20 dead in Orlando gay club shooting

[Esquilax]

I love that all the pro-gun peeps here, burbling on about box cutters and demanding we focus on ISIS as though gun violence was never an immediate problem in the US before this, are so committed to completely ignoring the historical precedents in other countries. How many mass shootings have there been in, say, Australia, after the one big one they had prompted reasonable gun control legislation that, unfortunately for the fear mongering "dey gunna tek urr gunns!" rhetoric of WoG, prompted a voluntary buy-back and still allowed people to own guns so long as they actually needed them for something? How many, in the over twenty years?

Less than there have been in America this week.

But the pro-gun side simply refuses to learn from other countries, despite that clear, unambiguous example. Either they simply won't consider points counter to their terrified, gun-humping propaganda, or they somehow think that America is this huge exception to the rule where the opposite is what will work, despite not having worked in the years before that. Neither position has any justification, but they won't let go of them, because this was never about solving the problem in the first place for them.

[WinterHold]

I don't really understand this fear of a "police state". We live in a civilized world and not in a jungle where everyone has to save their own skin. The cops, and legal institutions are there to protect the citizens. What's the point of having such institutions if one has to take the law in their own hands? And what is even the point of having laws if everyone has to enforce their own laws? cops, our government, leaders, these are not some aliens dropping from the sky, they are coming from among us, they are the same as us, and we have the power to choose who gets the power, so why do you think anyone and everyone with power is out to get you? They are not a hive mind damnit!

So you have your guns, now say you don't like your president, what's your solution? shoot him? Or raise your voice and get him to step down? If your voice is already a strong enough weapon, why do you need guns?

And again, as a self defence weapon that kills, how many deaths do you expect to prevent with it? Why can't non-lethal solutions be a better option?

There is a distinct line that separates between protecting society and preserving peace domestically, and between chocking the citizens and strip them from their freedoms.

The police state turns the life of citizens into a living hell, with actions ranging from "eliminating personal privacy through spying on citizens" up to "torture in prisons", all in the name of "protecting citizens". 

As an example, this has already happened in other countries, and have been happening since World War 2 (with Nazi Germany & the USSR as our main examples); nowadays the Middle East, some Eastern European states, China & North Korea display the ultimate example of the police state.

I live in a police state. It's a living hell.

[Huggy Bear]

Actually what I'd be comparing is homicide, between vehicles and those involving firearms.

Then perhaps you should parse out intentional killings using autos and compare those to intentional killings using guns?

Just a thought.

The FBI report I linked uses the term "homicide", which simply means one person causing the death of another and makes no distinction of intent, so comparing homicide with homicide is an apt comparison.

Furthermore if a person intends to kill someone, what is a gun ban going to do?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news...53/?no-ist

On Saturday, more than 130 people in a train station in Kunming, China, were injured when about ten men and women wielding knives began stabbing others at random, the BBC reports. The attackers, who authorities say might be members of a Muslim separatist group from Xinjiang province, used swords and meat cleavers to inflict damage on people lined up near the busy station's ticket counter. Officials stated that at least 28 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the attacks, Reuters reports.

China is not unique in its problem with knives, however. In Japan, in 2001 a janitor wielding a kitchen knife killed eight children at an Osaka school where he worked, while a man in Tokyo went on a random stabbing spree with a dagger in 2008, killing four people. In South Korea, a disgruntled man killed eight people in a stabbing spree at his apartment complex in 2008. In Germany, a drunk 16-year-old stabbed 41 people at the opening ceremony of a Berlin train station. And last year, anti-knife campaigns ramped up in the U.K after a 13-year-old girl was stabbed to death.

If it's not guns then it's knives...

[Cato]

Huggy,

If facing someone who wished to do me harm, I like my chances better if they were armed with a knife instead of a gun.

Guns are designed to kill, knives and automobiles are designed with other utility in mind. Citing automobile accidents and stabbing deaths in an effort to continue the easy access of assault weapons is disingenuous. The man in the nightclub could not have possibly killed and injured over 100 people wielding a knife.

[Brian37]

Then perhaps you should parse out intentional killings using autos and compare those to intentional killings using guns?

Just a thought.

The FBI report I linked uses the term "homicide", which simply means one person causing the death of another and makes no distinction of intent, so comparing homicide with homicide is an apt comparison.

Furthermore if a person intends to kill someone, what is a gun ban going to do?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news...53/?no-ist

On Saturday, more than 130 people in a train station in Kunming, China, were injured when about ten men and women wielding knives began stabbing others at random, the BBC reports. The attackers, who authorities say might be members of a Muslim separatist group from Xinjiang province, used swords and meat cleavers to inflict damage on people lined up near the busy station's ticket counter. Officials stated that at least 28 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the attacks, Reuters reports.

China is not unique in its problem with knives, however. In Japan, in 2001 a janitor wielding a kitchen knife killed eight children at an Osaka school where he worked, while a man in Tokyo went on a random stabbing spree with a dagger in 2008, killing four people. In South Korea, a disgruntled man killed eight people in a stabbing spree at his apartment complex in 2008. In Germany, a drunk 16-year-old stabbed 41 people at the opening ceremony of a Berlin train station. And last year, anti-knife campaigns ramped up in the U.K after a 13-year-old girl was stabbed to death.

If it's not guns then it's knives...

Beating a dead horse. "Other bad shit happens so do nothing about gun deaths". Nope sorry, this is trying to pretend that the amount of gun death is acceptable. No it is not.

[Tiberius]

Yet you fail to see the irony in the thing that is DESIGNED to be safe having a higher body count every year than the thing designed to kill.

There's no irony at all.

There are laws against killing people. The vast majority of both gun and car owners do not use guns / cars to kill people, simply because it is wrong to do so, and there are laws against it.

On top of that, the vast majority of deaths involving a car are not homicides. In fact, if we were to count that number, it would be negligible. The same cannot be said for guns. Based on the statistics used in this thread, homicides account for around 30% of gun deaths. If you just look at homicides alone, 67% of them are caused by a gun.

Now let's look at usage. Whilst there are more guns than cars, cars are used far more often than guns, because most people use cars on a regular basis. Cars are also used near each other more often than guns. Try and count all the cars you pass on a single drive, it'll be hundreds, if not thousands. Now count all the guns you see on a regular basis, even if you own one and take it to a gun range. It's going to be a fraction of that.

With all that combined, it's no wonder there are more deaths from cars than guns. A single person can make a mistake, and cause a car accident which affects a number of people. With the amount of people driving on the roads, the chance of this happening increases, and you get more accidents. More accidents means more chances for someone to die in them, and as we see from statistics, more people do die from car accidents than guns.

Guns don't kill more people than cars because guns are not generally around a lot of people, and when someone has an accident with a gun, it usually only kills perhaps one person. The number of accidents with guns are low to begin with because most gun owners follow safety precautions. So most gun deaths occur when someone purposefully kills someone (including themselves) with a gun. That's already a rarity.

[A Theist]

I love that all the pro-gun peeps here, burbling on about box cutters and demanding we focus on ISIS as though gun violence was never an immediate problem in the US before this, are so committed to completely ignoring the historical precedents in other countries. How many mass shootings have there been in, say, Australia, after the one big one they had prompted reasonable gun control legislation that, unfortunately for the fear mongering "dey gunna tek urr gunns!" rhetoric of WoG, prompted a voluntary buy-back and still allowed people to own guns so long as they actually needed them for something? How many, in the over twenty years?

Less than there have been in America this week.

But the pro-gun side simply refuses to learn from other countries, despite that clear, unambiguous example. Either they simply won't consider points counter to their terrified, gun-humping propaganda, or they somehow think that America is this huge exception to the rule where the opposite is what will work, despite not having worked in the years before that. Neither position has any justification, but they won't let go of them, because this was never about solving the problem in the first place for them.

Then start another thread for debating gun control. The killing in Orlando was a terrorist attack spurred on by ISIS. How will more gun control laws stop terrorists from attacking the U.S.? Do you think more laws are going to stop them?

I love that all the pro-gun peeps here, burbling on about box cutters and demanding we focus on ISIS...

You're saying that ISIS and terrorism isn't a problem, and gun control is the cure all for stopping terrorist attacks?

[WinterHold]

And while you stay divided, fighting over how fatal an AK-47 is:





Muslims..Gays..Aks..guns..Hookers..Transexual men cutting their dicks off and show it in the media.
The best distraction ever. 

Stay divided; and you'll remain slaves to the system. 

Remember Bin Laden? now there is ISIS.
Remember the big Boogy, Saddam Hussain? now there is Iran.
Remember Stalin? Now there is Putin.


Can't you see the cycle?
That tactic. To ignore the big elephant in the room

[Exian]

I love that all the pro-gun peeps here, burbling on about box cutters and demanding we focus on ISIS as though gun violence was never an immediate problem in the US before this, are so committed to completely ignoring the historical precedents in other countries. How many mass shootings have there been in, say, Australia, after the one big one they had prompted reasonable gun control legislation that, unfortunately for the fear mongering "dey gunna tek urr gunns!" rhetoric of WoG, prompted a voluntary buy-back and still allowed people to own guns so long as they actually needed them for something? How many, in the over twenty years?

Less than there have been in America this week.

But the pro-gun side simply refuses to learn from other countries, despite that clear, unambiguous example. Either they simply won't consider points counter to their terrified, gun-humping propaganda, or they somehow think that America is this huge exception to the rule where the opposite is what will work, despite not having worked in the years before that. Neither position has any justification, but they won't let go of them, because this was never about solving the problem in the first place for them.

People here in the states think having a gun makes them invincible to shootings, and even more ridiculous, to the off chance our government decides to go rogue. They're gonna band together and shoot at the tanks and drones. Now some people are just enthusiasts, but a lot of people I personally know think they can hold off the Military, and that's why they hold tight to their gun rights.

In the meantime, I just surrender to the fact that I could be shot at any minute.

[Esquilax]

Then start another thread for debating gun control. The killing in Orlando was a terrorist attack spurred on by ISIS. How will more gun control laws stop terrorists from attacking the U.S.? Do you think more laws are going to stop them?

Stop? No. Unlike you, I would never be that simplistic in my thinking.

Hinder? Yes. Oh yes. And do a lot of good besides that. And, perhaps, begin the process of changing the worst parts of your culture just a bit, so that maybe the enemies of your country- and mine, by the way- have a few less reasons to hate you.

But if all you want is a simple, one-step solution that solves the problem one hundred percent, I can't give that to you, and neither can you propose one. I will observe, however, that those demanding an all-or-nothing solution, and only that type of solution, tend to be the ones with ideological reasons behind their opposition to people offering real- if not comprehensive- solutions that drive their opposition. Driven into a corner, unable to defend your personal, petty wants rationally and too prideful and unwilling to cede any ground at all to reasonable regulation, you and those like you seek to shift the frame of the problem to one where we must seek the impossible, or do nothing at all.

I love that all the pro-gun peeps here, burbling on about box cutters and demanding we focus on ISIS...

You're saying that ISIS and terrorism isn't a problem, and gun control is the cure all for stopping terrorist attacks?

See, like right here: you've got no actual argument, I've pointed out a very clear historical precedent for all the good actually moderate gun control does that you're ideologically bound to ignore, so instead of addressing what I really said, you take half of one sentence in a larger piece and try to use that to spin off into some ridiculous, cartoon caricature of my words. You have nothing substantive to say, no real response to give, and so you're relegated to attempting to silence me via strawman.

On the off chance that you actually took what you said away from my longer post, that you really do believe the insipid falsity you try to put into my mouth there, let me state it in shorter words, for the "one sentence, hey, he disagrees with me, better not read any more," crowd: ISIS and terrorism are problems. Gun violence is also a problem, one that is a larger issue in which terrorism is often a subset of the problem, and one that disproportionately affects America due to its untrammeled access to guns. One can assuage- not cure, but assuage- both terrorism and gun violence, without FEMA communist death squads tekking yur gurns, by enacting sensible gun legislation that requires some minimal criteria from potential gun owners, and restricts the types of guns available for sale, and the evidence for this is all the other countries for which that has worked, and the disproportionately high levels of gun violence in this one country, which refuses to consider such laws. Such legislation would only be one step in a larger process involving multiple approaches, but in both the short and long term, it is a sensible and worthwhile step to take that would make the US safer.

Also, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for your utterly dishonest conduct here. But I know you won't be: shame is hard to come by for certain people who place their toys above the lives of innocent people.