Charleston Shooting

[LisztesFerenc]

Yes, exactly.

Without the ability to bear arms, the first amendment becomes indefensible if someone really wants to put the screws to it.

  Yeah, because freedom of speech doesn't exist in Europe, Australia or Japan. No, no guns, no freedom.

  And if you are referring to the government becoming tyrannical and needing to be overthrown, that likely won't happen. You have no surface to air capabilities, so not only can you not hope to establish aerial superiority, you cannot even challenge it. You will struggle to take out heavy vehicle and tanks without rocket launchers, and I do not believe you have access to ammunition that will perform well against bunkers, or grenades. You lack the discipline and training of the US army, as well as their technological support (satellite images, spy planes, ability to redeploy via air and sea).

  You need more than the second amendment there. Besides, if you ever do lose your freedom, it will be because corporations own the air you breath, the soil you stand on, and your very soul, and you will not have a single target to shoot at.

[Inkidu]

  Yeah, because freedom of speech doesn't exist in Europe, Australia or Japan. No, no guns, no freedom.

  And if you are referring to the government becoming tyrannical and needing to be overthrown, that likely won't happen. You have no surface to air capabilities, so not only can you not hope to establish aerial superiority, you cannot even challenge it. You will struggle to take out heavy vehicle and tanks without rocket launchers, and I do not believe you have access to ammunition that will perform well against bunkers, or grenades. You lack the discipline and training of the US army, as well as their technological support (satellite images, spy planes, ability to redeploy via air and sea).

  You need more than the second amendment there. Besides, if you ever do lose your freedom, it will be because corporations own the air you breath, the soil you stand on, and your very soul, and you will not have a single target to shoot at.

Okay, so what if they do become tyrannical the free people of the world should just sit back and take it because hey, what can you do? Okay, such is the state of the world.

The point being, either you give people the right to bear arms, or they're just going to take it for themselves anyway.

[LisztesFerenc]

Okay, so what if they do become tyrannical the free people of the world should just sit back and take it because hey, what can you do? Okay, such is the state of the world.

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

The point being, either you give people the right to bear arms, or they're just going to take it for themselves anyway.

  Can you give an example of this happening in Western Europe, Japan or Australia?

[Inkidu]

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

  Can you give an example of this happening in Western Europe, Japan or Australia?

Umm... Paris... 1939 to 1945, thereabouts, or do you think all those Frenchmen didn't have their ability to bear arms infringed upon by the Nazis?

When the Romans took over a town the first thing they did was crucify, kill, or de-hand the blacksmiths of the village. Did the Roman's just hate blacksmiths that much?

Though perhaps you think humanity is more civilized now. However, I'll point out something about air-superiority. You can't win a modern war without it, but you sure as heck can't win a war with it. All war comes down to one thing in the end, and that's boots on the ground. That involves helicopters which can be brought down with a pistol or even a wire. A government that knows that every one of its citizens can own a firearm is a government that hesitates if its smart, which is perhaps something that can't be said of many modern governments, America included. It's very hard to patrol a city street when every civilian you see can put a knife in your back.

Right to bear arms doesn't mean just firearms, it means knives, swords, and baseball bats. Back to Paris. I don't know if you know, but the Americans dropped a one-shot pistol called a liberator. The point being that a French resistance member would shoot a Nazi, take his gun, and they'd get together and take a fuel depot.

A world free of guns won't get rid of violence.

[LisztesFerenc]

Umm... Paris... 1939 to 1945, thereabouts, or do you think all those Frenchmen didn't have their ability to bear arms infringed upon by the Nazis?

  So your most recent example is 70 years ago during war. Fine, based on that, people have a right to bear arms during war, but not during peace.

Though perhaps you think humanity is more civilized now. However, I'll point out something about air-superiority. You can't win a modern war without it, but you sure as heck can't win a war with it. All war comes down to one thing in the end, and that's boots on the ground. That involves helicopters which can be brought down with a pistol or even a wire. A government that knows that every one of its citizens can own a firearm is a government that hesitates if its smart, which is perhaps something that can't be said of many modern governments, America included. It's very hard to patrol a city street when every civilian you see can put a knife in your back.

  You might want to check the success record of European countries rising up against the Soviet Union (who had a far less sophisticated military than the USA currently does). It didn't end well for them.

A world free of guns won't get rid of violence.

  I don't want a world free of guns. I want a world where the people of civilized nations make it harder to own a gun than a car, and put the lives of their countrymen above the need to maybe one day be slighter better equipped to lose a war against their own government.

[la dame en noir]

I just wanted to point out that people are actually trying to find an excuse for this guy. While the boy said that what he did was racially motivated because he hated black people....people are trying(especially the media) to find excuses for him. Saying that it wasn't racially motivated and that it was a crime against faith. NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

[Oniya]

NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

Dafuq?!  I think I'm with you.  That boy is as pale as I am, and I haven't had so much as a tan in years!  (Polish/Russian/German descent here.)

[Inkidu]

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

[LisztesFerenc]

  A facebook post was noting it was only a matter of time before people started saying "Why isn't anyone talking about black on black violence?". Sure enough I found such a comment later in the day, whose author then went on to say that a close second priority to black-on-black violence was black-on-white violence.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

  What other weapon allows you to kill 9 people without giving them a chance to overpower you or run away?

[la dame en noir]

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

I think the gun just made it easier!

[Ephiral]

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

This. All of this. In the modern environment, it is not an armed populace that keeps a military junta at bay - it's the desire of governments to maintain an air of legitimacy in the eyes of their people and their peers. In this context, a strong constitution and a strong, adversarial judiciary are far more useful than a gun in the hands of every citizen - and certainly more useful than an active decision to avoid even the slightest pretense of tracking weapons. (Pop quiz: How many legal guns are there in the US?)

[Inkidu]

  A facebook post was noting it was only a matter of time before people started saying "Why isn't anyone talking about black on black violence?". Sure enough I found such a comment later in the day, whose author then went on to say that a close second priority to black-on-black violence was black-on-white violence.

  What other weapon allows you to kill 9 people without giving them a chance to overpower you or run away?

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

Ultimately and honestly, an irrelevant and in my opinion misguided question to ask.

[LisztesFerenc]

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

  None of those could have been acquired with such ease (even the car ironically. See my previous commnet). Also no. Killing 9 black people with a car? That's tricky, and unlikely. A bulldozer would be difficult to steal, and is so slow and unmaneuverable you cannot guarantee much beyond property damage. Buying a grenade or making a pipe bomb is no stroll in the park, and the latter has you risking being raided by police and/or blowing your fingers off. Arson is also significantly harder than pulling a trigger, and the firebrigade could have responded in time to save lives. As for how many people he could stab? Less than 9.

  These are not irrelevant questions. All other developed countries have lower murder rates than America. Maybe its magic. Or just maybe, its that fire arms are less accessible.

[Inkidu]

You know what, I'm tired of having my responses infinitely qualified to minuteness. Not even your qualifications are accurate. I'm out.

[LisztesFerenc]

You know what, I'm tired of having my responses infinitely qualified to minuteness. Not even your qualifications are accurate. I'm out.

  Fair enough, I cannot compel you to debate, and if you do not want to, then you shouldn't. However if you feel like it, I would appreciate you explaining how I unaccurately qualified your responses. You stated that even without a gun, he would have proceeded with his act. I asked how he could have killed 9 people without a gun, you listed several alternate weapons and I explained how, IMO it was very likely such a weapons would have resulted in a lower body count, rather than the equal one you were proposing.

  If I missed something, and you don't mind returning to the debate, I would like to hear what.

[Zakharra]

So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

To be able to hunt, in the country, this is very popular. Also home/personal defense, as collectors items (collecting pistols and rifles, from both hunting and obsolete military weaponry), or just target/practice/recreational shooting. There are many other reasons (and far more prevalent reasons) than just besides shooting people because you're upset/homicidal or depressed/suicidal. Guns make that easier, but they wouldn't stop it, you can kill bunches of other people just as easily with:

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

If someone actually thought about it, killing or harming others is frikking EASY. But most concentrate on the all powerful gun as the weapon of choice and don't consider other options for mayhem.

As it is though, it is a right of US citizens (we see it as a human right that can't be taken away from the population by the government)and the government would be damned hard pressed to remove it for the majority of the population. It would be a revolt if they did that and I guarantee that most politicians that vote for such a thing would -not- be re-elected and many would likely face impeachment proceedings. The Second Amendment is a big thing here and just because some abuse it, is no reason to restrict it for the vast majority of people who do own and use guns responsibly.

[LisztesFerenc]

To be able to hunt, in the country, this is very popular. Also home/personal defense, as collectors items (collecting pistols and rifles, from both hunting and obsolete military weaponry), or just target/practice/recreational shooting. There are many other reasons (and far more prevalent reasons) than just besides shooting people because you're upset/homicidal or depressed/suicidal. Guns make that easier, but they wouldn't stop it, you can kill bunches of other people just as easily with: If someone actually thought about it, killing or harming others is frikking EASY.

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

[la dame en noir]

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

I shouldn't have laughed at that...

[LisztesFerenc]

I shouldn't have laughed at that...

  I know. Same here I'm afraid.

[Zakharra]

  Fair enough, I cannot compel you to debate, and if you do not want to, then you shouldn't. However if you feel like it, I would appreciate you explaining how I unaccurately qualified your responses. You stated that even without a gun, he would have proceeded with his act. I asked how he could have killed 9 people without a gun, you listed several alternate weapons and I explained how, IMO it was very likely such a weapons would have resulted in a lower body count, rather than the equal one you were proposing.

  If I missed something, and you don't mind returning to the debate, I would like to hear what.

Drive a speeding car into a crowd of people, drive a truck and see how many more you can main and kill. A coffee can filled with gunpowder or home made explosives (you can make some fairly easily and Goggle how to do it online) and nails. Heck, you can make chlorine gas out of common household cleaning materials. Jam a door/lock (superglue or a needle broken off in it), trapping the people inside and gas them or start stabbing.

That's off the top of me head too. It's not hard to think of ways to harm/kill someone. It might be harder to do it, but there's a good chance you'd get someone if you tried. However actually killing someone intentionally is harder than most people think, psyching yourself to do it in cold blood is damned difficult. The psychos and people trained in combat tend to be able to do that easier. I will add though soldiers, and hopefully police (should) get training to deal with the stresses that come from killing other people so they just don't go off the deep end and start shooting at random or for reasons. Some police forces it seems need a refresher course in firearms training.

It is annoying when people immediately start on how we should restrict or remove a right guaranteed under the Constitution  and do that to law abiding citizens just because some people abuse it.

I just wanted to point out that people are actually trying to find an excuse for this guy. While the boy said that what he did was racially motivated because he hated black people....people are trying(especially the media) to find excuses for him. Saying that it wasn't racially motivated and that it was a crime against faith. NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

Wtf? That guy should have been cuffed AND in shackles! He's a nutcase and precautions should have been taken by restricting his physical movement and hands.

[Inkidu]

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

You drive the car through the front of the church, but you already had a preconceived notion of what I was speaking about. Church's especially modern churches aren't known for being particularly fortress-like. They're sheet metal and drywall or cinder blocks, which are not that great against fracturing forces.

You run down the congregation as it's milling out of the service.

So, go on, laugh.

[LisztesFerenc]

Drive a speeding car into a crowd of people, drive a truck and see how many more you can main and kill. A coffee can filled with gunpowder or home made explosives (you can make some fairly easily and Goggle how to do it online) and nails. Heck, you can make chlorine gas out of common household cleaning materials. Jam a door/lock (superglue or a needle broken off in it), trapping the people inside and gas them or start stabbing.

  So why aren't these methods implemented in Europe? People still kill each other there, though typically not with such elaborate methods. Mass killings are likewise, much rarer without guns.

You drive the car through the front of the church, but you already had a preconceived notion of what I was speaking about. Church's especially modern churches aren't known for being particularly fortress-like. They're sheet metal and drywall or cinder blocks, which are not that great against fracturing forces.

  Same as above. Why isn't this apparently guaranteed method employed in countries without guns?

  Both of you seem to have concocted this fantasy world, where humans are these MacGyver-like perfect killing machines, and being deprived of military grade weapons is but a minor set back. It isn't. We as a culture are obsessed with killing, and so find it easy...on paper. When it comes to actually doing it, it is much more difficult, as it is with most things. Fortunatly for killing, most of us never have to find this out.

It is annoying when people immediately start on how we should restrict or remove a right guaranteed under the Constitution  and do that to law abiding citizens just because some people abuse it.

  The right's already been changed, unless every gun owner is part of a well regulated militia. Plus, the Supreme Court has changed its stance on the interpretation before.

  Also, of course people are questioning how legitimate a right is, when used properly is allows an activity of leisure to be enjoyed, and when abused innocent people end up dead.

[Zakharra]

  So why aren't these methods implemented in Europe? People still kill each other there, though typically not with such elaborate methods. Mass killings are likewise, much rarer without guns.


  Same as above. Why isn't this apparently guaranteed method employed in countries without guns?

  The right's already been changed, unless every gun owner is part of a well regulated militia. Plus, the Supreme Court has changed its stance on the interpretation before.

  Also, of course people are questioning how legitimate a right is, when used properly is allows an activity of leisure to be enjoyed, and when abused innocent people end up dead.

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century. They consider the population having that right as individuals as being what the Second Amendment means, not a militia governed by the state or federal government. A well armed populace is a freer one by our standards (maybe not by yours, but our mindset isn't yours. Different experiences and national outlook).

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building. Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.

[Inkidu]

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century. They consider the population having that right as individuals as being what the Second Amendment means, not a militia governed by the state or federal government. A well armed populace is a freer one by our standards (maybe not by yours, but our mindset isn't yours. Different experiences and national outlook).

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?


Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building. Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.

You've got far more patience than me. Well said.

[LisztesFerenc]

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

  Exactly. Ergo, no guns makes it harder to kill people, so less people are murdered, and "A mass murder happened hear recently" typically means in the last 50 years, not the last 6 months.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century.

  So the constitution can be changed, otherwise the USSC would still be going by the that definition. So why can't it change again?

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

  That weakens your argument. If the military deserts, you don't need an armed population to defeat the tyrannical government, the army does that better.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?

  Simple, risk vs. reward. Cars are vital to any modern society. Guns are only common in one, so are logically vital to none. Also automobile accidents typically aren't as traumatic as mass shootings.