Active shooter at YouTube HQ

[SMOGZINN]

Now, if people are advocating for no guns in the USA, that would be the most retarded suggestion ever. Because it would lead to civil war, which would cause a shit ton more deaths than allowing people to have guns.

Which is probably the best argument I've ever heard for removing the guns. If people are actually so attached to their toys, and lets face it guns are toys for the vast majority of people, that they would start a war that would kill millions to keep them, we need to do something about this. It tells me that gun culture in America has become so toxic that it is literally killing this nation.

 

[Bird222]

Prove me wrong.

What's your plan to reduce it?

Been said before
1. Universal background check for all firearm sales (except maybe to family members). Make it easy and possibly free to private citizens and have every state keep it updated.
2. Better mental health services
3. Possibly a waiting period.

See I can answer a direct question.

 

[purbeast0]

Damn I'm just coming to this thread to find some news on the shooting at YT HQ but all I see are a buncha people waving their dicks around.

/sadface

 

[kage69]

It's not even five minutes, surely you can watch it?

Summary: Gun grabbers have woken the conservatives. Mid term election polling has shifted more Republican. Going after guns is a losing issue. Arguing with teenagers is a losing issue.

Citation please.

After what has happened in AL, PA and FL to republicans prospects, I'll wager a guess and say you're pulling some wishful/hopeful thinking out of your ass. Dump currently has a huge 'buyers remorse' issue with his voters, ask any farmer. Prove me wrong. Real sources, not Faux or Breitbart.

 

[kage69]

just another liberal wacko going over the edge

Yeah, so that means we're up to what? 2? 3?

Meanwhile incidents of right wing terror are what, in the triple digits? Over 360 I think (IIRC from last thread about it)

Yep, Both Sides.

 

[Commodus]

I think you're wrong. I always had the right to self-defense with available tools to achieve that. The constitution didn't grant me that right. The 2A says that the government can't infringe on that right I already had. The BOR puts restrictions on the government not grant rights.

Self-defense and a right to bear arms aren't the same, though. One is the actual human right; the other is merely one of numerous options for enforcing that right. You can defend yourself with a knife or a baseball bat; firearms are a civil right, because politicians in 1791 decided that firearms were important enough for defense to be guaranteed.

I mean, if you're going to argue that any restriction on weapons for self-defense is an infringement of a basic human right, then you must argue that you have a right to own a machine gun, rocket launcher or anything that can conceivably be used for that purpose. But that's not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for.

 

[ivwshane]

If this shooting isn't an example of why AR type weapons should be banned then I don't know what is. How many people died because she chose a hand gun?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Been said before
1. Universal background check for all firearm sales (except maybe to family members). Make it easy and possibly free to private citizens and have every state keep it updated.
2. Better mental health services
3. Possibly a waiting period.

See I can answer a direct question.

So what's your number then? Since that's what you seem to focus on.

I answered your question, you just don't like it.

Edit: I should add I think you have a good start there.

 

[woodman1999]

Aren't there a million other threads on this forum dedicated to a back and forth about yay guns vs boo guns? Isn't this ongoing discussion a bit of a threadjacking? Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread is meant to discuss, inform, and post condolences about what is going on at Youtube's headquarters, not to continue the battle that is raging in a bunch of other threads here. I know it's P&N so I guess it should be expected, but jesus christ...

Just my 2 cents

 

[Bird222]

So what's your number then? Since that's what you seem to focus on.

I answered your question, you just don't like it.

Edit: I should add I think you have a good start there.

I asked you first.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I asked you first.

/rolleyes. I gave you my answer, if you don't wanna throw out a magic number, that's fine.

 

[Bird222]

Self-defense and a right to bear arms aren't the same, though. One is the actual human right; the other is merely one of numerous options for enforcing that right. You can defend yourself with a knife or a baseball bat; firearms are a civil right, because politicians in 1791 decided that firearms were important enough for defense to be guaranteed.

I mean, if you're going to argue that any restriction on weapons for self-defense is an infringement of a basic human right, then you must argue that you have a right to own a machine gun, rocket launcher or anything that can conceivably be used for that purpose. But that's not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If there was no government and we were out in the jungle and I wanted to use a rock, boulder, or if I was able to construct a weapon that fired projectiles I was born with the right to do that. The 2A just told the government it didn't have the right to infringe on it. I think this is part of the problem is that a lot of people think that the government grants them rights instead of thinking 'I was born free' and I can do what I want (within certain limits of course). The constitution solidifies the limits on the government so people can stay free.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Which is probably the best argument I've ever heard for removing the guns. If people are actually so attached to their toys, and lets face it guns are toys for the vast majority of people, that they would start a war that would kill millions to keep them, we need to do something about this. It tells me that gun culture in America has become so toxic that it is literally killing this nation.

I'm all for removing guns, I don't own a gun and don't plan on it. At most a shotgun at home for protection. However, bringing the conversation back to something more realistic, how can you remove guns from a country that has so many guns already in people's hands? It's impossible without starting a civil war.

If this shooting isn't an example of why AR type weapons should be banned then I don't know what is. How many people died because she chose a hand gun?

In this situation, your argument doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure she would've been spotted carrying an AR type weapon around before even getting into the building. She was able to do what she did in the Youtube HQ because the weapon was concealable. She probably could've done the same with a knife.

 

[Bird222]

/rolleyes. I gave you my answer, if you don't wanna throw out a magic number, that's fine.

You gave an answer but you didn't answer the question I asked you. Hmm, there must be a reason you don't want to say.

 

[Bird222]

I'm all for removing guns, I don't own a gun and don't plan on it. At most a shotgun at home for protection. However, bringing the conversation back to something more realistic, how can you remove guns from a country that has so many guns already in people's hands? It's impossible without starting a civil war.



In this situation, your argument doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure she would've been spotted carrying an AR type weapon around before even getting into the building. She was able to do what she did in the Youtube HQ because the weapon was concealable. She probably could've done the same with a knife.

Ok so if we are not going to remove all guns, what can be done that is constitutional? I agree what you said about ivwshane's comment. Just look at Virginia Tech done with handguns.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You gave an answer but you didn't answer the question I asked you. Hmm, there must be a reason you don't want to say.

Guess you must have a reason too then. I don't think the question has any real implications other than feels. At this point, a trend in the opposite direction from what we're seeing is good.

 

[brycejones]

Aren't there a million other threads on this forum dedicated to a back and forth about yay guns vs boo guns? Isn't this ongoing discussion a bit of a threadjacking? Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread is meant to discuss, inform, and post condolences about what is going on at Youtube's headquarters, not to continue the battle that is raging in a bunch of other threads here. I know it's P&N so I guess it should be expected, but jesus christ...

Just my 2 cents

WTF is the point of that? Thoughts and prayers are the coward's way of saying "nothing to be done here, let me make an empty gesture so I feel better about doing nothing". This threads get this way because I believe most liberals are flat out disgusted that we keep having these events and elect to do exactly nothing about it beyond more empty gestures.

If you need your safe space to make empty gestures a shooting thread isn't going to be it in P&N.

 

[Bird222]

Guess you must have a reason too then. I don't think the question has any real implications other than feels. At this point, a trend in the opposite direction from what we're seeing is good.

I don't view it as feels but the anti side has to accept that people are going to die from guns sometimes and there is a point that it doesn't make sense to propose new laws. It is sad and unfortunate that people will die but you just can't eliminate all risks from life including dealing with guns. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and stop the invention of guns. They are here and we have to accept a certain level of risk with their existence just like we will with self-driving cars or anything else that's invented.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't view it as feels but the anti side has to accept that people are going to die from guns sometimes and there is a point that it doesn't make sense to propose new laws. It is sad and unfortunate that people will die but you just can't eliminate all risks from life including dealing with guns. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and stop the invention of guns. They are here and we have to accept a certain level of risk with their existence just like we will with self-driving cars or anything else that's invented.

Accidents happen, sure. Intentional gun deaths are the focus here.


So you don't have a magic number?

 

[brycejones]

I don't view it as feels but the anti side has to accept that people are going to die from guns sometimes and there is a point that it doesn't make sense to propose new laws. It is sad and unfortunate that people will die but you just can't eliminate all risks from life including dealing with guns. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and stop the invention of guns. They are here and we have to accept a certain level of risk with their existence just like we will with self-driving cars or anything else that's invented.

NM

 

[Younigue]

Settle down, you're not remotely close to clever enough to troll here yet. Give it another 10 years.

There is no point in getting worked up about yet another nutjob who just happened to be female, regardless of whether you feel baited by what someone else wrote or not.

Thanks for the advice sweetie! I'm gonna go ahead and be me.

btw, explosive laughter at the level of confidence in appointing yourself as a condescending guide to appropriate behavior. I could almost feel the pat on my head. Ain'chu just s'precious?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm all for removing guns, I don't own a gun and don't plan on it. At most a shotgun at home for protection. However, bringing the conversation back to something more realistic, how can you remove guns from a country that has so many guns already in people's hands? It's impossible without starting a civil war.

It is quite possible, it just takes time. Very few people think that it is a good idea to go door to door asking for people to hand over their guns. That argument is just a scare tactic. No reasonable person wants that. What most want is a gradual process where we make it harder to get new guns through a combination of bans, taxes, and controls and then combine that with incentives for people to disarm themselves voluntarily with buy backs and for stiff penalties for illegal use of banned weapons, all of which will faze out guns over time.

 

[Younigue]

Glad we can agree to hate each other; Or at least, completely disagree.

Sure.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't view it as feels but the anti side has to accept that people are going to die from guns sometimes and there is a point that it doesn't make sense to propose new laws.

The anti side accepts that. We just think that we are very far from that point. We have a lot of evidence from other countries that we can improve on our current numbers drastically.

 

[Younigue]

I know right! Let's not do anything about the mental health system let's ban inanimate objects!

Fu*king idiot! Let's do both. Is that concept too difficult to grasp?