Ongoing Mass Shootings Thread pt 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole "common sense gun control" will sort all this out argument is nothing but political posturing. It's just as much as a lie as when the GOP says that the solution is good guys with guns.
This might just be my understanding of the situation, but I've never thought that the majority of those who want "common sense gun control" genuinely believe it would act as some sort of panacea to gun violence in America. It's just that when tragedies like this happen over and over again ad nauseum, you kinda expect at least some attempt at rectifying the situation rather than accepting it as the new normal, whether it be a ban on certain assault weapons, limiting magazine capacity of some firearms, etc. Even if all these proposed "common sense gun legislation" bills were to pass, and even if they barely seemed to curb the level of gun violence at all initially, that kind of action would at least help to change (or atleast reshape) the general narrative that these rampant acts of gun violence are simply a natural, passively-accepted part of the kind of society we've cultivated.
But to your point, I genuinely do find the "common sense gun control" politicking quite a bit more reasonable than lamenting the armament of every man, woman and child [emoji14]
 
Last edited:
This might just be my understanding of the situation, but I've never thought that the majority of those who want "common sense gun control" genuinely believe it would act as some sort of panacea to gun violence in America. It's just that when tragedies like this happen over and over again ad nauseum, you kinda expect at least some attempt at rectifying the situation rather than accepting it as the new normal, whether it be a ban on certain assault weapons, limiting magazine capacity of some firearms, etc. Even if all these proposed "common sense gun legislation" bills were to pass, and even if they barely seemed to curb the level of gun violence at all initially, that kind of action would at least help to change (or atleast reshape) the general narrative that these rampant acts of gun violence are simply a natural, passively-accepted part of the kind of society we've cultivated.
But to your point, I genuinely do find the "common sense gun control" politicking quite a bit more reasonable than lamenting the armament of every man, woman and child.* [emoji14]


*apologies for the snark lol

Exactly. If I could at least get a sense our government was trying to do something, if I could hear a few of them not be afraid to openly tell the NRA to fuck off and let them handle this issue for a change, that would be a start. That would show me that at least people are actually giving a shit to some degree.

Especially since, you know, children keep dying in these mass shootings. Where are all our "pro-life" politicians when it comes to this stuff? Why aren't pro-lifers standing outside the NRA headquarters protesting en masse? That's something I'd sure love to see for a change.
 
you want every single legal firearm in america is to be a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action?

no legal semi-automatic trigger mechanisms at all?

So yeah... this is the real discussion we should be having... you're REALLY drilling down to the root cause ... I can't wait for Nick to expound on this... :|
 
Hunting and home protection are about the only purposes for guns I see, and none of that should involve high capacity weaponry. Rifles are about the extent of what I'm ok with.
 
Hunting and home protection are about the only purposes for guns I see, and none of that should involve high capacity weaponry. Rifles are about the extent of what I'm ok with.

Agreed.

And I don't know how easily this sort of thing could be enforced, but anyone who does own a gun absolutely MUST have a place to put it that keeps it out of the hands of others*. If they don't have that, then they shouldn't have a gun.

*(On that note, considering we have age restrictions on when young people can learn to drive, drink, smoke, and so on, I think we need to do the same with gun usage. Children being taught to handle guns bothers me on so many levels. Especially when you think of all the teenagers who've committed school shootings, and the toddlers who've accidentally shot people.)

Also, I think somebody only really needs one gun at most in their home, if any. There's no logical reason whatsoever that people should have an entire arsenal on hand.
 
In the U.K. to access your firearm it's stored off your property and there are two required keys and you only possess one [emoji23]

I'm pretty sure it works that way.
 
My grandpa was a hunter and I remember rifles being on the wall in one of the upstairs bedrooms where my cousins and I would sometimes sleep.

I don't remember ever being told "don't touch these," it was just a given and we didn't ever touch them.

Thus endeth Cori's Childhood Tale of Guns
 
Hunting and home protection are about the only purposes for guns I see, and none of that should involve high capacity weaponry. Rifles are about the extent of what I'm ok with.



Gunnut: the 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee my right to hunt. It guarantees my right to protection; protection from a tyrannical government, terrorist attack, or a zombie apocalypse. Who are you to say high capacity weapons aren’t necessary for any of those events?

We’ve read that argument in here, and they’re right if that’s how we define these rights. That’s why I believe there has to be a focus on how the constitution grants these rights to regulated groups, not individuals.
 
Gunnut: the 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee my right to hunt. It guarantees my right to protection; protection from a tyrannical government, terrorist attack, or a zombie apocalypse. Who are you to say high capacity weapons aren’t necessary for any of those events?

We’ve read that argument in here, and they’re right if that’s how we define these rights. That’s why I believe there has to be a focus on how the constitution grants these rights to regulated groups, not individuals.



Agreed in some light. I can use a nuclear bomb to defend myself against a tyrannical government. After all, how am I to defend myself against a heavily armed tyrannical government?

But, the constitution is the only way to fix it.
 
And the SCOTUS is likely to be refreshed again in Trump's/Pence's presidency, correct?



Probably if he gets re-elected. However, it's the senate/states who decide on constitutional amendments.

If we have something challenging the bill of rights, you'd first need a huge democrat victory in 2018, and a sustained movement in 2020.

Hence why a broken Democratic Party is a problem. But, you can at least get the movement rolling with a loud voice *right now*.
 
Oh so only the UK, well so the London bridge truck & stabbing only killed 8 and injured 48 so its not double digits, so therefore all is well.



I'm not sure if you're gently calling me out for some disregard for human life right there, but the point was about guns and terrorism.

You can't stop someone's decision to drive a car into people. You can't stop someone making a bomb at home. Intelligence can, but legislation... not really. Guns? You can stop them. And they're typically the deadliest form of mass murder, unless it's a highly sophisticated plot.

What happens when three terrorists in england, without a sophisticated plot, attempt to commit mass murder? Excuse my crudeness, but they could barely exchange their life for two others before being fought back against and shot dead by armed police in a carefully thought out system.

Is that story unique, though? No. Westminster bridge. Same deal. Finsbury Park? Same deal. The U.K. has a terrorism history of petty attacks and mostly failed bombings. Meanwhile, in the US, I imagine #10 on the US mass shooting list is bigger than #1 in the U.K. for non IED attacks. Heck, I bet #20 is bigger than #1.
 
Not calling you out, just making the point that there are ways to commit mass murder that terrorists are currently employing that no form of legislation unfortunately will prevent.
I agree about gun control, just that your original statement that in the UK mass murder doesn't happen without a bomb or guns was a little too simplistic.
Obviously if these folks have no access to guns it makes it more difficult to commit these acts of terror, but they can find other means, and the vehicle into a crowd method is becoming far too prevalent nowadays, and can cause mass casualties.
 
Not calling you out, just making the point that there are ways to commit mass murder that terrorists are currently employing that no form of legislation unfortunately will prevent.
I agree about gun control, just that your original statement that in the UK mass murder doesn't happen without a bomb or guns was a little too simplistic.
Obviously if these folks have no access to guns it makes it more difficult to commit these acts of terror, but they can find other means, and the vehicle into a crowd method is becoming far too prevalent nowadays, and can cause mass casualties.



You've missed the point, still.

It's not just some one-off simplistic statement. In the case of London bridge, three attackers got out of a vehicle with knives and fake suicide vests. And people fought back.

Those attackers just as easily could have had guns, were this the United States. And nobody would've fought back. And scores would have been dead.

I never disagreed about different ways existing that are being employed. If you've noticed, the vehicle thing more often than not is far less efficient than they wish it to be. The reality is, guns allow for non-sophisticated plots to have rapid casualties. Cars typically do not, or are, at the very least, a crapshoot for those terrorists.
 
We’ve read that argument in here, and they’re right if that’s how we define these rights. That’s why I believe there has to be a focus on how the constitution grants these rights to regulated groups, not individuals.

I don't know what you mean by this. Focus by who? To what end? The SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, that makes it settled, until the Court changes their opinion or the Constitution is changed.

Until then, the individual/collective right debate is an academic discussion. And I mean that literally...an academic debate among Constitutional scholars. And there are plenty of good arguments by brilliant minds on both sides of that one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom