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: 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