Google maps shows location of San Bruno shooting

Post by malvosenior » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #77

malvosenior wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.

This argument is absurd. Most of the time, Americans can't organize enough to start a union, or even join one. The idea of Americans organizing an insurgency is ridiculous. The idea of Americans winning an insurgency, against the largest army in the world - an army that has more counter-insurgency experience than anybody except perhaps the IDF, is still more ridiculous. Guns will never check anything because the only…

Post by kelnos » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 11:10 PM UTC

lolsal wrote: post #41

dabeeeenster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case." That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. "people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions" Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel alte…

Post by merb » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 11:10 PM UTC

dabeeeenster wrote: post #61

lolsal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel alte…

I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.

Post by fatjokes » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 11:11 PM UTC

wffurr wrote: post #75

m52go wrote: post #13

Folks, the number of shooting crimes (including school shootings) in the United States is going down. I know times like this are the worst times to mention this fact, but it's true [0]. The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case. This does not mean we should do nothing about them...any shooting is an event that should not happen. But it's important to real…

Can you not start this discussion while the blood is still wet on the ground? What is wrong with you?

Post by CodeMage » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #64

pasabagi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from a country where people don't have guns, I don't really see the problem with no guns. They're an awful public health risk. They have basically no advantages. Even for their use in suicide alone, they would be just as reasonable to ban as any commodity you could name - for instance, heroin, or dynamite, or crystal meth.

They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.