The disturbing thing is, I think he does.
Let’s see - isolated, hate-filled loner with anger issues given to rants against imaginary foes. Orlando shooter, or just your average Doper?
Regards,
Shodan
No, but sometimes it makes them wrong.
You cant fight stupid with stupid, because the original stupid is too stupid to learn the lesson.
I don’t know if internet outrage is worth any more than thoughts and prayers. Seems kinda like the other side of the coin. Not that I am opposed to recreational outrage. It can feel good, help you work through something, and may start a debate. But outrage thread to start calling a bunch of other people (who killed no one) evil seems ill-advised.
We have too many guns? Yeah, I think so. We don’t need assault weapons? I can get behind that. We need sensible laws that balance our need for personal protection and public safety and our constitutional rights? Youbetcha! I don’t know how to do that.
If it weren’t for guns and the ease of access, there would have been no tragedy? Uh, no. Him getting the weapon so easily…that is a problem. But a larger problem was that he was a miscreant who wanted to kill a bunch of people and die in a blaze of psycho-glory. I personally think that if he didn’t have a gun, he would have found another way to be Hate’s Poster Boy of the Month. He may have had to put more thought into it, but he seems like he was motivated.
Feb 2, 2001. Five foot three inch 41 year old elementary school principal Norina Bentzel fought off and disarmed a 6 ft Iraqi war veteran wielding a razor sharp machete who was attacking teachers and students. She did so with her bare hands and with no training.
The bolded section was my point. And it remains my point if we substitute the word guns for cars and say “Yeah, guns kill people, but as a society we’ve accepted this as a trade off for the benefits they bring.”
I should point out that the attacker in the case I mention above, William Stankewicz tried to buy a gun on his way to make the attack, but failed the background check. He still managed to injure 11 adults and children, some severely, with his machete. There were no fatalities. I imagine things would have been different had he succeeded in purchasing the gun.
Funny story a while back… In China, someone tried to go on a rampage with a knife. He ended up stabbing 13 people before he was apprehended. Zero fatalities. Isn’t it odd just how few mass killings there are without guns? It’s almost as if all these other tools one can use to murder someone with are infinitely less effective, particularly in the context of multiple victims. You can theoretically overpower a dude with a knife, particularly if there’s multiple people. Rushing the guy with the gun is a good way to become an hero.
So can we treat guns like cars then? Full licensing and registration with periodic re-licensing and re-registration, mandatory education if you want one, insurance requirements, limitations on where, what, when and why you can shoot, depending on circumstances.
I mean, why can’t I drive my top fuel dragster through a school zone at 200mph? Have we lost all sense of freedom?
You can call it whatever you like, but it doesn’t make it accurate. It also exposes an agenda.
So it’s not an assault rifle? How would you describe it, or the purpose for which it was made?
These folks with the encouragement of the government did a lot of damage with blades. Rwandan genocide - Wikipedia
Yep that totally equates with a lone nut with a knife attacking a group of people. :smack:
It’s a pedantic, nitpicky point; the term “assault rifle” generally refers to a medium-powered rifle, fed by a high capacity magazine, that has the option to be fired either semiautomatically or automatically. The murderer in Orlando was using weapons that could only be fired semiautomatically, and which under that definition isn’t an “assault rifle.” The AK-47 and M-16 are assault rifles.
As to the preposterous equivalencies people are trying to draw with knives, well, there’s a reason the world’s armies arm their soldiers with guns, not knives.
These types of topics can be toxic. I understand the anger of the OP, but I don’t agree with everything he says. Sometimes, unconnected people want to empathize, I see no harm in that. When a co-worker whom I do not really hang out with expresses condolences for my loss and offers thoughts and prayers, I know they have no intention of coming over to my house and helping me pack up a loved one’s items, or paying the bills they left, or anything of substance. But, I still recognize they are trying to be kind.
Now, as for the whole gun debate that was started by an individual who somehow thinks we, as a nation, are not part of a social contract…
There are no human rights without a social contract, without governance. Talk about human rights to the people in the past who have been slaughtered and oppressed by the group with more power. The fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is that the collective, as represented by the government, creates certain rights and makes sure they are upheld. I find it so disconcerting how many people are anti-government and anti-regulation when they are blind to the social contract associated with governance.
In general, a society must only regulate personal behavior when there is a compelling state interest. The issue of guns and regulation is one which must also pass this test.
For the record, I am a gun owner. I own about 15 of them, including what would be considered by some circles to be an “assault rifle”. It was a gift from my wife’s grandfather and is a pretty neat weapon. Target shot with it a few times, but for the most part it sits in a gun case.
And no, I do not remember insane regulations as our wayward poster claims. In fact the most I have ever done to own one of my guns is fill out a single form for a .380 I bought my wife for concealed carry. That is it. I think we have carried it a total of 10 times. More bother than what it is worth, but it is a nice weapon to have when we enter situations with elevated threat (exceedingly rare in our society).
The simple fact is that as a gun owner, I am not afraid of reasonable regulation. I am not afraid of “big government” coming to take my things because I support the social contract. I realize I am part of a collective and our collective has issues we must deal with.
It is perfectly reasonable to stipulate that the ownership of a gun should be similar to a car. My apologies, but our founding fathers could not even anticipate what is going on today. We have interpreted the Constitution to expand a lot more with some amendments (and contract in some amendments, such as the 9th and 10th) as the times dictate. The 2nd amendment should not be immune to this.
I, as a law abiding, gun owning citizen support the idea of having to register my guns. I support having to file a title transfer if I move one of my guns to another person. I welcome any background check into me to ensure I should have said gun and I support the idea that my guns should be seized if I commit criminal acts or if I show signs of mental instability. I support the idea that I should have a redress for my grievances and to be heard by an impartial group to recover any guns I may have lost after I have served my time and demonstrated my reentry into society. Or, if I am deemed unfit to own, I should be paid the value of my weapons fair market value plus 50%- so as to discourage “gun grabs” .
I think it is reasonable for officials to periodically and randomly require I show the license for my firearms and/or that I still maintain possession of them. I think it is reasonable that I have to adhere to procedures to secure my weapons as long as the penalties are civil, unless I have been proven to knowingly facilitate criminal activity.
I do not think I should be able to transfer a weapon without registering it and I think to do so could be considered a criminal case if done multiple times. I also think I should have a duty to check the background of the individual to whom I am relinquishing this weapon and the government should provide a relatively simple process to accomplish this, such as the very reasonable department of motor vehicles.
On the other hand, I think “assault weapon bans” and “high capacity magazine bans” are impotent attempts to regulate. They are foolish and silly, as many of the “assault weapons” are just .223 long rifles which are shaped in a manner that, for some reason, make some individuals think it is cool.
This is not an absolute issue. You do not have to be for guns or against guns. I think the individuals who wish to seize all guns are crusaders, and crusaders are dangerous people. I think the individuals who oppose all sensible gun regulations are crusaders, and crusaders are dangerous people.
I like my guns, I clean them every once and a while and I target shoot once in a blue moon. I carried a weapon for years as a required standard issue. The moment I no longer had to do so, I was relieved. It honestly sucks to always have to be accountable, maintain vigilance and holster discipline and never stop for a drink after work. 
There is no reason for anyone to seize my guns, they are a right granted to me by our social contract and I question the devotion to freedom of anyone who wants to come and seize them for no cause.
On the other hand, that social contract also means I am accountable to all of my fellow citizens and I am willing to demonstrate cause to show I should be trusted with these weapons (just like a car) and agree to keep these weapons safe and agree to notify authorities whenever I transfer one.
That is not unreasonable.
See? It’s not even an assault rifle. Perfectly harmless. All those people should be embarrassed that they were killed by it.
Let’s see now.
- He assaulted over 100 people with the weapon. Therefor assault. - check
2a. It was a “long gun”, not a pistol or a cannon.
2b. It had rifling in the barrel.
2c. Therefor it was a rifle by definition. check
Assault and rifle
Assault rifle.
Utterly inconsequential quibble to begin with and it’s not accurate anyway.
…If this is a serious post, consider checking if your rather unique mental status makes you eligible for disability benefits.
Never said it did. It illustrates that governments worldwide and throughout history, especially the 20th century, are far more dangerous than lone nuts. That’s one reason to have a 2nd amendment. Does it suck we do have lone nuts? Yes it does.
And get put on a nut list that would prevent me from buying a 50 caliber? No thank you. How much are these so-called benefits monthly?