Crime Multiple people wounded in Iowa school shooting

[HereticBD]

Why?

Because it's far too late for that. If you disarm the populace from legally owned firearms, the criminals who don't give a fuck and use the millions and millions of illegal guns to fuck around, are gonna victimize the newly disarmed populace.

I say this as Canadian who finds the whole gun culture thing a bit crazy, and don't know how it hasn't erupted into a perpetual civil war. However, it is a culture, and for all the things that could go wrong, having a bunch of random ass shootings occur, isn't nearly as bad as it should be, given the circumstances. It's like a mini nuclear stalemate.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Because it's far too late for that. If you disarm the populace from legally owned firearms, the criminals who don't give a fuck and use the millions and millions of illegal guns to fuck around, are gonna victimize the newly disarmed populace.

I say this as Canadian who finds the whole gun culture thing a bit crazy, and don't know how it hasn't erupted into a perpetual civil war. However, it is a culture, and for all the things that could go wrong, having a bunch of random ass shootings occur, isn't nearly as bad as it should be, given the circumstances. It's like a mini nuclear stalemate.

I'm Australian and see it the same, but with the gun culture in America banning them would be a disaster I'd say.

They did it here after the Port Arthur massacre, well I think it was on semi and fully automatic but it was basically universally lauded here, everyone loved John Howard for one second ha ha

 

[My Spot]

I'm Australian and see it the same, but with the gun culture in America banning them would be a disaster I'd say.

They did it here after the Port Arthur massacre, well I think it was on semi and fully automatic but it was basically universally lauded here, everyone loved John Howard for one second ha ha

I know @Ruprecht has talked about this before but there are actually more guns now in Australia than there were before Port Arthur and the buyback.
Full auto/select fire guns have been banned here since 1986 unless you can afford to spends tens of thousands of dollars on a single gun.
The push from our Democrat Party has always been banning "assault weapons" which are classified based on cosmetic features instead of actual function.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

I know @Ruprecht has talked about this before but there are actually more guns now in Australia than there were before Port Arthur and the buyback.
Full auto/select fire guns have been banned here since 1986 unless you can afford to spends tens of thousands of dollars on a single gun.
The push from our Democrat Party has always been banning "assault weapons" which are classified based on cosmetic features instead of actual function.

True? Well there ya go, i mean i have no real interest in guns or the laws around them so i'll believe that's true.

Well yeah, i certainly do see the Democrat's point around assault weapons, but hey I know by now that i do not understand the gun debate in the US that's for sure!

 

[Iconoclast]

I see Reddit jumping all over this one. As usual, it's one isolated line from his speech and it doesn't accurately reflect what he said, Here's his quote:

"Before going further, I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa. To the entire community: We love you, we pray for you and we ask God to heal and comfort really the whole state and the pain that you have. This is something that's very unique to your state. We're really with you, as much as anybody can be. It's a very terrible thing that happened. And it's just terrible to see that happening. It's just terrible. So surprising to see it here. But, we have to get over it. We have to move forward. We have to move forward. But, to the relatives and to all of the people that are so devastated right now, to a point they can't breathe, they can't live, we are with you all the way. We're with you and we love you and cherish you."

Just a standard politician speech. He doesn't have the balls to be real and suggest a solution. He wants to stay in office. It's that simple.

 

[GergreG]

Because it's far too late for that. If you disarm the populace from legally owned firearms, the criminals who don't give a fuck and use the millions and millions of illegal guns to fuck around, are gonna victimize the newly disarmed populace.

I say this as Canadian who finds the whole gun culture thing a bit crazy, and don't know how it hasn't erupted into a perpetual civil war. However, it is a culture, and for all the things that could go wrong, having a bunch of random ass shootings occur, isn't nearly as bad as it should be, given the circumstances. It's like a mini nuclear stalemate.

TLDR ... if something in life is too difficult, just forget about it and hopefully it will just sort itself out?

 

[HereticBD]

TLDR ... if something in life is too difficult, just forget about it and hopefully it will just sort itself out?

Well, you think about it, and don't do anything drastic that will make the problem worse.

Your solution to guns, is really no different than a hard liner's solution to drugs. Ban them and throw everyone in jail doesn't really solve such a wide spread issue.

 

[shockaholic12]

I see Reddit jumping all over this one. As usual, it's one isolated line from his speech and it doesn't accurately reflect what he said, Here's his quote:

"Before going further, I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa. To the entire community: We love you, we pray for you and we ask God to heal and comfort really the whole state and the pain that you have. This is something that's very unique to your state. We're really with you, as much as anybody can be. It's a very terrible thing that happened. And it's just terrible to see that happening. It's just terrible. So surprising to see it here. But, we have to get over it. We have to move forward. We have to move forward. But, to the relatives and to all of the people that are so devastated right now, to a point they can't breathe, they can't live, we are with you all the way. We're with you and we love you and cherish you."

It's exactly what he said. He says a bunch of flowery politician speak about pain and loss and "so surprising to see" (it's literally what you expect when you a public area is trending nowadays) then proposes the community gets over it as the immediate response.

It's using the event as opportunity to let everyone know he's not going to pursue gun reform in response to kids getting shot up going into the election. But sure, he included a paragraph of polite talk about him praying to god (sure bud) before he made his point.

 

[GergreG]

Well, you think about it, and don't do anything drastic that will make the problem worse.

Your solution to guns, is really no different than a hard liner's solution to drugs. Ban them and throw everyone in jail doesn't really solve such a wide spread issue.

Show me where I suggested a solution? Where did I say any of this? .... ban them and throw everyone in jail..... Where did I say this?

 

[HereticBD]

Show me where I suggested a solution? Where did I say any of this? .... ban them and throw everyone in jail..... Where did I say this?

When you questioned why they shouldn't just disarm everyone. What do you think that would entail?

 

[GergreG]

When you questioned why they shouldn't just disarm everyone. What do you think that would entail?

No. I was asking Rob to expand on his comment or opinion. I wasn't and didn't offer a solution or opinion of my own whatsoever.

 

[HereticBD]

No. I was asking Rob to expand on his comment or opinion. I wasn't and didn't offer a solution or opinion of my own whatsoever.

Not explicitly, but you're not exactly coming off as someone who is just asking questions. You seemingly got defensive when someone suggested that you can't just disarm everyone, and then took issue with my stance that it's too late to even attempt that. That doesn't come across as you not taking a position. That comes across as you having a position that involves disarming people, and challenging people who disagree with it.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

That isn't a patronizing statement, some people regardless of their stance on guns just want to express something after a tragedy

That's about the lowest effort expression possible though. You can actually pray in the quiet of your own home without posting about it, along with a bunch of other things that nobody cares about

 

[djacobox372]

True? Well there ya go, i mean i have no real interest in guns or the laws around them so i'll believe that's true.

Well yeah, i certainly do see the Democrat's point around assault weapons, but hey I know by now that i do not understand the gun debate in the US that's for sure!

The gun debate in the US is pretty simple. The US constitution has carved out a right for citizens to be armed in such a way as to make possible a citizen militia--for the express purpose of defense of a "free state."

This right makes it very difficult to legally ban any weapon that a typical soldier may use, even "weapons of war."

"A well regulated (prepared) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to enact meaningful gun control the constitution would need to be amended, otherwise we're setting a precedent that our government can just ignore our rights. Even if you hate guns and want them all banned, you need to do it the right way.

 

[Zazen]

I honestly never understood the fear of gun bans. It’s just not going to happen. remember sandy hook? 20 some little kids murdered and no action was taken.

 

[panamaican]

I honestly never understood the fear of gun bans. It’s just not going to happen. remember sandy hook? 20 some little kids murdered and no action was taken.

There's no legitimate threat of gun bans but politicians need to pretend they have solutions and other politicians need to pretend that they're defending us from something.

The realistic solutions don't get discussed because everyone jumps to the extremes.

Someone is going to ask me about realistic solutions. Realistic solutions should be punishments that force people to self-police. To make up an example -- if your gun is used in a crime, you share in the criminal culpability. The extent of culpability requires some detailed planning but the outline is pretty straightforward. It would allow people to continue to buy firearms but make them responsible to securing them from other parties.

I think gun registries are fine. We have registries for all sorts of government related activities and commercial purchases. You buy a house? It's public record. You buy a car? Register before you can use it on public roads. You want to vote? Register and public record. There's no reason something that simple shouldn't apply to firearms. Create a chain of ownership, partner it with the above self-policing elements and now you have a population that is incentivized to keep their guns away from people they think might be a problem.

I'm for the militia element but let's not pretend that 50 dudes with semi-automatic rifles are going to meaningfully resist the government if it ever turned it's attention to them. Registering the firearms and ownership chain isn't impacting anyone's rights.

For new buyers, it's going to be a little bit more complicated. But it's one more reason, all sales should be monitored in some way. If Target can accurately predict when a woman will give birth based on internet activity, I find it hard to believe that when some random person buys 3 firearms out of nowhere that, if properly alerted, we can't determine if that person is giving off bad signs.

 

[jefferz]

The gun debate in the US is pretty simple. The US constitution has carved out a right for citizens to be armed in such a way as to make possible a citizen militia--for the express purpose of defense of a "free state."

This right makes it very difficult to legally ban any weapon that a typical soldier may use, even "weapons of war."

"A well regulated (prepared) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to enact meaningful gun control the constitution would need to be amended, otherwise we're setting a precedent that our government can just ignore our rights. Even if you hate guns and want them all banned, you need to do it the right way.

Why did you add the word prepared? That’s not what the 2nd says.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why?

Well, A. it’s impossible B. It’s constitutionally prohibited. C. It leaves law abiding citizens unprotected against criminals D. It leaves Americans open to tyranny(see B.)

 

[Frank Kain]

The Iowa shooter, the last trans shooter, the non-binary school shooters. These people are being radicalized with false propaganda and are increasingly lashing out. They act as if peoples refusal to play their gender game is literally genocide against them. The left have gone off the rails with this shit.

Is that what you take out of the last 20 plus years of public/mass shooters? I see a lot of folks with persecution complexes. And a lot of them are crazy white dudes from Charles Whitman onwards. The late 90s especially onwards has just been a crazy amount of white folk hate. From my perspective.

 

[GergreG]

Not explicitly, but you're not exactly coming off as someone who is just asking questions. You seemingly got defensive when someone suggested that you can't just disarm everyone, and then took issue with my stance that it's too late to even attempt that. That doesn't come across as you not taking a position. That comes across as you having a position that involves disarming people, and challenging people who disagree with it.

With all due respect I think you may have overthunk my question (why) and comments. Sure I find it strange and a little upsetting what has been happening for such a long time and it's fascinating that so many Americans put 'their right to bear arms' above their desire to keep their children safe. But I'm not American. I don't understand the mentality. I'm not a part of the problem and I'm not a part of the solution. I think many Americans turn into a bunch of fucking Karen's at the mere suggestion of any form of gun control when, as us Sherdoggers know, filling the room with uppercuts is a much better alternative.