I was reknowned in my work/family as someone you could always get help from, no strings attached.
I like harmony.

But if I decided my time to go was at hand, and no harm would come to my family, I would love to fantasize taking with me some truly certified malign asshole/s as a public service.

So please, don't let me have a gun, they will always facilitate death

Renegades Hang wrote on Apr 6, 2023, 18:48:

Hey man, that's just the price we pay for freedom. Nothing we can do about it.

The places that don't allow guns may not have as many mass shootings (though 77 people were killed in the 2011 Norway attack, a country with exceedingly strict gun control, in the deadliest known mass murder committed by a lone gunman in modern history), but they still have mass attacks. They have more bombings/arson than we do. Bombs are easy to make. Anybody who does basic chemistry can figure that out. The 2003 Daegu subway fire in South Korea is the deadliest mass murder committed by a single perpetrator where 192 people died and 151 others were injured. How many times have we seen now from Japan and China where there's been mass stabbings where they've killed 20+ people with knives? We have trucks now as the new favorite. We've seen that repeatedly in European countries that have extremely strict gun control. The 2016 Nice, France truck attack killed 86 and injured 458. This is why guns don't kill people, people kill people. People who want to take out a large group of people will do it even without a gun, and they can do so easily.

People get hung up on the tool because they want something easy to blame. They want an easy solution. And there is no one, easy solution.

The Myth That the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

Do Mass Shootings Only Happen in the US?
https://youtu.be/H06v5XrrLdw

Statistically speaking, stricter gun laws correlate to lower gun homicides and suicides. There's just no getting around those numbers.

The states that impose the most restrictions on gun users also have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, while states with fewer regulations typically have a much higher death rate from guns.

Comparing the US to Europe:

The IHME compared the 2019 murder rates from firearms — not just handguns, as Hayes said — between countries across the globe. Among the findings is that the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. was 22 times larger than in the European Union as a whole.

As for "guns don't matter because there are lots of ways to kill people," guns make it much easier to kill and commit crime in general. Europe's murder rate is much, much lower than the US. That's not entirely due to differences in gun laws, but it plays a huge part.

U.S. crime rates for the three violent crimes homicide, rape, robbery) were several times higher than the averages for reporting European countries. The U.S. homicide rate was 10.5-7.9 per 100,000 population compared to Europe's less than 2 per 100,000.

ZeroPike1 wrote on Apr 7, 2023, 03:44:

Renegades Hang wrote on Apr 6, 2023, 19:10:

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:
I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

Actually, rural places full of guns are exactly where you want to move to, as Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for over 30 years, explained to Piers Morgan.

Piers Morgan:

Edited down. Too long and useless.

First off, yeah... this guy, Larry Pratt the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America is not a source that is reliable on anything except what is up his own ass.

Second; Piers Morgan....

You are done, that disqualifies anything. I've checked the data and the results are in that both of these guys are exceptional asshats. That's about it.

In terms of his political views, Piers Morgan has described himself as a "centrist" or a "moderate," meaning that he does not identify as a member of any particular political party or adhere to any specific ideology. He has expressed support for some conservative policies such as strong national security and tough immigration laws, but he has also advocated for liberal causes such as gun control and LGBTQ rights.

Overall, Piers Morgan's political views are varied, and he has taken stances on both sides of the political spectrum, which is too difficult for the polarized sheep to properly digest so some just call him derogatory names and feel exceptionally good about themselves afterwards.

Renegades Hang wrote on Apr 6, 2023, 19:10:

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:
I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

Actually, rural places full of guns are exactly where you want to move to, as Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for over 30 years, explained to Piers Morgan.

Piers Morgan:

Edited down. Too long and useless.

First off, yeah... this guy, Larry Pratt the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America is not a source that is reliable on anything except what is up his own ass.

Second; Piers Morgan....

You are done, that disqualifies anything. I've checked the data and the results are in that both of these guys are exceptional asshats. That's about it.

Piers Morgan and the author of Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution and Citizen Militias aren't really good sources

Whatever makes you feel comfortable as you stand by your mirror posing with your phallic compensator

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:
I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

Actually, rural places full of guns are exactly where you want to move to, as Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for over 30 years, explained to Piers Morgan.

Piers Morgan: "Why do you believe, given that you have 300 million guns in circulation, and the worst gun crime rate of any of the civilized countries of the world, that more guns is the answer to less gun murder?"

Larry Pratt: "The problem occurs, sir, in those areas precisely where we have said 'No guns.' The problem doesn't occur where the guns are allowed freely to be carried, to be used by people. There we have very low murder rates. We have lower murder rates in other parts of the country than even in Europe, than even [Great Britain].

"But what has created the problem in the US is to say in cities and schools: those are areas where we are not going to allow people to defend themselves."

Piers Morgan: "What is the murder rate in Great Britain for the last three years? Do you know? From guns?"

Larry Pratt: "It's under 3 per 100,000, and in Fairfax County where Gun Owners of America is located, it is actually .3 per 100,000, about a tenth of what it is in your vaunted English bucolic countryside. The fact of the matter is, with guns comes safety, if the guns are in the hands of the good guys. And when you say the good guys can't have guns, the bad guys have a monopoly, and horrible things, such as the shooting at the schools take place.

..."We only have the problem in our cities and our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves.

"When you go to an area in the US where guns are freely available, readily able to be carried legally, there you find our lowest murder rates, lower than the murder rates in Europe. You go to our cities where we have 'cracked down' on guns, and people can't defend themselves, and that is where the criminals have a field day."

In other news, water is wet -- film at 11.

The United States has a disproportionate number of public mass shooters ... who attack alone.
“By definition, firearms are needed for people to commit mass shootings, so in countries where it is easier for dangerous or disturbed individuals to legally purchase firearms—like the United States—there is an increased likelihood of an attack."
from Does the U.S. lead the world in mass shootings? The answer, as we already know, is yes.
#2298

Hey man, that's just the price we pay for freedom. Nothing we can do about it.

The places that don't allow guns may not have as many mass shootings (though 77 people were killed in the 2011 Norway attack, a country with exceedingly strict gun control, in the deadliest known mass murder committed by a lone gunman in modern history), but they still have mass attacks. They have more bombings/arson than we do. Bombs are easy to make. Anybody who does basic chemistry can figure that out. The 2003 Daegu subway fire in South Korea is the deadliest mass murder committed by a single perpetrator where 192 people died and 151 others were injured. How many times have we seen now from Japan and China where there's been mass stabbings where they've killed 20+ people with knives? We have trucks now as the new favorite. We've seen that repeatedly in European countries that have extremely strict gun control. The 2016 Nice, France truck attack killed 86 and injured 458. This is why guns don't kill people, people kill people. People who want to take out a large group of people will do it even without a gun, and they can do so easily.

People get hung up on the tool because they want something easy to blame. They want an easy solution. And there is no one, easy solution.

The Myth That the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

Do Mass Shootings Only Happen in the US?
https://youtu.be/H06v5XrrLdw

ZeroPike1 wrote on Apr 6, 2023, 11:15:
Look, ok, a school filled with dead kids and teachers did not make any gun restrictions come into place. This will also bring none into place.

Hey man, that's just the price we pay for freedom. Nothing we can do about it.

Look, ok, a school filled with dead kids and teachers did not make any gun restrictions come into place. This will also bring none into place.

Americans have a line in the sand problem, where-in when somebody crosses the line, whatever that line maybe at the time, it results into an elevated response. That response results in the aggressor backing down or equally elevating and that results into the defender elevating their response. What really happened here is Pranker there pushed the wrong guy at the wrong time.

I have that mentality in my blood too. After moving to Europe I only ever got angry enough to let my 'inner American' out once. And it was enough to net me a reputation as somebody to not make overly angry among my co-workers.

The takeaway form all of this: The wild west never really stopped being "wild" it just spread to include even more states, people stopped riding horses, and AR-15s and concealed handguns replaced Winchester rifles and open-carry revolvers.

Okay, got it

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 21:55:
Given that the "prank" was not described, it could very well fall within the boundaries of assault. If so, Virginia does support the use of deadly force under their version of a "stand your ground" law which does not have a duty to retreat.

So, it seems this jackass learned a valuable lesson: don't fuck with random strangers and you won't get shot as a direct result of your stupidity.

Seeing stupid shit like this in the US, I always wondered why people didn't get shot. Now I know sometimes they do.

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 11:06:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 10:31:
However, there is a very simple solution to this particular problem. Don't bother people. This jackass fucked around and found out.

That is a simple solution, but not an entirely effective one.

Last December, a maintenance worker named Cesar Montelongo was checking on frozen pipes at an apartment complex in Texas when he was shot through a window by a resident who mistook him for a burglar. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. I couldn't find any info on what happened with the case after that. Maybe the resident faced justice, maybe not. But when so many people have guns and feel empowered to use them in this way, innocent people die as a result. I imagine most of those deaths don't make the news.

As for the man who had the misfortune of being a brown skinned hard worker in Texas, the family is suing the apartment complex and the loser who murdered him.
Family of Grand Prairie worker killed while checking burst pipes sues apartment, shooter

If you’re keeping score,
Here it is:
Ammosexxuals 1
America 0

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 12:32:
If I understand your argument correctly, changing the law is pretty much impossible so the majority of Americans who want change should just shut up and accept that innocent people need to continue to die in this country to protect the profits of gun manufacturers and fearmongers. Is that right?

You nailed it.

You're right, I am looking at this emotionally. I should stop that. There are cold and calculating ways to go about solving this.

Thanks for the inspiration!

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 12:32:
If I understand your argument correctly, changing the law is pretty much impossible so the majority of Americans who want change should just shut up and accept that innocent people need to continue to die in this country to protect the profits of gun manufacturers and fearmongers. Is that right?

No. I don't have an argument, I have an understanding of how my country is in situ.

I am not arguing against trying, I am pointing out the extreme legal and cultural challenges that any person or group is going to face and the very high likelihood of failure.

You are looking at this emotionally. Case in point, word usage like "innocent" and "fearmongers".

I am not. You can't emote your way to getting an opposing party to come over to your side or, at the very least, compromise. You need to give them a valid reason that serves their own self-interest to do so.

Right now, as the culture and legal framework sits, I don't see a way that the people screaming "BAN ALL TEH GUNZ AND TAKE THEM AWAY" have to appeal to the self-interest of those screaming "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! IT'S MUH RIGHTZ!"

If I understand your argument correctly, changing the law is pretty much impossible so the majority of Americans who want change should just shut up and accept that innocent people need to continue to die in this country to protect the profits of gun manufacturers and fearmongers. Is that right?

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 11:06:
Last December, a maintenance worker named Cesar Montelongo was checking on frozen pipes at an apartment complex in Texas when he was shot through a window by a resident who mistook him for a burglar. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. I couldn't find any info on what happened with the case after that. Maybe the resident faced justice, maybe not. But when so many people have guns and feel empowered to use them in this way, innocent people die as a result. I imagine most of those deaths don't make the news.

Read my above reply to Beamer. Personally, I would state that Castle Doctrine would not apply in that situation and that the individual who shot Montelongo, Sr. should face charges and prosecution. There was no direct, immediate threat to the resident and they were not defending themselves, their family, or their property as Montelongo Sr. was not within the interior confines of their apartment. Moreover, he was comporting his professional duties as the notification sent to all residents identified him as coming around to do.

I am guessing there is no further information about that incident in Grand Prairie because it has yet to go to trial.

I am a cynical, realistic pragmatist. I live in a country that has a culture drenched to the core in paranoia and violence. It is up to me to recognize that, understand that, and comport myself accordingly. I don't live my life in fear that I am going to be shot. Pearl clutching and panty bunching isn't going to change that. The "gun debate" is over. It doesn't matter what I want to believe or how I would like things to be. I must deal with the situation as it exists.

Being pragmatic, there are key points I know:

+ There are more firearms in the US than people.
+ The Supreme Court has shown a willingness and ability to rule that any state level constriction (not restriction) of the Second Amendment violates said Amendment and is unconstitutional.
+ Most of my fellow countrymen are fearful idiots.
+ There is a pervasive and ongoing campaign to propagate and continue class division and set people against one another. This brings with it a great many stressors which causes people to resort to their more primal "fight or flight" instinct much more rapidly than at previous points in history.
+ That confiscation is a non-starter and would be the death knell of any party that tried it, let alone a single politician that would attempt it, as it would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
+ That attempting to force registration would see an immediate legal challenge as a violation, in part, of both the Second and Fourth Amendments and would take decades to work out, if ever.

Ideally, if we as a country wanted to change, we would need to pass and ratify another Amendment that would limit and modernize the Second Amendment. However, that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify and that isn't going to happen. Certainly not in my lifetime.

Invariably in discussions such as this, someone will, with bright eyed ideology and ignorance, bring up examples of other countries. They fail to realize that those other countries do not share the same cultural background as the United States nor its legal framework. They usually bring up New Zealand and/or Australia. They also fail to realize that those countries had populations who as a whole were either amenable or indifferent to codified restrictions. That population does exist not within the United States. A significant portion of the population, and corporations and politicians, would fight any such restrictions tooth and nail for a variety of reasons.

Beamer wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 10:56:
I'm assuming that means to subway crazies, right?
I think I know the answer for you, but I get a bit frustrated any time there's video of a crazy on the NYC Subway shouting racist things, or playing music loudly, or laying across multiple seats during rush hour, or whathaveyou, and everyone is all "why aren't the cowards saying anything or telling him to stop?!" For the most part, because we know that they're mentally ill due to their actions, or looking for a fight, or both, and it's easier to just keep your eyes forward than be a hero and get punched and/or stabbed. Unless the person is an immediate threat to someone, just eyes forward.

You are correct, though I've never had the pleasure of witnessing the spectacle of NY subway crazies. The couple of times I was there, I never took the subway.

For me, the line is very clear. You, as an individual, have the natural right to defend yourself, your family, and your property up to and including lethal force if justified and if, and only if, you are under direct, immediate threat. However, you do not have the right to go on the offensive of your own volition. That falls in to "leave people the fuck alone". Yes, even if they are being annoying on the subway.