The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Mr. Orange]

Aight, back to basketball. Going to get myself banned for pointing out what is happening in the US and it being called an exaggeration. It's not. Stay safe y'all.

 

[Spectre]

The biggest hurdle to a person committing an act like this isn't figuring out how to procure a firearm and no gun law will change that. The biggest hurdle is deciding to commit mass murder.

Once they've gotten past that point, the rest is easy in comparison. It could done with a legal gun, an illegal gun, a homemade bomb, a truck driven through a pedestrian area, poison... they'll find a way if they're committed to it. It's about an evil individual.

I don't know the best way to combat that evil but I do know that you can't legislate against it and expect it to go away. They've already made the decision to break a law that carries consequences of lifetime imprisonment or death. I don't think they'll let another law get in their way, as much as it may make us feel better to pass one.

 

[-Akronite-]

The biggest hurdle to a person committing an act like this isn't figuring out how to procure a firearm and no gun law will change that. The biggest hurdle is deciding to commit mass murder.

Once they've gotten past that point, the rest is easy in comparison. It could done with a legal gun, an illegal gun, a homemade bomb, a truck driven through a pedestrian area, poison... they'll find a way if they're committed to it. It's about an evil individual.

I don't know the best way to combat that evil but I do know that you can't legislate against it and expect it to go away. They've already made the decision to break a law that carries consequences of lifetime imprisonment or death. I don't think they'll let another law get in their way, as much as it may make us feel better to pass one.

This is illogical when you look at how other countries combated the issue with gun laws and succeeded. In this situation we're talking about a deranged, what, 19-year-old? How determined do you think he is? He got his gun legally, correct? So there wasn't a single hurdle for him when he wanted to commit evil. If he had no access to guns legally, it might have deterred him. If he attempted to obtain a gun illegally, there is much more potential for something to go wrong with his plan. There's no guarantee, but we are literally the only country dealing with this on a regular basis and it's not coincidence that we are one of the most lax countries when it comes to gun laws. There are few exceptions (Switzerland I believe has gun freedom and low gun death rates).

Also, for clarification, initially InfoWars and alt-right people spread fake news about the shooter being Antifa and pro-communist. Now it's been found (it seems) that the direct connection to a white supremacist group was spread fakely as well, by 4Chan types. In the end, the debate about the shooter's motivation is pointless when we already know that less guns would mean less gun deaths in America. In the meantime everyone can pick their own interpretation of this vile piece of shit and let it reinforce their entrenched positions.

Oh shit how'd I end up here again?

 

[Huber.]

Please take down this tweet

FAKE NEWS: Associated Press Refuses To Take Down This Debunked Tweet That Went Viral

The left-leaning Associated Press helped fuel an unsubstantiated narrative on Thursday when it quickly spread a poorly-sourced claim from the left-leaning Anti Defamation League (ADL) which claimed that the Florida gunman was a member of a white supremacist militia group in Florida.

Abandoning all journalistic integrity, the Associated Press took the statement from the leader of the Republic of Florida Militia, Jordan Jereb, that gunman Nikolas Cruz was a part of his organization as a fact.

In a tweet that got approximately 40,000 re-tweets, the Associated Press wrote: "BREAKING: Leader of white nationalist group has confirmed suspect in Florida school shooting was member of his organization."

Only a couple of hours later, police confirmed that they had found no information that connected Cruz to this group — and Jereb even admitted that his claim was not true!


https://www.dailywire.com/news/27223/fake-news-associated-press-refuses-take-down-ryan-saavedra#

 

[Whittaker]

If I'm posting this from the equator, is this thread swirling clockwise or counter-clockwise?

 

[Spectre]

This is illogical when you look at how other countries combated the issue with gun laws and succeeded. In this situation we're talking about a deranged, what, 19-year-old? How determined do you think he is? He got his gun legally, correct? So there wasn't a single hurdle for him when he wanted to commit evil. If he had no access to guns legally, it might have deterred him. If he attempted to obtain a gun illegally, there is much more potential for something to go wrong with his plan. There's no guarantee, but we are literally the only country dealing with this on a regular basis and it's not coincidence that we are one of the most lax countries when it comes to gun laws. There are few exceptions (Switzerland I believe has gun freedom and low gun death rates).

Also, for clarification, initially InfoWars and alt-right people spread fake news about the shooter being Antifa and pro-communist. Now it's been found (it seems) that the direct connection to a white supremacist group was spread fakely as well, by 4Chan types. In the end, the debate about the shooter's motivation is pointless when we already know that less guns would mean less gun deaths in America. In the meantime everyone can pick their own interpretation of this vile piece of shit and let it reinforce their entrenched positions.

Oh shit how'd I end up here again?

The reason the US has this problem is because the US is unique. We have our own makeup, our own culture, our own psychology. To pretend that laws can be copy/pasted from other countries to the US and work just as well is at best idealistic and more likely naïve.

Gun laws may make it more difficult for someone to get a gun but they're not going to stop anyone who has decided to be a mass murderer. You can find pretty much anything illegal in this country if you look for it and most contraband isn't even hard to find. Like I said, the biggest hurdle by far is deciding you want to murder complete strangers in cold blood.

 

[-Akronite-]

The reason the US has this problem is because the US is unique. We have our own makeup, our own culture, our own psychology. To pretend that laws can be copy/pasted from other countries to the US and work just as well is at best idealistic and more likely naïve.

Gun laws may make it more difficult for someone to get a gun but they're not going to stop anyone who has decided to be a mass murderer. You can find pretty much anything illegal in this country if you look for it and most contraband isn't even hard to find. Like I said, the biggest hurdle by far is deciding you want to murder complete strangers in cold blood.

So we just have more deranged and evil people per capita, by a wide margin, than other developed countries? And if not, are there no ways for us to find laws that could reduce this issue like other countries have done?

Yes, the US is unique and we should make laws that make sense for us. But there is a general blueprint laid out by countries with fairly similar cultures (UK and Australia). And it involves reducing the number of guns available.

Hey Akronite, watch it, I think you've stepped into a politics thread again...

EDIT: People keep using the argument that there is just no stopping people that want to mass murder... But I don't believe that. Stats prove that access to a gun increases the likelihood of suicide, because it's easier to kill yourself painlessly by blowing your brains out than using other methods. Would anyone argue that someone motivated to kill themselves would do it anyway? Sure, you could argue that. But you'd also be wrong, statistically. Same thing with mass shootings. Yes, some people will stop at nothing to commit evil. But a deranged 19-year-old might not go through with it if he needs to get a gun by illegal means, since that might be difficult or dangerous. Might is the key word, but no law will stop all evil acts so who cares?

 

[gourimoko]

The reason the US has this problem is because the US is unique. We have our own makeup, our own culture, our own psychology. To pretend that laws can be copy/pasted from other countries to the US and work just as well is at best idealistic and more likely naïve.

Not sure what you mean by this? Every country is unique, right? Every country has it's own makeup, it's own laws, it's own psychology; that's actually what generally defines cultural and thus legal borders -- the dividing line between these distinct historical and cultural regions.

So, I think it does make tremendous sense to look across countries and find laws that work in the broadest sense possible. And when you look at the entire Western and most of the Eastern world, across both developing and developed nations; it's simply undeniable that gun bans do work to prevent gun-related (i.e., gun-driven) crimes. They don't stop rapes or robberies per se; but they do mitigate the rate of homicides and mass shootings.

So I actually think the reverse is a bit 'naive', actually; that is, to assume that we are so unique that no method of comparison exists between ourselves and our culture and any other on Earth. (And I promise you, we are nowhere near as differentiated as that compared to some other places).

Gun laws may make it more difficult for someone to get a gun but they're not going to stop anyone who has decided to be a mass murderer.

That's true, and self-evident. But it would prevent the thousands of crimes driven by the availability of guns, and that would save thousands of lives every year. You're talking about stopping the equivalent of multiple 9/11 attacks every single year.

You can find pretty much anything illegal in this country if you look for it and most contraband isn't even hard to find. Like I said, the biggest hurdle by far is deciding you want to murder complete strangers in cold blood.

Well, we see in other nations that the strength of the ban does correlate to the prevalence of gun availability. So for example, trying to find a gun in Japan, or the UK.. Good luck. However, similarly, guns are everywhere in the Philippines.

In Canada, guns are nowhere near as commonplace as they are in the United States; and there is no functional difference, of significant cultural or historical relevance, between these two countries. As prevalent as guns are in the U.S., they do not freely flow across the porous Canadian border because the demand simply doesn't exist... Part of the reason is that Canada has stricter gun laws, and another part is because they have lower crime rates; particularly much lower homicide rates.

Canada has less than 1/3 the U.S. gun ownership rate per capita; and has roughly 1/3rd the U.S.' intentional homicide rate.

Now are there societal issues at play here, and do views on violence have anything to do with this? Yes. Can you get an illegal gun in Canada? Yes. And are these countries very similar, culturally and historically? Yes. Are they both diverse? Yes; very actually - by just 2036, Canada will become a majority "Brown" country (using their verbiage here) - by 2050, the U.S. will become a minority-majority country.

Again, I think the evidence and data points to a strong relationship between guns and gun-related violence and the extent that such violence goes (i.e., homicide). I think this is fairly obvious.

So with that being said, I think if we're being serious about the issue, we should stop looking under the rug, or around the corner, or behind our back to find everything and anything to blame rather than addressing the issue of gun violence on it's face.

We should be asking the tough questions here; i.e., is gun ownership and availability really worth all of this, year after year? And if so, rationally speaking, why is that the case?

 

[Hurl Bruce]

So we just have more deranged and evil people per capita, by a wide margin, than other developed countries? And if not, are there no ways for us to find laws that could reduce this issue like other countries have done?

Yes, the US is unique and we should make laws that make sense for us. But there is a general blueprint laid out by countries with fairly similar cultures (UK and Australia). And it involves reducing the number of guns available.

Hey Akronite, watch it, I think you've stepped into a politics thread again...

I asked a buddy if Americans are just bigger assholes than the rest of the world. Less empathetic? More selfish?

The US will never be Japan. We could borrow some elements of their laws, but that cultural divide is light years apart. We'd be more likely to institute of giving each other the finger before we'd bow in respect to someone. But, the underlying approach to a safer society could find some common ground with them.

I have to believe that we are more alike with the Brits and Aussies than we are different, though. Do people think that there'd be some sort of armed civil uprising against the government if they deemed a strict gun ban to be the way to go?

 

[gourimoko]

I asked a buddy if Americans are just bigger assholes than the rest of the world. Less empathetic? More selfish?

The US will never be Japan. We could borrow some elements of their laws, but that cultural divide is light years apart. We'd be more likely to institute of giving each other the finger before we'd bow in respect to someone. But, the underlying approach to a safer society could find some common ground with them.

I don't think we should aspire to be Japan. I've never understood the motivation to be more like the Japanese. I've briefly lived in Japan, I personally didn't like it. It was a bit of a mindfuck finally living there having one idea about this place and culture only to find out it was absolutely nothing like I had imagined. And most of the people I know who attempted to emigrate there felt similarly; not at first, but, over time.

So culturally speaking, I much prefer American culture to that of the Japanese (nothing against their culture whatsoever, it's a rich and intricate culture in it's own right -- just not one that I would want to adopt or emulate here).

Legally speaking, you basically have basically no rights once accused in Japan. 90% of convictions are the result of (oftentimes forced) confessions. 90%...

With that being said however, there are some great aspects to Japan's misdemeanor penal system which include keeping people out of prison for the vast majority of offenses; i.e., less than 1-in-20 offenders every see jail time; compare that to 1-in-3 for the U.S. Japan almost universally focuses on rehabilitation and preventing recidivism, at great cost; and it shows.

But these aren't a result a cultural aspects in Japanese society -- instead, they are ideological decisions made by a social democracy trying to progressively address criminality in society.

And this is where the conversation derails -- because again, we have to be willing to address the ideological reasons (not necessarily cultural) that we cling to our guns and won't give them up; even if it means watching, every year, thousands of people getting gunned down in the streets.

I think it goes without saying that many would be far more comfortable with the continued deaths rather than facing the reality that their ideological and political beliefs were potentially at fault.

I have to believe that we are more alike with the Brits and Aussies than we are different, though.

Or the Canadians. But sure, that goes without saying.

Do people think that there'd be some sort of armed civil uprising against the government if they deemed a strict gun ban to be the way to go?

I honestly don't think so...

There'd be people who would holdout and create stashes of guns in their sheds.. But frankly, these people are not who anyone should be concerned about. Because if you play out such a scenario, these people would be hording their firearms; hiding them, locked away in cabinets or in basements. This would prevent most gun thefts from occurring and would work to greatly reduce the number of illegal guns flowing onto the streets every year (something like 150,000-250,000 guns a year).

 

[Whittaker]

Do people think that there'd be some sort of armed civil uprising against the government if they deemed a strict gun ban to be the way to go?

Absolutely.
And it would be justified unless the Constitution was changed.
A government that blatantly violates it's charter and the rights of the people has lost it's legitimacy. At that point there is no lawbreaking because there is no law.

 

[Sebastian]

I asked a buddy if Americans are just bigger assholes than the rest of the world. Less empathetic? More selfish?

The US will never be Japan. We could borrow some elements of their laws, but that cultural divide is light years apart. We'd be more likely to institute of giving each other the finger before we'd bow in respect to someone. But, the underlying approach to a safer society could find some common ground with them.

I have to believe that we are more alike with the Brits and Aussies than we are different, though. Do people think that there'd be some sort of armed civil uprising against the government if they deemed a strict gun ban to be the way to go?

Given that any comprehensive or strict ban would require a constitutional amendment, or even a harsh but not total ban would only come into effect only via popular legislation, such an uprising would be small and have little support.

More Bundy Ranch than Civil War.

 

[Cavatt]

The reason the US has this problem is because the US is unique. We have our own makeup, our own culture, our own psychology. To pretend that laws can be copy/pasted from other countries to the US and work just as well is at best idealistic and more likely naïve.

Gun laws may make it more difficult for someone to get a gun but they're not going to stop anyone who has decided to be a mass murderer. You can find pretty much anything illegal in this country if you look for it and most contraband isn't even hard to find. Like I said, the biggest hurdle by far is deciding you want to murder complete strangers in cold blood.

The US is totally unique. We are great at identifying problems and then making a bunch of excuses about why nothing can be done about them, while continually trying the same thing that has proven not to work for decades.

 

[Spectre]

Not sure what you mean by this? Every country is unique, right? Every country has it's own makeup, it's own laws, it's own psychology; that's actually what generally defines cultural and thus legal borders -- the dividing line between these distinct historical and cultural regions.

So, I think it does make tremendous sense to look across countries and find laws that work in the broadest sense possible. And when you look at the entire Western and most of the Eastern world, across both developing and developed nations; it's simply undeniable that gun bans do work to prevent gun-related (i.e., gun-driven) crimes. They don't stop rapes or robberies per se; but they do mitigate the rate of homicides and mass shootings.

So I actually think the reverse is a bit 'naive', actually; that is, to assume that we are so unique that no method of comparison exists between ourselves and our culture and any other on Earth. (And I promise you, we are nowhere near as differentiated as that compared to some other places).



That's true, and self-evident. But it would prevent the thousands of crimes driven by the availability of guns, and that would save thousands of lives every year. You're talking about stopping the equivalent of multiple 9/11 attacks every single year.



Well, we see in other nations that the strength of the ban does correlate to the prevalence of gun availability. So for example, trying to find a gun in Japan, or the UK.. Good luck. However, similarly, guns are everywhere in the Philippines.

In Canada, guns are nowhere near as commonplace as they are in the United States; and there is no functional difference, of significant cultural or historical relevance, between these two countries. As prevalent as guns are in the U.S., they do not freely flow across the porous Canadian border because the demand simply doesn't exist... Part of the reason is that Canada has stricter gun laws, and another part is because they have lower crime rates; particularly much lower homicide rates.

Canada has less than 1/3 the U.S. gun ownership rate per capita; and has roughly 1/3rd the U.S.' intentional homicide rate.

Now are there societal issues at play here, and do views on violence have anything to do with this? Yes. Can you get an illegal gun in Canada? Yes. And are these countries very similar, culturally and historically? Yes. Are they both diverse? Yes; very actually - by just 2036, Canada will become a majority "Brown" country (using their verbiage here) - by 2050, the U.S. will become a minority-majority country.

Again, I think the evidence and data points to a strong relationship between guns and gun-related violence and the extent that such violence goes (i.e., homicide). I think this is fairly obvious.

So with that being said, I think if we're being serious about the issue, we should stop looking under the rug, or around the corner, or behind our back to find everything and anything to blame rather than addressing the issue of gun violence on it's face.

We should be asking the tough questions here; i.e., is gun ownership and availability really worth all of this, year after year? And if so, rationally speaking, why is that the case?

The number of guns in the US per capita has consistently risen over the past decades. Yet, the number of gun homicides has actually declined over the past decade or so. I think it's fair to question the assumption that guns = gun violence.

The question of "is gun ownership and availability really worth all of this, year after year?" is (pardon the pun) a loaded question. The question that needs to be asked first is "would a gun ban in the US really end all of this?" And I'm not saying that answer is no, but it's not a definite yes either. To take away the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens including people who use guns to keep themselves and their families safe, that answer has to be more than maybe.

The thing to realize in all of this is that it's not an issue of one side favoring the lives of children over gun ownership and the other favoring gun ownership over the lives of children. That "I'm right, you're wrong" crap is where the hatred and venom comes from. Both sides value the lives of children, they just have different approaches.

One side believes that if you take guns away, you can severely crimp mass murderers and violence.

The other side believes that mass murderers and violence are inevitable and guns are necessary to defend against them.

Inherently, if enact one side's preference, you're not doing the other so someone is going to be pissed. How about finding common ground? How about the FBI actually follows up on tips they're given? What about ensuring that the current laws regarding background checks are enforced properly and additional, sensible protections are enacted? No one seems to have an issue with armed security at government facilities... what about at government funded schools?

The all or nothing stuff is never going to get anywhere for either side. A gun owner isn't going to let his guns be taken and a non-gun owner isn't going to start carrying. Let's figure out what we can change in the middle and work from there... sweeping regulation banning guns is not an answer that works for America, it only works for some people's utopian vision of it.

 

[gourimoko]

The number of guns in the US per capita has consistently risen over the past decades. Yet, the number of gun homicides has actually declined over the past decade or so. I think it's fair to question the assumption that guns = gun violence.

I don't think I've made the assertion that guns linearly equate to gun violence, but instead, that they act as a positive contributing factor; just as improved socioeconomic conditions act as a negative contributing factor, etc.

The question of "is gun ownership and availability really worth all of this, year after year?" is (pardon the pun) a loaded question. The question that needs to be asked first is "would a gun ban in the US really end all of this?"

So, I'll short-circuit the logic here and assume the answer to your question is "yes," it would put an end to all of this in large part. So then we'd need to go back and ask, is it worth it?

And I'm not saying that answer is no, but it's not a definite yes either. To take away the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens including people who use guns to keep themselves and their families safe, that answer has to be more than maybe.

I think you'd need to demonstrate why it's not a yes; because I completely disagree.

If guns were not readily available, gun-related crimes would go down, massively; to the point that, if there were zero guns (unrealistic) there would be zero gun-related crime (again, unrealistic, but we're establishing the relationship here).

The thing to realize in all of this is that it's not an issue of one side favoring the lives of children over gun ownership and the other favoring gun ownership over the lives of children. That "I'm right, you're wrong" crap is where the hatred and venom comes from. Both sides value the lives of children, they just have different approaches.

I disagree with this as well. You call it crap, but let's actually talk about the question without kid gloves and without the hand-holding of conservative values for a moment, please?

Simply put, is there a cost, in human lives, to the freedom to bear arms in America? Do children (and people in general) not die every year as a result of our lax policy on guns?

If the answer to this is yes, then it is an inescapable truth that one side is valuing their right to bear arms over the lives of those people who are victims of gun violence.

To say otherwise, IMHO, is blind -- and honestly -- it's part of the problem we're having as Americans in addressing this issue.

One side believes that if you take guns away, you can severely crimp mass murderers and violence.

Yes, and why is this not true?

The other side believes that mass murderers and violence are inevitable and guns are necessary to defend against them.

Which seems fantastical though doesn't it? I mean, honestly Spectre, this belief just isn't grounded in reality.

Inherently, if enact one side's preference, you're not doing the other so someone is going to be pissed. How about finding common ground?

1) Why is finding common ground the goal of ascertaining the truth of the matter? (see: argument to moderation fallacy)

2) Who cares if one side is pissed? Shouldn't the very first thing we're trying to do here is determine what is true vs what is false so that we know how to approach the problem?

How about the FBI actually follows up on tips they're given? What about ensuring that the current laws regarding background checks are enforced properly and additional, sensible protections are enacted? No one seems to have an issue with armed security at government facilities... what about at government funded schools?

And how about a gun ban?

This is a whataboutism. I understand what you're trying to say, but, we're specifically talking about a gun ban and the merits thereof. Why try to solve every other societal problem other than guns? Why not include guns as part of the solution?

The all or nothing stuff is never going to get anywhere for either side.

It's been done before, in countries around the world.

A gun owner isn't going to let his guns be taken and a non-gun owner isn't going to start carrying.

But that's very likely not true. I highly doubt most gun owners would fight and die to protect their ownership. Most are just collectors. They might try to skirt the law, but the vast majority are not going to stand in the way of law enforcement.

Let's figure out what we can change in the middle and work from there... sweeping regulation banning guns is not an answer that works for America, it only works for some people's utopian vision of it.

Which, is a dismissive argument at best, is it not?

I think it's definitely worthwhile to discuss the merits of a gun-ban. These "middle ground" solutions are defined by where we each see the middle, and the middle might be the extreme right or left -- so that doesn't really make much sense.

Instead, we should try to think about preferred solutions rather than preemptive compromises.