10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Washington Resistance Army]

I disagree with the notion that getting rid of the guns will solve crimes.

It's not because getting rid of them won't achieve its intended purpose, but that it would create a black market where people can purchase a gun anyways.

You know, people do always say that. How has it gone in Australia?
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871
If you have that much money, you don't need to be a criminal. Put it in a savings account.

I have my doubts those prices are real. I know a few Australian gunrunners got busted a few months back and their prices on the deep weren't that high.

A solid enough throat strike is pretty fucking hard to manage when, in a fight, the very first thing most people do is try to cover their throats. Unless you are shitfaced drunk then it really doesn't matter.

With the proper wrist control you can largely negate that, and a strike to the carotid artery can stun them long enough to get in the strike you need. But to prevent a threadjack I'll end it with this, you can TG me if you really want to continue that convo.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can effectively, efficiently kill large numbers of people with your bare hands just as fast as bullets would? If so, I am extremely impressed. I doubt even a Shaolin master could do that.

See, bullets are nice, because you can literally blow parts off of many people from hundreds of feet away, almost instantly. I don't think you can do that with your fist.

No, I'm simply saying killing someone with your hands isn't as hard as people make it out to be. Guns are a pretty nice thing though, albeit the arguments against them are a tad odd at times.

Washington, your knowledge on how to kill people scares me.

Hey, I like to be ready for anything

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you seriously trying to say that you can effectively, efficiently kill large numbers of people with your bare hands just as fast as bullets would? If so, I am extremely impressed. I doubt even a Shaolin master could do that.

See, bullets are nice, because you can literally blow parts off of many people from hundreds of feet away, almost instantly. I don't think you can do that with your fist.

The speed argument is pretty irrelevant since very few mass shootings in the US have found a use for the possible rate of fire a semi-automatic weapon offers. The only one that immediately springs to mind was the Loughner shooting and less so the Aurora shooting. The Newtown shooting could be quite easily replicated with a pump-action shotgun or bolt-action rifle.

I should note that this is true.

When talking about the efficiency I am not talking about how fast you can kill a bunch of people but how long does it take someone to die if you hit them with a bullet as opposed to your bare fists.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, for starters, people who have a violent criminal history and/or have been diagnosed with a mental illness shouldn't be able to obtain a gun license. Of course not everyone who has committed a mass shooting had a violent criminal history or was mentally ill, but it'll surely cut back on some of it.

A violent criminal history or major (harmful) mental illness already are exclusionary factors for legal firearm ownership and purchase.

Which sort of suggests they're highly limited in effect. Sure they deter obvious risk factors, but few if any of the mass shooters of the last twenty years have really fallen into those risk categories.

[Murovanka]

-snip-

Well, I'd first like to see his birth certificate. I'm pretty sure he's Kenyan, and that certainly changes things.

And he's wrong. The NRA says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and why wouldn't it apply to nuclear devices too? After all, they are just tools. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If everyone was armed with a nuclear device, no criminal would dare to do wrong. We did so in the Cold War and we can certainly do so here. The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. And if nukes are banned for honest, upright citizens then only the bad guys will have nukes. ISIS, for example.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well, for starters, people who have a violent criminal history and/or have been diagnosed with a mental illness shouldn't be able to obtain a gun license. Of course not everyone who has committed a mass shooting had a violent criminal history or was mentally ill, but it'll surely cut back on some of it.

A violent criminal history or major (harmful) mental illness already are exclusionary factors for legal firearm ownership and purchase.

Is there even a list of mental issues that would negate someone from owning a weapon? I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that.

[Occupied Deutschland]

-snip-

Well, I'd first like to see his birth certificate. I'm pretty sure he's Kenyan, and that certainly changes things.

And he's wrong. The NRA says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and why wouldn't it apply to nuclear devices too? After all, they are just tools. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If everyone was armed with a nuclear device, no criminal would dare to do wrong. We did so in the Cold War and we can certainly do so here. The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. And if nukes are banned for honest, upright citizens then only the bad guys will have nukes. ISIS, for example.

This remains the dumbest 'point' anyone can make in relation to firearms.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

-snip-

Well, I'd first like to see his birth certificate. I'm pretty sure he's Kenyan, and that certainly changes things.

And he's wrong. The NRA says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and why wouldn't it apply to nuclear devices too? After all, they are just tools. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If everyone was armed with a nuclear device, no criminal would dare to do wrong. We did so in the Cold War and we can certainly do so here. The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. And if nukes are banned for honest, upright citizens then only the bad guys will have nukes. ISIS, for example.

If everyone was armed with a nuclear device I'd be entirely surprised if we manage a year without nuking us all to shit.

People are stupid. You should never trust stupid with a weapon of mass destruction, or any weapon, rather.

Hell, I don't trust myself with a gun and my family owns guns.

[BK117B2]

Terrible news.

Then again, it will happen again, as long as the current policies and attitudes remain in place.

True, until the people who decide to hurt others cease to exist, they're going to keep assaulting, raping, murdering, etc.

Now if only we actually knew a way to change the attitudes of those who desire to harm other people

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, I'd first like to see his birth certificate. I'm pretty sure he's Kenyan, and that certainly changes things.

And he's wrong. The NRA says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and why wouldn't it apply to nuclear devices too? After all, they are just tools. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If everyone was armed with a nuclear device, no criminal would dare to do wrong. We did so in the Cold War and we can certainly do so here. The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. And if nukes are banned for honest, upright citizens then only the bad guys will have nukes. ISIS, for example.

If everyone was armed with a nuclear device I'd be entirely surprised if we manage a year without nuking us all to shit.

People are stupid. You should never trust stupid with a weapon of mass destruction.

Why do you think explosive devices and "destructive devices" are now considered WMD by the US legal system?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If everyone was armed with a nuclear device I'd be entirely surprised if we manage a year without nuking us all to shit.

People are stupid. You should never trust stupid with a weapon of mass destruction.

Why do you think explosive devices and "destructive devices" are now considered WMD by the US legal system?

He said a nuclear device, in this case a nuclear weapon.

But I might be using WMD wrong.

[BK117B2]

A violent criminal history or major (harmful) mental illness already are exclusionary factors for legal firearm ownership and purchase.

Is there even a list of mental issues that would negate someone from owning a weapon? I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that.

I don't know if there is a list of mental illnesses they use or if it is more subjective

[Washington Resistance Army]

If everyone was armed with a nuclear device I'd be entirely surprised if we manage a year without nuking us all to shit.

People are stupid. You should never trust stupid with a weapon of mass destruction.

Why do you think explosive devices and "destructive devices" are now considered WMD by the US legal system?

They are?

[Imperializt Russia]

Why do you think explosive devices and "destructive devices" are now considered WMD by the US legal system?

He said a nuclear device, in this case a nuclear weapon.

But I might be using WMD wrong.

Under US law a "weapon of mass destruction" includes your standard nuclear, chemical, biological fare but also firearms classified as "destructive devices" (certain non-sporting-use shotguns, rifles over .5 inches bore, other things) and "explosive devices".
Tsarnaev was charged with use of a WMD for helping set off two nailbombs. Which I think is retarded.

Though I guess it legitimises the Iraq invasion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why do you think explosive devices and "destructive devices" are now considered WMD by the US legal system?

They are?

I think he's asking me a rhetorical question.

I'm not sure though.

[Uxupox]

I take issue about the prices though. In Puerto Rico a handgun tipically being a GLOCK 9mm to get ilegally would cost around an estimated $200. One that is "Caliente" (Hot) which means it has killed somebody already with it would cost around $75. So in Australia prices might sky rocket but over here in Puerto Rico with it's strict gun laws the prices are very low.

[Imperializt Russia]

I take issue about the prices though. In Puerto Rico a handgun tipically being a GLOCK 9mm to get ilegally would cost around an estimated $200. One that is "Caliente" (Hot) which means it has killed somebody already with it would cost around $75. So in Australia prices might sky rocket but over here in Puerto Rico with it's strict gun laws the prices are very low.

For what it's worth when handguns were being smuggled into the UK with alarming frequency, street prices were circa £3000.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Eh another school shooting, another spate of deaths, it's really nothing new. As long as the American people, their government and elected representatives continue to do nothing except fold-up in the same old circle-jerk of expressions of outrage, accusations and counter-accusations, then Americans will continue to sleep in the bed that they have made for themselves. They sowed the wind and now they're reaping the whirlwind.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Is there even a list of mental issues that would negate someone from owning a weapon? I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that.

I don't know if there is a list of mental illnesses they use or if it is more subjective

A quick Google search couldn't find anything like that, so I'm assuming there isn't one. Which just goes to highlight the problems with the system.

[Salus Maior]

He said a nuclear device, in this case a nuclear weapon.

But I might be using WMD wrong.

Under US law a "weapon of mass destruction" includes your standard nuclear, chemical, biological fare but also firearms classified as "destructive devices" (certain non-sporting-use shotguns, rifles over .5 inches bore, other things) and "explosive devices".
Tsarnaev was charged with use of a WMD for helping set off two nailbombs. Which I think is retarded.

Though I guess it legitimises the Iraq invasion.

Well, to be fair, nail bombs and similar explosives do cause mass destruction/harm depending on how they're used. Obviously they can't be categorized in the same vein as guns

[Imperializt Russia]

Under US law a "weapon of mass destruction" includes your standard nuclear, chemical, biological fare but also firearms classified as "destructive devices" (certain non-sporting-use shotguns, rifles over .5 inches bore, other things) and "explosive devices".
Tsarnaev was charged with use of a WMD for helping set off two nailbombs. Which I think is retarded.

Though I guess it legitimises the Iraq invasion.

Well, to be fair, nail bombs and similar explosives do cause mass destruction/harm depending on how they're used. Obviously they can't be categorized in the same vein as guns

And they can be categorised in the same vein as the Halabja attack, the Tokyo metro attack or the SS-18 Satan?

[Murovanka]

This remains the dumbest 'point' anyone can make in relation to firearms.

Your point being? The Kenyan even made a video rebutting it, so this topic really could be debated.

If everyone was armed with a nuclear device I'd be entirely surprised if we manage a year without nuking us all to shit.

People are stupid. You should never trust stupid with a weapon of mass destruction, or any weapon, rather.

Hell, I don't trust myself with a gun and my family owns guns.

People need to be taught to be responsible nuke owners and to ensure that nukes stay safely away from children.

Stupid is subjective, really. But the logic isn't too hard to grasp, just as Mutually Assured Destruction isn't too hard to grasp. Remember that nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

[Salus Maior]

Well, to be fair, nail bombs and similar explosives do cause mass destruction/harm depending on how they're used. Obviously they can't be categorized in the same vein as guns

And they can be categorised in the same vein as the Halabja attack, the Tokyo metro attack or the SS-18 Satan?

Outside of the Nuke, a nail bomb and the chemical weapons have the same basic use, which is to kill a crowd of people remotely. I imagine that particularly in the metro, a nail bomb would be similarly devastating (although probably more difficult to conceal).

[Hydesland]

What I want to see is reparations from the gun lobbyists & related groups that have exploded the amount of weapons and ammo easily available in the US over the last 100 years, far far more than is needed, and has managed to convince the public that this kind of gun culture is normal and healthy. They've created an irreparable situation as any policy to seriously reduce the availability of guns would either be too draconian, politically impossible or a huge boost organized crime. The public should view these organizations, & the gun companies that backed them to hugely increase their sales over the last century, with scorn and derision, not respect.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What I want to see is reparations from the gun lobbyists & related groups that have exploded the amount of weapons and ammo easily available in the US over the last 100 years...

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

[BK117B2]

What I want to see is reparations from the gun lobbyists & related groups that have exploded the amount of weapons and ammo easily available in the US over the last 100 years, far far more than is needed, and has managed to convince the public that this kind of gun culture is normal and healthy. They've created an irreparable situation as any policy to seriously reduce the availability of guns would either be too draconian, politically impossible or a huge boost organized crime. The public should view these organizations, & the gun companies that backed them to hugely increase their sales over the last century, with scorn and derision, not respect.

So reparations paid by people OTHER than those causing the harm....