You know what's really sad that we as a society are growing numb to these horrific tragedies. Counting this, we've had 352 mass shootings in this year alone in the United States (not to mention 365 in 2013, a mass shooting a day, and 336 in 2014)......When will it end?
I can't help but feel you're trying to bait me so you can twist my words.
Looking at the other things you've said here, I agree that the media is flawed in searching for sensational news. But "culprits"? It's pretty black and white here, the people who went and shot it up. But using a term like culprit is wrong, because that is pushing the idea that this shooting is isolated from all the others we've had this year and beyond. There is no real "culprit" in the big picture, it's a problem with our culture that we see these tragedies repeated so frequently and yet there are those fighting tooth and nail for sensible reform. America has gotten more lenient on gun control over the past few years (while Obama was in office and as idiots were paranoid the government was going to take their guns).
What are you getting at? This such a deeply rooted problem that has seeped into so many different areas of our society that it's going to be solved in the short run, but that does not mean we should give on trying to change the way things are.
How many shootings are we going to allow and pretend we don't know how to fix it? Put the blame somewhere else so don't the face the problem… more? This isn't like a flu on society where eventually it'll go away, it's cancer and it'll eventually wreck everything if no one with the power to make a difference tries to change.
Just, goddammit.
Do you honestly think the numbers are that low? I certainly don't. I think they see the people that have committed atrocities before them take center stage for days on end, have their stories talked about relentlessly for days, and they want the same treatment.
What are you basing this theory on? Of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent memory, what evidence did you see that suggested seeking fame as a motive? Because I just see people with fucked up political agendas and mental issues.
And, yes, people who commit terrible things will be recalled in infamy and nightmares. When you inflict trauma on people, they're going to remember you. If that's your end goal, you'll succeed every time. Just like if your end goal to stabbing someone is making them bleed. It's just how humans react to damage being inflicted upon them. Censoring a name isn't going to stop that. We don't know the Zodiac Killer's true name and that's only grown his legend. You don't beat these people by trying to repress them. You beat them by confronting what they are and using that knowledge to deal with others like them.
No, we don't need to spotlight on these people to identify the roots of their actions. At least not in the capacity and timing we see it now… more. Again, I'm not suggesting we just not cover the information, just that we cover it in a different way. People would still know about Sandy Hook and Charleston and the reasons behind them, what they wouldn't be so inclined to recall is the names and faces of the people that did the killing. They would see the faces of the ones lost and, if they were curious about stopping these events in the future, would have complete aceess to relevant information. "The one or two who do this kind of stuff for fame." Do you honestly think the numbers are that low? I certainly don't. I think they see the people that have committed atrocities before them take center stage for days on end, have their stories talked about relentlessly for days, and they want the same treatment. They want to be recalled in infamy, in night… [view original content]
America just needs to get rid of guns for fucks sake, why don't we hear about the same scale of mass shootings anywhere else excluding terrorist related attacks? Regardless of all the people who say, "it's not the gun it's the person", true, but a gun can enter a school or crowded and shoot everyone dead in minutes, a knife, or fists, or anything else, can't do that. Stop the guns you stop the shootings, it's that simple. Maybe it will save some lives along the way.
My opinion folks.
Anyway, may the victims rest in peace. It's truly terrible.
America just needs to get rid of guns for fucks sake, why don't we hear about the same scale of mass shootings anywhere else excluding terro… morerist related attacks? Regardless of all the people who say, "it's not the gun it's the person", true, but a gun can enter a school or crowded and shoot everyone dead in minutes, a knife, or fists, or anything else, can't do that. Stop the guns you stop the shootings, it's that simple. Maybe it will save some lives along the way.
My opinion folks.
Anyway, may the victims rest in peace. It's truly terrible.
My point was that if someone is set on murdering large numbers of people there are plenty of ways to do it without a gun. They could drive a vehicle into a crowd for instance. If you ban guns people will just come up with new ways to do things. It's like when one torrent site gets shut down and 57 more open within the hour. Where there's a will there's a way.
If you can find instances of people driving cars into crowds or other forms of mindless killing on the scale of Americas shootings (obviously excluding terrorism) I will back down. Yes, people can find more ways, but the simplicity is in the weapon. Although I worded it as if removing guns is the only solution, I really do mean otherwise. Of course, it will not stop shootings, "where there's a will there's a way", and nut cases will find ways to obtain them, but it will at least slow down the amount by a large proportion. A gun is quick, it's easy, too easy. Simply look outside the USA. Do other first world countries with strict gun laws have these issues? Or is America just prone to bat-shit crazy nut jobs?
My point was that if someone is set on murdering large numbers of people there are plenty of ways to do it without a gun. They could drive a… more vehicle into a crowd for instance. If you ban guns people will just come up with new ways to do things. It's like when one torrent site gets shut down and 57 more open within the hour. Where there's a will there's a way.
Last I heard in this most recent shooting 14 people were dead. Here are a few killings without guns, or some with gun use combined with other weapons, that I found in a few minutes of searching.
If you can find instances of people driving cars into crowds or other forms of mindless killing on the scale of Americas shootings (obviousl… morey excluding terrorism) I will back down. Yes, people can find more ways, but the simplicity is in the weapon. Although I worded it as if removing guns is the only solution, I really do mean otherwise. Of course, it will not stop shootings, "where there's a will there's a way", and nut cases will find ways to obtain them, but it will at least slow down the amount by a large proportion. A gun is quick, it's easy, too easy. Simply look outside the USA. Do other first world countries with strict gun laws have these issues? Or is America just prone to bat-shit crazy nut jobs?
You say that until you compare the pain of being stabbed to death with an unsharpened pencil to a single bullet. Not that I think either should happen to you, don't take this that way, but one is a lot more gruesome than the other.
Tell me about it. I feel if weapon production halted at the melee weaponry stage I think it would've been at least a lot less worse then where we are now.
That's great, but these are all unrelated events in mostly different countries. The shootings in America, are exactly what is written, shootings in America. One tool of 'destruction', numerous events in a short time-frame, one location. There will always be people who kill but removing a source of killing is a viable option. I don't know how you can disagree. As stated before, a gun can kill large amounts of people in minutes or even seconds, people find that hard to do in vehicles, or can easily be detained when carrying melee weapons. "There has been mass more shootings in America this year then days."
Police I don't wish to get into, simply because that will derail this thread into oblivion haha. I'm sure you understand.
Last I heard in this most recent shooting 14 people were dead. Here are a few killings without guns, or some with gun use combined with othe… morer weapons, that I found in a few minutes of searching.
10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/20/6-killed-in-arson-stabbing-rampage-in-south-korea.html
6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia
7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
198 killed, 147 injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire
8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Man runs car into crowd killing 3, injuring 34 in Austria. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/20/austria-car-rampage/29029437/
A Colorado man who plowed his car through… [view original content]
Of course the events are unrelated? Not every mass killing by guns in America was perpetrated by members of the same family/social club. You asked me to find you instances of people killing others in a large scale, without guns, and that's what I did. You also asked if people are just crazy in America, and I think the proof against that is that many of them in that list aren't from America.
As for removing a source of the killing, even if it does allow for killing on a larger scale, it's still not the only thing guns are used for. Many people hunt game with their guns, or keep them as methods of last resort against home invasion, or simply enjoy target shooting. I don't think attempting to eliminate guns from society is really fair to the millions that use their guns responsibly, and that's why and how I disagree with you. In that list we see that people found it just as easy to kill others with things like baseball bats and knives, but not everyone uses their baseball bats and knives to kill others. I'm not sure how you'll feel about this comparison, but would you want the internet shut down because identity theft/credit card fraud is made so easy by it? I'm not entirely against stricter regulation, but I am against outright banning.
As for discussing the police, I know lol. I didn't mean for that to be discussed I just put the link there so I could find it later, and so that others could glance at it if they felt the desire to.
That's great, but these are all unrelated events in mostly different countries. The shootings in America, are exactly what is written, shoot… moreings in America. One tool of 'destruction', numerous events in a short time-frame, one location. There will always be people who kill but removing a source of killing is a viable option. I don't know how you can disagree. As stated before, a gun can kill large amounts of people in minutes or even seconds, people find that hard to do in vehicles, or can easily be detained when carrying melee weapons. "There has been mass more shootings in America this year then days."
Police I don't wish to get into, simply because that will derail this thread into oblivion haha. I'm sure you understand.
I must be wording this wrong to how I actually mean it, either that or you are misreading me (apologies if it's me). Yes, not every mass shooting in America is by the same group of people but my point is that every mass shooting is done by a gun (obviously). what other weapon or form of mass killing is labelled so heavily? (rhetorical)
I understand Americans use guns for other means, but every country does also, with much stricter regulations than buying one at the local store. Stopping the use of guns is not intended to mean get rid of every single one in the country since clearly no one is able to handle themselves with one. But as far as I'm concerned if I can walk into the local store and get a gun because I feel like it, half your issue is right there. Outright banning is not the point I'm getting at.
I'm just going to stop there, I have more but I know you do too. This will just go in circles with no real solution, you have your views, I'm keeping mine.
Have a good one.
Of course the events are unrelated? Not every mass killing by guns in America was perpetrated by members of the same family/social club. You… more asked me to find you instances of people killing others in a large scale, without guns, and that's what I did. You also asked if people are just crazy in America, and I think the proof against that is that many of them in that list aren't from America.
As for removing a source of the killing, even if it does allow for killing on a larger scale, it's still not the only thing guns are used for. Many people hunt game with their guns, or keep them as methods of last resort against home invasion, or simply enjoy target shooting. I don't think attempting to eliminate guns from society is really fair to the millions that use their guns responsibly, and that's why and how I disagree with you. In that list we see that people found it just as easy to kill others with things like baseball bats and knives, but no… [view original content]
Too sad, this as usual was senseless. I'm a gun rights guy, but have'nt owned in years. But the intent of the second admenment is that we may protect ourselves! Do yourself the favor and get trained. Gonna refile at the first of the year. Just nuts out here. Also if you feel like shooting someone just because thats how you roll,seek help please! Enough already. Guns are a tool. Like all other tools misuse causes a huge amount of damage! It's time to stop being helpless victims america! The outlaws will always have firearms,we should too. These cowards wouldn't have tried this at a police station. God rest the victims rant done!
And how do you spread a political agenda of any type?
We don't know the Zodiac Killer's true name and that's only grown his legend.
Yes, because we don't know his name. We can't know his name. Yet again, I'm not saying we just never cover the information.
You don't beat these people by trying to repress them. You beat them by confronting what they are and using that knowledge to deal with others like them.
You can try to confront the reasons that lead to them commiting these actions, but you cannot prevent the actions. An additional way to try to prevent the rational from occuring, on top of the obvious (like improving mental health care) is to not glorify the people commiting the actions. Don't put thousands of pictures of them on every screen in America for days.
Do you honestly think the numbers are that low? I certainly don't. I think they see the people that have committed atrocities before them ta… moreke center stage for days on end, have their stories talked about relentlessly for days, and they want the same treatment.
What are you basing this theory on? Of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent memory, what evidence did you see that suggested seeking fame as a motive? Because I just see people with fucked up political agendas and mental issues.
And, yes, people who commit terrible things will be recalled in infamy and nightmares. When you inflict trauma on people, they're going to remember you. If that's your end goal, you'll succeed every time. Just like if your end goal to stabbing someone is making them bleed. It's just how humans react to damage being inflicted upon them. Censoring a name isn't going to stop that. We don't know the Zodiac Killer's true name and that's only gr… [view original content]
Stopping the use of guns is not intended to mean get rid of every single one in the country since clearly no one is able to handle themselves with one. But as far as I'm concerned if I can walk into the local store and get a gun because I feel like it, half your issue is right there. Outright banning is not the point I'm getting at.
Then what are we arguing about lol? Did you miss this in my last post, "I'm not entirely against stricter regulation, but I am against outright banning." It seems like we're just arguing different sides of the same point since we both think responsible use is okay, outright banning isn't, and stricter control can be good.
I must be wording this wrong to how I actually mean it, either that or you are misreading me (apologies if it's me). Yes, not every mass sho… moreoting in America is by the same group of people but my point is that every mass shooting is done by a gun (obviously). what other weapon or form of mass killing is labelled so heavily? (rhetorical)
I understand Americans use guns for other means, but every country does also, with much stricter regulations than buying one at the local store. Stopping the use of guns is not intended to mean get rid of every single one in the country since clearly no one is able to handle themselves with one. But as far as I'm concerned if I can walk into the local store and get a gun because I feel like it, half your issue is right there. Outright banning is not the point I'm getting at.
I'm just going to stop there, I have more but I know you do too. This will just go in circles with no real solution, you have your views, I'm keeping mine.
Have a good one.
This is truly a sad occurrence, and it is sad that people possess the inhumanity to go and commit such atrocities.
This very incident proves that we need guns, and why we need them, despite what some people think on the subject.
It's in our Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights!
Those are our sacred rights, and they are given to us not buy any man, but rather they come from God.
Now I realize that my mentioning of the Second Amendment, and God, is not A popular thing to do, certainly not in this day in age where political correctness and secular thinking is the order of the day.
It takes strength and courage to believe in something greater than yourself, to believe that instead of being products of random chance, that we as people are the products of intelligent design. and that being the products of design, that we have the right to defend ourselves!
But those are my beliefs and I will stand fast by them, even at the risk of being unpopular.
Popularity is Histories pocket change. Courage is it true currency!
It takes courage to go against the popular way of doing things, to defy what might be considered conventional wisdom.
Get involved with an unpopular movement, whether it be political or otherwise, and you'll quickly find out who your friends are.
The motive is really unclear. He worked there, so that suggests it was a case of "going postal". But he got his wife involved and, I hate to say it, but the fact that they're Muslims opens up the possibility that this was another case of Islamic extremism. Or maybe it was a combination. I dunno, this is a really weird story. If this was some sort of statement, I would have thought a video or manifesto would have popped up by now. But if it was an extreme case of workplace resentment, its really weird that he was able to convince his wife to join him, especially with a young baby at home.
How many shootings are we going to allow and pretend we don't know how to fix it?
I was mostly just refering to this portion of your post where you say we actually know how to fix the problem and we are just refusing to do it. By culprit I meant the problem that we supposedly know how to solve. Which you continue on to, as it seems in my eye, contradict that by saying
This such a deeply rooted problem that has seeped into so many different areas of our society that it's (not?) going to be solved in the short run, but that does not mean we should give on trying to change the way things are.
This isn't simple problem/solution mechanics. Taking away guns and leaving it at that isn't a solve-all idea. That's all I was getting at.
I can't help but feel you're trying to bait me so you can twist my words.
Looking at the other things you've said here, I agree that the … moremedia is flawed in searching for sensational news. But "culprits"? It's pretty black and white here, the people who went and shot it up. But using a term like culprit is wrong, because that is pushing the idea that this shooting is isolated from all the others we've had this year and beyond. There is no real "culprit" in the big picture, it's a problem with our culture that we see these tragedies repeated so frequently and yet there are those fighting tooth and nail for sensible reform. America has gotten more lenient on gun control over the past few years (while Obama was in office and as idiots were paranoid the government was going to take their guns).
What are you getting at? This such a deeply rooted problem that has seeped into so many different areas of our society that it's going to be solved i… [view original content]
This is truly a sad occurrence, and it is sad that people possess the inhumanity to go and commit such atrocities.
This very incident prov… morees that we need guns, and why we need them, despite what some people think on the subject.
It's in our Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights!
Those are our sacred rights, and they are given to us not buy any man, but rather they come from God.
Now I realize that my mentioning of the Second Amendment, and God, is not A popular thing to do, certainly not in this day in age where political correctness and secular thinking is the order of the day.
It takes strength and courage to believe in something greater than yourself, to believe that instead of being products of random chance, that we as people are the products of intelligent design. and that being the products of design, that we have the right to defend ourselves!
But those are my beliefs and I will stand fast by them, even at the risk of be… [view original content]
Yup, it's a pretty popular tactic for right-wing strategists, right now. They're trying to create a narrative of persecution and paint being a conservative Protestant as subversive and edgy.
This is truly a sad occurrence, and it is sad that people possess the inhumanity to go and commit such atrocities.
This very incident prov… morees that we need guns, and why we need them, despite what some people think on the subject.
It's in our Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights!
Those are our sacred rights, and they are given to us not buy any man, but rather they come from God.
Now I realize that my mentioning of the Second Amendment, and God, is not A popular thing to do, certainly not in this day in age where political correctness and secular thinking is the order of the day.
It takes strength and courage to believe in something greater than yourself, to believe that instead of being products of random chance, that we as people are the products of intelligent design. and that being the products of design, that we have the right to defend ourselves!
But those are my beliefs and I will stand fast by them, even at the risk of be… [view original content]
Those religious tenets have only begun to be questioned in any meaningful way within the last few years. A large majority of the population holds the very same beliefs and an even larger majority are within positions of power. It is frightening that there is any movement behind this tactic but it's also disgusting in practice.
Yup, it's a pretty popular tactic for right-wing strategists, right now. They're trying to create a narrative of persecution and paint being a conservative Protestant as subversive and edgy.
As you can see. It's working frighteningly well.
God created all men equally, regardless of skin color, or what area of the world they live in. he has given to each man free will, and thus he allows each man to carve his own path.
But that does not mean the he condones acts of violence, perversion, etc.
And for those who continue to do such things, he will hold them accountable!
That is why most people nowadays do not care for religion, nor believe in God.
That is why many people say "there is no God", even though every person believes in something!
They did not want to be held accountable to anything or anyone for what they do, but rather would continue to go on living the way they do regardless if it affects anyone else.
And it has gotten to tell point where Government is starting to remove God from the courthouses, and anything that is remotely religious from public grounds.
Like it did with the statue of the Ten Commandments removed from the Oklahoma courtyard grounds.
Even though it is from the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Christ, that many of our laws are based on.
Yeah, it's pretty disconcerting, and this isn't idle speculation either. I've worked as an intern on a Republican state rep's campaign,(yes I'll work for anybody) and his people deliberately and methodically pushed hard on the secular victimization line.
Those religious tenets have only begun to be questioned in any meaningful way within the last few years. A large majority of the population … moreholds the very same beliefs and an even larger majority are within positions of power. It is frightening that there is any movement behind this tactic but it's also disgusting in practice.
But if the Bill of Rights is God-given, why did he give different ones to different countries?
Edit:
And it has gotten to tell point where Government is starting to remove God from the courthouses, and anything that is remotely religious from public grounds. Like it did with the statue of the Ten Commandments removed from the Oklahoma courtyard grounds. Even though it is from the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Christ, that many of our laws are based on.
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States.
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813.
God created all men equally, regardless of skin color, or what area of the world they live in. he has given to each man free will, and thus … morehe allows each man to carve his own path.
But that does not mean the he condones acts of violence, perversion, etc.
And for those who continue to do such things, he will hold them accountable!
That is why most people nowadays do not care for religion, nor believe in God.
That is why many people say "there is no God", even though every person believes in something!
They did not want to be held accountable to anything or anyone for what they do, but rather would continue to go on living the way they do regardless if it affects anyone else.
And it has gotten to tell point where Government is starting to remove God from the courthouses, and anything that is remotely religious from public grounds.
Like it did with the statue of the Ten Commandments removed from the Oklahoma courtyard grounds.
E… [view original content]
I was going to say something about this yesterday, but just really wasn't sure what to even say. It goes without saying that I feel terrible for the families of the victims, as well as for the victims themselves. From the looks of things, it seems like the incident was an act of terrorism, even if the couple may not have had any official ties to a group. I know the guy worked at the place, but that's just a side fact in my opinion. From what I have read, coworkers did not sense anything off about the guy, nor did they have any other hostile encounters with him. This leads me to believe that the man's work itself didn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with his own twisted rationale for the attack (though it still could have maybe played a part in being the specific target I suppose). On top of this, the couple had been stockpiling ammunition, making bombs, obviously planning for this attack well in advance. They were both devout Muslims (not saying that this is a bad thing in of itself), and were viewing ISIS propaganda online. Ultimately we might not ever get a concrete answer, but from the evidence that is out there already, this really does seem linked to terrorism.
And how do you spread a political agenda of any type?
Do you think the Charleston shooter needed his name and face out there to communicate what his agenda was? Or the guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood? Or any terrorist ever? These people don't care about their name or face being famous. They care about their acts. And unless you don't report the acts themselves (which, again, would be horrifically irresponsible), there's nothing you can do to keep them from gaining infamy. What you can do is look at these people, examine who and what they are, and figure out how to deal with others like them.
with fucked up political agendas
And how do you spread a political agenda of any type?
We don't know the Zodiac Killer's true … morename and that's only grown his legend.
Yes, because we don't know his name. We can't know his name. Yet again, I'm not saying we just never cover the information.
You don't beat these people by trying to repress them. You beat them by confronting what they are and using that knowledge to deal with others like them.
You can try to confront the reasons that lead to them commiting these actions, but you cannot prevent the actions. An additional way to try to prevent the rational from occuring, on top of the obvious (like improving mental health care) is to not glorify the people commiting the actions. Don't put thousands of pictures of them on every screen in America for days.
This is truly a sad occurrence, and it is sad that people possess the inhumanity to go and commit such atrocities.
This very incident prov… morees that we need guns, and why we need them, despite what some people think on the subject.
It's in our Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights!
Those are our sacred rights, and they are given to us not buy any man, but rather they come from God.
Now I realize that my mentioning of the Second Amendment, and God, is not A popular thing to do, certainly not in this day in age where political correctness and secular thinking is the order of the day.
It takes strength and courage to believe in something greater than yourself, to believe that instead of being products of random chance, that we as people are the products of intelligent design. and that being the products of design, that we have the right to defend ourselves!
But those are my beliefs and I will stand fast by them, even at the risk of be… [view original content]
I don't think political correctness has anything to do with the second amendment? Sounds like you're just spouting conservative buzzwords at… more the mo.
Also taking this as evidence we need guns is??? Did u want people to take their guns to work with them or smth?
Comments
You know what's really sad that we as a society are growing numb to these horrific tragedies. Counting this, we've had 352 mass shootings in this year alone in the United States (not to mention 365 in 2013, a mass shooting a day, and 336 in 2014)......When will it end?
This is sadly still relevant
enter link description here
I can't help but feel you're trying to bait me so you can twist my words.
Looking at the other things you've said here, I agree that the media is flawed in searching for sensational news. But "culprits"? It's pretty black and white here, the people who went and shot it up. But using a term like culprit is wrong, because that is pushing the idea that this shooting is isolated from all the others we've had this year and beyond. There is no real "culprit" in the big picture, it's a problem with our culture that we see these tragedies repeated so frequently and yet there are those fighting tooth and nail for sensible reform. America has gotten more lenient on gun control over the past few years (while Obama was in office and as idiots were paranoid the government was going to take their guns).
What are you getting at? This such a deeply rooted problem that has seeped into so many different areas of our society that it's going to be solved in the short run, but that does not mean we should give on trying to change the way things are.
Nobody's going to stop it, because the people who run the world are scum who look out for themselves.
-George Carlin
What are you basing this theory on? Of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent memory, what evidence did you see that suggested seeking fame as a motive? Because I just see people with fucked up political agendas and mental issues.
And, yes, people who commit terrible things will be recalled in infamy and nightmares. When you inflict trauma on people, they're going to remember you. If that's your end goal, you'll succeed every time. Just like if your end goal to stabbing someone is making them bleed. It's just how humans react to damage being inflicted upon them. Censoring a name isn't going to stop that. We don't know the Zodiac Killer's true name and that's only grown his legend. You don't beat these people by trying to repress them. You beat them by confronting what they are and using that knowledge to deal with others like them.
You screw up once again, humanity. Won't be too long before you screw up, again, again. again, again.......
Canadians probably.
This being stated by a person who wants to abridge our first amendments rights.
I am sorry, but what the hell do you mean in saying this?
So apparently it was a married Muslim couple and they targeted the Government branch the husband worked for.
America just needs to get rid of guns for fucks sake, why don't we hear about the same scale of mass shootings anywhere else excluding terrorist related attacks? Regardless of all the people who say, "it's not the gun it's the person", true, but a gun can enter a school or crowded and shoot everyone dead in minutes, a knife, or fists, or anything else, can't do that. Stop the guns you stop the shootings, it's that simple. Maybe it will save some lives along the way.
My opinion folks.
Anyway, may the victims rest in peace. It's truly terrible.
It's all good, I've been meaning to test out that bumper on my new car anyway.
Sorry but I don't understand.
My point was that if someone is set on murdering large numbers of people there are plenty of ways to do it without a gun. They could drive a vehicle into a crowd for instance. If you ban guns people will just come up with new ways to do things. It's like when one torrent site gets shut down and 57 more open within the hour. Where there's a will there's a way.
If you can find instances of people driving cars into crowds or other forms of mindless killing on the scale of Americas shootings (obviously excluding terrorism) I will back down. Yes, people can find more ways, but the simplicity is in the weapon. Although I worded it as if removing guns is the only solution, I really do mean otherwise. Of course, it will not stop shootings, "where there's a will there's a way", and nut cases will find ways to obtain them, but it will at least slow down the amount by a large proportion. A gun is quick, it's easy, too easy. Simply look outside the USA. Do other first world countries with strict gun laws have these issues? Or is America just prone to bat-shit crazy nut jobs?
Last I heard in this most recent shooting 14 people were dead. Here are a few killings without guns, or some with gun use combined with other weapons, that I found in a few minutes of searching.
10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/20/6-killed-in-arson-stabbing-rampage-in-south-korea.html
6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia
7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
198 killed, 147 injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire
8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Man runs car into crowd killing 3, injuring 34 in Austria. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/20/austria-car-rampage/29029437/
A Colorado man who plowed his car through a crowd of pedestrians along the Venice Beach oceanfront two years ago, killing an Italian woman on her honeymoon and injuring 17 others. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/26/us-usa-crime-boardwalk-idUSKCN0RQ04920150926
At least 3 dead by stabbing, just at a glance at the article. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/justice/california-shooting-deaths/
At least three stabbings and one car hit that I read. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/us/california-rampage-timeline/
10 dead, improvised flamethrower, a lance, and a mace. http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/seifert-walter.htm
6 killed with baseball bats. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/08/29/man-gets-life-in-prison-for-killing-6-people-over-xbox-dispute.html
I didn't look into this I'm just posting it here so I can find it later to see if it's true. Police Killed More Americans In 2014 Than All U.S. Mass Shootings Combined. http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/10/more-americans-by-police/#
To put things into perspective, I believe the Columbine death toll was 15?
You say that until you compare the pain of being stabbed to death with an unsharpened pencil to a single bullet. Not that I think either should happen to you, don't take this that way, but one is a lot more gruesome than the other.
That's great, but these are all unrelated events in mostly different countries. The shootings in America, are exactly what is written, shootings in America. One tool of 'destruction', numerous events in a short time-frame, one location. There will always be people who kill but removing a source of killing is a viable option. I don't know how you can disagree. As stated before, a gun can kill large amounts of people in minutes or even seconds, people find that hard to do in vehicles, or can easily be detained when carrying melee weapons. "There has been mass more shootings in America this year then days."
Police I don't wish to get into, simply because that will derail this thread into oblivion haha. I'm sure you understand.
Of course the events are unrelated? Not every mass killing by guns in America was perpetrated by members of the same family/social club. You asked me to find you instances of people killing others in a large scale, without guns, and that's what I did. You also asked if people are just crazy in America, and I think the proof against that is that many of them in that list aren't from America.
As for removing a source of the killing, even if it does allow for killing on a larger scale, it's still not the only thing guns are used for. Many people hunt game with their guns, or keep them as methods of last resort against home invasion, or simply enjoy target shooting. I don't think attempting to eliminate guns from society is really fair to the millions that use their guns responsibly, and that's why and how I disagree with you. In that list we see that people found it just as easy to kill others with things like baseball bats and knives, but not everyone uses their baseball bats and knives to kill others. I'm not sure how you'll feel about this comparison, but would you want the internet shut down because identity theft/credit card fraud is made so easy by it? I'm not entirely against stricter regulation, but I am against outright banning.
As for discussing the police, I know lol. I didn't mean for that to be discussed I just put the link there so I could find it later, and so that others could glance at it if they felt the desire to.
I must be wording this wrong to how I actually mean it, either that or you are misreading me (apologies if it's me). Yes, not every mass shooting in America is by the same group of people but my point is that every mass shooting is done by a gun (obviously). what other weapon or form of mass killing is labelled so heavily? (rhetorical)
I understand Americans use guns for other means, but every country does also, with much stricter regulations than buying one at the local store. Stopping the use of guns is not intended to mean get rid of every single one in the country since clearly no one is able to handle themselves with one. But as far as I'm concerned if I can walk into the local store and get a gun because I feel like it, half your issue is right there. Outright banning is not the point I'm getting at.
I'm just going to stop there, I have more but I know you do too. This will just go in circles with no real solution, you have your views, I'm keeping mine.
Have a good one.
Too sad, this as usual was senseless. I'm a gun rights guy, but have'nt owned in years. But the intent of the second admenment is that we may protect ourselves! Do yourself the favor and get trained. Gonna refile at the first of the year. Just nuts out here. Also if you feel like shooting someone just because thats how you roll,seek help please! Enough already. Guns are a tool. Like all other tools misuse causes a huge amount of damage! It's time to stop being helpless victims america! The outlaws will always have firearms,we should too. These cowards wouldn't have tried this at a police station. God rest the victims rant done!
Do you support complete freedom of speech? Likely not? Okay.
And how do you spread a political agenda of any type?
Yes, because we don't know his name. We can't know his name. Yet again, I'm not saying we just never cover the information.
You can try to confront the reasons that lead to them commiting these actions, but you cannot prevent the actions. An additional way to try to prevent the rational from occuring, on top of the obvious (like improving mental health care) is to not glorify the people commiting the actions. Don't put thousands of pictures of them on every screen in America for days.
Then what are we arguing about lol? Did you miss this in my last post, "I'm not entirely against stricter regulation, but I am against outright banning." It seems like we're just arguing different sides of the same point since we both think responsible use is okay, outright banning isn't, and stricter control can be good.
This is truly a sad occurrence, and it is sad that people possess the inhumanity to go and commit such atrocities.
This very incident proves that we need guns, and why we need them, despite what some people think on the subject.
It's in our Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights!
Those are our sacred rights, and they are given to us not buy any man, but rather they come from God.
Now I realize that my mentioning of the Second Amendment, and God, is not A popular thing to do, certainly not in this day in age where political correctness and secular thinking is the order of the day.
It takes strength and courage to believe in something greater than yourself, to believe that instead of being products of random chance, that we as people are the products of intelligent design. and that being the products of design, that we have the right to defend ourselves!
But those are my beliefs and I will stand fast by them, even at the risk of being unpopular.
Popularity is Histories pocket change. Courage is it true currency!
It takes courage to go against the popular way of doing things, to defy what might be considered conventional wisdom.
Get involved with an unpopular movement, whether it be political or otherwise, and you'll quickly find out who your friends are.
Turns out it was two shooters: a man and wife, who are now both dead. And they're Muslims. So that sucks. Oh, and they had a six month old baby that they left at home.
The motive is really unclear. He worked there, so that suggests it was a case of "going postal". But he got his wife involved and, I hate to say it, but the fact that they're Muslims opens up the possibility that this was another case of Islamic extremism. Or maybe it was a combination. I dunno, this is a really weird story. If this was some sort of statement, I would have thought a video or manifesto would have popped up by now. But if it was an extreme case of workplace resentment, its really weird that he was able to convince his wife to join him, especially with a young baby at home.
I was mostly just refering to this portion of your post where you say we actually know how to fix the problem and we are just refusing to do it. By culprit I meant the problem that we supposedly know how to solve. Which you continue on to, as it seems in my eye, contradict that by saying
This isn't simple problem/solution mechanics. Taking away guns and leaving it at that isn't a solve-all idea. That's all I was getting at.
This is a fine example of a persecution complex.
Yup, it's a pretty popular tactic for right-wing strategists, right now. They're trying to create a narrative of persecution and paint being a conservative Protestant as subversive and edgy.
As you can see. It's working frighteningly well.
I'm just curious, but why did God give different countries different Bills of Rights?
Better yet, what the hell was he thinking when he created Iraq.
Those religious tenets have only begun to be questioned in any meaningful way within the last few years. A large majority of the population holds the very same beliefs and an even larger majority are within positions of power. It is frightening that there is any movement behind this tactic but it's also disgusting in practice.
God created all men equally, regardless of skin color, or what area of the world they live in. he has given to each man free will, and thus he allows each man to carve his own path.
But that does not mean the he condones acts of violence, perversion, etc.
And for those who continue to do such things, he will hold them accountable!
That is why most people nowadays do not care for religion, nor believe in God.
That is why many people say "there is no God", even though every person believes in something!
They did not want to be held accountable to anything or anyone for what they do, but rather would continue to go on living the way they do regardless if it affects anyone else.
And it has gotten to tell point where Government is starting to remove God from the courthouses, and anything that is remotely religious from public grounds.
Like it did with the statue of the Ten Commandments removed from the Oklahoma courtyard grounds.
Even though it is from the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Christ, that many of our laws are based on.
Yeah, it's pretty disconcerting, and this isn't idle speculation either. I've worked as an intern on a Republican state rep's campaign,(yes I'll work for anybody) and his people deliberately and methodically pushed hard on the secular victimization line.
But if the Bill of Rights is God-given, why did he give different ones to different countries?
Edit:
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States.
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813.
I was going to say something about this yesterday, but just really wasn't sure what to even say. It goes without saying that I feel terrible for the families of the victims, as well as for the victims themselves. From the looks of things, it seems like the incident was an act of terrorism, even if the couple may not have had any official ties to a group. I know the guy worked at the place, but that's just a side fact in my opinion. From what I have read, coworkers did not sense anything off about the guy, nor did they have any other hostile encounters with him. This leads me to believe that the man's work itself didn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with his own twisted rationale for the attack (though it still could have maybe played a part in being the specific target I suppose). On top of this, the couple had been stockpiling ammunition, making bombs, obviously planning for this attack well in advance. They were both devout Muslims (not saying that this is a bad thing in of itself), and were viewing ISIS propaganda online. Ultimately we might not ever get a concrete answer, but from the evidence that is out there already, this really does seem linked to terrorism.
Do you think the Charleston shooter needed his name and face out there to communicate what his agenda was? Or the guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood? Or any terrorist ever? These people don't care about their name or face being famous. They care about their acts. And unless you don't report the acts themselves (which, again, would be horrifically irresponsible), there's nothing you can do to keep them from gaining infamy. What you can do is look at these people, examine who and what they are, and figure out how to deal with others like them.
I don't think political correctness has anything to do with the second amendment? Sounds like you're just spouting conservative buzzwords at the mo.
Also taking this as evidence we need guns is??? Did u want people to take their guns to work with them or smth?
The gun debate has lost all reason. Anything less than the guns everywhere position is considered pro-confiscation.