Mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, CA

[Chris-]

Quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-california-thousand-oaks.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

The .45-caliber handgun he used was purchased legally, but had been outfitted with an extended magazine.

 

All you gun nuts clamoring for 'compromise' so your hobby remains unperturbed still feel the same way? I mean, between Las Vegas and now Thousand Oaks, over 60 people are dead thanks to the creepy little accessories that are so necessary for your 'self-defense'.

[osxmatt]

 

[Bloodporne]

Even having been a gun owner and with training I can clearly see there must be drastic measures taken against America's insane gun culture. How in the name of hell do people not see this? The facts and reality are right there, how can it be disputed? 

 

How can the fear of some fantasy government-taking-my-shit scenario be greater than one of the very real and constant arbitrary mass shootings in public places? On top of it, if the government wants to 'take you' in any capacity, your gat will do about as much as pea shooter. You'll be in a fucking camp before you can even reach for that thing if the US government decides it to be so. I'm all for being self-reliant etc. but it can't overrule these kinds of results. 

[atom631]

2 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

On top of it, if the government wants to 'take you' in any capacity, your gat will do about as much as pea shooter. You'll be in a fucking camp before you can even reach for that thing if the US government decides it to be so. 

Drones

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Even having been a gun owner and with training I can clearly see there must be drastic measures taken against America's insane gun culture. How in the name of hell do people not see this? The facts and reality are right there, how can it be disputed? 

 

How can the fear of some fantasy government-taking-my-shit scenario be greater than one of the very real and constant arbitrary mass shootings in public places? On top of it, if the government wants to 'take you' in any capacity, your gat will do about as much as pea shooter. You'll be in a fucking camp before you can even reach for that thing if the US government decides it to be so. I'm all for being self-reliant etc. but it can't overrule these kinds of results. 

 

 

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

You'll be in a fucking camp before you can even reach for that thing if the US government decides it to be so. I'm all for being self-reliant etc. but it can't overrule these kinds of results. 

 

A widespread and popular insurrection could not be quelled by the US Government.

[Bloodporne]

Just now, atom631 said:

Drones

You can basically type anything there. Anyone thinking they're going to save themselves from some government take-over needs to read some history. 

 

[CitizenVectron]

I think we can agree on one thing: If no guns physically existed anywhere in the world, there would be fewer deaths. Working from that point, everything in-between is a measure of degree. You can't destroy all guns in the US, for example, and even if you could people would smuggle them in. But would all of the people with current easy access to guns be able to get one this way? Likely not, as it's a lot of effort and the supply would be lower. Most gun violence is the result of passion, and if you need to find a gang and then buy a gun from them (which most people won't know how to do) then you won't be able to commit mass murder.

 

Obviously in-between the two extremes of the current situation and all guns no longer existing there is a spectrum, but if we agree that no guns existing would solve much of the problem, then it has to be acknowledged that some forms of gun control or elimination would reduce deaths.

[Bloodporne]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

A widespread and popular insurrection could not be quelled by the US Government.

I don't understand how this fantasy scenario is worth the certifiably insane gun culture America has. I'm certainly not ultra-left and I can see that it's fucking insane from a mile away. 

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

A widespread and popular insurrection could not be quelled by the US Government.

 

You wouldn't need guns in that case anyway. If you had 50 or 100 million people in the streets the US military would not be able to stop the people, as at that point the US military itself would contain people who want to bring down the government and would have access to military hardware.

 

Just now, Bloodporne said:

I don't understand how this fantasy scenario is worth the certifiably insane gun culture America has. I'm certainly not ultra-left and I can see that it's fucking insane from a mile away.

 

Also true. Allowing for tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths to prevent something that has a .01% chance of happening is an example of not understanding probability and cost-benefit analysis. 

 

[Bloodporne]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Also true. Allowing for tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths to prevent something that has a .01% chance of happening is an example of not understanding probability and cost-benefit analysis. 

 

That's a more eloquent way of putting it. I don't see the how it's worth it in short. I'll take my chances with that government-enslavement thing in order to not have to live with the ever-present subconscious anxiety of the completely asinine level of violence present in this country. 

[PaladinSolo]

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

A widespread and popular insurrection could not be quelled by the US Government.

Except for that one time. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

You wouldn't need guns in that case anyway. If you had 50 or 100 million people in the streets the US military would not be able to stop the people, as at that point the US military itself would contain people who want to bring down the government and would have access to military hardware.

 

Even though they ultimately "lost" in the Oregon standoff, the fact that Bundy gang was armed meant that the government was limited in how they could approach the situation - both from a tactical standpoint, and from a PR standpoint.  Yes, a drone could have ended the conflict in about 2 seconds.  But the backlash among the population, especially those who may have sided or sympathized with the Bundys would have not been worth it.  One of the driving reasons why McVeigh blew up the federal building OKC was because of the government's heavy handedness in Ruby Ridge and Waco.  I'm not saying that was McVeigh did was justified, because it was an evil act - but there is a clear link between violence created by the government, and retributions thereafter.  

[mclumber1]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

Except for that one time. 

 

Which is? 

[Chris-]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Which is? 

 

...

[Bloodporne]

There's a massive cultural problem as a whole, an enormous vicious cycle, but I truly believe the microcosm of gun culture is where it needs to at least start being reigned in. 

 

I can't see how any reasonable human being can argue that the omnipresent levels of extreme violence and crime in this country are good conditions for a civilized society to live under.

[Remarkableriots]

I don't own a gun but if a family or a single mother feels safer with a gun for protection I support that. If someone breaks into your home intending to do harm the cops will not get there in time to save you.

[skillzdadirecta]

20 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

You can basically type anything there. Anyone thinking they're going to save themselves from some government take-over needs to read some history.  needs to stop thinking 80's action movies are instructional videos.

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Which is? 

 

The Riots in the 60's?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

There's a massive cultural problem as a whole, an enormous vicious cycle, but I truly believe the microcosm of gun culture is where it needs to at least start being reigned in. 

 

I can't see how any reasonable human being can argue that the omnipresent levels of extreme violence and crime in this country are good conditions for a civilized society to live under.

You're assuming that the United States was ever truly a "civilized society".

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

I don't own a gun but if a family or a single mother feels safer with a gun for protection I support that. If someone breaks into your home intending to do harm the cops will not get there in time to save you.

 

This is a double edged sword because your chances of being shot (accidentally or otherwise)  go up significantly once a gun is in the home... so I'm not sure if the risk is worth it.

[Chris-]

THE CIVIL FUCKING WAR

 

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Chris- said:

THE CIVIL FUCKING WAR

Please, it’s the war of Northen aggression 

[Bloodporne]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

You're assuming that the United States was ever truly a "civilized society".

Well, no society ever is or was, there is barbarism to be found anywhere and there always will be, we're animals. I'm just saying it in the context of what should be strived for to be able to somewhat get along with each other in its confines. 

 

I'm not looking to deconstruct the entire human experience, just tossing some thoughts on the subject out there as I feel a slight pit in my stomach every time I see this type of shit. I've unfortunately had several acquaintances/friends fall victim to gun-related and violent deaths and I feel exhausted by it. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Please, it’s the war of Northen aggression 

*Southern independence

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, Chris- said:

THE CIVIL FUCKING WAR

 

 

Fair enough.  I would argue that was an actual war between armies.  Did the union ever face a guerrilla  campaign from Southerners? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Bloodporne said:

Well, no society ever is or was, there is barbarism to be found anywhere and there always will be, we're animals. I'm just saying it in the context of what should be strived for to be able to somewhat get along with each other in its confines. 

 

I'm not looking to deconstruct the entire human experience, just tossing some thoughts on the subject out there as I feel a slight pit in my stomach every time I see this type of shit. I've unfortunately had several acquaintances/friends fall victim to gun-related and violent deaths and I feel exhausted by it. 

There is a lot of historical evidence that the United States (at least in certain areas) has a underdeveloped "civilizing influence" when compared to other parts of the country or other so-called "First World" nations.  

 

It's not a matter of us being "animals" (a fairly reductive description of homo sapiens) - it's that there are genuinely sociological forces at work in parts of the US that are absent in other "civilized" societies.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

Did the union ever face a guerrilla  campaign from Southerners? 

Yes.

[Bloodporne]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is a lot of historical evidence that the United States (at least in certain areas) has a underdeveloped "civilizing influence" when compared to other parts of the country or other so-called "First World" nations.  

 

It's not a matter of us being "animals" (a fairly reductive description of homo sapiens) - it's that there are genuinely sociological forces at work in parts of the US that are absent in other "civilized" societies.

Alright, you got me, I'll shut up. 

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Yes.

 

Thank you

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Bloodporne said:

Alright, you got me, I'll shut up. 

Well, I didn't mean it THAT way

[Bloodporne]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

Well, I didn't mean it THAT way

It's fine, you're educated on those finer points, I'm not. I'm simply venting about this event and have nothing to contribute on said finer points. That's what I meant, it looked more dramatic in writing. 

 

I don't even disagree with you and meant essentially the same thing, I just don't know how to articulate in that fashion so I'd just be arguing semantics. 

[Chris-]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is a lot of historical evidence that the United States (at least in certain areas) has a underdeveloped "civilizing influence" when compared to other parts of the country or other so-called "First World" nations.  

  

 It's not a matter of us being "animals" (a fairly reductive description of homo sapiens) - it's that there are genuinely sociological forces at work in parts of the US that are absent in other "civilized" societies.

 

Curious, do you have any article or book recommendations on that subject? It sounds interesting.

[CitizenVectron]

36 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Even though they ultimately "lost" in the Oregon standoff, the fact that Bundy gang was armed meant that the government was limited in how they could approach the situation - both from a tactical standpoint, and from a PR standpoint.  Yes, a drone could have ended the conflict in about 2 seconds.  But the backlash among the population, especially those who may have sided or sympathized with the Bundys would have not been worth it.  One of the driving reasons why McVeigh blew up the federal building OKC was because of the government's heavy handedness in Ruby Ridge and Waco.  I'm not saying that was McVeigh did was justified, because it was an evil act - but there is a clear link between violence created by the government, and retributions thereafter.  

 

 

Do you think there would have been no backlash had they been unarmed and been blown up? I would argue that them being armed actually made government violence more likely, not less.

[mclumber1]

7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

Do you think there would have been no backlash had they been unarmed and been blown up? I would argue that them being armed actually made government violence more likely, not less.

 

The fact that they were armed meant they couldn't easily apprehend/arrest the clan and end the standoff.  The guns were an equalization of force.