‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
LEWISTON, ME—In the hours following a violent rampage in Maine in which a lone attacker killed at least 16 individuals and injured numerous others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent...
You're viewing a single thread.
I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
“buh only criminals will have guns”,
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Its for self defense
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped prevented by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.
I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can't blame this one on the British.
As an Irish person, I say it's ok to blame whatever you want on the Brits.
1791 - 1783 = 8.
They declared independence quite some time before that. And your maths does not disprove my point in any way either way. The 2nd amendment does not have anything to do with the British. I know it must be a hard burden, but Americans must take full responsibility for the 2nd amendenment.
I don't think they blamed the British. They just explained their theory as to why the colonists could take control.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism.
I don’t think they blamed the British.
You may not think so, but your reading skills leaves something to be desired.
Fair enough...
In regards to your last point: I remember reading that there was one shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun. Then the cops showed up and killed him because he was armed.
You spelled "black" as armed. But otherwise right on the money.
John Hurley was not black
https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/28/arvada-police-good-samaritan-shooter-settlement/
My bad. I distinctly remember ANOTHER case were a good (black) guy with a gun was immediately executed by police as they arrived on the scene. I believe he might have been an armed security guard, but I don't have the mental strength to look it up in detail right now. I'd have to wade through dozens of such articles to find the right one and I'm already depressed enough.
Arvada, Colorado. The good guy killed the bad guy who had just killed a cop. The good guy was standing near the cop's body with a gun when more cops came in and killed the good guy.
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.
Man, you shouldn't have included this last line. Everyone replying to you is completely ignoring the relevant and accurate content of your comment in favour of "Well Ackshually" pointing out the handful of times a good person with a gun did successfully stop a shooting.
not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun”
At least you didn’t end with “/facts” ?
Here’s the most famous one from just last year:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html
As long as progressives refuse to educate themselves on this issue and continually lie to try to score points the right will own it…lock, stock, and barrel.
Fight facts with more facts and we might see some sanity emerge.
The quote I've heard most often:
No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren't at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
"bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!"
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it's true.
I guess that's why people like you are so 'up in arms' about gun control; you're living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don't have guns in other developed nations.
Is this a satirical comment? You are literally the person in the article
What are you talking about?
Are you also delusional enough to believe criminals don't have guns in other developed nations?
Criminals dont have guns
You seem to be speaking in the absolute “No criminal has any gun ever” without understanding of any nuance whatsoever.
Go study then come back
No, I'm literally repeating what he said.
If it sounds stupid, it's because it is and that's why I don't agree with it. Lol.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Nice cherrypicking.
Thanks for supporting my point about living in a fantasy world, lol.
And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
It must be the guns, right? Not their culture? What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
The only countries that fit this definition outside Central/South America and Sub-Saharian Africa are Russia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Palau and Kiribati.
Literally all of Europe and all of Asia with a functioning democracy have a lower homicide rate than the US. I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Is that what you’re comparing to? You think the US police would be as bad at enforcing a gun control law as the one in Kiribati?
So... what you're telling me is it's not just the guns. It's their culture.
Interesting. I guess we can agree that banning guns doesn't actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Lol, so ignoring everything that goes against your argument isn't cherrypicking? Dang. Stay in school, son.
Wow, didn’t know that the entire civilized world except the US has absolutely no desire to kill each other, and all of the underdeveloped countries are full of bloodthirsty assassins.
Guess the very similar culture of Japan, Italy and Australia must be the cause.
It almost feels like the countries with high homicide rate despite the gun laws could have some correlation to being less civilized places with high corruption and/or inefficient law enforcement, but you definitely know better than me I guess.
Dang, there you go thinking in absolutes because you want to avoid information that goes against your arguments.
You mentioned homicide rates. They're not 0 on any of the continents you mentioned. Why are you arguing against me as though I think there's no desire to kill in the nations you mentioned?
Homicide rates are lower in some nations than others, regardless of gun laws, because of their culture. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is my point. You will avoid any information that contradicts what you want to believe and then get mad when people don't live in your fantasy world.
That’s literally what you said.
banning guns doesn’t actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
That means all first world nations with gun control laws “coincidentally” also have no people who want to kill each other (or disregarding the hyperbole, way less people who want to kill each other, which is still unrealistic).
And again, saying “because of their culture” makes no sense when countries with low homicide rates have drastically different cultures. Like, the only thing Italy and Japan have in common is probably the fact that they have a deeply ingrained organized crime, and I really don’t think that’s a factor that would lower homicides. Unless “their culture” means literally “not being the USA” I don’t see how it holds any ground.
Care to mention a first world country with no gun control and low homicide rates? Or one with gun control but high rates? Because if you find none I really think it’s not a “cultural issue”.
banning guns doesn’t actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
You're right. I thought you were smarter enough to equate lower desire to kill to lower homicide rates.
My bad.
(or disregarding the hyperbole, way less people who want to kill each other, which is still unrealistic).
Then what is it? Why do these nations have lower homicide rates than other countries that have identical gun laws if it isn't their culture?
And again, saying “because of their culture” makes no sense when countries with low homicide rates have drastically different cultures.
Okay buddy, there you go ignoring information that contradicts your argument again. Culture is more than just the desire to kill one another, lol.
Care to mention a first world country with no gun control and low homicide rates? Or one with gun control but high rates? Because if you find none I really think it’s not a “cultural issue”.
You've already admitted it's a cultural issue when you specified 'first world'. This means that you think there's more to homicide rates than banning guns, which is exactly my point from the very beginning. It's culture, not guns. You're trying to cherrypick, again, by ignoring entire continents that go against your incorrect assertion that banning guns equates to lower homicide rates.
Anyways man, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're just going to twist your brain into knots to avoid admitting when you're wrong. I see it all the time, and the only winning move is not to play.
I'm gonna block you now. Have a nice day, and stay in school.
LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU
-People who end conversations with “I’m gonna block you now”.
Also love how they had to make the joke about “staying in school” twice because if I ignored it the first time it’s definitely going to sting the second one.
It's weird, my guns have never committed a mass shooting, yet people say that they're a problem...
A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?
I should hope not! How would you get 1 km's worth of enriched uranium? a-yo!
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here's some light reading for you.
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
Over 500 mass shootings. And that's this year alone.
So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.
Oh, if you got through that already we can keep going. Give me a minute to compile more articles.
It's been 2 hours. Need a couple more minutes?
My apologies. I was unaware that you weren't familiar with the term 'figure of speech.' Anyway, here you go.
69 year old woman shoots intruder
We are currently at 565 mass shootings this year.
Let's say every story you shared happened this year, just for the sake of simplicity. That is 10 scenarios. Again, not accurate, since you shared stories ranging in different years. But again, we are just doing some back of the napkin math.
That means, there's about a 1.77% chance that "a good guy with a gun" does solve things.
So less than 2% chance. 2%.
The success rate of a mass shooter gunning multiple people down is 98% and you are actively going, "Well actually armed citizens does work..." And simple math is showing that it works LESS THAN 2% this year, even when I fudged the numbers to assume all of those stories happened this year.
The biggest flaw in your math is that you think because I stopped listing articles that's the only times it's ever happened. On a similar note related to statistics, covid was killing 2% of people that got infected. Even after all the safety precautions and vaccines. Yet we still had to save as many of that 2% as possible, and rightfully so. But now that your math comes out to 2% of shooting situations being stopped, it's no big deal? I'm having trouble understanding that logic.
Sure, we can ban all guns under the assumption that no one will have guns, but do you not think that crime organizations will aquire them elsewhere? Drugs are illegal yet there's no shortage there. I'm still having trouble seeing the logic.
I get the sentiment of saving as many lives as possible. I just think the methodology in gun control is flawed. Help me join your side, what am I seeing wrong?
I feel like there's some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I'll be honest, I don't know the statistics on "rightful" and "wrongful" executions.
There's at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.