Yes I know TYT isn't everybody's favorite source but forget about them, I'm posting this for what they're reporting on, their conversation after the report isn't interesting and can just be ignored.
At certain times a gun can save lives. The video posted recently of an armed convenience store robber being taken down by armed customers comes to mind. When the bad guy is in clear view, the possibility of friendly fire casualties are low, and is focused on something other than killing you, then it works, but at all other times guns are either completely useless or going to get you killed, just as this guy realized. Even in the convenience store situation nobody was in danger, the guy came in for money, not to kill anybody.
The 2nd amendment as it stands give rights and freedoms, but it also takes away other rights and freedoms. I think the important thing is to find the balance between those freedoms - the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to pursue happiness, which you can't do when you're dead or your loved ones are in danger of soon being dead. This was a music festival in Vegas, I don't think you could fine a much more bening setting, yet people are dead and permanently wounded, and because of this, now all future large scale gatherings are at risk. Do we want to give up the right to enjoy concerts to keep our right to bear any and all arms?
I don't respect tyt enough to watch this shit and I don't give a shit about celebrities opinions. Be it guns, global warming or pretty much everything else.
@sato Guns have uses other than self defence. I think the guns he used were already illegal. Large scale gatherings are always at risk for large scale violence. Evil people will carry out their evil deeds, whether it be by a AR-15, a pistol, a knife, a semi truck, or a bomb.
@nsmo agree, which is why i'm for gun owner control rather than gun control. something similar to the way car licenses work, with different grades for heavier vehicles etc.
disagree entirely with your second point though. violence isn't black and white, different weapons aren't equivalents of each other, they are more and less violent, more and less difficult to cause casualties with. higher rates of fire are more deadly because when people hear the shooting they start to disperse so they're harder to hit, pistols fire lower velocity rounds, knives are very difficult to kill with, as are semi trucks, and explosives are already regulated so that anything that can cause mass casualties would need to be very large, and so more easily detected. gun laws don't end violence, but they reduce it, which is worth it.
I want evil people to have to work as hard as they can to carry out their evil deeds. I've seen you comment on a few threads that the guns he used were already legal, but I'm not really seeing that information. Here is what I'm finding instead:
Where are you getting that they were "already illegal"? These three very mainstream, vetted, and known news sources seem to be countering your claim. I also wish I could make it so this guy only had a knife...like, the fucking BEST knife in the world. Hell, let's give him like 14 Hattori Hanzo swords made out of Valyrian steel or whatever. Let's also do the same thing for Adam Lanza and Dylan Roof...just go back and replace their guns with the sharpest swords and knives, so sharp that if they encounter God that God would become cut. Your sentiment of "evil people will do evil deeds" doesn't make sense when you take the gun out of their hands and replace it with a knife. It's foolish to try to outrun a bullet whereas peole can literally outrun people with knives.
Yep, the guns being "illegal" is a red herring in this context as yes they were illegal but due to modification (of a legal gun) rather than having to be bought on the black market
the source of the black market is the legal market.
Yes but I was referring to the "gun nutters" using the red herring of "the gun was not legal" to justify the absence of gun control (i.e. licensing -including health check and minimum training requirements, registration, and, in the light of the recent event maybe limitation)
The guns used are not illegal in itself. The modifications made to the weapons are what makes the gun illegal. I will assume you know the difference between semi-auto and fully auto; so I will talk about the mod. He used a bump trigger, the recoil of the gun "triggers" the weapon to fire as long as you keep the trigger held down by having the stock the reapply the "kick back" force to send another bullet on its way. This mod is illegal as it increases the rate of fire and the use of the weapon to fully automatic. The same way you can buy an illegal cable TV box and hook it up in your house (KODI) is the same way this is purchased. People make it, but it is illegal to install on your weapon. Bump trigger or Bump stock are your key words for google pertaining to this.
You comparing a knife to a gun for mass killing is illogical. If a person wanted to commit mass killing a knife wouldn't be the choice weapon at least not if he was solo. Assuming there were no guns, these things still happen.
1. OKC bombing - 168 dead
2. Planes into Twin Towers - close to 3k dead
3. Poison grape drink - 900+ dead back in 1978 which was the largest mass killing until 911 on American soil that was non-natural.
4. Shit, Julio Gonzalez in 1990 killed 87 people with gas and 2 matches.
Think a little bit. Those who want to commit carnage, have to outsmart laws and people that is it.
I *want* them to have to work at it. All of the events you listed above, although one of them is incorrect, required lots of time, energy, resources, and material. In my examples all the perpetrators required was a gun and ammunition.
"3. Poison grape drink - 900+ dead back in 1978 which was the largest mass killing until 9/11 on American soil that was non-natural."
I can only assumre you're referring to the Jonestown mass suicide perptrated by the People's Temple. I'm not sure if perhaps it was simply a problem with your wording, but Jonestown occurred in Guyana, which is located on the continent of South America; also many of these deaths were ruled as suicide as "many" (not all, obviously) people actively chose to drink the poison on purpose. Keep in mind again that this event required multiple man hours, willing participants, and they still utilized guns to force quite a few people to drink the Kool-Aid.
Bad guys gonna be bad all the live-long day...but Lordy, I want them to have to work for that shit. I don't want some tired, upper middle aged guy to just flex his index finger like this shooter did. Nah. I want him to have to spend over a year driving in fertilizer. I want 24+ individuals to have to coordinate a hijacking of multiple planes. I want a cult of personality to fester for years and then get banished out of the country where they kill themselves on another continent. I want them to have to resort to arson. For some reason the rest of us are wanting mass murderers to be able to just take a stroll in the park.
Make it hard for them. Make them have to work for it. Make it so they have more ample opportunity to get caught. But, nah, this is the price we pay for being able to load up on guns. Drink deep that sweet blood that flows forth; it is the taste of the 2nd Amendment, peace be upon it.
and people. the bomb attacks took groups with other groups behind them providing support and material, the gun attacks anybody can do alone and unaided.
Guyana, yup couldn't remember where it was. Just remember greatest number of life loss and is a statsitic used by the media when I was growing up. It was before my time admittely. Did we ban cults or koolaid? How are we stopping this from reoccurring? Oh, we did nothing. Is ISIS a cult? Shit.. I might be getting off track, just typing aloud.
Seriously though, I did not know it was in Guyana and I also didn't know Guyana was in South America. Good looking out.
exactly. or throw things at them even.
this "guns are dangerous and knives are dangerous so they're the same" argument is pure distilled BS.