A robber's approach will be much harsher in the US than in Europe, since in the US they assume the victim is armed, whereas in Europe they assume the victim is unarmed.

I'm by no means saying "Ban guns and this goes away", it's however a thing to consider.

XSI, people regretting it later or a minority defecting doesn't change outcomes. The nuke was dropped and soldiers fought, even if there were voices against it. Also economic damage means jack shit when dealing with a tyrannical government. You want their policies overturned, not phone lines being destroyed. Guerrilla stuff is merely a part of warfare. If you want the policies overturned, you need to destroy the ones enforcing them, which the US populace could not do, no matter how much you stretch your imagination.

Takeguru · Post by **Takeguru** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:51 am #137899

LiamLime wrote:At most they would be an annoyance to them,

TBH, if pressed I'd rather go out as an annoyance than get my door kicked in by a nice hefty pair of jackboots and get hauled off.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:58 am #137900

LiamLime wrote:There is a case to be made about police assumptions though. Because people can and do have guns on them in the US, police are way quicker on the trigger than they are in Europe - simply for their own safety. In Europe, a police officer's assumption isn't that the perpetrator is armed by default, so their approach can be much less aggressive, while remaining safe for them. The same actually applies to street robbery and home invasion. A robber's approach will be much harsher in the US than in Europe, since in the US they assume the victim is armed, whereas in Europe they assume the victim is unarmed.

I'm by no means saying "Ban guns and this goes away", it's however a thing to consider.

And you are now aware that gun ownership in France, Germany and Austria is similar to some of the more peaceful US states. Go ahead and look it up, those guns are out there. Even in Britain there's a shitton of shotguns around. Cops know this and yet they still assume people are unarmed

Europe just doesn't use these guns for the same thing the US does. We don't need to all carry a gun, and those things are expensive. So why would we?
People want guns because a place is unsafe, as can be seen in Austrian gun shops literally running out of stock following the massive muslim immigrant waves

Get rid of things being unsafe and all the shit society factors going on, and guns will no longer be a problem. Banning guns is blaming the symptoms rather than curing the problem. And that is why it will never work

Edit, because more stuff

XSI, people regretting it later or a minority defecting doesn't change outcomes. The nuke was dropped and soldiers fought, even if there were voices against it. Also economic damage means jack shit when dealing with a tyrannical government. You want their policies overturned, not phone lines being destroyed. Guerrilla stuff is merely a part of warfare. If you want the policies overturned, you need to destroy the ones enforcing them, which the US populace could not do, no matter how much you stretch your imagination.

With sufficient economic damage, and loud enough voices against it then eventually people will join the movement, or those in charge will reconsider. That's how it has always been in history so far and it is unlikely to change. In fact, with the internet allowing us to connect with eachother globally, create communities and friends on a global basis, propaganda will be less effective overall, as there will be dissenting voices in almost everyone's communities.
Nukes dropped, soldiers fought. And yeah, that they did. But that's not a long term guerrilla warfare thing. That's military on military warfare.
The goal of such a resistance movement is not to destroy the army and claim victory. It's to be a pain in the arse to the point that it's just plain not worth doing tyranny in the first place. Kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction.
Sure, they can roll out the jackboots and start kicking puppies.
But they're going to lose a shitload of resources doing it, and they're going to send the country into potentially a civil war (Keep in mind that when declaring independence from Britain at first only 3% of the population fought. 3% of today's 300 million US population would be a pretty sizable force)

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:59 am #137901

I'd likely be the first to flee. I don't give a crap about the name of the nation that governs me, or the names of the people in power, or the symbol that is on administrative buildings, or whatever. The neighboring country is perfectly fine too, as is its neighbor and its neighbor and its neighbor. Unless all of Europe was at war, I'd have no reason to fight.

US's independence war is overblown in spectacularity when taught in the US. It was a war against an expeditionary force, in which the US played a minor role, the major one being played by France. As much as people in the US like to stick their fingers in their ears and scream loudly when this fact is mentioned, but the 13 colonies weren't all that important to Britain back then. By far the most important parts were in the Caribbean.

Another fact that is often forgotten in the whole freedoms argument is that the business owners in the 13 colonies were some of the richest British citizens, being taxed way less than people living on Britain itself. Even things like the Boston tea party was the result of a misunderstanding. Before then, tea which came from the west indies had to stop in Britain before going to the US. This means it incurred import and export dues in Britain and then import dues in the US. The tea that was dumped was either the first or one of the first shipments where this was repelled, so the shipment came directly from the east indies, without first stopping in Britain, meaning it was taxed less. The uprising came because of some dumb misunderstanding relating to how they thought they would now have to pay the whole tax or some BS. In general, I find it really strange how some moments in US history are glorified beyond all reason.

And yes, this is an attempt to get off the gun and military thing, because there's no point saying much more there. If you get comfort from your 2nd amendment and genuinely believe it has any sort of impact on whether or not you can rise up against the government in a series of terrorist attacks... sure, don't let me stop you.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:20 am #137903

[youtube]Lr42WETzt48[/youtube]
~2.5 years old, but I think his point is still valid.

leibniz · Post by **leibniz** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:26 am #137904

I feel like the Second Amendment was made in a time were people were more decent. Like, the State treats people as adults and assumes that retarded virgins wont shoot random people.
Strict gun control would be like saying "We are shit, we dont deserve guns anymore".

And I agree with the people saying that the root causes need to be addressed. Poverty, lack of education, etc.
But I guess there are a lot more people in the US now than when the 2nd amendment was written, and with this many you will always have a few rotten apples. And those few will find a way even without guns.

Regarding the army, I wouldn't assume that they would fight their fellow citizens without problems. Warships wouldnt fire cruise missiles at cities and whatever, that's insane.
But there is a solution to that, drones. Easy to use, you only need a few CoD kiddies with no morals to multibox like 20 drones and you can order them to pop anyone who is holding anything that resembles a stick/camera whatever and they will be just like "+100, back in the lead ayyy".

rdght91 · Post by **rdght91** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:29 am #137905

leibniz wrote:I feel like the Second Amendment was made in a time were people were more decent. Like, the State treats people as adults and assumes that retarded virgins wont shoot random people.
Strict gun control would be like saying "We are shit, we dont deserve guns anymore".

People were never more decent in the past. 200 or more years ago, you were several more likely to get robbed and murdered in a nice part of town than today if you decided to walk through south central LA.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence ... homicides/

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:33 am #137907

I'm pretty sure the amendment was due to the possible threat of invasion from Great Britain or similar, and that the US did not have as such a powerful army as it has today back in its early days.

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:38 am #137909

People didn't change, what changed is the world around them and the tools the 2nd amendment covers.

There are now more reasons for depression, stress and anxiety, more known and unknown brain altering substances (from drugs to sweets to unknown food additives and medication), there is more information available, more health and education available, the population is way denser, the distribution of wealth and the wealth disparity probably changed (I wouldn't know in which way), and (I think) most importantly, guns are now way more powerful than the swords, muskets and french pistols the amendment writers had in mind.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:39 am #137910

Steelpoint wrote:I'm pretty sure the amendment was due to the possible threat of invasion from Great Britain or similar, and that the US did not have as such a powerful army as it has today back in its early days.

They also still had native tribes around who did not always like settlers coming and settling their land

Post by **lumipharon** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:19 am #137914

A musket is not comparable to an assault rifle, or even a hand gun.
You aint hiding a musket down your pants and going on a shootin rampage, that's for sure.

Also there's the fact that the 2nd amendment was quite possibly referring specificaly to militia, (they even required all men between 18 and 45 or some shit to be in militias).
Blame shitty wording.

Cik · Post by **Cik** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:31 am #137915

the second amendment has nothing to do with militias, and you could easily conceal a bunch of pistols in your pants and go on a shooting spree in 1700+

"muh muskets" is the most retarded thing in the world because muskets were what EVERYONE was armed with then, it was the line weapon, which means it's reasonable to assume that the document doesn't care about "military grade" weapons or whatever that garbage people constantly go on about.

the whole point in owning the musket was that so you could shoot king george ### in the dick if he came to take your freedumbs. it being a capable MILITARY GRADE weapon was the entire point.

Incomptinence · Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:32 am

Yes reducing your gun numbers is not the sole answer. Societal problems are complex and require multifaceted solutions true.

Shifting the entire load to fucking curing poverty, unhappiness, religion, fucking anything that has been involved in a shooting ever may as well just be throwing your hands up in the fucking air though since unless things are dealt with piecemeal you never start anywhere. Oh no we can never control those Mexican gun runners but we will cure the human condition!

1g88a · Post by **1g88a** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:34 am #137917

[youtube]4Sl4EjFaUTc[/youtube]

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:35 am #137918

Last time I checked, so take it with a pinch of salt, but the state of Mental Health care (and medical care in general) is very poor in the United States.

There's a difference between curing world hunger and having a well established mental health care system, which can't be a big ask for the most powerful nation on Earth?

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:42 am #137920

It won't solve the problem completely though. There are two extremes, even with mental health being good: either every single gun owner and their families need to go on regular assesments (good luck convincing people to accept that), or you treat people with mental issues after they have already commited their crime. You can't tell who has mental issues just by looking at them...

This also has little effect on the majority of murders: the ones that happen during arguments and dissahreements... or hell, gang related stuff.

DrPillzRedux · Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:49 am

You can't fix being human.

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:50 am #137922

Which is why you fix the environment humans are in.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:51 am #137923

In Australia you need to undergo a rigorous back ground check, as well as prove you have a legitimate reason to want to own a fire arm, self-defence is not a good reason to own a firearm. Also certain fire arms cannot be owned at all such as assault rifles or similar.

But going on and on about Australia and the US you have to see the massive differences, aside from the amendment there's the fact the NRA exist in the US, no similar organization of such influence existed in Australia at any point to contest gun control.

DrPillzRedux · Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:52 am

That won't do anything. There will always be people who will be depressed, murder, rape, be poor, and so on.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:58 am #137926

DrPillzRedux wrote:That won't do anything. There will always be people who will be depressed, murder, rape, be poor, and so on.

Then why bother with anything with that attitude?

While hotly debated there is a clear indication that when gun control legislation was introduced in Australia that gun related deaths saw a drop.

leibniz · Post by **leibniz** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:01 am #137927

>gun death

those include suicides

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:02 am #137928

Well... to be fair, that does look like a natural curve, which may not have been affected at all by the law change... Additionally that's gun deaths, what you should be showing is homicides.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:45 am #137930

Suicide via fire arm fell by around 50% over time after the legislation.

Also I noted how its 'hotly debated' over what effect the law change had on gun violence and death.

Maccus · Post by **Maccus** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:12 am #137933

Drynwyn wrote:
oranges wrote:You have to apply gun laws on a national level for them to make sense, enforcements at a local state level make no sense, since there are no internal borders in the USA.
Oranges is sense. I was gonna write a long and thoroughly reasoned post about gun control in conjunction with mental health and societal reform initiatives, but then I realized that would be pointless since nobody who didn't agree with my opening viewpoint would bother to read my reasoning, so I suplexed a boulder instead and that made me happy.

the moral: distribute a copy of undertale, a shitty monitor, and a Raspberry Pie to a bunch of people. bet you gun violence would go down.

Is it a legal requirement for Undertale fans to be annoying?

Incomptinence · Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:20 am

I would rather have a downward trend than a sine wave of hand wringing then doing nothing and having it happen all over again.

Super Aggro Crag · Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:59 am

Oops the cops killed two of them and found out they were arab and one had a vagina, quick rewrite your reports calling it workplace violence instead of terrorism and try to find another way to pin it on disaffected white male youth.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:21 pm #137959

An0n3 wrote:I'm confused

How can you tell a facility for disabled children apart from the rest of California?

White kids

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:37 pm #137972

Steelpoint wrote:Suicide via fire arm fell by around 50% over time after the legislation.

Also I noted how its 'hotly debated' over what effect the law change had on gun violence and death.

>Huge spike of non-firearm suicides after taking away their guns.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:44 pm #137973

Not as easily comparable since you can see that non-gun suicides in total increased by about 1 or so per 100,000 in short order, whereas firearm suicides only decreased by about 0.5 per 100,000.

Either way my point stands, its far easier to execute a mass killing with ranged automatic weapons, or weapons with large magazines, versus having to use either a melee weapon or a lower grade firearm with a small magazine.

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:48 pm #137975

The point is including suicides in any death toll related to a thing is dumb.

People are gonna off themselves with or without guns.

Takeguru · Post by **Takeguru** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:49 pm #137976

Steelpoint wrote:Not as easily comparable since you can see that non-gun suicides in total increased by about 1 or so per 100,000 in short order, whereas firearm suicides only decreased by about 0.5 per 100,000.

Either way my point stands, its far easier to execute a mass killing with ranged automatic weapons, or weapons with large magazines, versus having to use either a melee weapon or a lower grade firearm with a small magazine.

It's actually far easier to commit a mass killing with a bomb, but I don't see fertilizer and shit being banned.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:51 pm #137977

oranges wrote:You have to apply gun laws on a national level for them to make sense, enforcements at a local state level make no sense, since there are no internal borders in the USA.

except this will never happen because "muh states rights"

also the majority of gun owners don't care about protecting themselves so much as either getting drunk on moonshine and shooting shit and/or wanking over gun stats and/or being jack bauer in their apocalyptic revenge fantasy

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:05 pm #137979

bandit wrote:also the majority of gun owners don't care about protecting themselves so much as either getting drunk on moonshine and shooting shit and/or wanking over gun stats and/or being jack bauer in their apocalyptic revenge fantasy

Now that's an asspull if i've ever seen one. Shouldn't this go in the "We can't have a mature discussion on the forums" thread?

DrPillzRedux · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:16 pm

I own a few guns, one of which is a shotgun I got specifically for home defense as I live near a ghetto and crackheads like to break into houses and kill people when they get caught. There's no reasoning with them and good luck physically stopping them when they're out of their mind.

I don't get drunk on moonshine either.

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:19 pm #137983

Takeguru wrote:It's actually far easier to commit a mass killing with a bomb, but I don't see fertilizer and shit being banned.

Actually bomb ingredients are tracked in the US. You attract a lot of attention if you buy the components for bombs.

Takeguru · Post by **Takeguru** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:22 pm #137984

Yeah, but you don't buy them all at once unless you're asking to get caught.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:14 pm #137988

Saegrimr wrote:
Steelpoint wrote:Suicide via fire arm fell by around 50% over time after the legislation.

Also I noted how its 'hotly debated' over what effect the law change had on gun violence and death.
>Huge spike of non-firearm suicides after taking away their guns.

Guess they really couldn't live without guns.

#bombs - bombs are really really hard to make without blowing yourself up, and their damage potential is pretty limited, if it goes off at all.
Guns? Pretty reliable, easy to use, easy to acquire (even in place where they're banned), and as Paris (and America) have shown us... pretty easily to get a high kill streak.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:24 pm #137991

That's the same shit as when ye olde England stopped using some kind of sleeping gas in the ovens.
When people no longer had the easy way out to stick their head in the oven and turn on the gas, they just didn't find some other way to kill themselves. They just went on living

LiamLime · Post by **LiamLime** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:29 pm #137992

Much like homicides, which are a result of arguments escalating, suicides are often the result of potent depression attacks. Much like easy access to a weapon raises the chance that an enraged person will attempt to kill the person who enraged them, so does the presence of a weapon increase the chance that the depressed person will commit suicide.

The lack of an easily accessible weapon will delay any homicide or suicide attempt, often long enough for the rage or depression attack to subside enough for them to reconsider. Obviously this doesn't cover all homicides or suicides out there, but it covers a very large amount.

Deitus · Post by **Deitus** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:15 pm #137995

100th reply

guns r bad