Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

Don't mean to ruin your fun or anything but you're not supposed to allow me to see this. Now I can actively avoid them, not that I would have resorted to most of these... You're in for a boring bingo game I'm afraid.

I do have to point some out as I find them to be potentially valid points: "criminals don't obey laws" and "when seconds count, police are minutes away". Is something untrue about these two?

>criminals don't obey laws

And yet we don't use that argument with any other laws.  Why make laws against stealing?  Criminals don't follow laws, anyways.

Just because someone is willing to break the law, doesn't mean that a law can't stop someone.  

I'm not talking about any gun bans, but suppose there was a gun ban.  Where would someone get a gun?  If you take 40 people who would cause a mass shooting, you'd likely find that most of them are neither knowledgable enough to make their own or connected enough to be able to get one illegally.  That might mean 4 mass shootings instead of 40.

>when seconds count, police are minutes away

The issue is that when someone has a gun, another gun usually isn't what saves the day.  For every "good guy with a gun", there's 10 shooting incidents that could have easily been avoided in the first place.  Even in some of these recent mass shootings, there was a "good guy with a gun", who knew better not to use theirs.  You'll have some incidents where police can't tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy. 

Secondly, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean it can be used, let alone should be used.  People that are shooting up a place, aren't going to take time to be extra careful.  They aren't going to try giving you time to use your gun. 

And thirdly, there are issues where people aren't trained.  They aren't well trained on how to use their gun, they aren't trained on how to safely manage the situation.  

1. Well in practice, most laws are used to punish the act itself rather than prevent it. There are laws against theft and yet we still have thieves. Laws against ownership of powerful weapons isn't going to end the ownership of these weapons. I agree though on making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on high-powered weapons.

2. The chances that anyone here be involved in a mass shooting is tiny. If caught in such a situation, I'd prefer to be armed than not. Do you feel the same?

konnichiwa said:
KLAMarine said:

All three sound perfectly reasonable. The devil is in the details.

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

Do we know why the Texas shooting occurred? Is there a manifesto somewhere?

That's why I said 'if all the points are confirmed'

The suspect is believed to be the author of a text posted on 8chan, an online message board frequently used by the far right, which describes a "cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion", alluding to Hispanic people in the US.

The four-page document, reportedly posted some 20 minutes before police received the first emergency call, also expresses support for the gunman who killed 51 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.

So where can I read this text?

Jaicee said:
KLAMarine said:

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

By THAT logic, maybe we should just legalize the private sale of rocket launchers. I mean why be stuck with mere assault weapons when you can cover the basis? So you might blow up your home in the process of defending it. So a dozen other people might be killed by your hypothetical act of self-defense. Sacrifices have to be made!

If my attacker showed up with an armored car, I could go with a rocket launcher. Of course, that's likely not to happen so I'll settle for a powerful firearm.

collint0101 said:
KLAMarine said:

So what can be done about it?

Universal mental health care, gun control, more aggressive law enforcement in regards to white supremacy. Like this isn't some uncontrollable force of nature it is very much so a uniquely American issue that is a result of our culture and or policy

"more aggressive law enforcement in regards to white supremacy"

Why stop there? Any media that could encourage gun violence: GTA 5 might be in trouble.



Around the Network
Torillian said:
Snoopy said:

The best way to stop shootings is to increase the quality of life here in the United States. It would be very easy if the Federal government-backed off and we stop electing Democrats. Most of these shootings are happening in Democrat counties due to restrictive gun control and their low standard of living.

And what exactly are democrats doing to increase shootings in these areas that republicans would counteract? And how have you determined that this is a causation and not simply a correlation?

Obviously the problem is that Democrats are trying to fix the problem and if we just did nothing, the problem would fix itself.

/sarcasm



KLAMarine said:

the-pi-guy said:

-universal background checks

-programs to help mental illness

-programs to deal with extremist propaganda

There, 3 things that can be done without even banning a single gun.  

All three sound perfectly reasonable. The devil is in the details.

Jaicee said:

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away" is the only one that strikes me as a valid argument. [sarcasm] Which explains exactly why you need to have a semi-automatic instead of just a normal hand gun. It also explains why the NRA opposes the sale of smart guns that recognize their owner's fingerprints only fire when they pull the trigger. [/sarcasm]

The fact is that gun violence does, in fact, drop off starkly when stricter gun laws are in place.

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

konnichiwa said:

Well their are cases that are overblown, you can literally have at the same time a police officer shooting a black guy and killing him and a police officer shooting a white guy and also killing him.  The first police officer will be called racist and we get a rise in 'black lives matter' while we will not see the same effect with the white 'victim'.  

but in the case of texas everything points to a man who seemed to be a white nationalist who wanted to kill and shoot non whites, if all the points are confirmed you can only speak about a white nationlist terrorist attack.  The fear of white domestic grown up supremacists terrorists is growing. 

The second shootings seems clear to a non terrorist attack because he wasn't aiming at a certain group of people but rather a place so the colour of the shooter doesn't seems to matter.

Do we know why the Texas shooting occurred? Is there a manifesto somewhere?

There is a manifesto, it's the same one shared by Trump, Neo-Nazis and the KKK. Trump himself pretty much endorses domestic terrorism.

It's because of "people" like Trump that you can't leave your own home in America, or even visit America, without fear of being gunned down by lunatics and/or white nationalists.



Some days I just blow up.

KLAMarine said:

the-pi-guy said:

>criminals don't obey laws

And yet we don't use that argument with any other laws.  Why make laws against stealing?  Criminals don't follow laws, anyways.

Just because someone is willing to break the law, doesn't mean that a law can't stop someone.  

I'm not talking about any gun bans, but suppose there was a gun ban.  Where would someone get a gun?  If you take 40 people who would cause a mass shooting, you'd likely find that most of them are neither knowledgable enough to make their own or connected enough to be able to get one illegally.  That might mean 4 mass shootings instead of 40.

>when seconds count, police are minutes away

The issue is that when someone has a gun, another gun usually isn't what saves the day.  For every "good guy with a gun", there's 10 shooting incidents that could have easily been avoided in the first place.  Even in some of these recent mass shootings, there was a "good guy with a gun", who knew better not to use theirs.  You'll have some incidents where police can't tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy. 

Secondly, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean it can be used, let alone should be used.  People that are shooting up a place, aren't going to take time to be extra careful.  They aren't going to try giving you time to use your gun. 

And thirdly, there are issues where people aren't trained.  They aren't well trained on how to use their gun, they aren't trained on how to safely manage the situation.  

1. Well in practice, most laws are used to punish the act itself rather than prevent it. There are laws against theft and yet we still have thieves. Laws against ownership of powerful weapons isn't going to end the ownership of these weapons. I agree though on making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on high-powered weapons.

2. The chances that anyone here be involved in a mass shooting is tiny. If caught in such a situation, I'd prefer to be armed than not. Do you feel the same?

konnichiwa said:

That's why I said 'if all the points are confirmed'

The suspect is believed to be the author of a text posted on 8chan, an online message board frequently used by the far right, which describes a "cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion", alluding to Hispanic people in the US.

The four-page document, reportedly posted some 20 minutes before police received the first emergency call, also expresses support for the gunman who killed 51 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.

So where can I read this text?

Jaicee said:

By THAT logic, maybe we should just legalize the private sale of rocket launchers. I mean why be stuck with mere assault weapons when you can cover the basis? So you might blow up your home in the process of defending it. So a dozen other people might be killed by your hypothetical act of self-defense. Sacrifices have to be made!

If my attacker showed up with an armored car, I could go with a rocket launcher. Of course, that's likely not to happen so I'll settle for a powerful firearm.

collint0101 said:

Universal mental health care, gun control, more aggressive law enforcement in regards to white supremacy. Like this isn't some uncontrollable force of nature it is very much so a uniquely American issue that is a result of our culture and or policy

"more aggressive law enforcement in regards to white supremacy"

Why stop there? Any media that could encourage gun violence: GTA 5 might be in trouble.

What the fuck kind of leap in logic BS is this? White supremacy and people with connections to those who support it are a very specific group just like any other organization that supports or encourages political extremism and you're trying to compare it to the 100 million+ that have played gta5. I barely even know how to respond to this post because you're either too dense or to dishonest to warrant a proper response



Chrkeller said:
Raise the age for any firearm to 25? Seems like kids are behind most of these attacks. Maybe by 25 they won't be so crazy?

It'd likely help, but I think there are probably better things to do.  

jason1637 said:

N R A $.

It's not the NRA's money that's actually that dangerous.  A lot of people harp on that, but really it's the NRA's members that are convincing.  They have a large, extremely reliable voting block.  Several million people who are basically guaranteed to vote for you, is incredibly compelling for politicians.  

jason1637 said:
Chrkeller said:
Raise the age for any firearm to 25? Seems like kids are behind most of these attacks. Maybe by 25 they won't be so crazy?

Lol no. If someone can go to war for their country they deserve the same amount of rights as other people.

It's a complicated issue, but life should be preserved over the "rights" people have.  Can't have rights, if you're dead.  

KLAMarine said:

1. Well in practice, most laws are used to punish the act itself rather than prevent it. There are laws against theft and yet we still have thieves. Laws against ownership of powerful weapons isn't going to end the ownership of these weapons. I agree though on making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on high-powered weapons.

2. The chances that anyone here be involved in a mass shooting is tiny. If caught in such a situation, I'd prefer to be armed than not. Do you feel the same?

I'd rather not be armed.  Avoiding the situation is easier without a gun.  And even if I could be the "good guy with a gun", I'd be in danger if police didn't know who was the bad guy, I'd be in danger if someone else decided to be a "good guy with a gun" and didn't know who to shoot.  I'd be in danger because the shooter would be even jumpier and more likely to shoot me than I would shoot them.  



Around the Network
Snoopy said:

The best way to stop shootings is to increase the quality of life here in the United States. It would be very easy if the Federal government-backed off and we stop electing Republicans. Most of these shootings are happening in Republican states due to no or very lax gun control and their low standard of living.

Fixed that for you

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 04 August 2019

CaptainExplosion said:
KLAMarine said:

All three sound perfectly reasonable. The devil is in the details.

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

Do we know why the Texas shooting occurred? Is there a manifesto somewhere?

There is a manifesto, it's the same one shared by Trump, Neo-Nazis and the KKK. Trump himself pretty much endorses domestic terrorism.

It's because of "people" like Trump that you can't leave your own home in America, or even visit America, without fear of being gunned down by lunatics and/or white nationalists.

So where's the manifesto? I wish to read it.

collint0101 said:
KLAMarine said:

1. Well in practice, most laws are used to punish the act itself rather than prevent it. There are laws against theft and yet we still have thieves. Laws against ownership of powerful weapons isn't going to end the ownership of these weapons. I agree though on making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on high-powered weapons.

2. The chances that anyone here be involved in a mass shooting is tiny. If caught in such a situation, I'd prefer to be armed than not. Do you feel the same?

So where can I read this text?

If my attacker showed up with an armored car, I could go with a rocket launcher. Of course, that's likely not to happen so I'll settle for a powerful firearm.

"more aggressive law enforcement in regards to white supremacy"

Why stop there? Any media that could encourage gun violence: GTA 5 might be in trouble.

What the fuck kind of leap in logic BS is ths? White supremacy and people with connections to those who support it are a very specific group just like any other organization that supports or encourages political extremism and you're trying to compare it to the 100 million+ that have played gta5. I barely even know how to respond to this post because you're either too dense or to dishonest to warrant a proper response

GTA 5 lets you gun down countless innocents. Surely there are those crazy enough to extend that to the real world.

Can we leave a stone unturned in the pursuit of preventing mass shootings?

the-pi-guy said:

 

a

KLAMarine said:

1. Well in practice, most laws are used to punish the act itself rather than prevent it. There are laws against theft and yet we still have thieves. Laws against ownership of powerful weapons isn't going to end the ownership of these weapons. I agree though on making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on high-powered weapons.

2. The chances that anyone here be involved in a mass shooting is tiny. If caught in such a situation, I'd prefer to be armed than not. Do you feel the same?

I'd rather not be armed.  Avoiding the situation is easier without a gun.  And even if I could be the "good guy with a gun", I'd be in danger if police didn't know who was the bad guy, I'd be in danger if someone else decided to be a "good guy with a gun" and didn't know who to shoot.  I'd be in danger because the shooter would be even jumpier and more likely to shoot me than I would shoot them.  

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to be the hero. Just use it if you're cornered.

I'd rather have the gun just in case.



jason1637 said:
The White House is looking into protecting illegal Venezuelan immigrants from deportation https://www.npr.org/2019/08/02/747734905/amid-border-crackdown-white-house-may-shield-venezuelans-from-deportation
Terrible idea imo. It basically says that if you're country is a shithole and you come illegally to the US you can stay.

The word you're looking for is "refugee".



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The Media has a big responsibility to life and safety in our Country. Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years. News coverage has got to start being fair, balanced and unbiased, or these terrible problems will only get worse!

^ Made me sick to read that statement;..

And then it got worse:

We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying....

....this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!

BTW:

El Paso Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Parkland Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Tree Of Life Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Las Vegas Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Borderline Bar Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Sandy Hook Shooter: Not an immigrant.
Charleston Shooter: Not an immigrant.

White nationalist guy aims to attack people with colour/immigrants => He succeeded in killing many  =>Result  Let's give him what they want and punish the immigrants!





I want congress to introduce a bill that makes lying illegal for presidents. Then I want to see it contested by Republicans and then vetoed by the president.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.