Tornado Condor
Member
Is that relevant?
Well, if you buy a motorcycle to compensate than you have other fundamental problems.
Multiple fatalities reported at Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon
- Thread starter TheLostBigBoss
- Start date
- Status
Is that relevant?
Well, if you buy a motorcycle to compensate than you have other fundamental problems.
Yes of course.
Nope. It's too ingrained. People need to die of old age before things change.
Maybe eventually we can force an institution like the NRA to its knees rather than allow it to persist over generations.
Relevant quote from the manifesto:
"My first act of preparation was the purchase my first handgun. I did this quickly and hastily, at a local gun shop called Goleta Gun and Supply. I had already done some research on handguns, and I decided to purchase the Glock 34 semiautomatic pistol, an efficient and highly accurate weapon. I signed all of the papers and was told that my pickup day was in mid-December. That fell in nicely, because that was when I was planning on staying in Santa Barbara till. After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who’s the alpha male now, bitches? I thought to myself, regarding all of the girls who’ve looked down on me in the past. I quickly admired my new weapon before locking it up in my safe and preparing to go back to my hometown for the winter break."
Written by a mass murderer himself.
"My first act of preparation was the purchase my first handgun. I did this quickly and hastily, at a local gun shop called Goleta Gun and Supply. I had already done some research on handguns, and I decided to purchase the Glock 34 semiautomatic pistol, an efficient and highly accurate weapon. I signed all of the papers and was told that my pickup day was in mid-December. That fell in nicely, because that was when I was planning on staying in Santa Barbara till. After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who’s the alpha male now, bitches? I thought to myself, regarding all of the girls who’ve looked down on me in the past. I quickly admired my new weapon before locking it up in my safe and preparing to go back to my hometown for the winter break."
Written by a mass murderer himself.
Tornado Condor
Member
So a guy with mental problems felt powered by a gun. So what?
How does shooting a gun make you feel?
Tornado Condor
Member
So what does this have anything to do with masculinity from guns? The guy clearly had the mass shooting planned before getting the gun.
You know, there is a world bigger then anecdotal yours. Emitting trails of our physiological past. Which were discussed in detail here not to long ago.
But hey, so what, right?
It's a bunch of straw men and insulting crap; I mean just look at that first one.. condescending bullshit "it's easy to find" linking to a Brietbart article, that if accurate, is linking to a completely bullshit study. Their argument is literally that places that aren't gun free zones should be counted in studies as gun free zones... cuz rabble rabble conceal and carry permits are hard to get in LA. (edit: 4 and 5 are fine, but not really anything new)
Bobby Roberts
Banned
A friend of mine told a story today on facebook that really put the normalization of gun violence into sharp focus for me.
It was a story of his childhood. His dad was a cop, and he and his wife were 100% responsible gun owners. The perfect picture of what you would want from someone who owns a gun. They kept them locked up, out of reach of their children, and when their children were old enough to handle the responsibility, they took their kid to the range, and very meticulously and carefully went through the process of responsibly training their kid how to handle firearms correctly, for the safety of everyone in the household. If someone breaks in, this is how you get the gun, this is how you handle it so you don't injure yourself, this is where you aim to stop the bad man.
The story wasn't acidic, sarcastic, or mean-spirited in any way. It was a fond childhood memory tied into his parents being the kind of responsible gun owner that almost everyone claims they wish all gun owners were.
And he summed up this story by pointing out that none of that changes the essential fact that one fine summer, as a recreational activity, his parents taught him how to kill somebody.
This is how normalized gun violence is in America.
It was a story of his childhood. His dad was a cop, and he and his wife were 100% responsible gun owners. The perfect picture of what you would want from someone who owns a gun. They kept them locked up, out of reach of their children, and when their children were old enough to handle the responsibility, they took their kid to the range, and very meticulously and carefully went through the process of responsibly training their kid how to handle firearms correctly, for the safety of everyone in the household. If someone breaks in, this is how you get the gun, this is how you handle it so you don't injure yourself, this is where you aim to stop the bad man.
The story wasn't acidic, sarcastic, or mean-spirited in any way. It was a fond childhood memory tied into his parents being the kind of responsible gun owner that almost everyone claims they wish all gun owners were.
And he summed up this story by pointing out that none of that changes the essential fact that one fine summer, as a recreational activity, his parents taught him how to kill somebody.
This is how normalized gun violence is in America.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Oh, America... Please get your heads on straight with this stuff. It's just insane how this keeps happening in your country. Something is so very wrong in your society.
RIP.
Yeah, insane. Teaching your child how to kill another human being... Completely unthinkable in most (all?) other first-world countries. Truly a society of fear.
RIP.
Yeah, insane. Teaching your child how to kill another human being... Completely unthinkable in most (all?) other first-world countries. Truly a society of fear.
The Artisan
Member
i know. the more i see stuff from him the more i get a smh feeling. but he has a very large following.
excelsiorlef
Member
So? What does that have to do with anything he said. If anything it only reinforces what he said.
The access isn't going away. I don't know why people feel the need to attack gun owners in here. Even in countries where they're heavily regulated, they're not banned outright. The key phrase there is heavy regulation.
Just the same, it's also important to remember this guy was pretty messed up to the point where he thought killing as many people as possible was a good idea. It's worth approaching from both angles. Had someone noticed and gotten him help of some sort, maybe he doesn't go on to kill ten plus people.
Dot Matrix
Member
Has it been confirmed if he was the guy posting on 4chan that he was going to do it?
Tornado Condor
Member
He basically taught him a method for self defense. What's the problem?
The Artisan
Member
it's that a lot of people don't believe it even happened. if everyone did, then his words would've been reinforced.
Sure, but the vast majority of gun violence has nothing to do with mental illness. As the Vox article points out that has been posted numerous times now. The problem is primarily one of ease of access and a large supply of guns available. So it makes sense the bulk of focus should be on that.
Plus there is the fact that America seems to be a standout amongst western nations in their mentally unstable people committing frequent mass shootings. That doesnt seem to happen elsewhere in spite of having the same human species residing in their countries. Which points back to the gun issue.
Mental health is also a trickier proposition then many here are suggesting because it is tied to larger healthcare spending. Isolating mental healthcare and covering it universally would only serve to further complicate and bloat an already bloated and expensive system. And it doesnt make sense to just do that for mental healthcare.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
"none of that changes the essential fact that one fine summer, as a recreational activity, his parents taught him how to kill somebody."
I know you already quoted it in your post, but I'll requote the quote again for clarification's sake.
What's not the problem there? He didn't join the army, or a police force. He wasn't drafted. He pointed out that even in the most pure case of 100% responsible gun ownership, at its core, the bonding family activity being relayed to you, the reader, is one in which American parents carefully teach their child how to kill another person.
That's a recreational activity. To requote your quote of my post again:
"This is how normalized gun violence is in America."
What's not the problem there?
This is part of why there's a general inertia towards more restrictive gun laws. Because we as a society have spent a long time trying to dress up the basic facts of gun purchases and gun ownership, and hidden the real purpose and usage of these weapons behind euphemisms that justify and excuse the murders that we will commit with those weapons.
That's a problem. We can't even effectively talk about how to reduce usage of these things if we can't be honest with ourselves about why we have them and what we're doing with them.
Auto-Reply
Member
The problem is the thought necessity of it. I guess it's different from country to country and region to region but self defense for kids via firearms sounds ridiculous to me. And I don't even doubt that this worked and has saved lives, it's just so ridiculous.
Where I live kids learn Judo for self defense.
Having to prepare them to kill another human being is the ridiculous sounding part, it doesn't even matter if the situation would justify it if it comes to that.
I think they draw the line with explosives(hand grenades and such. Doesn't really is that much of a difference to me though.
Teaching someone how to properly handle firearms - especially if they are going to live around them - is not teaching them how to kill someone. Explaining to them the laws that govern when, where, and why you can use lethal force to defend yourself is not teaching them how to kill someone. The ideal scenario is that you never have to use that knowledge and go on living a perfectly happy life where nothing bad happens. But like learning how to defend yourself in a fight, or really any other life skill or survival skill, there may come a time when you need that knowledge.
There are some people that live in constant paranoia, or people that actively want to shoot somebody and look for an excuse. Those people, if they had to jump through all the hoops that should be there, probably wouldn't own guns. Most people aren't like that, though.
excelsiorlef
Member
No the fact that so many people are willing to believe that it was a giant hoax by pro gun control people and that it never happened is exactly why you can never have a rational discussion on gun control.
His point was if Sandy Hook didn't cause change nothing will, that you then pointed out so many think it's a hoax only reinforces the idea.
The reality is you have a subset of people who would rather believe the US government hired child actors and staged a shooting of horrific proportions than actually consider having an honest discussion about the need for better gun control.
The reaction was fucking government howx instead of hmmmm maybe we should look at guns in the States.
That mindset is why nothing will change.
Lonewolf_92
Member
Fucking Hell, I had to stop going last winter due to financial problems, otherwise I could have been there today...
When americans speak like this sounds to me you either live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or some medieval - pre civilized society where you know... knowing how to use lethal force is crucial for your survival
We are talking about one of the most industrialised supposedly first world countries in 2015
Bobby Roberts
Banned
They taught him how to kill someone. That is the absolute center of the story. Now you can dress that skeleton up with rationalizations and justifications, and some of them fit better than others do, and some of them are not only NOT objectionable, but they're agreeable.
But that doesn't change the fact that they taught him how to load the weapon, how to handle the weapon, how to point and fire the weapon, and where to point and fire it, and then had him practice all those activities until he had proved to them he was a safe, responsible gun owner.
learning how to be a safe, responsible gun owner includes learning how to kill someone.
There's really no way around that. Knee-jerk refusal to accept that basic fact at its core is part of the problem. You can't impart that knowledge and then deny that's what it is. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about proper firearm safety.
anonymous_abc
Member
It's not a crucial skill. Most people never even have to worry about it. The chances of you being randomly attacked to the point where lethal force is required is pretty low. But in the U.S., unlike other countries, you have that option to use lethal force more readily. The tradeoff is obvious and I don't think it's worth it, even as a gun owner. I'm just explaining why people are 'trained' for that very narrow scenario.
The Artisan
Member
i understand your point but it's not just pro gun control people who believe it to have been staged, it's also the people who generally just don't trust the government.
Learning how to defend yourself with a gun and learning how to properly use a gun are not the same thing. I'm taking a gun safety course next month, and I can guarantee you there will be no mention or instruction on how to kill a person - but there will be plenty of instruction on how to not accidentally shoot someone.
I read the article, and I gotta say it's flimsy at best.
Argument 3, he hedlines as "Cities and countries with strict gun laws have lower instances of shootings.", yet he never mentions any countries, only Chicago as his example. Funny how he wouldn't mention any country that has strict gun laws and only one city.
He goes on to say that On July 4th weekend of 2014 that Chicago had 82 shootings and says that "historically, chicago is a gun free city", but fails to mention that, according to wikipedia,
"Chicago formerly prohibited the sale of firearms within city limits, but on January 6, 2014, a federal judge ruled that this was unconstitutional.[47] The judge granted the city's request for six months to pass new laws regulating gun shops".
So that same year he is saying that Chicago had the deadliest July 4th weekend was the same year that it was made legal to sell guns inside the city limits again, funny how that was not in his little list.
2 and 5 are actually factual points.
his 4th point, that gun violence is lower than 20 years ago is true, hes not mentioning all violence is lower, there has been a large downward trend in violence in general. What he fails to mention is that mass shootings has increases. In this study by the FBI, from 2000-2013, (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013) they show a clear upward trajectory for mass shootings (page 8) and while yes, the most common place for mass shootings to happen is a in a commerce space, guess where number 2 is. It's an education space (page 13). Here is some more breakdowns from a Harvard study (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research).
It's a terribly written and argued "myths about gun violence" piece. I felt dumber by reading it.
excelsiorlef
Member
Whaaaat? It's not pro gun control people who think it's a hoax.
Those don't trust the government people are the same folks who wouldn't believe in gun control.
PetriP-TNT
Member
In Finland army service is mandatory and everyone who goes there will be taught how to properly handle firearms: the difference is that here it's made clear that guns are used to kill and should only be used as a last resort, not as self defense or if someone calls you butt ugly. There's a cultural difference.
The Artisan
Member
i don't trust the government all that much but it's not because of this guns problem.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This is the euphemistic cushioning I'm talking about that prevents forward progress on this issue, which that story my friend told helped highlight.
How do you defend yourself with a weapon made to fire bullets into other human beings?
You fire it at another human being.
Tell me how learning how to properly use a tool specifically created to fire bullets into other human beings doesn't involve being taught how to kill someone.
It's the same thing.
You're buying a murder to be committed at an unnamed date. Justified as it may be, that's what you're doing. Many people don't want to really acknowledge the basic fact of that transaction when they make it. And that lack of base-level acknowledgement is part of the problem.
Sure, in the same way learning how to use a knife or drive a vehicle trains someone how to kill another person. You need malicious intent, or in some cases, negligence. I'd rather people have proper training than not, doubly so if they are going to live in a household that has firearms. Guns are not used solely for killing other people, which is why they aren't banned even in countries that heavily regulate them. There's clearly some merit to private ownership, even in these gun-averse countries, so there's also merit to safety training and knowing the laws.
It's just not a very profound statement or realization.
I wish there was extensive licensing and training requirements similar to NFA/Class 3 items for ALL firearms. That would cut down on crime a whole hell of a lot. Not going to happen thanks to the NRA.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at by mentioning that there are people who believe that Sandy Hook was staged.
By the way, did you know that many people believe 9/11 was a hoax? Not saying I believe that, just wanted to put that detail out.
If your goal is keep your child alive you are better off teaching that kid to run and hide:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
http://www.armedwithreason.com/more...-new-study-finds-dgu-is-ineffective-and-rare/
excelsiorlef
Member
Ok? Good for you?
Still doesn't change anything about the fact that Sandy Hook truthers being an actual thing is just extra proof that no rational gun control debate will ever happen.
Honestly what are you even arguing?
anonymous_abc
Member
I assume you mean anti gun control.
If so I wouldn't be surprised if the two groups have a very large intersection.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No. Knives are not for murdering. They're for preparing food. Cars are not for murdering. They're for transportation. Arguing that learning how to properly use a knife includes killing people ignores that using a food preparation tool as a murder implement is a misuse of that tool. You CAN improperly use it, yes, and many have. But that doesn't change the basic nature of the tool's purpose. Same with the car.
You can't learn how to properly use a gun without learning how to kill someone else with it. That's the point of having the gun. The gun's purpose is to fire a bullet into another human being. That's what it's made for.
People try to dress this fact up for myriad reasons, and it gets in the way when we try discussing how to reduce the usage of these weapons. The discussions would probably be a lot more practical and useful if people acknowledged very clearly why they're made, why they're marketed, why they're sold, and why we buy them.
To shoot other people
Being a responsible gun owner means practicing proper gun safety. Things like locking up your gun, having trigger locks, storing ammo in a separate location, properly transporting it, etc. It doesn't mean learning how to shoot center mass (or why).
Guns are not just for killing people, just like cars are not just for killing people. This hyperbole isn't necessary.
It's insane how most of the civilised world can survive and live a prosperous life without this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Guns are not comparable to cars.
Cars are not intended to kill people or other living things. In contrast that is the main purpose of a gun.
Sure, I didn't make the car analogy, I responded to it. And there is a huge gap between people and other living things. Like, you could park a car between the two.
He's trying to argue that Sandy Hook was staged and that there is enough evidence of it being staged due to conspiracy theorists saying that Sandy Hook was staged. However, he also knows that stating that outright is pretty disgusting, so he mentions it in as offhandedly a method as he can to try and open up casual thread browsers to the conspiracy theory.
It's a common way of spreading bullshit, doesn't matter if the person they're speaking to directly doesn't believe it as long as they can reel in at least one random reader into their delusions.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not hyperbole at all. Nothing about what I said is hyperbolic. It's basic statement of fact. It's a weapon made for firing a bullet at another person. That's how you properly use a gun.
Cars were never for killing people, they're for safely transporting them from one place to another. That analogy has never worked.
You can teach someone how to use a car without having them hop it up onto the sidewalk and plow into 15 pedestrians. You can teach someone to use a car without having them plunge off a cliff or swerve into oncoming traffic. In fact, most people teach people NOT to do those things in a car.
But there is no way for you to teach someone else how to operate a gun without teaching them how to correctly, accurately, aim it at another human being and fire a bullet into them.
This is not hyperbole.
Nope. You could probably make that argument for the majority of handguns, but a large number of guns are expressly designed for sporting purposes or for hunting various game. Unless you think a plugged 3 shot shotgun or a high caliber deer rifle is meant for killing humans the same way an AK-47 is. They're clearly not. That's why those sporting firearms aren't banned, even in the most regulated of countries.
It's incredibly stupid hyperbole.
- Status