Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Pure Evil - Heroes of...
Last post by DarkestHour00
Today 06:50 AM
24 Replies, 1,138 Views
Steve Carell fights...
Last post by Terran
Today 06:40 AM
8 Replies, 435 Views
Star Wars Story Spin-Off...
Last post by Chimpbot
Today 06:18 AM
10 Replies, 458 Views
Solo Stumbles over the...
Last post by JazGalaxy
Today 04:39 AM
79 Replies, 3,929 Views
Share your collection
Last post by Kergas
Today 04:22 AM
1,322 Replies, 634,770 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by Terran
Yesterday 07:58 PM
1,726 Replies, 188,130 Views
Picts - Waiting to...
Last post by vallor
Yesterday 07:39 PM
18,096 Replies, 2,772,046 Views
Sir Patrick Stewart...
Last post by Terran
Yesterday 07:36 PM
25 Replies, 1,517 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-26-2018, 12:22 PM   #21
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,333
Ad hominem argumentation! The fallacious rhetoric is strong with this one!

#2AHere2Stay
#DealWithIt

Edit:



__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D

Last edited by Terran; 02-26-2018 at 02:26 PM..
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:03 PM   #22
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Anything short of banning all guns except bolt action rifles or very small magazine shotguns really wouldn't do anything to stop the damage done in school shootings anyway so whats the point? I think banning bump stocks makes sense but past that idk what the point is really.

Also at best this is treating the symptom and not the actual root cause. There are lots of knife attacks on schools in China. They are way less effective in terms of body count, but they are still pretty terrifying and a lot of this is about combating terror.

Arming teachers is definitely a really stupid idea and will only result in a bunch of accidents where kids get a hold of the gun or the teacher threatens the students with it.

It seems like a media blackout of these events would make them basically disappear. Can we really not get the cable companies or the media companies to agree to something like that?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:04 PM   #23
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Ad hominem argumentation! The fallacious rhetoric is strong with this one!

#2AHere2Stay
#DealWithIt

Edit:

hahahaha

Are you seriously saying the US is doing great by comparing its level of gun violence to a bunch of third world countries?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:09 PM   #24
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
hahahaha

Are you seriously saying the US is doing great by comparing its level of gun violence to a bunch of third world countries?
I was looking at these statistics earlier and it looked like one source said 10.6 deaths in the US per 100k. That would put us right around Uruguay.

I have no idea if that makes the point of that graph better or worse. I guess it depends on how you feel about gun violence in Uruguay.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:10 PM   #25
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I think we can all agree that the framers did not anticipate that the 2nd amendment would be used to defend a situation that allows over 100,000 actual deaths and injuries every year (not to mention other criminal results) to be balanced against an increasingly ridiculous pie in the sky imaginary tyrannical government defense. I would also argue that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the idea that people should have a right to own and bear arms for "The primary legitimate purpose of a handgun in civilian ownership is self defense." At least, in the sense that most people think of self defense. Right or wrong, the constitution was not intended as a death pact, or to create domestic terrorism and insecurity in our free state., so, just as you mentioned, if a law is not having its desired effect, we should get rid of it.
No, I do not agree. Some evidence states that crime rates, particularly homicide in this instance, happened at considerably higher rates in the days of the framers:

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment has to do with defense from a tyrannical government, not an individual murderer.

Now if something, aside from people, played a role in the injury and/or death of a large amount of people, then we should push for the prohibition of alcohol, force people to surrender private ownership of a automobile and to take public transportation, and ban a great many things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDC
Within external causes of injury death, unintentional poisoning was the leading mechanism of injury mortality in 2014, followed by unintentional motor vehicle traffic-related injuries. During 2002–2010, unintentional motor vehicle traffic-related injuries was the leading mechanism of injury mortality, followed by unintentional poisoning, but beginning in 2011, the number of deaths from unintentional poisoning was higher than the number from unintentionalmotor vehicle traffic-related injuries; see the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html.
According to the CDC, firearms accounted for 16.8% (33,594; with 63.7% of which being suicide, 32.8% homicide, and the rest being accidental) of all injury deaths in 2014. Motor-vehicles "traffic-related injuries" resulted in 33,736 deaths in 2014, 16.9% of all injury related deaths. Poisoning resulted in 51,966 deaths (80.9% deemed unintentional and 13.1% believed to be suicides) in 2014, 26% of all injury related deaths.

As for the "increasingly ridiculous pie in the sky imaginary tyrannical government defense," do you mean that due to a belief that the federal government would be impossible to fight, or that the federal government will never become - or, I suppose, isn't - tyrannical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
3. Handguns. I'm not sure where to put this comment, but I guess it is as relevant to handguns as anything else in this discussion. When the space shuttle blew apart, they investigated every single contributing factor and addressed every single one, from management attitudes, inspection protocols, materials used in parts, etc. What they didn't do was say, "Well the O-ring cracked, but that had nothing to do with it, people made the decision to use that o-ring and launch under cold conditions and install the o-ring, so people are the problems only. The o-rings are fine." Obviously, that is a flawed analogy, but I am just trying to give an example of the type of thinking and conversations that have gone on in this issue. If an ikea crib is tippy and kills a few kids, they recall it. If a bucky ball magnet is ingested by a toddler they take it off the market. We don't pretend that accidental deaths are acceptable with any other product, nor do we say that the products themselves had nothing to do with it. So, I think we need to include every aspect of the problem in any discussion of an actual solution in a very direct and honest way. I am not sure why you mentioned that a gun show loophole doesn't exist, but many states have completely unregulated 2nd hand distribution of guns. You can get guns without any background checks or anything buy or trade as easily as an old xbox console from the local classified ads. Whatever you call it, that seems like a bad idea.
Okay, that's a terrible analogy. People blamed the o-ring because it didn't perform as designed. This is why people don't blame the auto-mobile when a person purposely steers it into a crowd of people. Was the Florida killing the result of a "runaway gun"? No. Firearms are not sentient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
You can get guns without any background checks or anything buy or trade as easily as an old xbox console from the local classified ads. Whatever you call it, that seems like a bad idea.
I know how touchy you are about broad statements, and this one is, as a matter of fact, wrong. Remember, studies supporting posts on forums are only required if they don't align with your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I don't know about any legitimate uses for AR-15s, but hunting rifles and shotguns used by hunters, I completely agree. I would support an assault weapons ban immediately.
AR-15s are increasingly used as hunting rifles by hunters. A few other legitimate uses are: target shooting, training, self-defense, competitions, and plain old fun. AR-15s seem to be perceived as holding some sort of mythological power. In reality, there has been a half century debate in the military if they were "powerful enough" for military service. If you look at the U.S. military weapons, you'll see that they've generally moved towards smaller calibers with infantry arms.

Now, notice that you mentioned the number of dead and injured earlier in the post. If you really wanted to make a dent in that number, you'd go after semi-automatic handguns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT
It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.
Should people start panic-buying toasters now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I support immediately funding as much gun violence research as necessary and getting rid of the amendment that states research can not be used to advocate gun control.
Why? I'd wager that you want a conclusion which confirms your bias. You stated earlier that you didn't know of any "legitimate" use for an AR-15, which seems to show that you're ignorant on the topic -- but still want to ban them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Some policy changes take a generation or so to make a difference. Also, as soon as you set up a system like this, there will always be somebody who comes along and says that the system isn't working and the law should be abandoned. Or you might have a gun company pay people to claim that the law isn't working or fund their own research to prove that. Essentially, cf climate change.
Well, the U.S. government funded research regarding the so-called "assault weapons ban" that occurred under Clinton. The result? No discernible reduction in gun violence:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Times
Not to mention the much touted Australian model, which was confiscation, doesn't really support the claims of those, like Obama, suggesting we follow those footsteps. Looking at the U.S., we can see that somewhat recent laws which were meant to deny citizens the ability to purchase

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Now, just as I can't snap my fingers and deport 12 million undocumented Americans, I also can't snap my fingers and make 400 million guns disappear. (that number was a guess, I don't actually know what the total estimate is right now) However, if I knew with absolute certainty that it would end all gun crime and innocent deaths, I would be willing to accept that as a reasonable accommodation from our collective citizenry. Yes, I would be asking innocent people to give up a treasured object in favor of saving innocent lives, but it seems like a very small price to pay or ask for in order to preserve security of a free state.
What irony, you're talking about what amounts to confiscation while also saying "free state." Amazing, really. I'm curious, what firearms do you own?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:25 PM   #26
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Is there a legitimate use for an AR-15 beyond actual combat? It was designed for combat purposes right?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:29 PM   #27
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Is there a legitimate use for an AR-15 beyond actual combat? It was designed for combat purposes right?
Yes there are legitimate uses for an AR-15 besides combat (which some could call self-defense combat), this was answered above.

A firearm being designed for military use does not imbue it with magical powers. The 1911 was designed for military use, as were many Glocks, and revolers and bolt-action rifles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:31 PM   #28
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Anything short of banning all guns except bolt action rifles or very small magazine shotguns really wouldn't do anything to stop the damage done in school shootings anyway so whats the point?
There is no point. France has strict gun laws, yet the Bataclan attack happened all the same, with high powered weaponry easily available to the criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Are you seriously saying the US is doing great by comparing its level of gun violence to a bunch of third world countries?
Are you seriously insulting much of Central and South America, our neighbors? How culturally arrogant of you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Is there a legitimate use for an AR-15 beyond actual combat?
The Second Amendment "shall not be infringed" and doesn't depend upon your feelings of legitimacy, thank you very much.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:48 PM   #29
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
The Second Amendment "shall not be infringed" and doesn't depend upon your feelings of legitimacy, thank you very much.
So if I want to own an ICBM with a hydrogen bomb should that be allowed? What about chemical weapons? Is there any limit to what "keeping and bearing arms" means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
There is no point. France has strict gun laws, yet the Bataclan attack happened all the same, with high powered weaponry easily available to the criminals.
Way more mass killings happen in the US than any other first world country. It is undeniable that if we took guns away the number of people killed in these events would be reduced dramatically. I'm not saying I advocate that necessarily, but it is still obviously true. You can see it in all the countries where they have taken guns from the populace.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:50 PM   #30
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Yes there are legitimate uses for an AR-15 besides combat (which some could call self-defense combat), this was answered above.
So basically no. It is meant for combat. I am not saying that means they should be banned, but lets call a spade a spade. It is a weapon that exists for the purpose of killing other people.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:57 PM   #31
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
So if I want to own an ICBM with a hydrogen bomb should that be allowed? What about chemical weapons? Is there any limit to what "keeping and bearing arms" means?
That limit has already been established in the 1986 automatic fire weapons ban. I feel confident in saying that if you can't have an automatic weapon, you can't have an ICBM or hydrogen bomb. As for chemical weapons, planning on getting rid of fertilizer and other explosive chemicals?

Quote:
It is undeniable that if we took guns away the number of people killed in these events would be reduced dramatically.
That's not undeniable at all. The Bataclan attack in France is evidence of that, as is the Beslan school siege.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:04 PM   #32
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
That limit has already been established in the 1986 automatic fire weapons ban.
Why does that not infringe upon the second amendment though? You were just arguing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
The Second Amendment "shall not be infringed"
Yet here it is blatantly being infringed upon. If automatic fire weapons can be banned then what is to stop pistols from being banned in another regular law just like the 1986 automatic fire weapons ban?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
That's not undeniable at all. The Bataclan attack in France is evidence of that, as is the Beslan school siege.
I don't see how these are evidence for your side. In absolute numbers these attacks are far less frequent than mass shootings in the US. In fact tons of attacks in europe are car based attacks, why would anyone do that when a gun based attack would be much more effective in most cases?

You can see in China where there is still a fairly high frequency of random knife based attacks the murder rates are much lower than comparable gun based attack in the US.

Last edited by Eats; 02-26-2018 at 04:22 PM..
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:18 PM   #33
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I guess it makes sense when a Reality show jackass is president that people think a talk show host and an actor would be good constitutional scholars and policy analysts.
I bet you have zero issue with 98% of Hollywood Schilling for the left tho.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:21 PM   #34
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Why does that not infringe upon the second amendment though?
It absolutely does, but certainly you're not stupid enough to argue that the absence of a right to an ICBM is evidence of an infringement of any substance upon the constitutional rights of Americans.

Or, maybe you are? Who knows...you defended a serial abuse in Whedon, maybe this is just your shtick.


Quote:
If automatic fire weapons can be banned then what is to stop pistols from being banned in another regular law just like the 1986 automatic fire weapons ban?
Oh, you can try to ban all kinds of things the constitution doesn't allow you to ban. You'll face a helluva fight. Good luck.

Quote:
I don't see how these are evidence for your side.
You make a number of assumptions that are not automatically guaranteed to occur, including an actual ability to confiscate the 350-450 million weapons in the U.S. and then keep out further weapons in a nation of 300+ million with a border so porous our own government sent high powered weaponry across into Mexico.

Good luck.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:30 PM   #35
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
So basically no. It is meant for combat. I am not saying that means they should be banned, but lets call a spade a spade. It is a weapon that exists for the purpose of killing other people.
I listed a few popular uses for AR-15s and your response is that they basically have no other legitimate reasons than combat? Uh, okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
AR-15s are increasingly used as hunting rifles by hunters. A few other legitimate uses are: target shooting, training, self-defense, competitions, and plain old fun. AR-15s seem to be perceived as holding some sort of mythological power. In reality, there has been a half century debate in the military if they were "powerful enough" for military service. If you look at the U.S. military weapons, you'll see that they've generally moved towards smaller calibers with infantry arms.
Do you think there is something special about the AR-15 that hunting rifles cannot do? You appear to have a misconception about firearms. Bolt-action firearms have been built for the military, did that imbue them with special powers as well?

Do you think the only legitimate use for a sports bike or sports car is to race it on a track?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:35 PM   #36
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
It absolutely does, but certainly you're not stupid enough to argue that the absence of a right to an ICBM is evidence of an infringement of any substance upon the constitutional rights of Americans.
I'm just trying to understand your position. It seems internally inconsistent.

Why are automatic weapons not ok, but other weapons are? You seem to be ok with the assault weapons ban even though you believe it violates the constitution.

It just seems to me that if we can ban automatic weapons then the 2nd amendment as you are interpreting it is meaningless and all it would take to ban most guns is a regular act of congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
You make a number of assumptions that are not automatically guaranteed to occur, including an actual ability to confiscate the 350-450 million weapons in the U.S. and then keep out further weapons in a nation of 300+ million with a border so porous our own government sent high powered weaponry across into Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
There is no point. France has strict gun laws, yet the Bataclan attack happened all the same, with high powered weaponry easily available to the criminals.
These are contradictory points. Also most terrorists and crazy people/mass shooters aren't exactly masters of logistics. If it was harder to get guns a lot of them seem like they wouldn't be able to. You can see this when you look at attacks in other countries. The batalan attack is an outlier. In most attacks they do seem to be unable to get guns.

If you stop selling bullets and outlaw the private sale of weapons I think things would start getting difficult pretty fast.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:41 PM   #37
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I'm just trying to understand your position. It seems internally inconsistent.
No right is boundless. Not even the right to life and liberty (commit murder, see if you get penalized for it, eh?).

Quote:
Why are automatic weapons not ok, but other weapons are? You seem to be ok with the assault weapons ban even though you believe it violates the constitution.
No right is boundless. Try and push those boundaries. Watch Americans push back.

Quote:
It just seems to me that if we can ban automatic weapons then the 2nd amendment as you are interpreting it is meaningless and all it would take to ban most guns is a regular act of congress.
No right is boundless. Try and push those boundaries. Watch Americans push back.

Quote:
These are contradictory points.
No they're not.

Quote:
Also most terrorists and crazy people/mass shooters aren't exactly masters of logistics. If it was harder to get guns a lot of them seem like they wouldn't be able to.
Quite an assumption you're making. I disagree.

Quote:
You can see this when you look at attacks in other countries. The batalan attack is an outlier. In most attacks they do seem to be unable to get guns.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I disagree.

Quote:
If you stop selling bullets and outlaw the private sale of weapons I think things would start getting difficult pretty fast.
Try and push those boundaries. Watch Americans push back.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 04:56 PM   #38
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post

This is a fantastic article about how the NRA has successfully lobbied to keep the government from having an electronic database of gun owners in the United States. So if a gun is used in a crime, rather than type the number into a computer and have it spit out gun records, potentially solving a crime in minutes, we taxpayers pay actual people to rummage through warehouses of paper records for no other reason than “protecting the erosion of the second amendment” through the eyes of a certain group of people.

That’s the kind of thing that makes no sense to me.
It makes no sense to you because you have no clue how this works. For the authorities to be able to have gun records spit out, they must know which gun was involved in the crime; this usually involves having possession of it. What does that mean? That you haven't prevented a crime.

Now another issue with your view is that the federal government often doesn't enforce the laws already on the books. Ted Cruz pointed that the Obama admin only prosecuted 44 out of 48,321 cases of people trying to illegally buy firearms, which I guess was bought and paid for by the NRA or something. Now, previous admins weren't huge on pursuing these charges -- but the % went down even further over the apparent NRA puppet Obama. /sarc

These purchases, which appear to largely be straw purchases, ruin the point of any background check and/or idea that having a government database will be used to reduce crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
You say that I misunderstand the point of the NRA, which is not to solve gun violence, it to protect the second amendment. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. In many cases, the NRA directly impedes solving gun violence by, in their mind, protecting the second amendment.
No, the NRA doesn't impede solving gun violence. You seem to misplace your blame and trust. Here is an example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
I absolutely do have a problem with people who aren’t willing to talk solutions to that problem, and that includes the NRA. The failure of the NRA to talk sensibly about any of this is what has caused the rhetoric to become so polarized and extremist.
The NRA has, at times, back additional gun control measures and "fixing" the background check system.

The failures which led to such polarized and extremist measures are those claiming a couple more laws and further infringement on the 2nd Amendment will magically end this gun violence. Look at Florida, where the FBI/Sheriff were called how many times about the shooter prior to his murder spree? Oh, and to make matters worse, it appears that the Sheriff whose sworn duty was to protect people decided to sit it out while the killings went on. Civilians have been told "see something, say something" for how long? Civilians are told that the 2nd Amendment is past due, we're far more civilized and can rely on police to protect them.

How many times have these systems failed and led to horrific crimes? Not circumventing the systems, but simply going through the normal, accepted process? If they can't be bothered to properly enforce the layers and layers of current laws or systems, how are they going to stop people hell-bent on murder?

SCOTUS has ruled that police do not have a duty to protect someone. I think SCOTUS is tragically correct; you're ultimately and unfortunately responsible for your own well-being.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 05:04 PM   #39
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 411
Quote:
Also most terrorists and crazy people/mass shooters aren't exactly masters of logistics. If it was harder to get guns a lot of them seem like they wouldn't be able to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Quite an assumption you're making. I disagree.
This is not as assumption.

A lot of them are literally crazy, like the guy who shot up the movie theater for batman.

Why don't more of them have more effective bombs and weaponry then? Why are these attacks frequently done with knives and cars and kill less than 5 people?

For example the las vegas shooter was a rare outlier that was extremely well prepared and had a plan. No amount of gun control regulation would've stopped him from killing a lot of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll

Most of these attacks are not well orchestrated. They use whatever is immediately available in their environment and attack. A serious and competent adversary could just build a bomb and blow up the entire school like the oklahoma city bombing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I disagree.
I'm not sure you know what anecdotal means. This is not my personal experience. The information on all of these attacks is readily available.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 05:22 PM   #40
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
This is not as assumption.

A lot of them are literally crazy, like the guy who shot up the movie theater for batman.

Why don't more of them have more effective bombs and weaponry then? Why are these attacks frequently done with knives and cars and kill less than 5 people?
Some of the attackers do use explosive devices. The killings at the Batman movie were decently planned. The shooter was reportedly a PhD student. His AR-15 also reportedly jammed, meaning that his shotgun and handgun were possibly the primary firearm used.

For example the las vegas shooter was a rare outlier that was extremely well prepared and had a plan. No amount of gun control regulation would've stopped him from killing a lot of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Most of these attacks are not well orchestrated. They use whatever is immediately available in their environment and attack. A serious and competent adversary could just build a bomb and blow up the entire school like the oklahoma city bombing.
It'd be incredibly unlikely that one of these killers could "blow up the entire school" like the Oklahoma city bombing due to how explosives work. The effects of the Oklahoma city blast were due to not only directing the blast, but the type of building attacked.

These attacks are decently well orchestrated. They appear to attack so-called "gun free zones," increasingly funnel the students, and most times appear to have the intent of dying themselves. In places like Iraq or Afghanistan, this is more planning than goes into many attacks on U.S. forces. How much planning does one need beyond knowing that there will be some mass of people in a building and most likely unarmed because the law demands it?

There was nothing highly orchestrated about the Vegas shooter, at least as far as has been reported. He locked himself in a room where he was shooting into a crowd of people. If he was well orchestrated, he could have been far more effective. He may had a few cameras, but there was nothing special to his attack. There really isn't anything more complicated than the VA Tech murders, Columbine, the Batman killings, and others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 AM.