ILP is apparently the sewer of all sewers.
Are you fucking joking me???
The way mass-murder is committed is “irrelevant”???
You say that now, give it time…
No I’m dead, fucking, serious, if 10 people are murdered, it doesn’t matter if they died by knife, or gunshot, or grenade, or being ran over with a car, all’s that matters is, they died.
What does it matter???
If 100 people are murdered in x state every year, what does it matter if they were murdered one at a time, or 10 at a time, or all at once?
What does it matter if they were murdered with x weapons, or y weapons, or z weapons?
Only if it can be demonstrated that banning x weapons will reduce the murder rate from 100 to 99 or less, does it matter, but if after banning x weapons people are just murdering an equal number of people in different ways, or the same ways because they’re getting a hold of x weapons illegally, than it does, not, matter, unless you are emotionally attached to this idea that banning x weapons will, somehow, do something, in spite of the data suggesting otherwise.
Yup, but the argument that someone can successfully fend-off the gov is moot since many have tried and no one has succeeded since the 1700s during the Revolutionary War when the people fought-off the Brits who had to cross an ocean by sail wielding only muskets and a few cannons. Now their gov is in their backyard and infinitely more weaponized. Whether or not people have ARs is irrelevant to the outcome and a “well-regulated militia” can’t exist for the implied purpose of guarding a free state.
The clause should be reworded for people to have the right to bear arms for personal and property protection from criminals and thugs rather than the state because, as it stands, there is no possibility of complying with the clause and no mention of personal protection as a right.
The pen is mightier than the sword and people suffer for lack of knowledge. The first thing that must be guarded is the freedom of speech, which is the only thing that can guarantee truth.
Yes, so it would seem, but I think there is something more fundamental at play in that the ones who choose to own guns also choose to not shoot people.
It sounds good, but if it were true, then we could arm our prisoners and expect the equalization of power to secure peace. The difference between prisoners and other people is their held philosophies, tendencies, mindsets. So, peace comes to armed people not by the addition of arms, but from a philosophy of not using those arms to kill people which, somehow, coincidences with people who choose to arm themselves.
People who feel strongly about protection of the right to bear arms also feel strongly about not using those arms. And people who do not feel strongly about protecting the right to bear arms also do not feel strongly about not shooting people. Why that is so, I can only speculate. I suspect it has something to do with dogmatism vs open-mindedness and moral-relativism vs absolutism.
Absolutists are dogmatic in their beliefs and are not open-minded in discussion. They are not morally relative. They do not hold beliefs on reason and evidence, but assert their beliefs to be absolute; therefore they have no cognitive mechanism to undermine their own beliefs. Arguing with those sorts is futile, but they can be trusted not to shoot you for the same bullheaded reason.
Moral relativists are opposite. They’re open-minded and therefore have a mechanism to change their mind. “Thou shalt not kill” is not absolute to them. If at some moment they deem you to be evil, then the ends of your extermination justifies the act of murder. Probably, because they know that about themselves, they seek to ban the means of killing.
That’s my theory to explain why guns coincide with less use of guns.
Yes, one only needs to examine the war on drugs to see that prohibition doesn’t work.
All the war on drugs accomplished was keeping pot out of scientific study while allowing pot-use to proliferate.
And it’s the same with guns because if guns are banned, then law abiding people won’t have guns and will be sitting ducks for criminals who don’t observe the law.
Coke and meth are banned, but the shit is everywhere. I could probably find meth easier than I could aspirin. For aspirin, I’d have to drive to the store, but the iceman delivers. (I don’t use meth; just saying.)
That’s a good observation. I wonder if it’s true that intelligent people are more likely to kill themselves than someone else. What are the murder rates vs suicide rates of japan? Murder rate = 6.2/100k and suicide rate = 26/100k. Japan is has the 3rd highest IQ by country (105). Switzerland is 101 and the US is 98. I bet one could correlate murder and suicide rates with iq.
If so, the murder problem could be ended with education, but then we’d have a suicide problem.
Another thing to note, drug dealers often enough also sell illegal guns. At least that is my impression living across the United States within its societal fringes over the years.
It’s because drug gangs are usually armed to the teeth where when they aren’t smuggling drugs everywhere they’re smuggling guns as well. Think of it as profit diversification on the part of organized crime at large.
Ideas floating around now is teachers being able to do their jobs with conceal and carry permits having firearms on themselves.
“Alright little Billy, if you don’t recite your ABC’s I am going to fire a round in your face!” 
I love the rotting smell of a disgusting decadent dying society breathing its last gasps of air.
It looks like the chillruns with the media corporate spotlight now are leading the charge to ban assault weapons and tougher gun regulations in the country. Will organized chillruns being used in the latest national political circus be the tipping point in disarming a majority of the United States population?
Let’s find out…
United States economically collapsing and gearing up for world conflict militarily where within the domestic front the sole focus being on disarmament under various facades of public safety.
Nope, I’m sure there is no correlation within all of that at all. It’s probably nothing…
You’re out of touch with reality.
Try to kill 10 people with a knife, compared to using an AR-15.
Be honest.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to knife attacks in England, Sweden, France, and Germany.
You’re even dumber than I had thought. A teacher with a conceal and carry somehow equals using that concealed and carried gun to threaten their own students? There is absolutely zero correlation here. And zero reasoning.
The only rotting disgusting smell here is coming from you, from where your brain used to be.
It’s easier to kill 10 people with an AR-15 than it is a knife.
You and Gloominary are taking a foolish position. Is that the argument you want to defend, that it’s in any “comparable” or similar to kill people with knives instead of guns?
It was a joke man, lighten up. It does however illustrate a zero trust society which the United States represents very well socially.
I am arguing that there are numerous ways for individuals or groups of people to go on a mass murder spree where even if you got rid of guns it’s still going to happen. There are numerous ways of killing large numbers of people without the usage of guns. That’s just the most basic simple method, there are other ways most people haven’t even contemplated where it is as easy as getting household supplies from your local Home Depot.
Also, I don’t like the idea of a disarmed population because I already don’t trust (or like) the current United States government where I would definitely not trust it even more if it held on all the weapons.
It should be common sense.
It’s obviously critical how people go on killing sprees. It’s as different as the Florida school massacre versus 9-11. Whether you use an AR-15, or an airplane, the means is obviously important. Discounting the how is just foolish.