By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

Porcupine_I on 26 May 2014
curl-6 said:

This is a sad reminder of just how powerful and dangerous misogyny and sexism still is in today's world.

This man was a product of a society that promotes the belief that a man is entitled to sex and attention from women; a society that says that a man's worth is determined by sexual conquests and violence/domination. Since he couldn't achieve the former, he resorted to the latter.

An excerpt from his manifesto, which you can read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225936731/Untitled





“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network
SocialistSlayer on 26 May 2014
Devil_Survivor said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Luck said:

Im just happy to be part of a community that doesn't value non-hunting guns as an essential household commodity.


What is a "hunting gun" as apposed to a "non hunting" gun.? What's the difference? 


Hunting gun usually refers to a rifle you would use to hunt a deer moose. 

so typically any rifle chambered in .223 to .250 savage to .308 up to like .338 lupua (thats probably a little overkill though)



 

SocialistSlayer on 26 May 2014
Burek said:
I started reading this out of curiosity, because being European I just cannot comprehend the obsession Americans have with their guns.
I simply cannot comprehend the situation in which everyone is safer because everyone has guns. To me it's paradoxical.

It seems that almost every month we see and read some person in the US going nuts and killing a bunch of people. This guy - sure, he stabbed some - but he still had enough guns to finish what he started.

By the way, I didn't notice that any civilian who had a gun had jumped in to intervene and stop the killer. As a matter of fact, come to think of it, almost all shooters either in the end kill themselves, or the police shoots them.
So where are all those "legal" gun owners, needing 3 pistols and 2 shotguns for defense, when stuff like this occurs?

From my perspective, it's just hypocrisy. People claim they need guns for defense, but they never end up using them in defense, only in "offense" when they need to shoot unarmed people. I guess it's just a need to feel important, to personally feel empowered, but without any courage to actually defend themselves, and especially other defenseless human beings, when the need arises.

I am pretty sure that most of those gun proponents buying weapons to defend themselves from the evil government would crap their pants at the first sight of a tank or when faced with a trained military unit.
And especially today, when a soldier in Houston or Phoenix can sit in his armchair and kill a person in Yemen or Pakistan at the touch of a button. An assault rifle sure did protect that Pakistani guy.

Anyway, discussions like these are pretty much useless, nobody's opinion will be changed in the end. We can just hope that the next time a gun owner "snaps", we are not in their vicinity.


at bolded that because 99% of mass shootings either happen where guns are banned, or extremely restricted. and its nearly impossible to get a conceal carry permit in Comifornia. its a may issue state. and open carry is illegal there.



 

thranx on 26 May 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
Burek said:
I started reading this out of curiosity, because being European I just cannot comprehend the obsession Americans have with their guns.
I simply cannot comprehend the situation in which everyone is safer because everyone has guns. To me it's paradoxical.

It seems that almost every month we see and read some person in the US going nuts and killing a bunch of people. This guy - sure, he stabbed some - but he still had enough guns to finish what he started.

By the way, I didn't notice that any civilian who had a gun had jumped in to intervene and stop the killer. As a matter of fact, come to think of it, almost all shooters either in the end kill themselves, or the police shoots them.
So where are all those "legal" gun owners, needing 3 pistols and 2 shotguns for defense, when stuff like this occurs?

From my perspective, it's just hypocrisy. People claim they need guns for defense, but they never end up using them in defense, only in "offense" when they need to shoot unarmed people. I guess it's just a need to feel important, to personally feel empowered, but without any courage to actually defend themselves, and especially other defenseless human beings, when the need arises.

I am pretty sure that most of those gun proponents buying weapons to defend themselves from the evil government would crap their pants at the first sight of a tank or when faced with a trained military unit.
And especially today, when a soldier in Houston or Phoenix can sit in his armchair and kill a person in Yemen or Pakistan at the touch of a button. An assault rifle sure did protect that Pakistani guy.

Anyway, discussions like these are pretty much useless, nobody's opinion will be changed in the end. We can just hope that the next time a gun owner "snaps", we are not in their vicinity.


at bolded that because 99% of mass shootings either happen where guns are banned, or extremely restricted. and its nearly impossible to get a conceal carry permit in Comifornia. its a may issue state. and open carry is illegal there.


I think the state supreme court ruled in conceal caryy and now its easier in CA to get one, or its still in the court process. can't remeber



SocialistSlayer on 26 May 2014
thranx said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Burek said:


at bolded that because 99% of mass shootings either happen where guns are banned, or extremely restricted. and its nearly impossible to get a conceal carry permit in Comifornia. its a may issue state. and open carry is illegal there.


I think the state supreme court ruled in conceal caryy and now its easier in CA to get one, or its still in the court process. can't remeber

as far as i know, its still a may issue state. where you have to get permission from your CLEO and prove you "need" it



 

Around the Network
Aielyn on 26 May 2014
SlayerRondo said:
Are you seriously claiming that liberals do not often during gun control discussions, misrepresent the facts and make emotional arguments as opposed to reasoned ones?

Also gun deaths were already on the decline before the gun control laws were introduced in Australia in 1997.

Gun Deaths in Australia 1987 = 569

Gun Deaths in Australia 1997 = 333  Ten Year Deline = 236

Gun Deaths in Australia 2007 = 190  Ten Year Decline = 143

Australian Bereau of Statistics (ABS). Causes of Death publication series

Australia is just a more peacefull country than America is.

First of all, not claiming anything about liberals. I'm saying something about the attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issue of gun violence onto the issue of liberal rhetoric, and addressing it by redirecting it back to the issue of gun violence, where the discussion, in this situation, belongs.

And I like the way that you use a datapoint from AFTER gun control legislation and the buyback had already started, to somehow prove that gun deaths were already on the decline. Here are the numbers from a more detailed source:

2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694

Source: Kreisfeld, Renate. 2006. ‘Australia Revised Firearm Deaths 1979-2003.’ National Injury Surveillance Unit / NISU. Adelaide: Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University of South Australia.

Change from 1987 to 1996: -25% over a period of 9 years

Change from 1996 to 2003: -44% over a period of 7 years - Newest data in 2011, 8 years later again, has a further 34% decrease.

And I particularly like the part where you assume that we had no gun control at all prior to the massacre. Between 88 and 95, various state and federal gun control laws were already being passed. What was special about 1996 was the gun buyback and the standardisation of laws across all states.

And I don't think Australia is particularly more peaceful, either. Assault rates per capita in 2012 was at 3.27 per 1000 in Australia and 2.62 per 1000 in US. Murder rate is higher in the US, though.

What is different between America and Australia is that we don't have a massive gun culture that has people convinced that any attempt to control access to guns is some sort of attack on freedom, even if it's just sensible controls like "make sure the person isn't criminally insane".

And while US population is about 15x that of Australia, the rate of gun crimes is, as of 2011, is 171x that of Australia. Australia's gun homicide rate is just 13% of the total homicide rate. America's is 70%. Total homicide rates in the US are 84x that of Australia. Non-gun homicide rates in the US are less than 30x higher than in Australia. So while the non-gun homicide rate per capita is higher in the US by a factor of 2, the gun homicide rate per capita is higher by a factor of 5.5. Australians may be a little more peaceful, but not exceptionally so... but the total death counts are lower, and thus the assault rates are higher (because homicides aren't usually recorded as assaults, and it's harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun).



man-bear-pig on 26 May 2014

I blame females. If they hadn't friendzoned him this would've never happened...this is what you get for treating nice guys like shit!



My prediction threads:

Wii U will sell under 40m units (made on 14th September 2012)

PS Vita will sell under 20m units (made on 30th September 2012)

Wii U will sell under 7m in 2013 - I was right

Halo 4 first 9 weeks sales prediction

PS4 to be down YOY in 2015

Richard_Feynman on 26 May 2014

Can't wait for Stephan Molyneux's assessment.



Mr Khan on 26 May 2014
badgenome said:
SocialistSlayer said:

What do you mean I'd be banned. Why?

GAF mods tend to swing the ban hammer pretty quickly at anyone who dares express an opinion that's to the right of Che Guevara while everyone else is free to call you every name in the book for having such heretical thoughts.

Maybe their moderation is better than i give it credit for



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

JPL78 on 26 May 2014

Bundy is a douche. He broke the law. The idiots backing him up were not "patriots, protecting their freedoms" they were a bunch of dangerous extremists trying to goad our government into a blood bath. These same idiots were threatening to use their women and children as human shields. All because a welfare cheat wanted to claim he didn't acknowledge our federal government as existing. News flash: our government exists whether you accept it or not and if you live in the United States you are under their laws.

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals. Would you guys be praising a drug dealer for having a standoff with the swat team? Would they be "protecting their constitutional freedoms?"

And you guys saying "it worked!" Yes, congratulations, our so called "evil government" didn't wish to kill a bunch of civilians. That's a good thing not a bad thing. If they wanted too they could have carpet bombed Bundy's ass to hell. Not a single gun present would have had the slightest ability to stop that.

But I guess that's where we are in his country, an ignorant racist tax cheat is seen as a patriot and a hero. The men and women who are supposed enforce the law in our country, the enemies.