The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[18thofMay]

No way, just congratulating them on their stance. 355 mass shootings this year, well done! Its a sarcastic nod to the gun totting, Americana that is a myth. The land of the free.

[filledeplage]

No way, just congratulating them on their stance. 355 mass shootings this year, well done! Its a sarcastic nod to the gun totting, Americana that is a myth. The land of the free.

18th of May - the FBI has not ruled out terrorism.  This appears to have the indicia of the Bataclan attack, orchestrated similarly.  This is not about the 2nd amendment.  They used "long guns" the new rhetoric, no mention of Kalashnikovs, and found IED's (pipe bombs.) 

Cities in the US have attacks from pressure cookers made by those who got hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for free college tuition and apartments, because they were refugees. These shooters used assault rifles.  That is not the 2nd amendment. 

The outlaws have the guns and "soft targets" now need to be armed.  Schools, churches, malls, sporting centers.  It is the new normal. 

God Bless America.

[Emily]

The outlaws have the guns and "soft targets" now need to be armed.  Schools, churches, malls, sporting centers.  It is the new normal. 
God Bless America.

I'm sorry but the country you depict is not worth blessing or maintaining. If that's what it comes to: an armed citizenry constantly prepared for battle at schools, arenas, etc. then the American experiment has failed and it's time to shutter the place.

[18thofMay]

No way, just congratulating them on their stance. 355 mass shootings this year, well done! Its a sarcastic nod to the gun totting, Americana that is a myth. The land of the free.

18th of May - the FBI has not ruled out terrorism.  This appears to have the indicia of the Bataclan attack, orchestrated similarly.  This is not about the 2nd amendment.  They used "long guns" the new rhetoric, no mention of Kalashnikovs, and found IED's (pipe bombs.) 

Cities in the US have attacks from pressure cookers made by those who got hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for free college tuition and apartments, because they were refugees. These shooters used assault rifles.  That is not the 2nd amendment. 

The outlaws have the guns and "soft targets" now need to be armed.  Schools, churches, malls, sporting centers.  It is the new normal. 

God Bless America.

Wow yeah cool stuff, more guns to stop the guns! f***ed up logic 101.

[Micha]

Let's say you make guns illegal unless you're in law enforcement.  You can't believe that the criminals won't find ways to get them.  Then, the outlaws are unarmed and people aren't.  

Well, re-reading what you wrote I don't think that's what you actually wanted to say...

Yes, devoted criminals will find ways to get them. But I question that the reason that there is less street criminality in some place lies in the criminals have to expect their victims to be armed. In countries where murderers have to fear death penalty there aren't less murders. And if the guy who holds you up can expect you have a gun too, he'll make damn sure he shoots you before you can pull your gun.

So my question to you was why make it easier for criminals to access guns by not placing restrictions on them?

Exactly. And why make it easy for mentally unstable people to get guns? You can prevent those from reacting in a deadly way by making them having to make a considerate effort to get a deadly weapon.

People with long-term mental health issues, shorter term breakdowns, etc. live everywhere. That someone in a meltdown state can get a gun so easily is stupid.

And if you think this is throwing people with mental issues in the same bag with responsibly behaving people, you're plain wrong.

Blaming the entire American nation for a shooting, eh?

No, just those Americans who prevent gun restriction.

We could always use the same solution we used to end the war in the Pacific 70 years ago.  

You're not seriously suggesting atom bombs, are you?

[filledeplage]

No way, just congratulating them on their stance. 355 mass shootings this year, well done! Its a sarcastic nod to the gun totting, Americana that is a myth. The land of the free.

18th of May - the FBI has not ruled out terrorism.  This appears to have the indicia of the Bataclan attack, orchestrated similarly.  This is not about the 2nd amendment.  They used "long guns" the new rhetoric, no mention of Kalashnikovs, and found IED's (pipe bombs.) 

Cities in the US have attacks from pressure cookers made by those who got hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for free college tuition and apartments, because they were refugees. These shooters used assault rifles.  That is not the 2nd amendment. 

The outlaws have the guns and "soft targets" now need to be armed.  Schools, churches, malls, sporting centers.  It is the new normal. 

God Bless America.

Wow yeah cool stuff, more guns to stop the guns! f***ed up logic 101.

This is not a handgun debate.  This is organized terrorist activity.  And no one wants to have to carry a gun, but the reality of the situation, is that there is no safe haven on this earth right now. This is an attack on civilians and not a fair fight battle with trained warriors. 

It is the right of self-defense.

 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is not a handgun debate.  This is organized terrorist activity. 

But the issues of terrorism and gun control are not mutually exclusive. The attack on Planned Parenthood the other day was an example of white Christian terrorism but it also came as a result of easy access to guns.

[Micha]

It is the right of self-defense.

You still think that we argue for restriction of guns just to annoy you and leave you defenseless against terrorists, don't you? If you should ever encounter a terrorist attacking, I hope you won't, but if, your gun won't help you. You sit outside a restaurant, talk to a friend, a car stops, some guys come out with Kalashnikovs, they shoot you dead before you even know what's going on.

[filledeplage]

It is the right of self-defense.

You still think that we argue for restriction of guns just to annoy you and leave you defenseless against terrorists, don't you? If you should ever encounter a terrorist attacking, I hope you won't, but if, your gun won't help you. You sit outside a restaurant, talk to a friend, a car stops, some guys come out with Kalashnikovs, they shoot you dead before you even know what's going on.

Micha - I don't take that the post personally.  It is the discussion of our law.  We have that right.  The "new" leftist Democratic party wants to take that away.  They won't even use the term "Kalashnikov" in the media now, and call them "long guns" - which connotes rifles or muskets which were used in the Revolutionary War.  It is all propaganda and smoke and mirrors, to advance a political party agenda.  

We don't live in a peaceful utopia.  

[filledeplage]

This is not a handgun debate.  This is organized terrorist activity. 

But the issues of terrorism and gun control are not mutually exclusive. The attack on Planned Parenthood the other day was an example of white Christian terrorism but it also came as a result of easy access to guns.

CSM - I am not condoning that attack.  And, my recall on the matter, is that those who are in opposition, hold prayer vigils, and lobby legislators. 

Only the mentally ill take matters into their own hands. The waters are muddied.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Only the mentally ill take matters into their own hands.

I think there is something to that but I also think that there are certain cultures or communities that encourage people to take these sorts of horrendous actions.

[filledeplage]

Only the mentally ill take matters into their own hands.

I think there is something to that but I also think that there are certain cultures or communities that encourage people to take these sorts of horrendous actions.

CSM - what I can share from personal teaching experience in Early Education is that we would often see young children who had serious and violent tendencies and would refer these children to get behavioral health assessments.  There are signs that a child has a serious problem and one of those is a complete lack of remorse when they hurt another child.  And kids get into scuffles all the time.  Or a child is on disconnect and doesn't socialize appropriately.  So they might have everything else in place academically but are held back socially, which hurts them more over time.  Or abuse, that creates the problem that would not ever be there. 

This is a deeper level, so you bring it to the proper person, and often get rebuffed, at that level with someone who says that, "Oh, they will outgrow it."  People don't outgrow behavioral illness and if unchecked, just simmers until it blows up. They are ticking time bombs. 

We have a bad track record on this, and why it is a great thing that focus is being called to it as a result of L & M.  De-stigmatize and get appropriate treatment, and most importantly, with dignity.   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, that's partly what I mean. But I don't think that's the full picture. For example, would you say that all those who are carrying out jihadist terrorism are simply suffering from behavioural health problems?

[filledeplage]

Yes, that's partly what I mean. But I don't think that's the full picture. For example, would you say that all those who are carrying out jihadist terrorism are simply suffering from behavioural health problems?

Absolutely not.  What we know now, is that the married couple (she was a Saudi bride that the husband found on a dating site, flew to SA and married her.) We don't know all the details yet. Now we know they were wearing GoPro cameras filming the event.  For what purpose?

Political ideology that involves violence, perhaps involves some kind of brainwashing...or some other mind control technique or pressure.  We don't know everything.  It clashes with our strong right to worship as we please, with the imposition of another religion, which is how the US became the US.  There are lines that are not blurry.  The culture, laws and religion are all integrated in other countries.  The US doesn't permit that crossover.  The lines are clear and enforced.  

It would be interesting if there was a profile that could be identified by behavioral health providers where traits might be identified as high-risk for being "swayed..."

This couple left a 6 month old baby.  What future does that child have going forward?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, that's partly what I mean. But I don't think that's the full picture. For example, would you say that all those who are carrying out jihadist terrorism are simply suffering from behavioural health problems?

Absolutely not.  What we know now, is that the married couple (she was a Saudi bride that the husband found on a dating site, flew to SA and married her.) We don't know all the details yet. Now we know they were wearing GoPro cameras filming the event.  For what purpose?

Political ideology that involves violence, perhaps involves some kind of brainwashing...or some other mind control technique or pressure.  We don't know everything.  It clashes with our strong right to worship as we please, with the imposition of another religion, which is how the US became the US.  There are lines that are not blurry.  The culture, laws and religion are all integrated in other countries.  The US doesn't permit that crossover.  The lines are clear and enforced.  

It would be interesting if there was a profile that could be identified by behavioral health providers where traits might be identified as high-risk for being "swayed..."

This couple left a 6 month old baby.  What future does that child have going forward?

I wasn't talking about yesterday's incident because, like you say, we don't know all the details yet. I am referring to, say, the Paris attacks or 9/11.

I don't think it is simply brainwashing at work here - that term is a bit finicky anyway. People may have irrational beliefs or even rational beliefs that can be enhanced or transformed by particular communities. In many cases, those who carry out jihad style terrorism (which is heinous, must be condemned, and for which there is no excuse) are typically angered by what they see as the Western destruction of their lives, their homes, and/or the lives of their loved ones. But this anger is transformed into violence by particular groups and when these people join particular communities.

Similarly, there are a lot of communities online that foster (particularly in young white men) an irrational hatred of government, or women, or minorities, etc. People who are already a bit unstable join these communities, encourage each other, pass around a great deal of misinformation, and the consequence of this can be to again transform anger into violence.

In neither case is this acceptable. But there is a tendency here to view terrorism carried out by a Muslim as being a consequence of a culture (people will say, erroneously I think, that it is because of a backwards culture, for example) and Western terrorism or suicide missions are a consequence of an individual (a person with a mental illness). This, I think, is a prevailing false narrative that circulates on a grand scale.

[Emily]

+ a gazillion.

[filledeplage]

Yes, that's partly what I mean. But I don't think that's the full picture. For example, would you say that all those who are carrying out jihadist terrorism are simply suffering from behavioural health problems?

Absolutely not.  What we know now, is that the married couple (she was a Saudi bride that the husband found on a dating site, flew to SA and married her.) We don't know all the details yet. Now we know they were wearing GoPro cameras filming the event.  For what purpose?

Political ideology that involves violence, perhaps involves some kind of brainwashing...or some other mind control technique or pressure.  We don't know everything.  It clashes with our strong right to worship as we please, with the imposition of another religion, which is how the US became the US.  There are lines that are not blurry.  The culture, laws and religion are all integrated in other countries.  The US doesn't permit that crossover.  The lines are clear and enforced.  

It would be interesting if there was a profile that could be identified by behavioral health providers where traits might be identified as high-risk for being "swayed..."

This couple left a 6 month old baby.  What future does that child have going forward?

I wasn't talking about yesterday's incident because, like you say, we don't know all the details yet. I am referring to, say, the Paris attacks or 9/11.

I don't think it is simply brainwashing at work here - that term is a bit finicky anyway. People may have irrational beliefs or even rational beliefs that can be enhanced or transformed by particular communities. In many cases, those who carry out jihad style terrorism (which is heinous, must be condemned, and for which there is no excuse) are typically angered by what they see as the Western destruction of their lives, their homes, and/or the lives of their loved ones. But this anger is transformed into violence by particular groups and when these people join particular communities.

Similarly, there are a lot of communities online that foster (particularly in young white men) an irrational hatred of government, or women, or minorities, etc. People who are already a bit unstable join these communities, encourage each other, pass around a great deal of misinformation, and the consequence of this can be to again transform anger into violence.

In neither case is this acceptable. But there is a tendency here to view terrorism carried out by a Muslim as being a consequence of a culture (people will say, erroneously I think, that it is because of a backwards culture, for example) and Western terrorism or suicide missions are a consequence of an individual (a person with a mental illness). This, I think, is a prevailing false narrative that circulates on a grand scale.

Yes, good capture - "enhanced or transformed" - from other influences. 

[Bean Bag]

No way, just congratulating them on their stance. 355 mass shootings this year, well done! Its a sarcastic nod to the gun totting, Americana that is a myth. The land of the free.

18th of May - the FBI has not ruled out terrorism.  This appears to have the indicia of the Bataclan attack, orchestrated similarly.  This is not about the 2nd amendment.  They used "long guns" the new rhetoric, no mention of Kalashnikovs, and found IED's (pipe bombs.) 

Cities in the US have attacks from pressure cookers made by those who got hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for free college tuition and apartments, because they were refugees. These shooters used assault rifles.  That is not the 2nd amendment. 

The outlaws have the guns and "soft targets" now need to be armed.  Schools, churches, malls, sporting centers.  It is the new normal. 

God Bless America.

Wow yeah cool stuff, more guns to stop the guns! f***ed up logic 101.

I take it you hold a graduate degree in said Logic?
NOT preparing yourself and NOT protecting yourself, sounds like a graduate-level course to me.

[Micha]

It is all propaganda and smoke and mirrors, to advance a political party agenda.

It is propaganda to claim that guns are useful for self protection. You are led to believe so by the gun lobby who want to keep selling their products in large quantities. Way more Americans get killed because guns are not restricted than through terrorist attacks. That is a fact. You have fallen to a lie from unscrupulous businessmen. The smoke and mirrors are on the other side of where you believe them to be. A political party agenda doesn't need to be wrong - you just assume so because the agenda comes from another party than the one you vote for (I assume you vote for the other one, I have no way of knowing you do, and yes, certainly you have the right to vote for the party you want).

[filledeplage]

It is all propaganda and smoke and mirrors, to advance a political party agenda.

It is propaganda to claim that guns are useful for self protection. You are led to believe so by the gun lobby who want to keep selling their products in large quantities. Way more Americans get killed because guns are not restricted than through terrorist attacks. That is a fact. You have fallen to a lie from unscrupulous businessmen. The smoke and mirrors are on the other side of where you believe them to be. A political party agenda doesn't need to be wrong - you just assume so because the agenda comes from another party than the one you vote for (I assume you vote for the other one, I have no way of knowing you do, and yes, certainly you have the right to vote for the party you want).

The gun lobby I follow is the "Framers" lobby.  As in the "framers" of the US Constitution.  And, I strongly support better security in "soft targets." Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, stadia, theaters, etc. Metal detectors and cameras everywhere.  Defense of self; defense of others.

Those assault weapons were not bought legally as reported. That is utter folly and propaganda to advance the Dems agenda, to strip the citizenry of self-protection.  That attack was planned, and it is being reported that the SWAT teams were nearby because they knew something was imminent in that area, but not the exact building.  They still are trying to allege it is "workplace violence" or someone going "postal." It works better with their narrative.  The more they try to "manage" the event, the worse it is becoming because of the desire to know the truth.

You should not assume the party.  Many Democrats, unhappy with the leftist direction of the party, and who are much good company but equally suspicious of may of the old party Republicans who bring plenty of baggage and agendas of their own.  There is a low level of trust which is forcing the people to become more engaged in what is going on, and are getting info from twitter, yahoo and non traditional outlets.

It is why there is such an uprising for alternatives for leadership.  In the general election we can vote the "person" and not the "party."  So many Dems vote Republican and vice versa. Or who "change party" going into the election location and "change back" going out the door.  We also have registered Independents. And vote for candidates rather than partisanship or ideology of a party.  About 30% or more self-identify as Independents.  A Gallup poll taken in 2014 lists that at Independent number as high as 42%. 

[Micha]

Damn, don't use so many words I can't understand! I'm kidding, but I'm not sure what "framer" and "going postal" means in this context, I'm afraid.

Those assault weapons were not bought legally as reported.

You mean in the latest mass shooting by this seemingly radicalised couple? That is actually besides my point - if you're a dedicated terrorist, you will take the effort to get yourself deadly weapons with or without gun restrictions, as would this couple and seemingly has.

My point is that a) guns are too dangerous for the general public to own and b) they are of no use for self defense. I wonder if any of the 14 victims owned a gun? If so, it didn't save them. If you say those 14 people would also be dead now if there were gun restrictions, I agree in this case, as it seems that this couple would have gotten their weapons anyway.

What I mean to say, it doesn't make you safer if you carry a gun - you may feel safer, but you aren't. It's basically like a security blanket, which makes you feel safer too though in fact you aren't. The gun owning Americans buy themselves this feeling of safety with the lives of all those people who get killed because of the lack of gun restriction. What DOES make you safer is when mentally instable people don't have an easy access to guns. As there's no telling who is suddenly going berzerk, the easiest way to achieve that is to restrict guns for the general public.

As I said, more Americans get killed by irresponsible gun handling than get killed by terrorists.

[filledeplage]

Damn, don't use so many words I can't understand! I'm kidding, but I'm not sure what "framer" and "going postal" means in this context, I'm afraid.

Those assault weapons were not bought legally as reported.

You mean in the latest mass shooting by this seemingly radicalised couple? That is actually besides my point - if you're a dedicated terrorist, you will take the effort to get yourself deadly weapons with or without gun restrictions, as would this couple and seemingly has.

My point is that a) guns are too dangerous for the general public to own and b) they are of no use for self defense. I wonder if any of the 14 victims owned a gun? If so, it didn't save them. If you say those 14 people would also be dead now if there were gun restrictions, I agree in this case, as it seems that this couple would have gotten their weapons anyway.

What I mean to say, it doesn't make you safer if you carry a gun - you may feel safer, but you aren't. It's basically like a security blanket, which makes you feel safer too though in fact you aren't. The gun owning Americans buy themselves this feeling of safety with the lives of all those people who get killed because of the lack of gun restriction. What DOES make you safer is when mentally instable people don't have an easy access to guns. As there's no telling who is suddenly going berzerk, the easiest way to achieve that is to restrict guns for the general public.

As I said, more Americans get killed by irresponsible gun handling than get killed by terrorists.

Micha - I am very sorry for not better explaining the "framers" - it means the drafters or writers of the US Constitution. The term "going postal" is a term that goes back to 1986 when there was a serious spike in workplace violence or workplace rage, and some in the post offices, hence the term "going postal." My bad.

Yes, any network will supply weaponry to its warriors, and make the path easy to carry out an attack. Why would they call attention to themselves by buying all that munition - just two people?  It makes no sense.   

Yes, the shooters home had 12 pipe bombs, 2,000 millimeter handgun rounds, 2,500 .223 caliber assault rifle rounds, and hundreds of tools to make additional explosive devices. That is from the LA Times.  The reported fact that they were purchased "legally" coming out of a federal agency, that can be politically manipulated,  is baloney. If the wife was radicalized, and given a K-I (fiance) visa, they didn't do their background check in a similar federal agency.

That is propaganda - and frankly, people want to "feel safer."  They don't want to feel they have a fly swatter when someone comes to attack with a gun.  That they have a chance to defend themselves and their children.   

Trained citizenry, including retired or ex military can certainly handle weapons.  And the Boston Bombers used "pressure cookers" which caused incredible damage, killing several and                                                                                           many losses of limbs.  So they can't ban them but they are IED's for mass damage. 

And, many of these "studies" are nothing more than "manufactured evidence" - in my opinion.  Unless you can afford to have a personal armed security agency protect you, then who will.  And that says nothing about all the home invasions with robbery as the goal.  So we have a double problem;  home invasions and terrorism.  Our homes are supposed to be our castles. 

So, sorry again about the terminology...

[Micha]

So, sorry again about the terminology...

No worries, I have this eerie ability of making it seem I'm really good in English... Thank you for explaining.

[Emily]

So, sorry again about the terminology...

No worries, I have this eerie ability of making it seem I'm really good in English... Thank you for explaining.

Your English is excellent. I've only seen you ask about words that are specific to a microculture.

[Micha]

So, sorry again about the terminology...

No worries, I have this eerie ability of making it seem I'm really good in English... Thank you for explaining.

Your English is excellent. I've only seen you ask about words that are specific to a microculture.

Thank you!