I actually respect that post LoyalSol, bad people will always find a way to do bad shit, although I will always be against giving people guns willynilly exactly because of your point. Shitty people do things, they dont need the help to inflict that on a far greater number of people cause of a bad day. Like its beyond me why they cant just say if your part of a hunters club or whatever the guns get locked up in club house, cause then theirs a hunters club worth of people who cant get loaded after getting fired then go to a screen of Batman or some bullshit such as this.
I’m gonna save this quote because this is the most marxist shit I have read on this site.
Completely left out of the discussion by anti gun people is the notion that guns can be used for defense, which is a, if not THE, primary reason for owning/carrying a gun for many Americans. You can’t just write of the ethical arguments for our natural rights of self defense. Guns are used for self defense far more often than demagogues would have you believe, and there’s no good way to calculate the deterrent effect they have on criminal activity. Suffice to say, if our Aussie friend here had one of our worst going after his mother, she would likely have no chance of stopping a strong young man. Here, even a grandma can wield the power to stop him- and these defenses happen regularly in America (no surprise that the national media largely ignores these occurrences, as it doesn’t fit their anti gun agenda). Much (if not most) of the time, these incidents end without the defending citizen having to even fire, as having a gun pointed at you tends to change your mind real quick. As a result, few of those incidents without discharge get reported- I can attest to this personally after very recently preventing my neighbor from having the shit beaten out of him by a guest who was all fucked up on god knows what- no shots were fired, the police weren’t called. I ordered the man to leave, and he left.
As has been stated many times in this thread, there are over 300 million guns in the country. There isn’t some magic Bolshevik wand your comrades can wave to make them disappear, and efforts to do so would almost certainly lead to massive bloodshed. Even after such an effort, let’s say there was a 90% reduction (which is a very unrealistically high goal in and of itself when you look at the recent efforts of new York)- you’re still left with over 30 million guns here. Who do you think it’s going to have them?
And again, psychotic people of the “mass killer” sort agent going to be deterred by having to put some effort into it. These individuals plan their rampages, and they fully expect to die, our at least be incarcerated for life. Someone in that position will expand all of their resources and credit if needed, and if one method is blocked, they’ll use another. Yeah, it takes a small amount of effort to make a bomb, but someone craving infamy is generally willing to put some effort into it. Or they could just drive a car at high speeds into a crowd- there are no shortage of events that provide such opportunities, one could even go as far as smashing into a crowded building at high speed. For a really high body count, they could emulate the German pilot who simply flew his loaded plane into a mountain.
Like I said before, most of our “gun crime”, and violent crime in general, is concentrated around major urban areas. “Flyover country” is highly saturated with gun ownership, much more so than densely populated towns, and crime (particularly of the violent sort) is much lower there- clearly the density of firearms does not make “gun crime” more prevalent.
Boiled down, how do you stop a violent criminal? How do the police stop them? What does Obama, our any of these shitbag politicians or celebrities who pine for a ban on private ownership of guns expect to stop someone intent on harming them or their families?
The thing is in the case of the Aurora shooting I think in the absence of guns he would have used explosives. The police bomb squad had to disarm several explosives from his apartment so it was clear he could actually make them. If I recall the guy was originally in some kind of graduate program and flunked out.
And when it comes to explosives as a I chemist I can tell you, no way in hell you will ever be able to regulate that without seriously crippling normal economic commerce.
It’s really not Marxist at all. Marxism is not a synonym for totalitarianism except on conservative talk radio and bad parts of our education system.
The fact that Freedom is less important than security is the very foundation of Marxism
Here’s the official definition of terrorism in the U.S. Code: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
Fox News is trying to turn this into an “Attack on Christians” of course.
Predictable in the same way that the left makes anything remotely possible into an attack on victim group x, y, or z.
lofl, this is the rhetoric and logic that leads to the rise of dictators.
Not Marxist. You confuse an economic philosophy with a political one. This dude is raw authoritarian. Dude sounds like all those totalitarian leaders when rationalizing whatever nonsense they try and justify.
Not related to this incident but regarding gun regulations. Good guy with a gun tries to prevent car jacking http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/
https://youtu.be/TFnylaa0znQ
according to that, a domestic terrorist would be a subjective view. “Appear intended” can be fit to anything really, especially if most of the times the killer ends up suiciding or getting shot by police, no way to check his motives, if any.
back in the day it was used mostly if not only to denote political intentions. If a psycho had opened fire on his office because he didn’t get a promotion, wouldn’t have been labeled as a terrorist act before. But now it’s all about buzzwords and hashtags
I see terrorism as any act with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments for ideological and/or political reasons.
I prefer this one:
In CHICAGO, of all places.
Hope the Texan man gets put away for grievous bodily harm and criminal negligence.
so this guy wouldn’t be a terrorist in your eyes based on your definition? BTW I’m not disagreeing, just double checking
that “ninja” is SRK’s Chainman Eddie
good point. i think we should limit reading SRK forums to 15 minutes maximum a week.
FYI that definition falls in line with what the government considers as (domestic) terrorism.
More information needs to be revealed in regards to the intentions of the shooter. Based on some articles, religious and political intentions may have played a part in this mass shooting. With the shooter dead, law enforcement and their investigators can only piece together information and create the narrative from there.
Besides the whole “is this terrorism or not?” topic, there are other factors that played a part in this mass shooting.
Oregon shooter’s father: Gun laws have to change
I’m dying at this whole “mental illness” defense because it’s used to distract from the very real problem of too many guns being easily available to anyone. Mental illness is majority non-violent and to try to put those who commit mass murder under that umbrella is dishonest politics.
For real. MechWarrior the kind of guy who gives up his freedoms for the false sense of security. I bet he’d let the Gov bug his home phone because it makes him feel safer.