i'll comment the same thing that i did on the last mass shooting i submitted on here: it's always a sign that a country is healthy when i have to make a judgment call on whether or not an act of...
i'll comment the same thing that i did on the last mass shooting i submitted on here: it's always a sign that a country is healthy when i have to make a judgment call on whether or not an act of mass gun violence is actually big enough and significant enough to be distinguished from the monotony of gun violence that exists already and be submitted here.
It's happening more than weekly. I found this handy Wikipedia article titled "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019". And, before I go on, I'd like to take a moment for everyone to...
And, before I go on, I'd like to take a moment for everyone to fully absorb the implications of Wikipedia not only having a page dedicated to mass shootings in a single country, (the USA is one of only a handful of countries singled out on Wikipedia in this fashion), but feeling it necessary to break up that list year by year.
Anyway, according to that list on Wikipedia, there have been 148 mass shootings in the USA in 2019 so far (to 31st May). The year is only 151 days old. That means there has been nearly 1 mass shooting every day this year in the USA.
As @alyaza points out elsewhere in this thread, the only reason you think it's less than that is because most mass shootings in the USA just aren't newsworthy any more.
There is also this, which came into existence through our efforts on r/GunsAreCool. Some criticise it for having the "low" threshold of four or more injured, and counting injuries as well as death...
There is also this, which came into existence through our efforts on r/GunsAreCool. Some criticise it for having the "low" threshold of four or more injured, and counting injuries as well as death though I disagree with those criticisms.
i honestly think that criticism mostly boils down to people's gut feeling that "mass shooting" has to be some lofty thing that stops the nation for a few hours like sandy hook or virginia tech and...
Some criticise it for having the "low" threshold of four or more injured, and counting injuries as well as death though I disagree with those criticisms.
i honestly think that criticism mostly boils down to people's gut feeling that "mass shooting" has to be some lofty thing that stops the nation for a few hours like sandy hook or virginia tech and not just a bunch of dudes getting gunned down on a street corner, even though they're both symptoms of a common problem (while also being separate problems in their own right, of course)
I've been out of the USA for most of the last few years, and that's what it took for me to see the insanity of US gun laws. I grew up with shotguns and rifles in the house, no big deal really. But...
I've been out of the USA for most of the last few years, and that's what it took for me to see the insanity of US gun laws. I grew up with shotguns and rifles in the house, no big deal really. But the gun nuts are pretty out there.
From my new vantage point I now see how insane US gun culture is. The craziest part is that the US supreme court has the position they do on the 2nd amendment because of mf commas.
This is the actual second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Everyone around me shoots often. The sound of distant rifle fire was to me growing up no more unusual or noteworthy than geese or bullfrogs at night. It was just there, in the soundscape. We shot...
Everyone around me shoots often. The sound of distant rifle fire was to me growing up no more unusual or noteworthy than geese or bullfrogs at night. It was just there, in the soundscape. We shot too, it's a fun hobby. Murdered a lot of tin cans. Neighbor has a large range and targets that have a different tone, so I could tell how high his score was just listening to the targets when the bullet made them ring.
The guns were just there like hammers or tackle boxes. My dad always had the ammo buttoned up very tight under lock and key. Mostly it was just .22 rifles, perfect for hunting rabbits or pheasant - we ate animals my dad killed hunting all the time. He had an old single barrel shotgun, I remember when he had me shooting it at like age 10 the damn thing kicked so hard it felt like I'd broken my shoulder. That was the 'home security' model - and hey, we did have black bears. There was one out front at the feeders just last week. Usually all you have to do is say "get out of here" and they'll run, they are timid as fuck - just don't bother them if you see cubs, because then they are obligated to fuck with you.
I think his deer kill count is in the 60s, and he has a war story to tell for plenty of them. Hunts them with a bow, though, because in his words, "Killing them with the rifle is too easy, feels like execution." He wanted the pleasure of sitting in a tree stand with a bow and arrow and having to be sneaky. He'd usually get them with the arrow, too. If he had a bad year, the gun would come out during the last week of deer season, because he did have a freezer to fill. We ate a lot of venison, and I enjoyed it, still by far my favorite meat. Rarely see it on offer at restaurants. Even more rarely see it prepared well.
You know what I didn't hear - ever? Automatic weapons fire. I can't recall a single instance of ever hearing it, and I think I'd have noticed something like that. All I remember was rifles. Slow single shots, plenty of time in between. That was all anyone around me ever used. I did hear some pretty heavy fireworks from time to time, some of my neighbors would even break out a truckload full of big rockets. They still do... though I hear a lot less rifles since I moved back home. Lots of anti-'NY Safe Act' signs on this road, though. I'm not one of them.
I think I can handle hunting and bears (and intruders) with a .22 and a shotgun, don't really see the point in anything else. If I were really worried about security, I'd get a dog or five... nice, smart, well trained german police dogs. I'd spoil them rotten.
Some people seem to think we have the guns so that we can 'overthrow the gubmint' and I think we have them because they have plenty of around the house utility. We don't just all get issued the latest weapons along with our birth certificate, which is what would happen if the founders had been as overzealous as that interpretation of the intent. We do not have a right to nukes.
I would stick up for the pistols, too. Get a license first. Nothing that's an assault weapon hand-cannon there, just protection for people with dangerous jobs, of which there are many. I wouldn't mind keeping a gun registry either, though that should focus on new sales and resales - everyone who owns a gun won't just decide to register them and punishing them with jail time will just piss them off, not make them register. You'd have to grandfather them in.
A militia is what happens when, for some insane reason, everyone needs to grab their hunting guns and run to the center of town, because the redcoats are coming. Except they don't come anymore. Might just be time to rewrite that one. There are a couple country clubs with shooting ranges around here, one of my best friend's fathers has been working one for decades. NY does have rifleman competitions and all kinds of shooting events, even with prizes, and a legit state championship. Kids compete in school sports with air rifles. This is a blue state, and has been since Reagan - comfortably so.
That's American gun culture. It's just sitting there like a pair of shoes putting a mild funk into the room.
The citizens will have guns and the military will have well trained troops with automatic rifles, grenades, tanks, and they'll have access to the infrastructure to cut off the water and electricity.
What happens if we end up needing them at some point?
The citizens will have guns and the military will have well trained troops with automatic rifles, grenades, tanks, and they'll have access to the infrastructure to cut off the water and electricity.
I only implied we don't need the assault rifles. The regular rifles are still rifles, they work just fine, and will do fine for guerilla warfare, which founded the country. We don't need emergency...
I only implied we don't need the assault rifles. The regular rifles are still rifles, they work just fine, and will do fine for guerilla warfare, which founded the country. We don't need emergency military hardware to fight off a modern army. We need the military, not a home armory. People who feel that strongly should probably be in the service, then they'll get not just the best weapons but expertise and a say in their use. The military is our defense, in a world of such specialized warfare.
What can a town militia do against a modern army, other than annoy them? Pick at them with rifles while dodging drone-bombs? I don't think that's going to go well.
well, a lot. even a mildly sophisticated militia or organized force of irregulars with decent funding can turn any conflict into an endless nightmare for an invading force, as shown by basically...
What can a town militia do against a modern army, other than annoy them? Pick at them with rifles while dodging drone-bombs? I don't think that's going to go well.
well, a lot. even a mildly sophisticated militia or organized force of irregulars with decent funding can turn any conflict into an endless nightmare for an invading force, as shown by basically every conflict in the middle east in the past 35 years and conflicts like the vietnam war. things like drones might make it harder nowadays, but i still wouldn't undersell the ability of militias to take on modern militaries in the right circumstances.
that said, it's a really stupid justification if you actually consider what would have to occur to get us to that point. like, realistically, if town militias need to start being formed, we're probably already well past the point of an apocalyptic war of some sort in this modern era. they would probably never have the chance to form--nukes would most likely be flying, unless it's a civil war.
Yeah. The world has changed, and warfare has changed with it. At some point you have to weigh the damage you're doing to yourselves trying to prevent some impossible scenario that only exists as a...
Yeah. The world has changed, and warfare has changed with it. At some point you have to weigh the damage you're doing to yourselves trying to prevent some impossible scenario that only exists as a ghost of the past.
I think the solution to the mass shootings has more to do with mental health and basic dignity than with melting down all the guns. Universal education, income, and health care - including mental health care. Try that, see if people are still this unhappy.
We did it before. The last new deal was a response to this. Perhaps we shouldn't let it get that bad, this time around.
Yea......when the militias and the military they fought against were more or less on equal footing technologically speaking. And the Brits weren't all THAT concerned with the colonies, to begin...
Yea......when the militias and the military they fought against were more or less on equal footing technologically speaking. And the Brits weren't all THAT concerned with the colonies, to begin with. They were far more concerned with the French and Spanish right next door. Sure, they wanted to keep the colonies as a matter of pride but the French intervention and the threat of both France and Spain striking against Britain elsewhere did far more to help the colonies than our plucky militias did. If the Brits had said "fuck it" and committed their full military might to the colonies, the American Revolution ends in defeat.
If the US people were to go to war against the US government, assuming the government kept most, if not all, of it's assets, the US people are not winning that fight. Even with AR-15s running around and guerrilla tactics, we're not competing with Tomahawk missiles coming from off shore, fighter craft dropping bunker busters, and Abrams tanks rolling through our streets.
This isn't an invading force we're talking about here. This is our own military, complete with hundreds of bases across the country, capable of striking quickly with vastly superior technology and weaponry than the citizenry has available to them. All the advantages a guerrilla force has, like what we saw in Vietnam or the Middle East, goes away here. We don't have distance or supply lines to take advantage of. We don't have a disgruntled public that wavers on the conflict. The military can position the naval fleet and effectively blockade the country starving out the citizenry while the Air Force can cut off any aid from the air and hit rebel/insurgent groups with impunity.
Yeah, I never really looked at the 2nd amendment text until very recently. I guess I need to read more of the US constitution to understand the language they used. Is the language used in the 2nd...
Yeah, I never really looked at the 2nd amendment text until very recently. I guess I need to read more of the US constitution to understand the language they used. Is the language used in the 2nd especially weird?
It's just split up into so many individual pieces I can't really tell what's supposed to refer to what inside that sentence. I mean the second chunk is clearly referring to the first, "A...
It's just split up into so many individual pieces I can't really tell what's supposed to refer to what inside that sentence. I mean the second chunk is clearly referring to the first, "A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."
And after that I'm just lost. Chunk 3 I can't seem to fit anywhere, and so I can't tell if Chunk 4 belongs to 2 or 3. 2 doesn't really make sense "Since a well-regulated Militia is important, it won't be infringed"? But if it belongs to Chunk 3 then why's that comma there?
The prefatory clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a so-called absolute construction [1]. It's not very common in modern-day English, but it occurs...
The prefatory clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a so-called absolute construction [1]. It's not very common in modern-day English, but it occurs in sentences such as "All things considered, it's not a bad idea.".
It shouldn't be there, in modern grammar. Today, only a single comma would be grammatical: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to...
Or really just why that third comma is there.
It shouldn't be there, in modern grammar. Today, only a single comma would be grammatical: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". The other two commas might represent slight pauses in speech, but do not abide by modern punctuation practices.
With all due respect, you are being closed minded. You are rejecting the idea that gun legislation can be enacted which would make guns safer. I can make (I think) a reasonably intelligent...
I am not being close minded. I am saying that before the method of attack is addressed, we should investigate and try to solve to root of the issue.
With all due respect, you are being closed minded.
You are rejecting the idea that gun legislation can be enacted which would make guns safer.
I can make (I think) a reasonably intelligent argument that new federal laws are required to keep guns out of mentally unstable people through tighter checks prior to purchase and mandated gun safes or gun locks, especially in houses that have children or other mentally impaired people.
By not wanting to hear anything related to gun control, because you believe the right solution is only mental healthcare, and not also some reasonable additional gun control, you are the definition of close minded.
Which is fine, we all are close minded, except there is no real point in having any sort of discussion with you on this issue, other than perhaps pointing out you are being closed minded.
Ah, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. My response to this is "guns may not kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without guns". Why not fix the...
Also, guns are inherently safe, it's humans that are the issue.
Ah, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. My response to this is "guns may not kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without guns".
I am merely stating that I believe that gun legislation should come after mental health aid and the like.
Why not fix the easy problem first? Go for the quick win before working on the harder problem.
it's also not like people can only do one thing at one time either, lol. people can totally simultaneously work toward making guns harder to acquire so at least there's a higher barrier for...
Why not fix the easy problem first? Go for the quick win before working on the harder problem.
it's also not like people can only do one thing at one time either, lol. people can totally simultaneously work toward making guns harder to acquire so at least there's a higher barrier for prospective mass shooters of any kind while also tackling the many things that play into the pervasiveness of american gun violence like mental health. the two don't even have to be mutually exclusive, and honestly really shouldn't be.
@Keegan has presented the issue as if it is an either-or situation, so I've asked my question in that same framework. I'm approaching the issue on their terms.
@Keegan has presented the issue as if it is an either-or situation, so I've asked my question in that same framework. I'm approaching the issue on their terms.
I think guns should be "well regulated." Much like driving is well regulated. Remember, it's not cars that kill people. And the cars cage keeps us safer. Plus we need a car in case a disaster...
What do you think should mean someone can't get a gun?
I think guns should be "well regulated."
Much like driving is well regulated.
Remember, it's not cars that kill people.
And the cars cage keeps us safer.
Plus we need a car in case a disaster happens.
I feel like the only purpose you had to your comment was to just call me closed minded.
Yes.
There is no value in having this discussion unless you are open to alternative ideas.
Can you think of any additional regulations of guns that you think would be valuable?
It should be at least as hard to get a rifle as it is to get a drivers license. And it should be at least as hard to get a concealed carry as it is to get a trucking license. Inability to...
It should be at least as hard to get a rifle as it is to get a drivers license.
And it should be at least as hard to get a concealed carry as it is to get a trucking license.
Inability to demonstrate proficiency? Reckless behavior? Mental instability? Lose your guns for a few years.
My comment about you being close minded stands unless you are able to demonstrate some flexibility in your thinking.
If you are not able to articulate one gun regulation that you would support, then I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.
I am sorry I called you closed minded. I was sad to see they identified the gunman. For a second, I thought they were going to keep that information with-held, in order to focus the press on the...
I am sorry I called you closed minded.
I was sad to see they identified the gunman. For a second, I thought they were going to keep that information with-held, in order to focus the press on the victims.
But the people who say we shouldn't change gun laws and should address mental health don't address mental health either. Why do we need so many guns anyway? They cause thousands of unnecessary...
But the people who say we shouldn't change gun laws and should address mental health don't address mental health either. Why do we need so many guns anyway? They cause thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.
the super obvious counterpoint to this: how hard is it to kill, say, 17 people and injure 17 people with something like a pair of knives? people will use whatever they can if they really want to,...
Crazy people will find a way to attack even without guns, as can be seen with the recent stabbing sprees in Japan, or the acid attacks in the UK.
the super obvious counterpoint to this: how hard is it to kill, say, 17 people and injure 17 people with something like a pair of knives? people will use whatever they can if they really want to, but i find this argument that people will use whatever disingenuous when it comes to gun violence. nikolaz cruz would, unless he's one of the most anomalous people in human history, absolutely not have killed so many people if he'd had to jack a bunch of kitchen knives instead of having an AR-15. it is much harder to stab someone to death than to kill someone with all but the shittiest firearms, which is why even the worst stabbing sprees tend to only have a few deaths at the most. if we managed to get it down to people trying to go on stabbing sprees, that alone would lead to far fewer deaths and probably far fewer incidents of violence like this.
Many people in many other countries manage to get by without these oh-so-helpful tools. What's so special about Americans that they need more guns than people? (This Wikipedia table shows that...
Guns are useful for self-defense, hunting, protecting crops/livestock, recreation, and for the end-all-be-all, I-wish-it-never-happens, overthrow of government.
Many people in many other countries manage to get by without these oh-so-helpful tools. What's so special about Americans that they need more guns than people? (This Wikipedia table shows that Americans own 120.5 guns per 100 people - twice as many as the next closest country.)
And none of these uses require automatic or even semi-automatic guns. Why do non-military people need access to these weapons?
Americans are convinced it's a God given right to own weapons. If I understand it correctly, we're one of the few countries, and certainly the largest, where gun ownership is considered a right...
Americans are convinced it's a God given right to own weapons. If I understand it correctly, we're one of the few countries, and certainly the largest, where gun ownership is considered a right and not a privilege.
It's absolutely asinine that gun ownership is a right and healthcare is not.
But it's basically just that the GOP and NRA have convinced their bases that the world will end if Americans aren't packing heavy weaponry. That the Democrats and Liberals are trying to take everyones guns so they can impose their liberal ideology on God fearing Conservatives. That the Russians and Chinese are creeping just outside the door ready to attack a defenseless population......
This is irrelevant. We have more guns per person than any other country. The fact that we have so many guns means every single conflict escalates because the expectation is that the criminal has a...
Those other countries do not nearly have as large a population as the US or as vast a territory to hold. In the country, where I grew up, you are hard pressed to find a police officer, so you better hope you have a gun if someone is breaking in.
This is irrelevant. We have more guns per person than any other country. The fact that we have so many guns means every single conflict escalates because the expectation is that the criminal has a gun. The solution to this problem is to get rid of guns so you stop escalating every single goddamn conflict.
And obviously do I need to mention how this gets used as an excuse by the police to execute minorities under the guise of believing they had a gun? For a lot of people calling the police isn't an option because they're more likely to kill you than help you if you're black.
Why does population make a difference? Remember: that table uses per capita figures, not absolute numbers. Americans have 120.5 guns per 100 people, which is the highest per capita rate of gun...
Those other countries do not nearly have as large a population as the US or as vast a territory to hold.
Why does population make a difference? Remember: that table uses per capita figures, not absolute numbers. Americans have 120.5 guns per 100 people, which is the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the world. If it was about large populations, then China's and India's guns should massively outnumber yours - but, even combined, the total absolute number of guns in those two countries is only about a third of the total absolute number of guns in the USA.
Anyway, I'm not sure how population or territory relates to the usefulness of guns as tools. Don't people in other countries hunt, protect stock, and require self-defence? We still have one or two farmers here in Australia (although that might be out of date, as the industry is dying), and they have stock to protect. And the territory we have to "hold" here is pretty much the same size as the continental USA (and we only have a tenth of your population with which to "hold" that same territory!). But, somehow, the guns-to-people ratio here is only 14.5 : 100 - much lower than the USA.
Why are guns so much more necessary in the USA? You have 1.20 guns per person, compared to our 0.14 guns per person. You have 8 times as many guns per person as us Australians - but we face the same problems as you, and with only a tenth of the population. Why do you need so many guns per person over there?
but also some is because different guns have different uses. Rifles are better for hunting, shotguns are better for defense/skeet-shooting, and pistols are good for everyday carry.
Again, we have the same needs for guns here in Australia, but we still don't have the same rate of gun ownership as you. What's so different in America that you need so many guns?
Actually, I should probably correct that. There is one need for guns we don't have here in Australia: everyday carry. Our farmers protect their stock, our hunters hunt animals, but our city folk don't walk around shooting each other, or threatening to shoot each other.
Do you mean no semi-automatic rifles or no semi-automatic guns at all?
All semi-automatics. How often do your farmers need to mow down a herd of rampaging wildlife with dozens of bullets within seconds? As for hunting, it's not sporting to shoot a spray of bullets at poor innocent deer. The skill lies in using one shot to bring down the animal.
Daaamn, I used to live in Virginia Beach, from 2013-2015. Drove by the municipal center a couple of times iirc. Always a tragedy when there's a shooting, but it's even worse when it's some place...
Daaamn, I used to live in Virginia Beach, from 2013-2015. Drove by the municipal center a couple of times iirc. Always a tragedy when there's a shooting, but it's even worse when it's some place you know...
Just heard the guy used a silencer, which made it harder for people to know what was going on, and for cops to find him. Can someone explain to me why the fuck those are legal? What purpose do...
Just heard the guy used a silencer, which made it harder for people to know what was going on, and for cops to find him.
Can someone explain to me why the fuck those are legal? What purpose do they serve other than to murder people more efficiently?
I've seen some people say that they help prevent hearing loss. But that just sounds like a lazy excuse for not wearing real ear protection.
The term "silencer" is a misnomer; even 'silenced' guns are 115 dB to 145 dB. For comparison, a chainsaw is typically 110 dB. Really the best course of action is to use both a sound suppressor and...
The term "silencer" is a misnomer; even 'silenced' guns are 115 dB to 145 dB. For comparison, a chainsaw is typically 110 dB.
But that just sounds like a lazy excuse for not wearing real ear protection.
Really the best course of action is to use both a sound suppressor and ear protection. Ear protection reduces sound levels by only around 30 dB. A typical unsuppressed 9mm pistol is 160 dB, exposing the operator to 130 dB noise levels even with ear protection. OSHA recommends no more than 1 second of exposure to impact noise over 130 dB per 24 hours. Spending a good amount of time at the range can easily put you above the OSHA limit.
on another note, this is the fifth consecutive year with a shooting that killed 10 or more people, per USA Today. also the names of the dead were released.
on another note, this is the fifth consecutive year with a shooting that killed 10 or more people, per USA Today.
i'll comment the same thing that i did on the last mass shooting i submitted on here: it's always a sign that a country is healthy when i have to make a judgment call on whether or not an act of mass gun violence is actually big enough and significant enough to be distinguished from the monotony of gun violence that exists already and be submitted here.
Removed a useless pedantic argument. Yes, this comment obviously contains sarcasm.
It's happening more than weekly. I found this handy Wikipedia article titled "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019".
And, before I go on, I'd like to take a moment for everyone to fully absorb the implications of Wikipedia not only having a page dedicated to mass shootings in a single country, (the USA is one of only a handful of countries singled out on Wikipedia in this fashion), but feeling it necessary to break up that list year by year.
Anyway, according to that list on Wikipedia, there have been 148 mass shootings in the USA in 2019 so far (to 31st May). The year is only 151 days old. That means there has been nearly 1 mass shooting every day this year in the USA.
As @alyaza points out elsewhere in this thread, the only reason you think it's less than that is because most mass shootings in the USA just aren't newsworthy any more.
There is also this, which came into existence through our efforts on r/GunsAreCool. Some criticise it for having the "low" threshold of four or more injured, and counting injuries as well as death though I disagree with those criticisms.
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/
i honestly think that criticism mostly boils down to people's gut feeling that "mass shooting" has to be some lofty thing that stops the nation for a few hours like sandy hook or virginia tech and not just a bunch of dudes getting gunned down on a street corner, even though they're both symptoms of a common problem (while also being separate problems in their own right, of course)
I've been out of the USA for most of the last few years, and that's what it took for me to see the insanity of US gun laws. I grew up with shotguns and rifles in the house, no big deal really. But the gun nuts are pretty out there.
From my new vantage point I now see how insane US gun culture is. The craziest part is that the US supreme court has the position they do on the 2nd amendment because of mf commas.
This is the actual second amendment:
See this reddit thread for reference:
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/btc4ha/nra_gun_rights_groups_seek_second_amendment_win/eoy13sd
edit: please note that according to Wikipedia, there are valid variations on that phrasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
Everyone around me shoots often. The sound of distant rifle fire was to me growing up no more unusual or noteworthy than geese or bullfrogs at night. It was just there, in the soundscape. We shot too, it's a fun hobby. Murdered a lot of tin cans. Neighbor has a large range and targets that have a different tone, so I could tell how high his score was just listening to the targets when the bullet made them ring.
The guns were just there like hammers or tackle boxes. My dad always had the ammo buttoned up very tight under lock and key. Mostly it was just .22 rifles, perfect for hunting rabbits or pheasant - we ate animals my dad killed hunting all the time. He had an old single barrel shotgun, I remember when he had me shooting it at like age 10 the damn thing kicked so hard it felt like I'd broken my shoulder. That was the 'home security' model - and hey, we did have black bears. There was one out front at the feeders just last week. Usually all you have to do is say "get out of here" and they'll run, they are timid as fuck - just don't bother them if you see cubs, because then they are obligated to fuck with you.
I think his deer kill count is in the 60s, and he has a war story to tell for plenty of them. Hunts them with a bow, though, because in his words, "Killing them with the rifle is too easy, feels like execution." He wanted the pleasure of sitting in a tree stand with a bow and arrow and having to be sneaky. He'd usually get them with the arrow, too. If he had a bad year, the gun would come out during the last week of deer season, because he did have a freezer to fill. We ate a lot of venison, and I enjoyed it, still by far my favorite meat. Rarely see it on offer at restaurants. Even more rarely see it prepared well.
You know what I didn't hear - ever? Automatic weapons fire. I can't recall a single instance of ever hearing it, and I think I'd have noticed something like that. All I remember was rifles. Slow single shots, plenty of time in between. That was all anyone around me ever used. I did hear some pretty heavy fireworks from time to time, some of my neighbors would even break out a truckload full of big rockets. They still do... though I hear a lot less rifles since I moved back home. Lots of anti-'NY Safe Act' signs on this road, though. I'm not one of them.
I think I can handle hunting and bears (and intruders) with a .22 and a shotgun, don't really see the point in anything else. If I were really worried about security, I'd get a dog or five... nice, smart, well trained german police dogs. I'd spoil them rotten.
Some people seem to think we have the guns so that we can 'overthrow the gubmint' and I think we have them because they have plenty of around the house utility. We don't just all get issued the latest weapons along with our birth certificate, which is what would happen if the founders had been as overzealous as that interpretation of the intent. We do not have a right to nukes.
I would stick up for the pistols, too. Get a license first. Nothing that's an assault weapon hand-cannon there, just protection for people with dangerous jobs, of which there are many. I wouldn't mind keeping a gun registry either, though that should focus on new sales and resales - everyone who owns a gun won't just decide to register them and punishing them with jail time will just piss them off, not make them register. You'd have to grandfather them in.
A militia is what happens when, for some insane reason, everyone needs to grab their hunting guns and run to the center of town, because the redcoats are coming. Except they don't come anymore. Might just be time to rewrite that one. There are a couple country clubs with shooting ranges around here, one of my best friend's fathers has been working one for decades. NY does have rifleman competitions and all kinds of shooting events, even with prizes, and a legit state championship. Kids compete in school sports with air rifles. This is a blue state, and has been since Reagan - comfortably so.
That's American gun culture. It's just sitting there like a pair of shoes putting a mild funk into the room.
The citizens will have guns and the military will have well trained troops with automatic rifles, grenades, tanks, and they'll have access to the infrastructure to cut off the water and electricity.
I only implied we don't need the assault rifles. The regular rifles are still rifles, they work just fine, and will do fine for guerilla warfare, which founded the country. We don't need emergency military hardware to fight off a modern army. We need the military, not a home armory. People who feel that strongly should probably be in the service, then they'll get not just the best weapons but expertise and a say in their use. The military is our defense, in a world of such specialized warfare.
What can a town militia do against a modern army, other than annoy them? Pick at them with rifles while dodging drone-bombs? I don't think that's going to go well.
well, a lot. even a mildly sophisticated militia or organized force of irregulars with decent funding can turn any conflict into an endless nightmare for an invading force, as shown by basically every conflict in the middle east in the past 35 years and conflicts like the vietnam war. things like drones might make it harder nowadays, but i still wouldn't undersell the ability of militias to take on modern militaries in the right circumstances.
that said, it's a really stupid justification if you actually consider what would have to occur to get us to that point. like, realistically, if town militias need to start being formed, we're probably already well past the point of an apocalyptic war of some sort in this modern era. they would probably never have the chance to form--nukes would most likely be flying, unless it's a civil war.
Yeah. The world has changed, and warfare has changed with it. At some point you have to weigh the damage you're doing to yourselves trying to prevent some impossible scenario that only exists as a ghost of the past.
I think the solution to the mass shootings has more to do with mental health and basic dignity than with melting down all the guns. Universal education, income, and health care - including mental health care. Try that, see if people are still this unhappy.
We did it before. The last new deal was a response to this. Perhaps we shouldn't let it get that bad, this time around.
Yea......when the militias and the military they fought against were more or less on equal footing technologically speaking. And the Brits weren't all THAT concerned with the colonies, to begin with. They were far more concerned with the French and Spanish right next door. Sure, they wanted to keep the colonies as a matter of pride but the French intervention and the threat of both France and Spain striking against Britain elsewhere did far more to help the colonies than our plucky militias did. If the Brits had said "fuck it" and committed their full military might to the colonies, the American Revolution ends in defeat.
If the US people were to go to war against the US government, assuming the government kept most, if not all, of it's assets, the US people are not winning that fight. Even with AR-15s running around and guerrilla tactics, we're not competing with Tomahawk missiles coming from off shore, fighter craft dropping bunker busters, and Abrams tanks rolling through our streets.
This isn't an invading force we're talking about here. This is our own military, complete with hundreds of bases across the country, capable of striking quickly with vastly superior technology and weaponry than the citizenry has available to them. All the advantages a guerrilla force has, like what we saw in Vietnam or the Middle East, goes away here. We don't have distance or supply lines to take advantage of. We don't have a disgruntled public that wavers on the conflict. The military can position the naval fleet and effectively blockade the country starving out the citizenry while the Air Force can cut off any aid from the air and hit rebel/insurgent groups with impunity.
This was a good article from a few years ago on this topic: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
It's crazy late here, but I bookmarked that to read tomorrow in full. However, it reminded me of this retired Supreme Court Justice's position:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html
alt link: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597259426/retired-supreme-court-justice-stevens-calls-for-repeal-of-second-amendment
Hmm, even with the alternate example I'm having a hard time parsing that. Too many gosh darn commas.
Yeah, I never really looked at the 2nd amendment text until very recently. I guess I need to read more of the US constitution to understand the language they used. Is the language used in the 2nd especially weird?
It's just split up into so many individual pieces I can't really tell what's supposed to refer to what inside that sentence. I mean the second chunk is clearly referring to the first, "A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."
And after that I'm just lost. Chunk 3 I can't seem to fit anywhere, and so I can't tell if Chunk 4 belongs to 2 or 3. 2 doesn't really make sense "Since a well-regulated Militia is important, it won't be infringed"? But if it belongs to Chunk 3 then why's that comma there?
The prefatory clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a so-called absolute construction [1]. It's not very common in modern-day English, but it occurs in sentences such as "All things considered, it's not a bad idea.".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_construction
So that essentially separates off chunks 1 and 2 from 3 and 4? Still confused how 4 fits with 3. Or really just why that third comma is there.
It shouldn't be there, in modern grammar. Today, only a single comma would be grammatical: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". The other two commas might represent slight pauses in speech, but do not abide by modern punctuation practices.
That seems close minded.
Why not both? America already takes guns away from felons. Why not also take guns away from mentally unstable people?
With all due respect, you are being closed minded.
You are rejecting the idea that gun legislation can be enacted which would make guns safer.
I can make (I think) a reasonably intelligent argument that new federal laws are required to keep guns out of mentally unstable people through tighter checks prior to purchase and mandated gun safes or gun locks, especially in houses that have children or other mentally impaired people.
By not wanting to hear anything related to gun control, because you believe the right solution is only mental healthcare, and not also some reasonable additional gun control, you are the definition of close minded.
Which is fine, we all are close minded, except there is no real point in having any sort of discussion with you on this issue, other than perhaps pointing out you are being closed minded.
Ah, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. My response to this is "guns may not kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without guns".
Why not fix the easy problem first? Go for the quick win before working on the harder problem.
it's also not like people can only do one thing at one time either, lol. people can totally simultaneously work toward making guns harder to acquire so at least there's a higher barrier for prospective mass shooters of any kind while also tackling the many things that play into the pervasiveness of american gun violence like mental health. the two don't even have to be mutually exclusive, and honestly really shouldn't be.
@Keegan has presented the issue as if it is an either-or situation, so I've asked my question in that same framework. I'm approaching the issue on their terms.
I think guns should be "well regulated."
Much like driving is well regulated.
Remember, it's not cars that kill people.
And the cars cage keeps us safer.
Plus we need a car in case a disaster happens.
Yes.
There is no value in having this discussion unless you are open to alternative ideas.
Can you think of any additional regulations of guns that you think would be valuable?
It should be at least as hard to get a rifle as it is to get a drivers license.
And it should be at least as hard to get a concealed carry as it is to get a trucking license.
Inability to demonstrate proficiency? Reckless behavior? Mental instability? Lose your guns for a few years.
My comment about you being close minded stands unless you are able to demonstrate some flexibility in your thinking.
If you are not able to articulate one gun regulation that you would support, then I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.
I am sorry I called you closed minded.
I was sad to see they identified the gunman. For a second, I thought they were going to keep that information with-held, in order to focus the press on the victims.
But the people who say we shouldn't change gun laws and should address mental health don't address mental health either. Why do we need so many guns anyway? They cause thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.
the super obvious counterpoint to this: how hard is it to kill, say, 17 people and injure 17 people with something like a pair of knives? people will use whatever they can if they really want to, but i find this argument that people will use whatever disingenuous when it comes to gun violence. nikolaz cruz would, unless he's one of the most anomalous people in human history, absolutely not have killed so many people if he'd had to jack a bunch of kitchen knives instead of having an AR-15. it is much harder to stab someone to death than to kill someone with all but the shittiest firearms, which is why even the worst stabbing sprees tend to only have a few deaths at the most. if we managed to get it down to people trying to go on stabbing sprees, that alone would lead to far fewer deaths and probably far fewer incidents of violence like this.
Many people in many other countries manage to get by without these oh-so-helpful tools. What's so special about Americans that they need more guns than people? (This Wikipedia table shows that Americans own 120.5 guns per 100 people - twice as many as the next closest country.)
And none of these uses require automatic or even semi-automatic guns. Why do non-military people need access to these weapons?
Americans are convinced it's a God given right to own weapons. If I understand it correctly, we're one of the few countries, and certainly the largest, where gun ownership is considered a right and not a privilege.
It's absolutely asinine that gun ownership is a right and healthcare is not.
But it's basically just that the GOP and NRA have convinced their bases that the world will end if Americans aren't packing heavy weaponry. That the Democrats and Liberals are trying to take everyones guns so they can impose their liberal ideology on God fearing Conservatives. That the Russians and Chinese are creeping just outside the door ready to attack a defenseless population......
It's ridiculous.
This is irrelevant. We have more guns per person than any other country. The fact that we have so many guns means every single conflict escalates because the expectation is that the criminal has a gun. The solution to this problem is to get rid of guns so you stop escalating every single goddamn conflict.
And obviously do I need to mention how this gets used as an excuse by the police to execute minorities under the guise of believing they had a gun? For a lot of people calling the police isn't an option because they're more likely to kill you than help you if you're black.
Why does population make a difference? Remember: that table uses per capita figures, not absolute numbers. Americans have 120.5 guns per 100 people, which is the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the world. If it was about large populations, then China's and India's guns should massively outnumber yours - but, even combined, the total absolute number of guns in those two countries is only about a third of the total absolute number of guns in the USA.
Anyway, I'm not sure how population or territory relates to the usefulness of guns as tools. Don't people in other countries hunt, protect stock, and require self-defence? We still have one or two farmers here in Australia (although that might be out of date, as the industry is dying), and they have stock to protect. And the territory we have to "hold" here is pretty much the same size as the continental USA (and we only have a tenth of your population with which to "hold" that same territory!). But, somehow, the guns-to-people ratio here is only 14.5 : 100 - much lower than the USA.
Why are guns so much more necessary in the USA? You have 1.20 guns per person, compared to our 0.14 guns per person. You have 8 times as many guns per person as us Australians - but we face the same problems as you, and with only a tenth of the population. Why do you need so many guns per person over there?
Again, we have the same needs for guns here in Australia, but we still don't have the same rate of gun ownership as you. What's so different in America that you need so many guns?
Actually, I should probably correct that. There is one need for guns we don't have here in Australia: everyday carry. Our farmers protect their stock, our hunters hunt animals, but our city folk don't walk around shooting each other, or threatening to shoot each other.
All semi-automatics. How often do your farmers need to mow down a herd of rampaging wildlife with dozens of bullets within seconds? As for hunting, it's not sporting to shoot a spray of bullets at poor innocent deer. The skill lies in using one shot to bring down the animal.
Daaamn, I used to live in Virginia Beach, from 2013-2015. Drove by the municipal center a couple of times iirc. Always a tragedy when there's a shooting, but it's even worse when it's some place you know...
Just heard the guy used a silencer, which made it harder for people to know what was going on, and for cops to find him.
Can someone explain to me why the fuck those are legal? What purpose do they serve other than to murder people more efficiently?
I've seen some people say that they help prevent hearing loss. But that just sounds like a lazy excuse for not wearing real ear protection.
The term "silencer" is a misnomer; even 'silenced' guns are 115 dB to 145 dB. For comparison, a chainsaw is typically 110 dB.
Really the best course of action is to use both a sound suppressor and ear protection. Ear protection reduces sound levels by only around 30 dB. A typical unsuppressed 9mm pistol is 160 dB, exposing the operator to 130 dB noise levels even with ear protection. OSHA recommends no more than 1 second of exposure to impact noise over 130 dB per 24 hours. Spending a good amount of time at the range can easily put you above the OSHA limit.
on another note, this is the fifth consecutive year with a shooting that killed 10 or more people, per USA Today.
also the names of the dead were released.