SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Another mass shooting, this time at a Texas outlet mall.
Shooters need to start targeting the right people: take the top 5 people at the NRA. Shoot them.
When promotions happen, take those new top 5 out.
Soon, no one would take a promotion at the NRA.
Top 5 gun promoting Governors/Senators/Republicans (don't know or care THAT much about A. political structure): take them out.
Possible other target: Top 5 people at gun manufacturing plants.
Keep doing THESE things, and support for gun control will go up, at least for shite like AR15's (or whatever). No one needs an automatic or semi-automatic for 'hunting', unless they are hunting people.
Damn: change your targets, idiots. 'Hunt' the RIGHT prey.
Legal Disclaimer: not advocating killing; just saying, if you go hunting, make sure you aim at the right target.
(Score: 3, Informative) by owl on Sunday May 07, @04:27PM (14 children)
Are you so sure the second half of your sentence there is the "only" way?
Increasing mental health assistance should reduce the incidents.
But, were you to be able to magically take away all guns, why do you think that would have any impact if the mental health issues themselves are allowed to persist? I.e., why would not the insane who goes for a gun now not instead switch to a diesel-oil and fertilizer mixture instead for their rampage? Afterall, the Boston marathon bombers did not use a single gun to inflict death and injury? Removing guns would have done nothing for the Boston marathon incident. Removing guns would just mean these mentally off folks would look for another way to "go after" their perceived targets.
I.e., the old saying of: "a poor craftsman blames his tools" [thefreedictionary.com] is meaningful here. A gun is but one of many tools that can be used to attack a perceived threat, removing but one of those tools simply means the insane folks committing these crimes would switch to a different tool.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:32PM (5 children)
Because mentally ill people rarely want to put much effort into their killing. Guns are just easy. I note your absolute avoidance of universal health care, instead choosing the lame "bbbut knives n bombs!" defense. Things are so bad in the US that rightwing rhetoric falls flat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @10:37PM (4 children)
Citation needed.
There are multiple instances where the police have pointed out that the perpetrators have invested a lot of effort into the crazed killings. Crazy is in no way synonymous with lazy. Nor is it synonymous with incompetent. Or stupid. Get a grip, dude.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:15AM (3 children)
Get a grip is what was being asked of gun "enthusiasts."
The simple fact is that easy gun access with little oversight results in lots of mass murders. The UK has knife crime, that alternative which is always brought up when gun viilence is criticized, well the UK or other countries frankly do not have the same incidence of mass shootings.
Building a bomb, using a knife, or planning some other attack is much harder than pulling a trigger and the world stats make that clear. Yes some dedicated individuals could still mass murder, but why are you so determined to lower the bar? So Johnny McWifebeater can have his gun in case he needs to murder his family?
Some people should not have guns and it is tiring arguing with people who have already lost the regulation fight and are being manipulated by rightwing media to keep Us vs. Them
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:47PM (2 children)
More people die from constipation than being shot with an AR style rifle [youtube.com] which should be of concern for many here considering how full of shit they are. What we should be doing is having people adjudicated as mentally deficient and restricting their access to weapons, [sacbee.com] vehicles [msn.com] and rocks. [nytimes.com]
Homicide rates are inversely correlated with institutionalization [ssrn.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday May 08, @08:32PM (1 child)
A person who dies of a medical condition did not have that death inflicted upon them by some random nutjob with an easy to access gun.
What is so unreasonable about making sure that:
Why is that infringement?
If you are a law abiding responsible adult, I don't want to take your gun. Is that the problem you have with this? Law abiding? Or Responsible?
To drive a car, you have to be law abiding, at least to some minor degree, not being suspended or revoked. Driving privileges come with some minimal safety instruction or testing. And it comes with some responsibility. Eg, that "responsible" adult part. You are responsible for what you do behind the wheel. There is a legitimate public safety concern.
Please do not use firearms while drinking. Be sure the last drink has been fully consumed before picking up any firearms, even if only to look down the barrel to see if it is loaded.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:27PM
> only law abiding responsible adults can obtain guns
This requires we enforce laws instead of downgrading felonies to misdemeanors. [politifact.com]
It also would not have stopped the psychopath in Texas, his expulsion from the military on mental health grounds was the only warning we know of. Ultimately it took a good guy with a gun (a cop) to ventilate the losers dome and put a stop to the murder spree. A psychopath like that would use a vehicle or explosives if the firearms were not available.
I'm also not convinced on the marksmanship requirement. Most responsible gun owners train regularly because these are perishable skills. We don't want criminals being competent marksmen do we?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday May 07, @05:33PM (6 children)
I don't know his personal views on how far to take gun control, but I can tell you that taking all the guns away is not what the left is after, generally speaking. That's what right-wing outlets project to stall the debate. I'm sorry for picking on you specifically about it, I've just seen it one too many times today and we really need to unify to get the death to stop.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by owl on Sunday May 07, @06:48PM (5 children)
Also not the point I was making. The premise to which I was replying was that the only fix was mental health help or control guns.
I was suggesting a thought experiment: "imagine you could take away all the guns" -- (i.e., the "magical" part) -- if you could do so, would that actually "control anything"?
Under that premise my point was then that these mentally ill folks would simply switch to another method of killing their perceived targets, possibly homemade bombs. And I cited a recent example of a mentally ill individual that did jut that, even with guns being available (Boston Marathon bomber).
I.e., the point ended up at: if the mental illness issues are not fixed, all that likely changes is a word or two in the click-bait headlines. They go from "Shooter rampage kills seven, injures twelve" to "Bomber kills seven, injures twelve". But the problem of nutjobs killing people continues to persist.
Therefore, "controlling the guns" is not actually a solution, it just changes the tool used by the mentally ill individuals who go on these self imposed rampages.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 07, @08:11PM
Im just going to be up front and say I reacted before thinking. This is an emotional topic for me. :/ I am sorry for misinterpreting your point.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:59PM (3 children)
If there really were 1:1 replacement of guns for other means, why isn't their a rampage of assailants using said other means or racking up similar body counts in places with gun control?
(Score: 2) by owl on Sunday May 07, @10:35PM
The mentally ill likely take the path of least resistance to attacking their perceived enemy. Using a gun is easier than whipping up a bomb. So most likely choose a gun.
Were guns to magically (see earlier comment re. 'magically') disappear overnight, all that would change is that maybe some of the mentally ill delay their attacks because they see whipping up a bomb as too hard at the time. But let them remain ill long enough and the illness will likely overcome the friction from "bomb-making" vs "gun" and they would just go and attack with a tool other than a gun (a bomb, or poison gas [both bleach and ammonia are readily available at any grocery store], or some other tool of destruction).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:04PM
Because we have health care and we look after the disabled, mental or physical.
We still get incidents, but they are rare instead of daily.
I don't think you are going to easily ban guns due to the difficulty of amending your constitution, so you should fight for universal health care. At least that's a positive fight for something decent instead of a futile attempt to ban something.
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Monday May 08, @04:31PM
Seek and ye shall find [bbc.com].
--
"We’re the men who died for freedom - Across the Rio Grande", -The Chieftains, March To Battle
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Monday May 08, @05:20PM
Meanwhile Russia's about to lose Wagner SiMpLY because they don't have ammo. Putin can't get them back by sending them a crate of silverware and fertilizer.
This rationale doesn't even work in a video game setting like GTA. Anybody who has tried the "get fifty kills in 60 seconds" bonus round can attest to that. This might be hard for some to believe but in most cases a machine designed specifically to kill is going to be preferred over an improvised device that could easily kill you during its construction.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩