Can we please stop referring to guns as a tool?
In any event, you will probably never use your gun in a real fight or flight situation. Unless your are George Zimmerman and goad a 17 year old boy into a fight.
Printable View
Can we please stop referring to guns as a tool?
In any event, you will probably never use your gun in a real fight or flight situation. Unless your are George Zimmerman and goad a 17 year old boy into a fight.
You may find this enlightening: http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/0...t-gun-control/
but most of you will ignore it anyway.
I read it. The author makes valid points but I think he neglects one fact: that most rational gun control advocates don't advocate banning guns outright. At least not the ones I've read anyways. Most of the more sane proposals I've read about were to expand the background checks and to include mental health checks so if a customer has any background with mental issues then it would be harder to get a gun. Banning guns outright would never work in the United States and I feel that most rational gun control advocates understand this. Yeah, they might not be able to stop the people from going to Home Depot and buying the materials but that's at least an obstacle. Plus warnings could be put in place for people buying those exact items like they have for fertilizer and stuff like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The "home construction" complaint is sort of like saying that there's no point keeping people from having ready access to wrecking balls since if they really wanted to destroy a building they could just use a shovel and pickaxe to tunnel under the foundation of a building and eventually cause it to collapse on itself.
I read it, I also read the comments where this point came up from a member named jamie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Quote:
Interesting, but what I’d really like to know is not the effect of gun bans on murder, but it’s effect on mass murders…shootings like the recent one in Oregon. Really, the number of victims of mass shootings is a very small percentage of the total number of people murdered each year. So yes, while gun bans may have an insignificant effect on total murders, that’s really not the point. People are going to murder people – stopping that would be an impossible task. more But that’s not the same as cutting back on the frequency of mass murder/shootings.
I think this article is a red herring – a smokescreen – obscuring the truth by presenting statistics that are not relevant to the issue.
It's nice that you believe that, but unless you've been de-sensitised and trained to ignore your flight or fight response then you'll likely lock up like most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
"Few men are born brave. Many become so through training and force of discipline."
That was true for the Romans it's even more true today because, I think, your brain basically sees a gun as magic - you point it at someone and they die. That's why people lock up or hide, it's because your flight or fight response analyses the situation and determines you're screwed.
By the way "flight or fight" isn't a "brave vs coward" thing, it's a decision making process that your brain uses - it ways the options, fight or flight, and tries to choose between them based on which is most likely to lead to your survival.
See above - the majority of people will react the same in a given situation because the Flight/Fight" response is a logical decision making process, not a matter of bravery.Quote:
How would you try to protect those around you? or is your instinct to "flight" instead? It's how people are wired. I believe I would fight in a situation like that. When something drastic happens I'm one of the first to run towards it to help. I was always taught that because of who I am and what I look like I have a duty to protect those smaller than me or those who can't/won't defend themselves.
Brave people usually have an unrealistic estimation of their survival chances - they're basically borderline insane.
In a situation where there was a man with a gun, and I had a gun and a clear field of fire I'd put two bullets in him/her centre of mass and hope they go down. I decided that years ago and I keep telling myself that so that hopefully if I'm ever in such a situation I won't have to think about it, I'll just do it.
Likewise, if someone was threatening someone I love with a gun I'd place myself between them in the expectation I would die.
In other situations I have not thought of I confess I am less sure, it's likely I might lock up if there was someone with a gun pointed at me.
A tool used to kill someone or something is a weapon - guns have no purpose other than to kill, they are therefore weapons. Calling them tools is like calling shell-shock "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder"Quote:
If you don't see the point to that then I don't think we'll meet at a middle ground for this. I view guns as a tool. Yes, a tool that is meant to kill but it doesn't need to be used as such.
So his problem is that gun control would not stop all the gun murders, only most of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That article ignores a number of factors that confound the statistics, it also ignores the fact that the UK ban was aimed specifically at preventing school massacres and has been successful in that, we never had a re-run of Dunblane and despite rising gang violence in London there has been only one spree-shooting since 1996, in Cumbria in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
As it notes in the preamble there, the last shooting was in 1996, the one before that in 1989 and the one before that in 1987. Note that the 1987 and 1996 shootings all involved legally owned firearms.
I think one problem is perception.
USA views this issue completely different to the rest of the world, so whilst a school shooting is another week in the good ol' USA, to the rest of us, it is a sign of out of control gun violence epidemic. To the majority of the world, people shooting each other up in the US is viewed as being as common as an English man drinking tea.
The issue might be down to desensitization. In a lot of places, gun crime is so rare, that it hits the news big time. In the US, gun crime is so common, it only comes up when there is a political agenda or someone goes postal.
What makes this worse, in the USA there is a wide-spread cult of gun worshipping where people fight tooth and nail to oppose even the most sensible measures, even actively working to sabotage efforts to even provide proper statistics on the issue.
Exactly how dumb are TV hosts getting today?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-1...reedom/6831618
Quote:
An American Fox News anchor has claimed Australians "have no freedom" while lambasting Australia's gun laws during a live discussion on the recent Oregon shooting
This is Fox News. They do that type of thing. Remember terrorist fist jab?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM
Remember Fox News has the support of 50% of Americans, ie: Republicans.
Each party's hard line media have issues that they go stupid over, just to name one each: republican news have gun control while Democrat news have rape accusations. I only pay attention to the BBC these days.
To be fair, those weren't mass shootings, downright run-of-the-mill.
One was a mass shooting just not mass fatalities.
Gonna leave this here - from 1976.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWBoeY0AAec
There are a lot of gun nuts in the US, but most of the people here just don't want to get shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Looks like San Bernardino is next in line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34991855
Has been all over the news here in southern California. It was a man and woman who attacked a regional center for helping disabled individuals. Their house had 12 pipe bombs, seemingly ready to be used.
How many people were actually ever killed by pipe bombs?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You always hear the killers had pipe bombs in their home, but they probably don't kill a lot of people by lying around at home. How often did someone actually successfully use a pipe bomb to kill people?
Even the notable incidents on Wikipedia seem to include almost more people who blew themselves up than deaths of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_b...able_incidents
The 1996 incident seems the worst, killed two and injured 111, but doesn't say how badly.
Not that I'm pro-pipe bomb, it's just the news that "pipe bombs were found" does not sound really scary, see also the 2010 Stockholm bombing...
I forgot what it's called but there is usually something else they use to kill far more people.
For a reason still being determined, it looks like the attack was accelerated and was not the original attack as planned but more spontaneous. Thus, why the bombs were not used. FYI, one of the deadliest terrorists attacks in the US was the Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 deaths, 680+ injuries. That's around 12 times worse than San Bernardino. So yeah, bombs are no joke if the terrorists have the patience to plan and deploy them properly.
?
If you walk into a mass shooter's house and find 100 different models of assault rifle, is that scary?
None of those weapons will have been used, since, you know, they're still stacked up at home. Unless this is the Matrix, or the individual is some kind of Lakshmi-Rambo hybrid, then any number of weapons left behind at their home is not 'scary" unless it signifies accomplices or a larger network.
For now, the takeaway from the pipe-bombs is that this was something they had been planning for a while, but probably without much or any outside assistance or training.
A truck bomb is not a pipe bomb. I'm sure a pipe bomb also has the potential to be dangerous in theory, I just haven't heard of many cases where they were in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If they are neatly lined up in velvet cases, no, if they lie in between human body parts that he used to make soup, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Indeed, what does that tell us about the actual success rate of killing people with pipe bombs? I linked to the wikipedia lising of cases where they were used, and apart from one or two cases, even then they did not seem all that deadly. It lists two or three cases where only the perpetrator died, either at home or even during the attempt to kill others. If those are among the most noteworthy cases of use, well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Yes, in a way I just found it interesting that so many people planned something with pipe bombs but so few people were actually ever killed by one. Which is a good thing I guess, maybe more pipe bomb recipes on the internet could drown out the actually dangerous ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
12 pipe bombs depending on the context could kill as many as a single truck bomb.
The best thing you can say about pipe bombs is that the people making pipe bombs usually don't make good ones.
Basically, yeah. The two pressure cooker bombs used in Boston killed 3 but injured over 260 and I believe it's because the bombs were not even that sophisticated.
You say that as though I were happy that they exist, but yes, maybe what you say is correct, doesn't change the reality that they usually don't seem to do much. Of course I'd hope it stays that way. What a bomb expert could do with one was not my point. I observed that in most of their uses, they did not do all that much damage, which I assume is usually a better thing than if they did. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And maybe I assumed that they are often mentioned to increase the scare factor a bit, but if you disagree that's okay, no hard feelings, please don't hit me...
But what exactly are you referring to then, how the media represents pipe bombs, how people in general perceive pipe bombs, or the actual lethality or safety risk from pipe bomb detonations? None of these are particular interesting, useful, or even relevant angles to explore. :shrug:
But if I must: pipe bombs do not cause much damage precisely because they are usually made or planned for by amateurs, who make a poor bomb that detonates feebly or not at all, never get a chance to use the bomb, or - most commonly and importantly - get the attention of the FBI during the process of procuring supplies or doing research toward the construction of pipe bombs.
Successful bombers - whether serial killers or terrorists - tend to use more sophisticated devices with better preparation and delivery.
Republicans shamed for offering Prayers and rejecting legislation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34992061
Wow. The New York Daily News have become the #Blacklivesmatter of gun control.
You need to stop listening to 4channer /pol/ and/or far right levels political discourse. You might start believing it and do something crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Here is an interesting read regarding the matter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/
There you have it, this is how they operate.
Europe is sent to war while the strong and proud citizens of the US are neutered.
Once the entire world is in chaos and subjugated, they will kill most of us and enslave the rest.
Stop drinking their kool eight people.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12...appears/207201
Wake up and realize that they are fooling you...
Believe what? That the gun control debate has become so shameless that the left wing politicians and media jump at the chance to turn every tragedy into a platform to preach, to the point where they show themselves as slackjawed idiots incapable of letting go of a narrative until the bitter end.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Incidentally, nice kneejerk there pal, dismissing any critiscism as just another /pol/ delusion, not adressing the points made and posting a link to a tabliod as if it was a grand retort, really makes you seem like you actually watched more than 5 seconds.
That guy sounds like he's getting ready to shoot up a school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
...But not all of those people.
I can't stop to think: What if in Paris, the fanatic murderers would have been able to buy as much good weapons, as much ammo they could and body protection, all this legally? No need to smuggle, no need to hind, just buy and shoot... How the guard would have been able to stop the three bombers to go in the stadium?
I'm thankful that they need to go further with their plans to effect the same level of carnage that's ordinarily available in the US. But, in Europe at least, while we don't have the ubiquity of firearms to deal with, we do have the mentality. AFAIK most of the Paris attackers fitted this profile, and troublemakers in the UK certainly fit this profile. Muslims who stay in their European host countries all their lives aren't usually a problem. Muslims who pursue their identity and go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other radicalisation hotspots often return with a drastically different mindset, one which no longer tolerates the western society that they return to. In the case of the San Bernardino attackers, the man's colleagues noticed that he was extremely different when he returned from Saudi Arabia. "I think he's married a terrorist", quotes one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I find it hilarious that you feel the need to label WP as a tabloid, when you are posting drivel made by basement dwellers on youtube like it is a grand "wake up sheeple" moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Huh, I wasnt even serious when I said you hadnt given it even a cursory glance, but here you are still attacking what it is and not what it says.
To be fair, I should have figured it out when you pulled an anti-gun standard statistic as a retort to a critique of the news media plugging an agenda beyond reason.
You know the senior members like to occasionally moan over the lowering in quality this forum has suffered compared to some halcyon days of the 00's, but posts like these from the vetrans makes me wonder if it was so great to begin with.
You remind me of those redditors that tried to "find the boston bombers" before the FBI and got so defensive when people questioned their qualifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If you says so. This is the first ive ever heard of such an occurance.
You don't remember the subreddit?
No.... should I?
I admit that I did not watch all of it. I instead decided to skim because there was nothing in that video that I did not hear prior on conservative radio (Hannity, Limbaugh) every morning prior to that day. However, since you seem to place a lot of faith in the video that you posted, I decided to listen to all of it. Needless to say, it was just as I suspected. The following is my state of mind and thoughts as I read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The speaker begins to complain about some things that he saw on twitter or facebook. I found it odd that he would complain about sources that are simply outlets for public speech, but I ignored this as this was a theme I was familiar with. He then began talking about mainstream media doing the same thing. He mentioned quite a few specific examples of transgressions committed by "mainstream media" (a common phrase in the conservative radio type that I mentioned), but really skimped on direct links. He mentioned the Young Turks channel where a commentator was angry about at the NRA's influence on government. Here is the video that he failed to provide (the still in your video is in this one):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTmQ_hom9e4
He then stated that his tone changed after the terrorists' names were dropped. This is odd, considering how the commentator indirectly mentioned Islamic terrorists in that very video. He then went on to talk about white victimization. He then went on a tangent about a conspiracy that the NRA stands for No Retards Allowed and that the shooting was part of a plan to kill handicapped people. I found nothing on this.
He then talked about how one of the shooters was an immigrant from Saudi Arabia. He mentioned how this fact changed the narrative. He mentioned how the stories evolved regarding the motives of the shooters. He talked a lot about the workplace violence angle. I was familiar with a single statement made by Obama regarding workplace violence when the story was breaking and there was not a lot of information coming in. The media types that I mentioned before zeroed in on this issue, and this is where the narrative conspiracy theory really gets its roots.
At this point, the video devolves mainly into Obama bashing because he is crying a lot when kids get murdered by heavily armed psychopaths and how apparently all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity because someone apparently failed to report the terrorist couple for "suspicious activity" such as "do a lot of work out in the garage" and "receiving a lot of packages" during the holidays.
As I said before, it is drivel. I spent a lot more time processing this video than you did. I hope you appreciate this.
The link that I posted wasn't really aimed at you, it was just a contribution to the thread. I suspect that you found it to be a threat to your own narrative, whatever it may be.
As for The Org's past, people were more civil because this place wasn't filled with conspiracy theorists and people who thought they had figured out religion all by themselves. It was also filled with Russophobes, but that is not unusual for a forum with Europeans.
Did he? I cant seem to find it unless you are talking about the bit where Cenk says:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
"We have met the terrorist, it is us. You've got all this nonsense debates about syrian refugees here- what syrian refugees do we have in the country? What terrorist attacks have they done here? None, none."
He is correct that neither of the perpetrators were syrian refugees but the outright rant that followed was indeed of the "this is another american on american gun massacre like all the others" vein, as emphasised by his next few lines:
"When is it going to be in your neighbourhood. I guarentee it's coming. Ok, you want to be scared of something, be scared of something rational: the mass shooters they're everywhere [...] We are the terrorists, we're terrorising ourselves."
Personally an issue I would take with Metokur's video is that, going by the channel's videos since this one, they havent changed their tone that much:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Which despite your lable is a real thing; the common double standard that criticism, degeration or outright predjudice of anything western/white is almost never met with the same kneejerk backlash doled out against criticism of any other culture, race and creed. But that is somewhat irrelevent to the topic.Quote:
He then went on to talk about white victimization.
That was mockery on the video maker's part, taking the opponant's rhetoric and amplifying it beyond absurdity. You couldnt tell from his tone?Quote:
He then went on a tangent about a conspiracy that the NRA stands for No Retards Allowed and that the shooting was part of a plan to kill handicapped people. I found nothing on this.
He was reffering to this:Quote:
At this point, the video devolves mainly into Obama bashing because he is crying a lot when kids get murdered by heavily armed psychopaths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3odT3PZ5Vc
A fairly reasonable response followed up by this after the details of the attackers were shown:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/po...ical-reaction/
Likely a fairly standard non-comittal political base-covering. A bit of spineless reluctance to call a spade a spade but hardly damning, though it makes a rather unfortunate image when made alongside several media avenue's dogged insistance that "it could still be a workplace shooting guys!" Long past the realm of reason.
Cute, Ignoring that what he said was that the neighbours would have reported them for suspicious activity but didnt for fear of being called a racist. Less "all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity" and more "fear of being called racist kept this attack from being prevented." Something that has happened beforeQuote:
and how apparently all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity because someone apparently failed to report the terrorist couple for "suspicious activity" such as "do a lot of work out in the garage" and "receiving a lot of packages" during the holidays.
Plus it wasnt just "working a lot in the garage" it was doing it frequently in the middle of the night.
No, you really didnt.Quote:
As I said before, it is drivel. I spent a lot more time processing this video than you did. I hope you appreciate this.
Thank you for exhibiting my point that you think it is acceptable say things about europeans that you wouldnt dare say about jews africans or muslims.Quote:
As for The Org's past, people were more civil because this place wasn't filled with conspiracy theorists and people who thought they had figured out religion all by themselves. It was also filled with Russophobes, but that is not unusual for a forum with Europeans.
He mentioned the terror watch list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Last few mass shootings were by white dudes with inane agendas. It would have been reasonable to assume that this mass shooter was white, since it fit the profile. He didn't actually say white, and he was absolutely right. The guy was a homegrown. Then some people went nuts because they want to go off on how Islam is dangerous and Syran refugees are terrorist sleepers, when pretty much anyone can shoot up any one at any time for any reason. This is what reclusive gun loving hillbillies fail to understand.
It is part of the culture of victimization(micro-aggressions or whatever), which is what the author of the video ironically complains about in some of his other videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And yet the very first thing typical conservative media talks about every morning is how Muslims, Mexicans, Russians or Chinese or whatever are coming to get you. It goes both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
His tone was very smug throughout the entire presentation, so it was hard to tell if he was talking about a specific event, or just failing at sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I was aware of what he was talking about. His response to the ongoing event was restrained, as it should have been. Also, again, it cuts both ways. The issue, however, is that the right wingers began pushing that they knew all along that the terrorists were Muslims and that all Muslims want to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Please tell me how doing stuff in your garage and getting packages is suspicious. I will report my entire neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Yeah, it's like he has a job or responsibilities in the daytime or something. Really odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
watQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I saw this article today.
"Why are Americans so obsessed with guns?"
Had this image on it:
https://i.imgur.com/9maa4Wv.png
Why did they exclude Northern Ireland for only the deaths?
The source didn't include those statistics and this happens often with many things not including Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is kind of its own autonomous entity within the Union, I guess kind of like Puerto Rico is to the United States missing out on things.
Then why include the NI population and estimated gun ownership numbers in the other stats? The last statistic is the important one, yet it only covers Great Britain. :inquisitive:
Different sources of information, not that it matters much.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
It would likely skew the results for one thing, and since the troubles stats on anything violence-related in NI have been either difficult to verify or politically charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
This is complete nonsense - NI is only about as autonomous as Wales - Scotland has far more autonomy. It has to gdo with the government facing non-co-operation and therefore having trouble getting stats that are accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Same reason - bad stats. Likely they don't have an easy way to separate NI from those stats and no easy way to include them in the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Not really...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Many goods and services don't include Northern Ireland, always thought it was weird they slapped "Excludes Northern Ireland" on them because there is some water separating the border, but it is just how things are.
They have their own electoral parties separated to the traditional British ones. Whilst Wales and Scotland has a +1, they have their own unique ones.
In many matters, they pretty much have their own little corner and keep to themselves separate from the rest of Britain.
The first 3 stats on that graphic should be easy to exclude NI. Wiki says that NI has 1.8+ million people. Legally owned firearms I assume mean they are registered, even with the stereotypical rep of large scale British government IT projects it should be easy to get a stat for Great Britain alone. It's just lazy and disingenuous. "The Yanks are just uncivilized gun nuts intent on killing each other, we are so superior (just ignore that little corner over there...)."
Even with NI gun violence added in I'm sure the US stats still crush it, but it reeks of piling on.
Not so long ago, NI had many qualities of a war zone, which means statistics like that go out of the window.
USA and Great Britain are comparable in that regard (similar level of development, many years of peace and so on...). One couldn't compare gun violence in UK and Syria and come to any meaningful conclusion.
Then just remove the NI population and legal firearms from the stats. Like I said, lazy and disingenuous. I'm sure we could pick a few small regions in the US that would improve our kill ratio tremendously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Or we could compare the United States with countries like Japan and South Korea.
It was historically more expensive to do business in NI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
As Sarmation said, it was a Balkanised Warzone.