Mass shooting in Buffalo NY. (1 Viewer)

[brandon8283]

You really want to create a civil war? Try taking guns away from the 99% law abiding citizens, that follow the law to the T! The U.S. military, including the various National Guard units, are made up of people who own personal firearms themselves. Any attempt at seizing personal guns/firearms, will lead to an all out civil war. No way it will ever happen.

Talk about shutting down a country! Talk about shutting down the world economy, because the U.S. would be in total uncontrolled mayhem.

I do not own a gun, but I know what attempting to seize all guns would mean.

Gun buyback. Don't take them. Buy them back at fair or even above-market value.

Give a deadline. After that, owning a firearm results in a fine until you turn it in.

Maybe if gun owners wouldn't turn to "total uncontrolled mayhem," we wouldn't be having this problem.

 

[kizzy821]

I really do not understand the hate some human beings can have for others. At times, SOME humans can be the most ignorant living being that walks on the face of this planet. It sickens me to the core, that some of us can just have so little regard for civility, human life, respect for all others, that nothing else really matters to me anymore.

How can such a young person, have so much hate and hostility, at such a relatively young age? What in the world is the catalyst, that causes this end result? That, to me, is the big question!

Something he actually experienced himself? Was he targeted (bullied) by others and when he was able, took it out on innocent others? Was he enticed/encouraged/influenced by older people, who tainted his young mind? I mean, WHAT? Just sickening.

I think some people are just born rotten.

There isn't always a catalyst that turns them sour, so-to-speak. They could've popped out defective.

Plant 100 seeds and some of them aren't going to bloom or develop properly.

 

[Heathen Saint]

But here is the other issue. His ideology will persist. Prisons are a microcosm of a terrorist society. When you have as much proof as you do about what he did, there isn’t much doubt in the way he went about his crime. Letting him live, possibly in a general population allows him to target more African Americans in prison.

I didn’t disagree that it could become an issue, but I still think the main point I’m making here and a much broader one is that fundamentally the state shouldn’t have the right to take lives. I would also think that if he’s not in some sort of solitary confinement, he’s probably got an infinitely better chance of getting jumped than doing more of what he did. And let me be clear, this story rips my heart out unimaginably..the targeted racist hatred, the killing of the elderly, etc. I just think from a society pov, we shouldn’t want to see more death. Eye for an eye is an awful way to run a nation.

I don’t know if the answer is much stricter gun laws, but I do know other countries don’t have this problem with not in the neighborhood of the same amount of money to spend on it, yet here we are.. again, and again..and again. And politicians will do their usual about face.

 

[Heathen Saint]

That would be quite a lot more difficult to do here. 650,000 guns were confiscated in Australia. 1.7 million people have gun licenses just in the state of Texas. Most of those have more than 1 gun per license and no telling how many guns are unlicensed.

The sheer volume alone would make confiscation prohibitive. Not to consider the very real probability of armed resistance to confiscation and the probability that large sections our armed forces and/or LEOs would balk at carrying out that order.

The culture and huge numbers of fire arms (more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States), make it virtually, if not literally, impossible.

Then add in politics and the vast number of guns illegally smuggled into this country every year and this is nothing like a paltry 650,000 gun confiscation program.

I agree, sadly, There’s no great way to address this other than maybe institute very strict gun registration / background checks, eliminate any and all loopholes, and Hope the next generations aren’t as obsessed

You really want to create a civil war? Try taking guns away from the 99% law abiding citizens, that follow the law to the T! The U.S. military, including the various National Guard units, are made up of people who own personal firearms themselves. Any attempt at seizing personal guns/firearms, will lead to an all out civil war. No way it will ever happen.

Talk about shutting down a country! Talk about shutting down the world economy, because the U.S. would be in total uncontrolled mayhem.

I do not own a gun, but I know what attempting to seize all guns would mean.

Also just a thought… If we didn’t have somewhat of a stable government, America would be an absolute bloodbath with the gun obsession we have here. I’d hate to see what it devolves to if the same government some claim to want to make “as small as possible” ever falls apart. We’re so divided and individualist, it’d get horrifically ugly fast.

 

[Poison]

You really want to create a civil war? Try taking guns away from the 99% law abiding citizens, that follow the law to the T! The U.S. military, including the various National Guard units, are made up of people who own personal firearms themselves. Any attempt at seizing personal guns/firearms, will lead to an all out civil war. No way it will ever happen.

Talk about shutting down a country! Talk about shutting down the world economy, because the U.S. would be in total uncontrolled mayhem.

I do not own a gun, but I know what attempting to seize all guns would mean.

This is not a criticism, but an observation of a clear cultural difference: the idea that your comment could conceivably be construed as a rational response to an obvious evidence-based public safety intervention is just mind-boggling to me. That half the country would just revert to domestic terrorism.

Other first world countries survive perfectly well without an expansive individual right of access to high-powered weaponry. Citizens of other countries have responded in a perfectly civilised way to enhanced restrictions on weapons ownership as a public safety response. I mean, my own father (a conservative voter and hunter) was annoyed at the time because he had to hand back three or four of his own. As a rational, law-abiding citizen however, he understood he was being asked to give up something in the interests of community safety more broadly and he (along with almost everybody else) begrudgingly complied without ever giving a second thought to hiding an unregistered rifle under his bed, much less taking up arms against the government.

The idea that that law reform isn’t worthwhile because it will apparently provoke more gun violence in a country that is already synonymous with it does not really withstand any informed scrutiny. It has not happened elsewhere. If it does, the only resistance that I anticipate being effective would be a legal response, not an armed one. And in any event, another Waco now, which could only occur if dissenters refused to abide by the law, is 100x better than an indefinite number of innocent kids being shot dead in school ad infinitum.

It might take several years to meaningfully reduce the circulation of firearms, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Anything worth doing takes time. Anything has to be better than innocent kids being murdered.

Sadly, these conspiratorial views - which could only be passed off as reasonable discourse in the US but no other first world country - seem to be hastening America’s backslide into it’s own unique brand of Christian theological anti-governmental extremism. Watching it from afar is alarming and fascinating in equal measure.

 

[austxsaintfan]

This is not a criticism, but an observation of a clear cultural difference: the idea that your comment could conceivably be construed as a rational response to an obvious evidence-based public safety intervention is just mind-boggling to me. That half the country would just revert to domestic terrorism.

Other first world countries survive perfectly well without an expansive individual right of access to high-powered weaponry. Citizens of other countries have responded in a perfectly civilised way to enhanced restrictions on weapons ownership as a public safety response. I mean, my own father (a conservative voter and hunter) was annoyed at the time because he had to hand back three or four of his own. As a rational, law-abiding citizen however, he understood he was being asked to give up something in the interests of community safety more broadly and he (along with almost everybody else) begrudgingly complied without ever giving a second thought to hiding an unregistered rifle under his bed, much less taking up arms against the government.

The idea that that law reform isn’t worthwhile because it will apparently provoke more gun violence in a country that is already synonymous with it does not really withstand any informed scrutiny. It has not happened elsewhere. If it does, the only resistance that I anticipate being effective would be a legal response, not an armed one.

It might take several years to meaningfully reduce the circulation of firearms, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Anything worth doing takes time. Anything is better than innocent kids being murdered just for showing up to school.

Sadly, these conspiratorial views seem to be hastening America’s backslide into it’s own unique brand of Christian theological anti-governmental extremism. Watching it from afar is alarming and fascinating in equal measure.

The overwhelming, vast majority of gun violence in the US is from people acquiring the guns illegally. Of course, there will always be exceptions but they are not the norm...not even close.

Seeing as you are abroad and don't know what the hell you're speaking about, I don't think it wise to cast stones at people.

 

[Poison]

The overwhelming, vast majority of gun violence in the US is from people acquiring the guns illegally. Of course, there will always be exceptions but they are not the norm...not even close.

Seeing as you are abroad and don't know what the hell you're speaking about, I don't think it wise to cast stones at people.

I have spent well over a year of my life in the US. I have researched gun law reform here and abroad. I have 20-30 friends who live there, some of who I stay with regularly, and some of who are gun owners. I know exactly what the “hell” I’m talking about.

To your point about the illegal acquisition of guns: this has been addressed in any number of credentialed papers. If a person has to acquire a weapon from the black market, it becomes exponentially more expensive and generally cost-prohibitive. Jim Jeffries cites the example of the weapon used by the mass murderers at Sandy Hook: $1,000 over the counter at Wal-Mart, $34,000 on the black market in Australia.

If you think your archetypal mass shooter will have either the wherewithal or the means to access weapons on a black market on the same basis/frequency as they can buy or come into possession of commercially available firearms now, I’d suggest you’re giving them far too much credit. And ignoring the actual lived experience of much of the western world.

But go off.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

The overwhelming, vast majority of gun violence in the US is from people acquiring the guns illegally. Of course, there will always be exceptions but they are not the norm...not even close.

Seeing as you are abroad and don't know what the hell you're speaking about, I don't think it wise to cast stones at people.

Every gun acquired illegally was manufactured legally and initially sold legally.

The source of illegal guns and legal guns are the same factories.

 

[St. Widge]

Maybe this is an extreme point of view but here it goes. Why do we need a lengthy court case here? The guy live streamed it, its clearly him and he posted his why to a manifesto. What does a court case even matter here? It's a waste of tax dollars. Do we really care at this point he's "disturbed or mentally ill?" He should go straight to a public hanging instead of living a life tucked away in a jail cell.

There is nothing to discover here, there is no shroud of doubt to uncover for a state prosecutor to chip away at in a court of law. Do we as a society even care what defense some defense lawyer is gonna present? Heck no, straight to hanging. This dude is straight up evil and should be shown no common decency. Why waste peoples time selecting juror's and save tax payers money?

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[brandon8283]

The overwhelming, vast majority of gun violence in the US is from people acquiring the guns illegally.

The overwhelming, vast majority of gun violence in the US is from people acquiring legally manufactured guns.

 

[CoolBrees]

Thank you @St. Widge for reminding us that the second isn’t the only amendment.

Regarding the death penalty, I find that those in favor point to these instances as evidence for the need. But most instances aren’t so cut and dry. Innocent people have been executed. That is state sponsored false imprisonment ending in execution style murder.

And finally on the gun banning stuff. There won’t be a ban so let’s just stop hand wringing over it. It became quite clear after 20 babies were murdered at Sandy Hook that nothing will change. Alex Jones will see to that.

 

[brandon8283]

Thank you @St. Widge for reminding us that the second isn’t the only amendment.

There won’t be a ban so let’s just stop hand wringing over it.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[CoolBrees]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am confused as to why you pointed out the first amendment to me?

In the post you quoted, I said those who are afraid of an out right gun ban have nothing to worry about. I don’t see how that correlates

 

[DaveXA]

I am confused as to why you pointed out the first amendment to me?

In the post you quoted, I said those who are afraid of an out right gun ban have nothing to worry about. I don’t see how that correlates

I think he means that people with guns somehow abridges his rights listed in the first amendment. Maybe?

 

[faceman]

But here is the other issue. His ideology will persist. Prisons are a microcosm of a terrorist society. When you have as much proof as you do about what he did, there isn’t much doubt in the way he went about his crime. Letting him live, possibly in a general population allows him to target more African Americans in prison.

The difference is he wouldn't have his gun in prison. He would be the target of African American gangs. He wouldn't
survive very long. Sadly,he'll be placed in protective custody.