An Anonymous Coward writes:
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
Not all rhetorical tricks produce the intended result.Back to the original point:http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086 [theonion.com]http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/shooting-isnt-about-gun-control-we-refuse-pass-its-57095 [theonion.com]http://www.theonion.com/article/americans-hopeful-will-be-last-mass-shooting-they--57093 [theonion.com]http://www.theonion.com/article/those-close-nation-say-it-showed-dozens-warning-si-57101 [theonion.com]Which is pretty much what the rest of the -easily dismissed- world thinks...
Which is pretty much what the rest of the -easily dismissed- world thinks...
Indeed. Now do you have something useful or interesting to talk about?
> Now, we're quoting The Onion?
Go ahead and tell me that the first and third of these are not right on the money.If more people stopped to think about what the Onion says, maybe the shame at the stupidity therein exposed would help change it.
The first one is apparently re-edited for every single US massacre, just by changing the circumstances.
This discussion now has over 400 posts. 59 people are dead, over 500 injured. Earlier, 20 elementary school kids died. This year, 11000 Americans have already been gunned down by someone else, which is more than 9/11 and the ensuing wars combined (or will be, by the end of the year). And the third Onion article is right: Nothing's gonna change, it ain't gonna stop.
Enjoy your freedom ... to hope you'll draw faster than the other guy."Stuff happens", because of you.
Go ahead and tell me that the first and third of these are not right on the money.
About what? It might describe a non-US stereotype, but we've already established that I don't respect those. It trivializes the problem and insinuates that all we have to do is adopt some other countries gun control regulations, ignoring that we aren't that other country.
And I have yet to see or hear of anyone "hoping" that this is the last shooting. Third link presents a bogus straw man argument.
> ignoring that we aren't that other country.
You're not your dad, your mom, your teacher or your friends. Yet, when you did something wrong, and they pointed out that you would stop hurting yourself by doing it differently, you learnt.The second amendment is your religion. If you won't consider that civilization evolves and absolutes from hundreds of years ago can hurt you, you ain't better than Daesh.
> And I have yet to see or hear of anyone "hoping" that this is the last shooting. Third link presents a bogus straw man argument.
I have yet to see or hear anyone who is not negatively responding to the massacre.The point of the Onion isn't that people believe they could instantly stop it. The point is they are not doing a single thing to start addressing the problem, which everyone agrees is terrible, before it happens again. Learn to read satire.
I have yet to see or hear anyone who is not negatively responding to the massacre.
The point of the Onion isn't that people believe they could instantly stop it. The point is they are not doing a single thing to start addressing the problem, which everyone agrees is terrible, before it happens again. Learn to read satire.
And again, you're just making noise. The Onion piece was simple-minded and irrelevant (as so much satire is). There's no easy fix and really, there's not much reason to fix things either. Mass shootings of this sort just don't happen that often. 59 dead people every few years sounds like a lot, until you realize that any such fix will trample on the rights of 340 million, which for the innumerate is a much bigger number, and they're all going to die of something too.
I get that you are running on pure emotion, but it's time for the child bob_super to shut up and the adult bob_super, assuming there is one, to speak.
Go drive your tank and prep your anthrax, since preventing you from getting any lethal toy you feel like is "trampling your rights". Who's the child ?There are ten times more gun murders in the US than in Canada, 15 times more than most of Europe. Keep dreaming of the day you'll heroically stop the government from taking your gun, while innocents get massacred because of your childish dreams.
You're the problem.You've got all that blood on your hands, which you then put in your ears and on your eyes, because it's inconvenient how it doesn't fit your "freedom" bullshit narrative. Who's the child?It's your fault. Cling to your toy. You're an accessory to those murders, so you want to dismiss them as a detail. Who's the child?Other people are free, without clinging to guns. Without access to high-power semi-auto long-range killing tools. Yet you refuse to even consider it? Who's the child?
I'm being logical. Don't call me a child, when you can't justify any of your arguments, or counter mine, except by shouting "freedom" as if holding on to a gun was the only answer. Like a prayer to a blood God.
I won't change your mind. It's religious. Have fun washing the innocents' blood of your soul/karma/whatever. Keep your useless toys. You are the root of the problem, and will never admit it.
Over and out. /thread
Referring only to "gun murders" is blatant deception, since a murder victim is dead regardless of the tool used. Why should anyone pay attention to you if you use such obvious deceit?
Ah yes, the old "declare yourself correct, attempt to end communication" saw. It's the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
As much as you don't like to hear it, free people by definition must have the ability to possess and carry any type of weapons they can build or buy. This absolutely includes armored vehicles and tanks (of which many are indeed privately owned in the USA), chemical and/or biological weapons, and thermonuclear weapons. Where do you think governments get the authority to have such weapons? They are either slaveowning governments, or they derive their authority from individual people. Look up that word "derive" if you're confused.
This discussion now has over 400 posts. 59 people are dead, over 500 injured. Earlier, 20 elementary school kids died. This year, 11000 Americans have already been gunned down by someone else
You failed statistics, didn't you, bob.
Oh, if only we could trade in a little essential liberty for some saaaaafety...
I noticed elsewhere a talking point that seems to be going around the pro-firearm ownership blogs these days. If you're going to suggest a gun control policy in response to a mass shooting, show it would have fixed the mass shooting. Seems a reasonable thing to ask here.
Maybe we'll learn differently, but right now, we have a guy who apparently went to extraordinary effort to collect some nasty weapons and prepare the scene, yet doesn't belong to any of the traditional classes of people who would be denied ownership of firearms by law. With what has bounced around so far, he doesn't seem to have exhibited signs of serious mental illness or committed felony crimes in the past, for example.
> If you're going to suggest a gun control policy in response to a mass shooting, show it would have fixed the mass shooting.
I proposed earlier that regular citizens shouldn't be allowed to possess weapons which can deliver tens to hundreds of bullets per minute which are still lethal at a quarter mile or more. You don't kill 59 people from 200 yards away with a handgun, a Winchester, a hunting rifle, or a pump-action shotgun (all of which were the NRA's bread and butter, until the popularity of the Black Gun forced them to change their narrative to protecting your right to an insurrection).The semi-auto version of a weapon of war, easily converted back to full-auto, should be treated like other weapons of war: missiles, tanks, nukes...
You don't kill 59 people from 200 yards away with a handgun, a Winchester, a hunting rifle, or a pump-action shotgun (all of which were the NRA's bread and butter, until the popularity of the Black Gun forced them to change their narrative to protecting your right to an insurrection).
Yes, you can. The "bump stock" is not particular to guns that are painted black nor is it the only technology for making guns shoot faster. Rich guys with no prior record who pick the best weapons at the time and a venue in which to massacre people aren't going to be well handled by any sort of gun control law. It's quite irrational to even try.
> It's quite irrational to even try.
It's totally irrational to do nothing, just because some people will find a way around the rules.
I agree, let's not "do nothing".
Let's take the time to rip away all ~20,000 of those laws that blatantly and directly violate the "shall not be infringed" directive of the legally-enshrined acknowledgement that individual people are free to arm themselves with whatever weapons they can dream up.
Counter-attack sniper rifles! Armed drones! Gas grenades! Smart rifles! [npr.org] All available over-the-counter at your local hardware store.