Florida High School Shooting

[realibrad]

Now how does that counter what I said in relation to Trump? He constantly complains the media isn't talking about X, Y or Z instead of A. They have reported on them. But he demands they do it more. The problem is Trump does A-W and those outweigh the rest.

You just described above exactly what I was talking about. He think it should be 50-50 even if there isn't a 50-50 balance in what's being talked about. He demands other things be discussed instead.

Because the idea should not be his as it was around long before him. The reason I think that is important is if people just focus on Trump and not on the issues that lead to Trump we could remove him and mistakenly believe our problems are solved. Removing Trump would reduce our problems, but we only elected him because we had not been managing them effectively before him.

 

[Stokely]

The Taliban fought the Soviet Union and the U.S. with mostly small arms and seemed to do OK, and Afghanistan is also a lot smaller in area than the entire U.S.

Somehow I'm having issues comparing the average gun-toting American, living very much in comparative luxury compared to 99.9% of the world, to poor tribes of Afghans roughing it out in some of the toughest terrain on earth for generations. Any militia here would get slaughtered in short order against our army, and I'd guess most of them wouldn't have the stomach for a long resistance. They'd have to hope the army defected and joined them (which is possible)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Somehow I'm having issues comparing the average gun-toting American, living very much in comparative luxury compared to 99.9% of the world, to poor tribes of Afghans roughing it out in some of the toughest terrain on earth for generations. Any militia here would get slaughtered in short order against our army, and I'd guess most of them wouldn't have the stomach for a long resistance. They'd have to hope the army defected and joined them (which is possible)

Exactly remember the Bundy Boys Band of Brothers at the wildlife reserve. Didn’t the get a pizza craving and order some takeout or something similarly crazy.

 

[glenn1]

Somehow I'm having issues comparing the average gun-toting American, living very much in comparative luxury compared to 99.9% of the world, to poor tribes of Afghans roughing it out in some of the toughest terrain on earth for generations. Any militia here would get slaughtered in short order against our army, and I'd guess most of them wouldn't have the stomach for a long resistance. They'd have to hope the army defected and joined them (which is possible)

Likelihood of success is a lot different question than 'is it possible." Odds wouldn't be good, but then again they weren't good during the American Revolution either. And honestly the differences that drove that revolution are probably a lot lesser than current political divides; a few percent tax on tea and Stamp Taxes were enough to start a war back then so imagine what would be the reaction to today's big dividing issues.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Likelihood of success is a lot different question than 'is it possible." Odds wouldn't be good, but then again they weren't good during the American Revolution either. And honestly the differences that drove that revolution are probably a lot lesser than current political divides; a few percent tax on tea and Stamp Taxes were enough to start a war back then so imagine what would be the reaction to today's big dividing issues.

More than just taxes on stamps, I live near where it began. It’s part of the culture
but again point taken

 

[glenn1]

More than just taxes on stamps, I live near where it began. It’s part of the culture
but again point taken

We live in a country where we allow people to skip vaccinations because they wrongly think it will give their kids autism. The threat of contagion is much, much higher than mass shootings and the "logic" used is far, far more ridiculous than "I'll fight tyranny with my AR-15 and win" and yet we allow the anti-vaxxer with a sigh of resignation while trying to ban the later.

At a certain point you have to accept that people are going to have beliefs or do things others think are stupid or perhaps even dangerous, and yet they need to be accepted anyway (even if sometimes we can minimize the risk around the edges). As Thomas Jefferson said “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

 

[KMFJD]

thoughts and prayers

 

[MomentsofSanity]

thoughts and prayers

Ahh yes the convicted felon who can't even own a firearm has weighed in.

 

[ewdotson]

The Taliban fought the Soviet Union and the U.S. with mostly small arms and seemed to do OK, and Afghanistan is also a lot smaller in area than the entire U.S.

I think Afghanistan is a reasonable comparison. The Army would roll any initial resistance and then we'd make things hell on earth over the course of the occupation. That's true with or without the presence of small arms though. IEDs are easy, and then there are the chemists who could do *real* damage.

In all sincerity though, what keeps us safe from tyranny is that our armed forces simply wouldn't do that. People like to compare the US to ancient Rome. Caesar's legions were loyal to Caesar. American troops swear their oaths to the Constitution. I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where the nutters were right and Jade Helm was a super sekrit plot by Obama to impose martial law and take control of the country.. Does anyone really think that the military's reaction to such a plan would *not* have been to haul Obama in chains before Congress? *That* is what keeps us safe.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Literally says it at the beginning. It's the entire premise of the 2A. If people took what the 2A was written for seriously, and weren't so lazy, every state would have the means to help fight against an over reaching centralized government. It's a joke, and a feel good notion, and in no way would anyone or combined efforts of states stop a hostile takeover by the feds. We completely rely on the feds to protect us both domestic and abroad.

Gun owners, fuck your feels.

Gun haters, Fvck your feels.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We live in a country where we allow people to skip vaccinations because they wrongly think it will give their kids autism. The threat of contagion is much, much higher than mass shootings and the "logic" used is far, far more ridiculous than "I'll fight tyranny with my AR-15 and win" and yet we allow the anti-vaxxer with a sigh of resignation while trying to ban the later.

At a certain point you have to accept that people are going to have beliefs or do things others think are stupid or perhaps even dangerous, and yet they need to be accepted anyway (even if sometimes we can minimize the risk around the edges). As Thomas Jefferson said “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

They are both equally ridiculous, just one effects one child and family the other effects everyone else.
Please note I am for mandatory vaccinations to all kids who are healthy enough to have them. Just like I am all for some level of gun control, this does not mean ban all guns. I think Trumps idea of 21+ for fun purchases is a good start.

 

[Bird222]

Our country has to put up with ~30,000 deaths a year so people can have a marginally better chance at defeating some future tyrannical government? That seems to be a very high price to pay for very little payoff.

Not only that. Like I said before my issue is more self-defense. There can be some small measures that might help (mental health, universal background checks, etc.) but to put it bluntly yeah we are going to have to put up with deaths. Freedom is messy. There are many things people die from because they are free to participate in them. We should continually work to lessen all deaths including gun deaths but people will continue to die from guns (and other things). Now if you have a plan to confiscate and eliminate all guns in the country then maybe you can stop it but I don't see that happening.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think Afghanistan is a reasonable comparison. The Army would roll any initial resistance and then we'd make things hell on earth over the course of the occupation. That's true with or without the presence of small arms though. IEDs are easy, and then there are the chemists who could do *real* damage.

In all sincerity though, what keeps us safe from tyranny is that our armed forces simply wouldn't do that. People like to compare the US to ancient Rome. Caesar's legions were loyal to Caesar. American troops swear their oaths to the Constitution. I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where the nutters were right and Jade Helm was a super sekrit plot by Obama to impose martial law and take control of the country.. Does anyone really think that the military's reaction to such a plan would *not* have been to haul Obama in chains before Congress? *That* is what keeps us safe.

It wouldn’t go down “Red Dawn” style, it would begin with turn in your guns, then it would check bank records & permits for gun, then it would bulldoze houses that didn’t turn them in.
It’s a weird fantasy to think it would be glorified guerilla warfare.
Again point taken and this is why it’s a nice luxury to live in a land where no one person has absolute power.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Again, dissenting opinions can easily get air time

No they can't. Pro-guns kids are being shut out of any and all coverage.

 

[fskimospy]

No they can't. Pro-guns kids are being shut out of any and all coverage.

Already been proven to be a lie in this thread. You are a very dishonest person.

 

[fskimospy]

Not only that. Like I said before my issue is more self-defense. There can be some small measures that might help (mental health, universal background checks, etc.) but to put it bluntly yeah we are going to have to put up with deaths. Freedom is messy. There are many things people die from because they are free to participate in them. We should continually work to lessen all deaths including gun deaths but people will continue to die from guns (and other things). Now if you have a plan to confiscate and eliminate all guns in the country then maybe you can stop it but I don't see that happening.

Why do we have to put up with deaths? Guns are a net negative for personal safety and this is very well established in the empirical research. If the idea is that we have to have 30,000 people a year die in order to preserve a means of self defense that makes us overall less safe what sense does that make?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Already been proven to be a lie in this thread. You are a very dishonest person.

You are an asshole, but i still read what you say. There seems to be some , very limited coverage of pro gun kids, you actually had to go to mediaite to find yours. You really had to search for it among the hundreds and hundreds of other interviews. It's obviously not balanced or fair coverage.
https://www.mediaite.com/

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why do we have to put up with deaths? Guns are a net negative for personal safety and this is very well established in the empirical research. If the idea is that we have to have 30,000 people a year die in order to preserve a means of self defense that makes us overall less safe what sense does that make?

Primarily because the freedom to make dumbass decisions is intrinsic to American life. We pay for that in blood, which is unfortunate, but that's really what you're up against. Most rational 2A advocates (not flaming dickweasels like taj) really see it as a front-line in the defense of freedoms, as it's an easier target to aim at than 'dangerous speech', though just barely.

 

[realibrad]

Why do we have to put up with deaths? Guns are a net negative for personal safety and this is very well established in the empirical research. If the idea is that we have to have 30,000 people a year die in order to preserve a means of self defense that makes us overall less safe what sense does that make?

Same could be said of food in terms of obesity. Why should we put up with foods that we know are making people fat? Why should we allow the freedom of unhealthy food that kills almost 600,000 people a year? What logic do you have that allows you to take away guns but not bad foods? If the justification is that 30,000 deaths is too many for the benefit of guns, than what justification do we have for almost 600,000 deaths from things tasting good?

 

[fskimospy]

You are an asshole, but i still read what you say. There seems to be some , very limited coverage of pro gun kids, you actually had to go to mediaite to find your. You really had to search for it among the hundreds and hundreds of other interviews. It's obviously not balanced or fair coverage.
https://www.mediaite.com/

Wow, this has to be some sort of record for quickest backpedaling from an obvious lie, haha. I linked directly to MSNBC's hosting of the video on their site.

As for what you consider balanced or fair I can only laugh. After all you're the guy that thought the only way to have a 'fair' election was to advance the person who got the third most votes over the person who got the second most votes because they belonged to your preferred political party.

 

[fskimospy]

Same could be said of food in terms of obesity. Why should we put up with foods that we know are making people fat? Why should we allow the freedom of unhealthy food that kills almost 600,000 people a year? What logic do you have that allows you to take away guns but not bad foods? If the justification is that 30,000 deaths is too many for the benefit of guns, than what justification do we have for almost 600,000 deaths from things tasting good?

This thread must have set some record for stupid analogies. When you ingest bad food you are only hurting yourself.

I mean come on, use your brain.

EDIT: Every gun thread always seems to bring out this sort of stupidity. 'If you want to restrict gun ownership why don't you want to restrict literally every other thing in the world that might cause people harm!?!' We then for some reason have to trudge through endless examples like cars, alcohol, bad food, vaccinations, etc, as if gun rights supporters can find a single inconsistency that somehow invalidates the argument for gun control.

It's so incredibly dumb and so incredibly tiresome.

 

[realibrad]

This thread must have set some record for stupid analogies. When you ingest bad food you are only hurting yourself.

I mean come on, use your brain.

No, you are not just hurting yourself. For the same reason that people argue for universal healthcare because it effects us all, obesity effects us all. Be it in terms of medical costs, loss of productivity, military readiness.

So yes, it is absolutely analogous in the context I used it. Will you now address the argument or...?

 

[woolfe9998]

No, you are not just hurting yourself. For the same reason that people argue for universal healthcare because it effects us all, obesity effects us all. Be it in terms of medical costs, loss of productivity, military readiness.

So yes, it is absolutely analogous in the context I used it. Will you now address the argument or...?

Protecting people from murder isn't the same thing as protecting people from bad choices. It's kind of funny how murder isn't allowed anywhere on the planet but unhealthy food isn't banned anywhere.

But hey, since you see no difference whatsoever between instant death by murder and slow death by clogged arteries, I think you need to speak up about this. Maybe start your own movement.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you are not just hurting yourself. For the same reason that people argue for universal healthcare because it effects us all, obesity effects us all. Be it in terms of medical costs, loss of productivity, military readiness.

So yes, it is absolutely analogous in the context I used it. Will you now address the argument or...?

I will not address the argument that if we seek to restrict guns we should also seek to restrict unhealthy food as it has the effect of increasing health care spending on an individual when that money could otherwise have been used to improve military readiness, which might someday possibly save someone else's life in a hypothetical future. I will not address this because it's one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in my life and it deserves nothing but mockery.

'If you want to regulate guns that are used in mass murders then why don't you want to regulate showers without non-slip mats! After all, showers with non-slip mats lead to more slips and falls, those slips and falls lead to higher health spending, which is money that can't be used to improve ballistic missile defense so when North Korea nukes us 10 years from now we'll all die. I refuse to countenance gun control until we discuss BATH MAT CONTROL.'

 

[Kwatt]

This thread must have set some record for stupid analogies. When you ingest bad food you are only hurting yourself.

I mean come on, use your brain.

EDIT: Every gun thread always seems to bring out this sort of stupidity. 'If you want to restrict gun ownership why don't you want to restrict literally every other thing in the world that might cause people harm!?!' We then for some reason have to trudge through endless examples like cars, alcohol, bad food, vaccinations, etc, as if gun rights supporters can find a single inconsistency that somehow invalidates the argument for gun control.

It's so incredibly dumb and so incredibly tiresome.

Should we also discount firearm suicides (~20,000) because they only hurt themselves?



.