The purpose or logic behind mass shootings.

[Yzermandius19]

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

But if your methodically shooting people, then the other people have time to run away. You can make the argument it's less efficient, but not that it's less deadly. 

Again, had the Dayton shooter not had an Assault weapon, he'd have killed less people. 

 

They don't have time to run away if they don't hear the gun shots, like during a concert, when they will blend in with the music. They would not have run away faster, they wouldn't have realized there was a shooter for minutes. Shooting blindly into the crowd alerted them much quicker than under other circumstances, this is a fact.

The Dayton shooter could have killed more people with a non-banned weapon, could have killed more people if stopped to aim and reload, instead of firing blindly into the crowd. Nothing about the AR-15 he used turned him into a great killing machine that he couldn't have been with any perfectly legal hunting rifle. Your assumptions are based on ignorance of how guns actually work, and what actually maximizes a shooter using a weapon to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.

Shooting the most bullets the quickest, isn't the most effective strategy, not even close, yet you tunnel vision on making that strategy less effective, when it's already an ineffective strategy to begin with if you are actually looking to actually reduce gun deaths.

You are fearmongering out of ignorance of inanimate object you want to ban, your gun control proposals will not save any lives, they will just make you feel better because you advocate something be done, even though you aren't informed enough to realize that the course of action you propose is counter-productive, while acting like anyone who opposes your counter-productive plan doesn't care about saving lives.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a cite ?  Where does he get that from ?  I get that he's a psychology professor but he's not the sole opinion on this topic and I would like to hear the rationale behind that one.

Try listening to what Jordan Peterson has to say instead of attacking him. He is a psychology professor. What credentials do you have to show us all here? Just asking. 

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 Your assumptions are based on ignorance of how guns actually work, and what actually maximizes a shooter using a weapon to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.

Indeed, the shooter in El Paso was clearly the more lethal of the two, but not because the AK is more lethal than the AR, the shooter in El Paso himself was simply more militarized, he planned and executed with military precision, the Dayton shooter was more Incelter,  living out a murderous fantasy, but doing it rather incompetently.

The El Paso shooter is on the John Brown Bleeding Kansas profile, Well Regulated Militia revolutionary.

The Dayton Shooter is the Incelter Skelter profile, nihilistic revenge against the world.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is the 'logic' behind mass shootings seem to me a question that is dead on arrival.  This is blind rage, which is always present in society and can be harnessed for all kinds of things even positive ones.

 

But there's no logic there.

The world is slowly being deprived of common sense and logic anymore by globalists like Soros. This is what society can expect for years to come if globalists like Soros keep getting their hatred for humanity way. Soros can be described as a terrorist in so many ways because he promotes hatred and violence against conservative white nationalists. Just saying. 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

Yeah it's Technology. The internet has allowed people with Extreme views to find people with common opinions much easier. 

You mean like those people who go on the internet and view leftist liberal extreme websites that do promote hatred and violence towards others whom they disagree with, yes? It works both ways, fella. 

[Dougie93]

This mass shooting phenomena is very similar to onset of serial killers in the 1970's

Prior to the 1970's serials killers were so rare that "serial killer" wasn't even a thing.

Then something changed in the 1970's and there were serial killers coming out of the woodwork everywhere and it just fed on itself.

 

[taxme]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Indeed, the shooter in El Paso was clearly the more lethal of the two, but not because the AK is more lethal than the AR, the shooter in El Paso himself was simply more militarized, he planned and executed with military precision, the Dayton shooter was more Incelter,  living out a murderous fantasy, but doing it rather incompetently.

The El Paso shooter is on the John Brown Bleeding Kansas profile, Well Regulated Militia revolutionary.

The Dayton Shooter is the Incelter Skelter profile, nihilistic revenge against the world.

Why does any ordinary person in their right mind gun owner would ever want to own an AK or AR gun in their homes? Are these people preparing for some kind of war to breakout on American soil? I am in total agreement with banning these types of weapons. They are not needed in a civilized society. To own one of those kinds of weapons is just plain lunacy. 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, taxme said:

Are these people preparing for some kind of war to breakout on American soil?

Yes,

The purpose of the Well Regulated Militia is to make war in the United States to defend and uphold the Declaration of Independence preamble and associated Constitution as necessary.

And that's the difference between the American right to bear arms and the British right to bear arms.

The American right to bear arms is for overthrowing a British Crown, the British right to bear arms in allowance of the law is to defend the British Crown.

Resist Her Majesty's enemies and defend the Queen's Peace, unto death as necessary, so help me God.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

And this is why, unlike an American republican, if I was directed to turn in all my guns by Her Majesty's Parliamentary Supremacy, I would obey my Commander-in-Chief in the end.

Where the American constitution sits in their chain of command, in my chain of command sits the Queen.

As an United Empire Loyalist Orangeman, I am prepared to die for Her Majesty, though not eager.

No fears on earth, the God of the Hebrews awaits me, over the river and under the shade of the trees.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They don't have time to run away if they don't hear the gun shots, like during a concert, when they will blend in with the music. They would not have run away faster, they wouldn't have realized there was a shooter for minutes. Shooting blindly into the crowd alerted them much quicker than under other circumstances, this is a fact.

The Dayton shooter could have killed more people with a non-banned weapon, could have killed more people if stopped to aim and reload, instead of firing blindly into the crowd. Nothing about the AR-15 he used turned him into a great killing machine that he couldn't have been with any perfectly legal hunting rifle. Your assumptions are based on ignorance of how guns actually work, and what actually maximizes a shooter using a weapon to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.

Shooting the most bullets the quickest, isn't the most effective strategy, not even close, yet you tunnel vision on making that strategy less effective, when it's already an ineffective strategy to begin with if you are actually looking to actually reduce gun deaths.

You are fearmongering out of ignorance of inanimate object you want to ban, your gun control proposals will not save any lives, they will just make you feel better because you advocate something be done, even though you aren't informed enough to realize that the course of action you propose is counter-productive, while acting like anyone who opposes your counter-productive plan doesn't care about saving lives.

So then what's the purpose of these weapons if they aren't the most lethal? Why does the military use them? 

[Boges]

26 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Yes,

The purpose of the Well Regulated Militia is to make war in the United States to defend and uphold the Declaration of Independence preamble and associated Constitution as necessary.

And that's the difference between the American right to bear arms and the British right to bear arms.

The American right to bear arms is for overthrowing a British Crown, the British right to bear arms in allowance of the law is to defend the British Crown.

Resist Her Majesty's enemies and defend the Queen's Peace, unto death as necessary, so help me God.

So then there should be no restriction of firearms if the goal is to create your own private army as 2nd amendment actually states, private citizens in the US should be able to buy whatever military weapons they can afford. 

And continuing that logic, the argument that one can have a weapon for protection and collecting shouldn't receive 2nd amendment protection because that's not what the 2nd amendment states. People should only need weapons for the purposes of a militia. If we're using the 2nd amendment as a shield, that is. 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

So then what's the purpose of these weapons if they aren't the most lethal? Why does the military use them? 

The military uses all kinds of weapons that more lethal and not banned as well. The weapons banned in AWB has nothing to do with lethality, and everything to do with pandering to ignorant folks who know nothing about guns for votes.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

So then there should be no restriction of firearms if the goal is to create your own private army as 2nd amendment actually states, private citizens in the US should be able to buy whatever military weapons they can afford.

No, the Second Amendment is a states right, it's a right to protect them from the federal government overreaching into tyranny.

But the Well Regulated Militia is state militias.  

Federal gun control is unconstitutional, but state gun control is not, the states regulate their militia's, hence why New York's gun laws are vasly different from Nevada's gun laws.

The only thing the states can't do is abridge the right itself, so at minimum they have to allow for you to be armed with an infantry rifle, which is what American militias have always carried.

The states can however impose all sorts of restrictions about the use of that rifle, same as Canada does.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

So then there should be no restriction of firearms if the goal is to create your own private army as 2nd amendment actually states, private citizens in the US should be able to buy whatever military weapons they can afford. 

And continuing that logic, the argument that one can have a weapon for protection and collecting shouldn't receive 2nd amendment protection because that's not what the 2nd amendment states. People should only need weapons for the purposes of a militia. If we're using the 2nd amendment as a shield, that is. 

The second amendment doesn't state that the right of militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and it says that for a very good reason.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The second amendment doesn't state that the right of militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The amendment doesn't put a limit on one's ability to bear arms.

So why do we see any? Because logic? When the law was written weaponry was rudimentary by today's standards? 

[Dougie93]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Well Regulated Militia is in effect militarized, the gun grabbers of America have already tried the "it's only for hunting!" fallacy as they do in Canada, but even the liberal Supreme Court shot them down.

The Supreme Court has also overruled the "you can only have a flintlock musket from 1776" nonsense as well.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

The amendment doesn't put a limit on one's ability to bear arms.

So why do we see any? Because logic? When the law was written weaponry was rudimentary by today's standards? 

Gun grabbers ignore constitutional rights when it's not convenient to take them into consideration, who knew?

Has nothing to do with logic. You seem to assume gun control was done for logical reasons, yet nothing can be farther from the truth.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Gun grabbers ignore constitutional rights when it's not convenient to take them into consideration, who knew? Has nothing to do with logic.

Thank goodness for that, because the ultimate downfall of the gun grabbers is always fallacy, logic does not support their emotionalist reactions, and that is what undermines them every time.

Even in Canada they're not making much headway, outside the bubbles of the downtown urbane elites, Canadians are buying more guns than ever, the more the grabbers try to grab, the more guns people buy.

IIRC, there's something like 894,000 automatic rifles in Canada already.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

The main reason why there is more shooting in America is cultural.

Has nothing to do with gun control nor lack thereof, many states have gun regulations which are very similar to Canada's.

The American gun culture is Southron culture.   America was after all founded by the Kings of Virginia.

Southron culture is a dueling culture, dueling with firearms was culturally acceptable.

Black people in America adopted this culture as well, they took the freedoms that their slave masters had, bottom rail on top now, massuh.

They then brought this culture north with them, to New York, Chicago, and out west with them to Los Angeles and Oakland.

In terms of mass shootings, it all comes together with John Brown and his domestic terror campaign from Bleeding Kansas to Richmond Virginia.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Boges]

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Gun grabbers ignore constitutional rights when it's not convenient to take them into consideration, who knew?

Has nothing to do with logic. You seem to assume gun control was done for logical reasons, yet nothing can be farther from the truth.

So just to be clear, you don't believe in any gun control measures. 

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The main reason why there is more shooting in America is cultural.

Has nothing to do with gun control nor lack thereof, many states have gun regulations which are very similar to Canada's.

The American gun culture is Southron culture.   America was after all founded by the Kings of Virginia.

Southron culture is a dueling culture, dueling with firearms was culturally acceptable.

Black people in America adopted this culture as well, they took the freedoms that their slave masters had, bottom rail on top now, massuh.

They then brought this culture north with them, to New York, Chicago, and out west with them to Los Angeles and Oakland.

At least you didn't use that Video Game garbage to justify it. 

[Dougie93]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

At least you didn't use that Video Game garbage to justify it. 

It requires no justification. They have no need to justify shit to you,  If you mess with them, they will kill you.  Deo vindice, their creedo.

I think gun grabbing  Canadians are reckless to go online to provoke the Americans, because eventually they will start coming up here to come after you, and the Canadian police would be hard pressed to stop them to say the least.

These are self organizing domestic terrorists who do not like Canadians at all to start off with, and they are all online here with us.

Canada effectively sides with the Democrat Party, so they have taken notice of Canada, and not in a friendly way.

This is 5th generation warfare, the threat is worldwide, they can strike anywhere, but they can easily strike in Canada.

This is a similar situation to the Fenians, except there's way way more of them now than in 1866.

Don't forget, when Canada sent the Queen's Own Rifles out to stop the Fenians, the Fenians kicked their asses, with ease.

Was General US Grant who saved Canada from the Fenians, wasn't Canada who done it.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Yzermandius19]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

So just to be clear, you don't believe in any gun control measures. 

False. I just don't believe in the kind of gun control you propose, so you want to paint me as supporting no gun control whatsoever.

If you ever want to come up with a rational measure that isn't already in place, then I'd support your position, but you just have too much faith in your ability to do so and have written me off because I reject your worst ideas. You don't want to look in the mirror for reasons why that might be the case, and so instead think it must be something wrong with me or I'd agree with you.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[taxme]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The main reason why there is more shooting in America is cultural.

Has nothing to do with gun control nor lack thereof, many states have gun regulations which are very similar to Canada's.

The American gun culture is Southron culture.   America was after all founded by the Kings of Virginia.

Southron culture is a dueling culture, dueling with firearms was culturally acceptable.

Black people in America adopted this culture as well, they took the freedoms that their slave masters had, bottom rail on top now, massuh.

They then brought this culture north with them, to New York, Chicago, and out west with them to Los Angeles and Oakland.

The amount of killings by white people is nothing compared to how many people have been killed by black people in America, black or white. The black people of America appear to have in them the same traits that their ancestors brought with them to America from Africa. They can be a very violent people to have to deal with at times. Life appears to have no meaning to many of them. Just look at all the shootings that have been going on a cities like Chicago. Dozens of black people are being shot and killed almost every week. This is a fact and not fiction. Where is Al Sharpton on all these killings going on in the black community? And what cannot be overlooked is that it was the black community that started bringing guns and drugs to schools starting around the seventies. That now appears to have rubbed off on our white youth of today. In my earlier days in school many decades ago white kids never brought guns to school or tried to sell drugs in school. What has happened? I know that this will appear to be saying things negative about blacks but it is not my intentions to make it appear so. These are just facts and the truth, mam.

Today, the white youth are becoming just as bad which is sad. This never happened by white kids when I was growing up. We were a bunch of good decent and moral kids and enjoyed life. What has changed? Too many prescribed drugs being promoted by the medical and drug industry that is affecting their brains? I wish I knew, but I do not. One can only hope that these kinds of murderous acts will stop. The drug that I am on these days is called Hopium. Hoping that one day these kinds of killings will stop. 

[BubberMiley]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

I think a lot of it has to do with the progressive cultural/societal war against white men over the last few decades too.  They've succeeded in their attempt to marginalize them, particularly young men.  As white men, your told that your opinion doesn't matter.  That you have special privilege, despite your circumstances.  You're told literally not to apply for certain jobs and professions. You're essentially told you're everything wrong with society and the world.  And all of this is sanctioned by a government that's suppose to represent you.

I'm surprised you would try to make excuses for shitstain mass shooters.