Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Mystic Warriors]

Pro gun Democratic Socialist. Pretty much for similar reasons as Conservatives minus maybe 1.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Pro gun Democratic Socialist. Pretty much for similar reasons as Conservatives minus maybe 1.

Minus which one, pray tell?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Pro gun Democratic Socialist. Pretty much for similar reasons as Conservatives minus maybe 1.

Minus which one, pray tell?

The ideology, obviously.

[Mystic Warriors]

Pro gun Democratic Socialist. Pretty much for similar reasons as Conservatives minus maybe 1.

Minus which one, pray tell?

The whole gun culture part. They tend to go a little overboard.

[Ardoki]

No one needs weapon in the USA the right to bear arms is waste of everyone's time. There many countries without the right to bear arms and to my knowledge no extremely bad things have happened. In the case of revolution whether you have right or not you will find the weapons. The establishment has better trained, better funded soldiers that do little else than prepare for war. Not to mention police, FBI, CIA, and NSA. I do not believe our country will descend to that level. The Right has always been militant and frankly dangerous.

Thankfully, it's called the "The Bill of Rights" and not "The Bill of Needs".. Also, I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the world right now where something "extremely bad" hasn't happened in it's history. Human beings are horrible, and will continue to be so regardless if firearms are in the mix or not. Lastly, the argument that you are putting forth that the "establishment" has soldiers therefore rebellion is impossible has been debunked so many times already in not only this thread but several other US Firearm/2A threads that It's just not worth it to post links anymore as clearly, the lot of you who think this refuse to listen.

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

[Ors Might]

Thankfully, it's called the "The Bill of Rights" and not "The Bill of Needs".. Also, I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the world right now where something "extremely bad" hasn't happened in it's history. Human beings are horrible, and will continue to be so regardless if firearms are in the mix or not. Lastly, the argument that you are putting forth that the "establishment" has soldiers therefore rebellion is impossible has been debunked so many times already in not only this thread but several other US Firearm/2A threads that It's just not worth it to post links anymore as clearly, the lot of you who think this refuse to listen.

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

[Ardoki]

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

Better than a mass shooting every single day.

[Ors Might]

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

Better than a mass shooting every single day.

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

[Bahktar]

Better than a mass shooting every single day.

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

Not saying I agree with what Ardoki is necessarily saying - but seems like there is a mass shooting event every nine out of ten days on average.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... n-violence

[Ardoki]

Better than a mass shooting every single day.

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

307 mass shootings in the US between 1 January 2018 and 16 February 2018.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

[Licana]

Not saying I agree with what Ardoki is necessarily saying - but seems like there is a mass shooting event every nine out of ten days on average.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... n-violence

307 mass shootings in the US between 1 January 2018 and 16 February 2018.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Using a definition that could include make a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun a "mass shooting" results in a very high number of "mass shootings," who would have thought?

Lo and behold, a large amount of these incidents have zero fatalities.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Minus which one, pray tell?

The whole gun culture part. They tend to go a little overboard.

Fair 'nuff.

[Ors Might]

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

Not saying I agree with what Ardoki is necessarily saying - but seems like there is a mass shooting event every nine out of ten days on average.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... n-violence

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

307 mass shootings in the US between 1 January 2018 and 16 February 2018.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Yeah, I don’t trust the sources these sites are using. It’s notorious for an absurdly loose definition of gun violence.

[Bahktar]

Not saying I agree with what Ardoki is necessarily saying - but seems like there is a mass shooting event every nine out of ten days on average.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... n-violence

307 mass shootings in the US between 1 January 2018 and 16 February 2018.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Using a definition that could include make a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun a "mass shooting" results in a very high number of "mass shootings," who would have thought?

Lo and behold, a large amount of these incidents have zero fatalities.

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

So, simply because an amount (not as much as you'd think, 1 person at the least dies in a lot of them) of these incidents don't have fatalities means that we should just ignore it, apparently.

"We'll only start paying attention when people start dying," is the same as when people basically implying they'll only start taking action against global warming when Amsterdam is fifty foot under water.


EDIT: I don't see how "four or more people shot" in an incident is a "wildly loose definition". Four people got shot at by a person with a gun? It's a mass shooting.

[Licana]

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

"The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are “shot and/or killed” at “the same general time and location."

Wrong.

So, simply because an amount (not as much as you'd think, 1 person at the least dies in a lot of them) of these incidents don't have fatalities means that we should just ignore it, apparently.

"We'll only start paying attention when people start dying," is the same as when people basically implying they'll only start taking action against global warming when Amsterdam is fifty foot under water.

Strawman.

[Herzegovenia]

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
- Karl Marx

Well, Marx sure thought so.

[Bahktar]

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

"The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are “shot and/or killed” at “the same general time and location."

Wrong.

So, simply because an amount (not as much as you'd think, 1 person at the least dies in a lot of them) of these incidents don't have fatalities means that we should just ignore it, apparently.

"We'll only start paying attention when people start dying," is the same as when people basically implying they'll only start taking action against global warming when Amsterdam is fifty foot under water.

Strawman.

BB gun isn't the same as a real firearm, though?

OK, well, if I say that "I think it's wrong to start caring about something only once there is a large amount of casualties" still a strawman?
I was simply comparing that opinion to something else, which I find equally wrong, but OK.

[Licana]

BB gun isn't the same as a real firearm, though?

The definition doesn't specify firearm. This is why overly broad terms are meaningless.

OK, well, if I say that "I think it's wrong to start caring about something only once there is a large amount of casualties" still a strawman?

No, that's a statement of your beliefs and one that I broadly agree with, but as always context and secondary factors are important.

[Ors Might]

"The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are “shot and/or killed” at “the same general time and location."

Wrong.


Strawman.

BB gun isn't the same as a real firearm, though?

OK, well, if I say that "I think it's wrong to start caring about something only once there is a large amount of casualties" still a strawman?
I was simply comparing that opinion to something else, which I find equally wrong, but OK.

Here’s the thing, the source the sites use incidents in which zero people died and few were injured to buff their numbers. And considering their track record, those incidents could just be some idiot not knowing the gun was loaded.

[Bahktar]

BB gun isn't the same as a real firearm, though?

The definition doesn't specify firearm. This is why overly broad terms are meaningless.

OK, well, if I say that "I think it's wrong to start caring about something only once there is a large amount of casualties" still a strawman?

No, that's a statement of your beliefs and one that I broadly agree with, but as always context and secondary factors are important.

I agree. It doesn't specify firearm. But I'm pretty sure that "mass-shooting" directly implies the use of a firearm, because it relates to an incident involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. However, I guess we're just arguing semantics at this point.

[Bahktar]

BB gun isn't the same as a real firearm, though?

OK, well, if I say that "I think it's wrong to start caring about something only once there is a large amount of casualties" still a strawman?
I was simply comparing that opinion to something else, which I find equally wrong, but OK.

Here’s the thing, the source the sites use incidents in which zero people died and few were injured to buff their numbers. And considering their track record, those incidents could just be some idiot not knowing the gun was loaded.

Someone even trying to kill people and failing to do so, still is a problem and it's still a mass shooting.

I think you would realize the gun is loaded after shooting already once, let alone four times.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

It has. That site has included all sorts of hilariously stupid things to try and pad the numbers and make them higher.

[Ors Might]

Here’s the thing, the source the sites use incidents in which zero people died and few were injured to buff their numbers. And considering their track record, those incidents could just be some idiot not knowing the gun was loaded.

Someone even trying to kill people and failing to do so, still is a problem and it's still a mass shooting.

I think you would realize the gun is loaded after shooting already once, let alone four times.

If someone is trying to kill people, I think the problem is less that they have a gun and more that they might possibly have a mental impairment that requires them to be immediately institutionalized.

[Solar Iran]

Its a bit of a silly question, really. Should Liberals, people characterised by defending people's rights, support the right to bear arms? Yes, it's in the name

[Bahktar]

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

It has. That site has included all sorts of hilariously stupid things to try and pad the numbers and make them higher.

Can you point them to me? I'd like to know.