How about some good old strict constructionism? Logically, the second amendment can only apply to arms that were available in 1791. The gun-loving crowd freaks out when someone confuses automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Who gives a flying fuck? Fuck both of them.
Der, fertilizer and rental trucks have non-violent uses. Assault rifles exist only for killing people. Are you really that fucking retarded?
TLDR: How dare you try to acquaint me with the unwanted consequences of things I like to play with.
Snowflake.
I think the thread’s in really poor taste, and I’m not sure I get it. What’s the record? Why the “USA!! USA!”? Is it because it was a country music concert and country music supporters are stereotypically gun supporters, and there is poetic justice at work, like they got what they deserved?
I sure hope that’s not was meant.
Is the record most people killed by a lone gunman, or with guns in a single incident? Biggest mass killing? What?
270 were killed in Pan Am 103, thousands in 9/11. The Hiroshima Bomb. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 but nearl 700 injured.
I never understand these kind of arguments fully. If McVeigh had tried to get a hand gun to make his attack, and would have killed 7 people before he was gunned down, but couldn’t get the gun so built a bomb and killed 168. Could one say that guns saved 161 lives or that anti-gun laws killed 161?
Is black lives matter bad because one guy interpreted it to mean he should kill cops.
I support stringent controls on all things that make mass killings easy, not just assault weapons.
The real problem is that modern technology puts tremendous amount of potentially destructive power into a variety of readily available means to abuse it, and there are sick people out there that occasionally do.
I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent (I’m not bothering with the one about you being a statistician). We should care about his particulars because it’s important to know who just killed 50+ people…well, to everyone who isn’t trying to use this to spin their own political agenda. It’s important to know why he did what he did. Will it help with the next mass shooting? Almost certainly not, since these are completely random events (black swan events and all that), but still important to know. IMHO. Obviously, to you, what’s important is the OMG GUNZ! It’s the only thing in your OP and what you have focused on pretty much in this thread entirely, with one lame post about how bad this guy was who did it but now back to OMG GUNZ!
It’s kind of sad that you don’t want to know anything about the guy who murdered over 50 people and is uninterested in any of the details except the fact that he used guns. And it’s sad that no one in this thread will probably point this out or point out how fucked up that attitude is.
Classy, to shit all over people’s anger that this shit keeps on happening.
It shouldn’t be ‘politicizing’ a mass murder to be upset about it, and upset that the means for such mass murders continue to be readily available.
I wish we’d have reacted to Newtown or Virginia Tech in a way that made yesterday’s killing spree impossible. But it was apparently wrong to ‘politicize’ those deaths too. And we won’t do anything about the deaths of 58 (so far) people in Las Vegas that will prevent 2023’s big gun massacre. If it’s not ‘classy’ to be upset about that, well then, fuck ‘classy.’ I guess I’m just not a very classy guy.
Why do assholes like you think that the actions of one deranged individual represent the entire population?
What gun was he using, again? 
And where did you get that info? :dubious:
Thanks for the response. You seem like a reasonable person :).
I clipped out that part because it feeds into my ‘slippery slope/gun-grabbers’ theory that any attempt to restrict ownership will lead to cries of gun-grabbin. While I am personally in favor of gun-grabbing (had a nice discussion on Facebook with one of my conservative friends a while back), I don’t know of any serious attempts or proposals by anyone in the Federal government that want to grab anyone’s guns.
Its purpose is to try to break through the walls put up by people like, well, you. Sometimes exposing gun fetishists to the real consequences of their faith gets through.
It is a way of showing that the magnitude of the mass murder problem in the USA is unique to us, and therefore based in a psychological pathology unique to us. It requires understanding and facing that pathology if we’re ever going to fix it.
You, by contrast, are part of the problem.
Only because there are so damn many of you holding us back. We do, as you might have stated if you were being honest, put serious controls on other lethal forms of “modern technology” that are intended to kill people.
Don’t fool yourself: Bricker will lie to try and help his side without a second thought.
Just another isolated incident, like every other one before it, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
How many times have you spread the actions of one libtard to smear all liberals?
The tools in question did not need to be illegal.
It’s been a long time since I fired a rifle, and I’m pretty sure that given 10 or so semi-automatic riles with magazine capacities of 20 rounds (I have no idea if that is a reasonable size for a large magazine or not), that I could have killed 50 people in a large crowd of several hundred/thousand. Not any specify person, but just aiming into the crowd and firing, and changing weapons as one was emptied.
He may or may not have had an illegal automatic weapon, but certainly didn’t need it.
I guess you knew this one was coming…
*DAMASCUS, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) – The Islamic State (IS)’ Amaq news agency said Monday the executioner of the Las Vegas mass shooting was one of its “soldiers.”
Amaq released two short statements; the first claimed that the mass shooter was a soldier of the IS, and the second said he had converted to Islam months ago.*
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/02/c_136655283.htm
Last I heard, ISIS claimed responsibility for the sun setting last night. We’ll see.
He ignored this question multiple times. He’s probably making that assumption because if they were illegally obtained then it doesn’t say as much about the current laws being too lax.
But it does increase exposure of the argument that “We just need better enforcement of the laws we already have” to the response “What are you doing about it, or willing to do about it, then? Looks like you’re fighting that too.”
This seems kind of harsh. I was looking forward to your response to the “Regulated purchasing of nitrate fertilizer” response. Instead, you have seemed to throw some sort of hissy fit. I’ve noticed a distinct difference in your postings recently. That’s too bad.
There’s speculation that what was used was a semi-automatic equipped with what’s called a trigger crank.