How does America's gun violence cycle end?

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 minutes ago, Gunn said:

It seems like a deeper mental health issue that is already there with some individuals, maybe from childhood, I don't know, but at some point they get to the end of their rope I guess. Then they contemplate suicide, but instead of only taking their own lives, they decide they want to take others with them, then they decide to die either by death by cop or shooting themselves after they've felt self-justified killing enough other people. Not to mention it's become a copy-cat thing with these shootings. Whatever is going on the experts need to figure this out soon.

I agree with you, and I dont understand why ours posting in this thread do not see this point of view. It seems to many people are beating a dead horse over gun control instead of viewing the underlying issues that are causing the problems to occur.

Like always my brother thanks for your wisdom on this issue.

[Michelle]

Entitlement is the word...

A third of Basecamp’s workers resign after a ban on talking politics.

About a third of Basecamp’s employees have said they are resigning after the company, which makes productivity software, announced new policies banning workplace conversations about politics.

Jason Fried, Basecamp’s chief executive, detailed the policies in a blog post on Monday, calling “societal and political discussions” on company messaging tools “a major distraction.” He wrote that the company would also ban committees, cut benefits such as a fitness allowance (with employees receiving the equivalent cash value) and stop “lingering and dwelling on past decisions.”

cont...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/technology/basecamp-politics-ban-resignations.html

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/30/basecamp-employees-quit-ceo-letter/

One-third of Basecamp’s employees quit, some crying and screaming, after executive dares to say we don’t live in a ‘white supremacist culture’

https://indeki.com/one-third-of-basecamps-employees-quit-some-crying-and-screaming-after-executive-dares-to-say-we-dont-live-in-a-white-supremacist-culture.html

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

So now you want to put limits on your insane hypothetical situations.  So when you make insane and impossible situations and justify them then it's just a hypothetical scenario but when how nonsensical they are is pointed out and used against you then suddenly they dont count.

No, I'm referring to things that actually exist. Seems a sensible criteria even for hypotheticals.

Quote

There are 9 countries with nuclear weapons of which only 2 having over a thousand warheads.  Not exactly many countries.  As for the nuclear warheads the vast majority are of lower yield.

Only nine huh? 

Only two have enough to entire annihilate the entire country huh?

Only takes one doesn't it.

Nine is a lot.

Quote

Sounds like you cant admit or accept when your arguments have fallen apart completely.

You have illustrated that. You have only shown how big your ego is and how limited you are in discussion. 

Quote

Just simple stuff like only a finite amount of anything, travel times, ect.

A good example would be when earlier you talked about if I remember correctly covering whole geographical regions in napalm to kill citizens.  Ignoring the fact that such massive amounts of napalm would need to be produced, stored, transported, the systems to deploy them produced, stored, transported, that it would take time to use it, ect.  A lot of your argument depends on infinite resources and instantous action which both break the laws of physics and reality, but as you put it it is only a hypothetical scenario and clearly not one meant to be realistic but a custom made one to justify and prove your insane arguments.

You don't understand physics do you. 

You're talking about Logistics. Not physics genius. 

A takeover isn't instantaneous. Where do you get that idea from? Planning would be months or years in advance like any major attack. 

You said cities are Warren's, I said gas would be used. You said people would hide in forests I said napalm would be used. 

And they would. Budgetary concerns have to be sorted before and attempt is made. You have a habit of looking at things backwards. 

Quote

It's not babbling it's the fact that you just decide to ignore anything and everything that disproves your claims in some desperate attempt to continually justify your position.

No it's babbling. Calling logistics physics, getting upset at the idea that your guns won't help in a real situation. Budgetary concerns for an invading force lol. 

Quote

Shows how little you actually know, which explains your arguments cause when no one knows anything on the topic they are trying to argue about they generally default to logical fallacies and get too emotionally attached.  Still not sure why you are so emotionally attached to this though.

As for Aum Shrinrikyo they spent tens of millions of dollars to produce between 11 to 13 gallons of low quality sarin.  Not exactly a cost effective approach.

Chemical weapons were used extensively in WW1 but you are drastically over simplifying them, which isnt surprising since you consider 9 countries having nuclear weapons as many.  The chemical weapons that were used most extensively and were the cheapest to produce were also the least effective and the easiest to protect against.  

If you want to call BS it helps to know what you are actually talking about instead of just pretending that you do.

Yeah I'm calling BS and now you have made me do it again. You're just st making crap up and you go along.

No they didn't spend tens of millions to produce a few kilos of sarin. After initial productions producing small amounts Aim wanted to go full scale and produce 70 tonnes. That facility was estimated to cost ten million. Yet they appropriated existing structures and went ahead on several fronts.

A cult managed it. They purchased shell chemical companies and utilised existing resources. 

Pretty sure if a cult can generate an attack, a planned insurrection would also have them. Do you think nobody would be able to think ahead or something?

Quote

You cant even keep a consistent arguing position.  You were just arguing not that long that the American military would slaughter any citizen who resisted a tyrannical government now you are saying that is nonsense and the American military wouldnt even exist.

No I wasn't. Ive said consistently that boots on the ground aren't going to happen. Key positions with access to modern weaponry. Drones bombs. That sort of thing. Death from above. 

Quote

Arguing with you is like trying to debate with a 4 year old.

I assume that's actually somewhat close to your age. Mentally at least. 

Quote

Spoken like a true collectivist, and not just any collectivist one with a massive chip on their shoulder cause another country decided to take a different course of action.  Seems it's a bit of jealousy and a damaged ego that's driving you, which does make sense.  Probably should try healthier methods of dealing with your inner issues though.

It's an incredibly selfish desire that costs innocent lives. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

The right to own a gun is not just a right, it is a natural or God given right.  It falls under the category of the right to defend yourself, and to do so with equal or superior means than those that would attack you.  It is not something that any entity has the right to remove from the viewpoint of our founders and most Americans, thus the "shall not be infringed" wording in the constitution.  You don't have to "get it" and you don't have to agree with it. 

God doesn't exist. So that's not a legitimate claim. If a god shows up and makes that proclamation I'll revisit the idea. 

I do get it. Innocent lives are the cost of that so called right. Few are willing to change the situation and accept the collateral damage. Which is inhuman. 

Some American people want a better America but they are held to random by gun supporters. It's an ancient barbaric custom that simply deserved contempt. 

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

Answer me a question  psyche, out of all of the Australians that are murdered every year in their own home what percentage of them do you suppose would like to have had a gun handy?

No. They would likely be dead sooner and their families are at greater risk. We care about community. You guys don't seem to at all. It's all about the individual. Many gun proponents who challenged the initial ban here revised their positions after a decade. 

I don't think the majority of parents who lost children in school shootings would support America's loose system. Any who might would be missing a part of their humanity. 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Read my edit. 

Deliberate makes it worse.

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Sit. Shake.  Who's a gooboy?

Still a dick no matter what huh 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Far more children drown than are shot in the USA. Why not ban swimming pools?

Because the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a swimming pool is a good guy with a swimming pool. 

Godamn that's a dumb comparison. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Same over here. Reagan pulled funding for mental hospitals anticipating that each state would fund their own. As it turned out the states already had plans for their budgets and still haven’t properly addressed this. I think there are concerns about what these places would be like, think One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest. 

He pulled the funding because he personally thought mental institutions were communist in nature. 

You guys sure can pick em. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by psyche101

[+Hammerclaw]

[Autochthon1990]

13 hours ago, Myles said:

Remember, there are many things that kill many more children than guns.  

Yeah but we at least stopped selling those Kinder Surprise eggs. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

 

15 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The American military are not foreign conscripts or mercenaries.  They are a professional class of Americans whose family and abode are here.  The American people and the American soldier have a very special relationship and in a widespread rebellion, the majority will go with the people.  The Left is afraid of that.  That is why they have plans to cull such subversives from the ranks which will reduce the size of the military and fill the populace with fully trained warriors.  If it gets this far, it won’t last long.

 

For someone how works for the US Government you certainly have some interesting ideas concerning Insurrection. If I was currently working in Government Service I would a little more careful about the comments I would be making. Because your comments could be misunderstood, you are aware that the Government is currently monitoring Internet forums, Blogs, and all other sites where people post to political, Gun Control, and sites where general chat concerning Insurrection is mentioned. 

Also I suspect your aware that they are using an NSA algorithm, where searches are accomplished by using key words in the Search criteria, such as insurrection. Since they are using an algorithm like this they can sit back and allow the software to do all the work. When it locates searched words or sentences it will flag those sites and those posts. Then a security analyst will open the flag check the post and send the data forward for evaluation.

I am also certain you realize that anyone using an Internet forum and a username can be tracked back to their ISP by these individuals so, in moments they will know who we really are, and where our posts are coming from. Below is some information you may be very interested in concerning a Government internet monitoring program that has been in effect since the Capital Insurrection, its called ICOP or the Internet Covert Operations Program. Below is some information and links concerning this program, and what is crazy about it is that it is run by the Criminal Arm of the US Postal Service.

The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.  https://news.yahoo.com/the-postal-service-is-running-a-running-a-covert-operations-program-that-monitors-americans-social-media-posts-160022919.ht

US Postial Service Secretly Monitoring Social Media Posts: https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/u-s-postal-service-secretly-monitoring-social-media-posts/

Situational Awareness Bulletin US Postial Service redacted : https://www.scribd.com/document/503807748/Post-Office-Redacted#from_embed

Domestic Violence and Extremism : https://www.scribd.com/document/496919423/Domestic-Violent-Extremism-2021

My only purpose for this post is to put out a warning to forum member, I do not want anyone to be caught up in the wide net that is being cast. Some of us are much more vulnerable than others because of the comments that are made that could be misconstrued by Security Analysts, and I believe that Government employees are the most vulnerable when it comes to this monitoring.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Why do you think Yamamoto didn’t think invading the US was a good idea?  He said that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.  Not from an organized military but from individuals and small groups.  You seem impressed with ‘organization’.  If a resurrection pops up somewhere, in some location, then no, they would not be able to withstand the military,  But if it rises up in one place and then multiple places following suit, the military will not be able to handle it.  And there would be mutinies within the military.  Soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and the people, not the ruling elite of a tyrannical government.  St Bidet is going to need to request military aid from China to hang on.  The government isn’t “getting” all tyrannical, they already are and they are moving as fast as possible to consolidate power.  It is happening right before our eyes.  I don’t know if things can hold out until 2022??

 

 

 

You comments above are very inaccurate soldier do take an oath follow the orders of the President of the United States. Soldiers take the following oath:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United Statesand the orders of the officers appointed ...

Below is the oath Commisioned Officers Take: 

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well ...

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a swimming pool is a good guy with a swimming pool. 

Godamn that's a dumb comparison. 

You’re right, using children as an emotional lever in an argument is dishonest and dumb.

Edited May 6, 2021 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

He pulled the funding because he personally thought mental institutions were communist in nature. 

You guys sure can pick em. 

Prove it

[+Liquid Gardens]

21 hours ago, OverSword said:

Americans are not Australians or English or even Canadians.  We don't like doing things that we feel infringes on our rights to defend ourselves or on our freedom of speech the way other countries do that seem to just roll over like trained dogs.

Your last line is pretty much straight from right wing media so I'd show some caution when referring to training.  Because England and Canada and Australia do not allow every mouth-breather to own a gun, what is the actual effect of them 'rolling over like trained dogs' in these countries?  Are they more oppressed or something, are there big revolutions that would occur in these countries if only gun rights were as unrestricted as ours?  Our unrestricted gun rights has clearly lead to more deaths and violence, obviously a negative; what negative counterpoint is there (evidence only please) in these other countries where they are trained to roll over like dogs because they have restricted gun rights?  Because if there isn't any big negative effect in these countries, it may seem like they 'roll over like trained dogs' simply because we are rabid ones at the other end of the spectrum. 

20 hours ago, OverSword said:

The right to own a gun is not just a right, it is a natural or God given right.

I don't see that in my copy of the Bible.  

20 hours ago, OverSword said:

It is not something that any entity has the right to remove from the viewpoint of our founders and most Americans, thus the "shall not be infringed" wording in the constitution. 

False, the founders built right into the Constitution the ability to remove or alter it with amendments.  There is not a single right in the Constitution that currently says 'shall not be infringed' or 'no law respecting' that in fact has not been infringed to some degree.  Are you upset that most people can't own hand grenades and military-grade flame throwers, is our acceptance of this infringement on our liberty also an example of us trained dogs rolling over?

Quote

The comma between "free state" and "the right of" is key. The argument is that the right to keep and bear arms is for the reason of maintaining a well regulated militia but that comma puts the lie to that thought.

I thought one argument that the reason that people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed is so the country could have a militia to defend itself, that seems to me to be the plain reading of the sentence.  That of course is not at all necessary today (outside of entirely unrealistic Red Dawn fantasies) with the country having its own, extremely powerful, military.  Your interpretation, which seems to rely on something kinda shaky - comma placement, seems to essentially pretend that the word 'militia' is not there or doesn't mean anything.

Quote

Far more children drown than are shot in the USA. Why not ban swimming pools?

Because the purpose of swimming pools is not to injure someone, and no one has ever been robbed or murdered by an intruder armed with a swimming pool?  (although there are some rumors concerning the death of Brian Jones from the Stones about him being murdered by intruders, but at least it was his own pool)  When I go into a store or fill my gas tank up or go into the post office, 'I hope I don't drown in here' has never crossed my mind; can't say the same for 'hope I don't get shot', which although remote is a possibility. 

[Myles]

12 hours ago, Gunn said:

It seems like a deeper mental health issue that is already there with some individuals, maybe from childhood, I don't know, but at some point they get to the end of their rope I guess. Then they contemplate suicide, but instead of only taking their own lives, they decide they want to take others with them, then they decide to die either by death by cop or shooting themselves after they've felt self-justified killing enough other people. Not to mention it's become a copy-cat thing with these shootings. Whatever is going on the experts need to figure this out soon.

I think culture is much of the reason for deaths caused by guns.   In 2020 there were 875 shooting deaths in Chicago alone.   78% of the victims were black.   That is more than the total mass shooting deaths in the entire country.   While I also think concentration on mental health is important, I think more attention needs to be paid to the inner city shootings.  

 

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

God doesn't exist. So that's not a legitimate claim.

It is a legitimate claim.  Just as in the insurance industry Acts of God are covered.  God given rights are just another way to say natural rights.  One of your natural rights is the right to defend yourself with as much vigor as you feel appropriate.  If you are frail and someone larger than you or if someone armed with a deadly weapon is attacking you then you need to bring an advantage to yourself and in some cases you may choose a gun.  

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Your last line is pretty much straight from right wing media so I'd show some caution when referring to training.  Because England and Canada and Australia do not allow every mouth-breather to own a gun, what is the actual effect of them 'rolling over like trained dogs' in these countries?  Are they more oppressed or something, are there big revolutions that would occur in these countries if only gun rights were as unrestricted as ours?  Our unrestricted gun rights has clearly lead to more deaths and violence, obviously a negative; what negative counterpoint is there (evidence only please) in these other countries where they are trained to roll over like dogs because they have restricted gun rights?  Because if there isn't any big negative effect in these countries, it may seem like they 'roll over like trained dogs' simply because we are rabid ones at the other end of the spectrum. 

I don't see that in my copy of the Bible.  

False, the founders built right into the Constitution the ability to remove or alter it with amendments.  There is not a single right in the Constitution that currently says 'shall not be infringed' or 'no law respecting' that in fact has not been infringed to some degree.  Are you upset that most people can't own hand grenades and military-grade flame throwers, is our acceptance of this infringement on our liberty also an example of us trained dogs rolling over?

I thought one argument that the reason that people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed is so the country could have a militia to defend itself, that seems to me to be the plain reading of the sentence.  That of course is not at all necessary today (outside of entirely unrealistic Red Dawn fantasies) with the country having its own, extremely powerful, military.  Your interpretation, which seems to rely on something kinda shaky - comma placement, seems to essentially pretend that the word 'militia' is not there or doesn't mean anything.

Because the purpose of swimming pools is not to injure someone, and no one has ever been robbed or murdered by an intruder armed with a swimming pool?  (although there are some rumors concerning the death of Brian Jones from the Stones about him being murdered by intruders, but at least it was his own pool)  When I go into a store or fill my gas tank up or go into the post office, 'I hope I don't drown in here' has never crossed my mind; can't say the same for 'hope I don't get shot', which although remote is a possibility. 

You need to read other posts after this.  It's all been addressed

Oh, BTW the trained dogs comment was just a  bit of a troll aimed at one particular poster for fun.  You can see later that I said I support their choice to surrender their guns.

Edited May 6, 2021 by OverSword

[spartan max2]

42 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It is a legitimate claim.  Just as in the insurance industry Acts of God are covered.  God given rights are just another way to say natural rights.  One of your natural rights is the right to defend yourself with as much vigor as you feel appropriate.  If you are frail and someone larger than you or if someone armed with a deadly weapon is attacking you then you need to bring an advantage to yourself and in some cases you may choose a gun.  

God given rights/natural rights/human rights. It's just all ways of saying rights that you should be guaranteed simply for being a living human.

Most of the founder were Deist, so they viewed God as an impersonal God. Who basically created everything and kept hands off ever since.  

Edited May 6, 2021 by spartan max2

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

God given rights/natural rights/human rights. It's just all ways of saying rights that you should be guaranteed simply for being a living human.

Most of the founder were Deist, so they viewed God as an impersonal God. Who basically created everything and kept hands off ever since.  

I would say remove the word human.  Every living creature has the right to defend it's life and people are no different we're just a little better at it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 hours ago, OverSword said:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I see no language that would indicate that only applies if you are in a well regulated militia.

Then why is 'militia' included in the amendment?  It's not like the 1st amendment that includes the word 'or' to separate the different clauses, and as you noted there are only commas not even separate sentences in the 2nd.  If you don't think the end part about the right to bear arms not being infringed is not linked to the first part, then what does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' mean, what's that even doing there?  On it's own it doesn't say anything, it's not even a complete sentence, there is no verb there, and I think it's tough to make a case that half of the text of the amendment doesn't actually mean anything (although the Supreme Court has recently I think essentially interpreted it to mean a general right of self defense).

I also didn't see why not allowing hand grenades and flame throwers to be owned by citizens does not also make us trained dogs.

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Then why is 'militia' included in the amendment?  It's not like the 1st amendment that includes the word 'or' to separate the different clauses, and as you noted there are only commas not even separate sentences in the 2nd.  If you don't think the end part about the right to bear arms not being infringed is not linked to the first part, then what does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' mean, what's that even doing there?  On it's own it doesn't say anything, it's not even a complete sentence, there is no verb there, and I think it's tough to make a case that half of the text of the amendment doesn't actually mean anything (although the Supreme Court has recently I think essentially interpreted it to mean a general right of self defense).

I also didn't see why not allowing hand grenades and flame throwers to be owned by citizens does not also make us trained dogs.

Being men of the enlightenment era, we know alot of what the founders thought because they wrote it all down lol.

Thomas Jefferson.

Quote

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

And some more.

Edited: because the first quote I used was apparently contested among scholars as being valid.

Edited May 6, 2021 by spartan max2

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Then why is 'militia' included in the amendment?  It's not like the 1st amendment that includes the word 'or' to separate the different clauses, and as you noted there are only commas not even separate sentences in the 2nd.  If you don't think the end part about the right to bear arms not being infringed is not linked to the first part, then what does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' mean, what's that even doing there?  On it's own it doesn't say anything, it's not even a complete sentence, there is no verb there, and I think it's tough to make a case that half of the text of the amendment doesn't actually mean anything (although the Supreme Court has recently I think essentially interpreted it to mean a general right of self defense).

I also didn't see why not allowing hand grenades and flame throwers to be owned by citizens does not also make us trained dogs.

I think what it says is that militias will be well regulated (probably so they don't become rogue like a gang and control areas through force of arms) and that in order to remain free and secure everyone has the right to guns.

Edited May 6, 2021 by OverSword

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Being men of the enlightenment era, we know alot of what the founders thought because they wrote it all down lol.

We also happen to know that pretending 'the founders' were of uniform agreement on most issues is just not historically accurate.  Most importantly, being people of the 21st Century we also should know that you can't believe everything you read -  you missed this on your link:

Quote

Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It is often seen preceded by the sentence, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just now, OverSword said:

I think what it says is that militias will be well regulated (probably so they don't become rogue like a gang and control areas through force of arms) and that in order to remain free and secure everyone has the right to guns.

I'm not seeing that 'and'.  The majority of the discussion about the 2nd Amendment from the founders concerns militias, not personal self-defense.

[Robotic Jew]

1 word: Asteroid.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think what it says is that militias will be well regulated (probably so they don't become rogue like a gang and control areas through force of arms) and that in order to remain free and secure everyone has the right to guns.

Actually the meaning of well regulated would of at the time meant well equipped.