Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

Unfortunately the stories about someone using a legally owned gun to protect a home or family is much less frequent than stories of homicides and mass shootings. You know what else would stop an intruder in your home? A good security system.. that probably costs the same as a weapon + training. And a Louisville slugger by your bed helps.

Outside your home it is even less frequent. At this most recent shooting, how many people do you think had weapons? Probably a whole bunch. Didn't help at all. And in fact.. name one mass shooting in the last 20 years where someone carrying a weapon was able to stop the mass shooting. Here OR abroad. Just doesn't happen, in reality.

While we should keep our rights.. people should at least honestly admit it's not working how it is set up now. Something needs to be done different. You can't keep things -exactly- as they are, and expect them to be any different, year after year. This is going to keep happening.

Oh - and reported regarding bump stocks:

Brice Jager, owner of Iowa Gun in Walnut, Iowa, said that although bump stocks do not require background checks, he conducts his own. He said he rejects customers who smell like alcohol or marijuana or "if they look a little unstable."

Yea.. our vetting process is pretty awesome. Leaving it up to store owner to decide for himself if someone is high.. drunk.. or "looks unstable." It's awesome he does that.. but the fact that he does, tells you.. something isn't right in the process.

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: [post=22727312]
It would be fair to say millions of law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished for the deeds of one nutjob.

How is not allowing a regular citizen carry a weapon be considered as a punishment?

Or is mass shootings (and gun violence) now just part of our daily lives? Just another daily occurrence we have to live with?

Yes.

A "regular citizen".... pardon me while I snort. Are you from the States? Because even the liberals here know we have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of keeping at bay a tyrannical government.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: [post=22727312]
It would be fair to say millions of law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished for the deeds of one nutjob.

How is not allowing a regular citizen carry a weapon be considered as a punishment?

Or is mass shootings (and gun violence) now just part of our daily lives? Just another daily occurrence we have to live with?

Yes.

A "regular citizen".... pardon me while I snort. Are you from the States? Because even the liberals here know we have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of keeping at bay a tyrannical government.

But do you actually think that makes any sense at all today. Cos I don't.

How exactly is an armed citizen keeping the tyrannical government at bay? It's laughable.

Self defense, hunting, sports are valid reasons. Others are just getting stupid.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

we have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of keeping at bay a tyrannical government.

Second amendment:

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.

What is this militia? Article 1 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power :

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Where is the express part you mentioned? I can't seem to find it expressed.

a reply to: Phage

That's interesting. Sounds like the real intention is to have an armed militia under the control of congress, or an army by any other name. Made up of citizens.
Did they pay the militia, or was it a way of getting a free army?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SudoNim

Why would I give up any of my weapons when I am not going to shoot anyone without them needing to be shot due to self defense?

Are you telling me that individual rights, as protected by the constitution, is dead? If the individuals shot in "mass shootings" (a nice new phrase that is being bantered about) have issue with their rights to not be shot, that is between them and the perpetrator of that crime.

How does the rest of the population know you aren't going to shoot anyone with them.

Do you think criminals walk around with big signs on their forehead? [SNIPPED]

You'll give them up because it would be the law, just like you give up anything else that is illegal lest become a criminal yourself.

The constitution didn't give you that "right". Jesus christ it's like talking to child trying to pack away his favourite toy.

"But its my right its my right"

Do you ignore all laws that were brought in after the constitution or just the ones that you don't agree with?

a reply to: SudoNim

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You'll give them up because it would be the law, just like you give up anything else that is illegal lest become a criminal yourself.

Just because you have no problem letting your government take away your rights as then cool but we Americans will fight for ours.

originally posted by: SudoNim

How does the rest of the population know you aren't going to shoot anyone with them.

?

Why does it matter what society knows. Society doesnt have rights, people do. Individual people. Nonetheless we do notand should not try to enforce minority report justice

Do you think criminals walk around with big signs on their forehead? Don't be an idiot.

To be criminal you have to commit crime. They have a big old sign in their criminal history. Not their forehead.

And dont call me names.

You'll give them up because it would be the law, just like you give up anything else that is illegal lest become a criminal yourself.

Nope. I wont. Because the actual criminals wont. And im an obstinate SOB.

Besides...you logic hasnt held true with drugs...so what makes you believe what you are saying?

The constitution didn't give you that "right". Jesus christ it's like talking to child trying to pack away his favourite toy.

Correct. The constitution protects it. The right comes from our creator, whatever that may be. It derives from the natural righta creature has to defend itself.

If you have to insult to debate you castrate you own argument.

"But its my right its my right"

Do you ignore all laws that were brought in after the constitution or just the ones that you don't agree with?

Ill ignore any law i think unjust. Because the laws are there to makr politicians and overlords happy. Piss on them.

Oops

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: SudoNim

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You'll give them up because it would be the law, just like you give up anything else that is illegal lest become a criminal yourself.

Just because you have no problem letting your government take away your rights as then cool but we Americans will fight for ours.

Stop trying to make it sound heroic.

Its pathetic and sad, grown men wanting guns for nothing more than their ego. Happy to ignore the safety of their families and the impact on society all they can do is mumble "2nd amendment its our right" out of their drooling mouth.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Why does it matter what society knows. Society doesnt have rights, people do. Individual people. Nonetheless we do notand should not try to enforce minority report justice

... you mentioned it. Why did you mention it if it wasn't an important factor to your argument?

What the hell are you talking about Minority report justice? Do you not agree with any law unless it's a crime that occurs for the majority of people?

Why have laws about crashing a plane, it doesn't happen that often.

To be criminal you have to commit crime. They have a big old sign in their criminal history. Not their forehead.
And dont call me names.

So by your theory everyone who is or ever will become a criminal is already a criminal. Nice thinking.

[SNIPPED]

Nope. I wont. Because the actual criminals wont. And im an obstinate SOB.

Very true, criminals won't because you would be the criminal. And others can be free to tell you if you don't like it get the f# out their country.

Besides...you logic hasnt held true with drugs...so what makes you believe what you are saying?

Yes it has. You do realise that making some illegal isn't going to rid the world of it, but its a deterrent and an obstacle.

Correct. The constitution protects it. The right comes from our creator, whatever that may be. It derives from the natural righta creature has to defend itself.

So guns for animals right? Creator? The hell you talking about... I don't recall Jebus or whatever fantasy character it is you believe exists wrote the 2nd amendment did they? Or do you believe they did .

If you have to insult to debate you castrate you own argument.

If you get offended so easily by mean words maybe you shouldn't be such a snowflake... or hell, you've got guns start shooting!

Ill ignore any law i think unjust. Because the laws are there to makr politicians and overlords happy. Piss on them.

And YOU decide what is just? So basically you will quote and hide behind the laws/constitution/amendments when you agree with them... but if you don't your happy to ignore them. What kind of ignorant contradicting BS is that?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Gaspode

Interesting theory.

Cigarettes kill people every day.
We regulated and taxed the crap out of them.
Still killing more people than guns.

You aren't really suggesting that the casualties in Vegas took many years to shoot themselves, now do you?

originally posted by: thesaneone
Just because you have no problem letting your government take away your rights as then cool but we Americans will fight for ours.

Yeah. Like you fight for the right to be healed, helped and cured by eliminating your health care acts...

originally posted by: Gaspode
Some time ago, one person said to another: "There are too many suicides."
And the other one said: "Yeah. So. If someone wants to die let them."
Or maybe: "But what can we do? We are just ordinary people. Surely the government must be able to do something?"
And the conversation started.

I would argue that the conversation ends when someone utters words to the effect of, "Surely the government must be able to do something."

The government is not the answer--it should start with the individual, then move to family and friends, then local communities (including volunteers and charities), and so on. The last stop should be government, not the first...or second...or, IMO, any of the stops, really.

I hear you. But it's a bit of a double-edged sword. A multi-edged sword?

Maybe a Shuriken?

When a president sends troops abroad to "protect our freedom", it is done with the heart. Because patriotism, the American way of life, the American flag, apple pie and white picket fences. Those are all matters of the heart, not the mind. And that weight in bodies - as our Furry Texan friend points out - is beyond measure. It is even heavier than we could possibly imagine. And the price being paid is for the freedom you and me and BFFT treasure so much.
So, do we stop sending our young men and women abroad because the price is too high, but then face the possibility of losing the freedom? (Because politicians said so?)

First, I would argue that the reason that we send our troops abroad nowadays is not to protect our freedom, but our special interests. The reason doesn't stem from the heart, but the wallet and hubris that we as a nation need to always be in charge of conflict and be the world's police. But my beliefs on the subject align pretty heavily with the libertarian ideals when it comes to war, so you may be asking the wrong person.

Even so, protection of our rights is not a matter of the heart, it absolutely is a matter of the mind. Our country is based on a constitution that allows our government to pay for wars that protect us from the destruction of our ability to maintain our country--threats to national security, if you will.

But I fully admit that our current, modern wars are not necessarily fought from this point of view, and certainly not concerning the length of time that we've been at war. But I fear it comes from the back pocket and not the chest cavity.

As for the price being measured in the weight of bodies--I don't even want to get started on that, because I already feel that we're in wars that we don't need to be in and are not being fought under the approach of get in, win, and get out. We are wasting American lives in wars that we cannot win in the long term.

I fully understand that this may be a disagreeable position to some, but it's my position, and having been in the military and my wife as well, it has taken me a lot to admit that over the years.

The question "If you were given the opportunity to save a single human life - that is 0.000000001343724805159903% of the earth’s population – by some action you take, would you do it?" was obviously one such question.
What strikes me from the responses is that you saw this as a negative moment. The very vague scenario doesn't say what type of action, but you assumed the worse.
...
Or maybe you're not a pessimist, but a realist and saw the question in the big picture and assumed it was about gun control?

Yes, I'm a realist, and you must note that I said, " if the thing that is being proposed that might save a human life negatively affects 323.1-Million other people by negating their rights, the answer should be an obvious and emphatic 'No!'"

I said "if;" I didn't think that I would have to say that if giving $100 to someone would stop them from starving to death, or giving my time and effort could save a life, or pulling my firearm and shooting an evil man before he mows down 59 people and injures others, that I would do such things in a heartbeat. Hell, I follow traffic-light laws and stop when the light is red--that in and of itself saves lives every day, because I depress the brake pedal at appropriate times.

I know that I'm slightly making light of the original question, but again, I didn't think that it must be noted that I--or even the vast majority of human beings--would jump into a swimming pool to save a drowning toddler. But when most of a thread is on the topic of gun control, that is where I assumed that you were going.

It's just an observation. It does however remind us that our thoughts/way of thinking differ too much; that we (as a nation or species) would never find ourselves in a position to find a solution to the problem of innocent deaths.

I don't think that this has anything to do with differing thought processes or approaches to problems, I just simply think that some things in life have no solution because, at the foundation of being human is that we have flaws and impulses and free will to do whatever we want, regardless of laws or threats or similar things meant to inhibit or stop certain actions.

a reply to: Gaspode

I would never ask you to switch off empathy/sympathy, but in regards to seeking solutions to problems, they do need to be regressed long enough to let logic take control. "Appeal to Emotion" is a logical fallacy for a reason, because it attempts to jettison logical processes and promote relatively thoughtless actions (knee-jerk reactions, so to speak).

There absolutely is a place for emotions, and I go through mine on a daily basis, sometimes multiple times a day, but that doesn't mean that, when it's time to get down to brass tacks, I can't "put on my thinking cap" for the task at hand. I'm not saying that anyone on here is being thoughtless, I'm just saying that solutions often do not lend themselves well to heavy emotions, but problems often do.

I do want to point out – and I don’t know whether you would admit this to me or yourself – but from where I’m sitting you get emotional about the topic as well. Only difference is you get emotional about guns. You might feel like you are logical and composed about the matter, but one does not get as passionate in a discussion without there being emotion. May I ask – you don’t need to answer – but do/did you get upset about the loss of life? Do you get involved in the discussion(s) because of the fact that a madman took innocent lives or because the topic of gun control immediately surfaced? I’m not accusing you of not having sympathy or empathy. I’m saying our motives for taking part in the discussion is probably different.

I get passionate, yes, both about the taking of innocent lives and about talk about usurping the rights of Americans. I absolutely go upset over the attack--in fact, something woke me up at 3:45am (Eastern Time) that morning and for some reason I felt compelled to turn on the news. In my tired stupor, I laid in my bed watching the death toll rise from a couple people to nearly 60, and those wounded from a few dozen to over 500. I absolutely got emotional over it, and I'm more of an empath-type person than anyone on ATS will ever know. I often attribute that fact to why I try to be so logical in these discussions versus emotional, as it's a way to balance out my empathy abundance.

I join in ANY conversation where I feel like rights are being attempted to be nullified by people with political agendas--agendas often based on emotion and attempts to garner votes more than logic (which is what our Congress and government actually needs). Our nation was built on logic, and much of our constitution was in direct opposition to the emotions of many at the time, but they knew that it would be better for the long-run of the nation.

Whether my focus is on gun control or the victims is really irrelevant, but I felt it appropriate to answer, since you asked. I don't hide much, as I'm sure that you've noticed. But, yes, I know that I'm not a robot, but when I argue things, I support with facts and stats to back them up, and I try very hard to avoid logical fallacies--but I'm certainly not immune to passion or anger or anything, and I never want to be. I just try not to communicate that way on ATS very often.

It sounds a lot like you are diminishing the deaths of 59 people that died this weekend. Were they just numbers? Would it be OK if 59 or even just 5 people were senselessly killed every day? Or 1? I mean looking at the bigger picture that’s how much of a fraction of the population, so it’s basically zero? And when your wife’s number come up? Or your child’s number come up? Will it matter then? Yes, it’s the emotion card. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

Yes, this absolutely is an appeal to emotion, and not a logical approach to responding to my comment. The point that I made is a valid point when it comes to why laws should exist in the first place. When a law is designed around nearly an absolute-zero point of the population, yet negatively affects the rights of 100% of the population, I have a problem with that.

I will point out my Jefferson quote one more time and then we can end this emotional appeal--even if my family was affected in a mass shooting, I would still advocate for the second amendment, and my wife would as well if it happened to me. It wasn't fun that night that I watched my wife leave to deploy to Iraq and I returned home with tears in my eyes to a two-year-old who was now going to be without a mother for at least a year, and possibly forever, but I felt (at that time in 2006) that it was for the greater good and a sacrifice worth making. I'm not immune to heavy sacrifices in the past, and I'm not immune to the fact that it could happen at any time. My family is more likely to get killed every time that they drive in a vehicle that by a madman with a firearm, but I don't freak out every time that I see people killed in a vehicular accident and advocate for superficial laws that will, in the end, have no real effect on the problem of traffic accidents.

This is exceptionally similar to my mindset on guns as it relates to crazy-ass maniacs. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on that and move on from that line of discussion? But don't disregard my emotions just because I don't use them regularly in my arguments on ATS.

I see your Jefferson quote, and I raise you an Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

No one is doing nothing--that's the problem with the cry from many about 'needing to talk about gun control' or 'needing to do something.' We have done things to address violence with guns and accessibility of guns to people who shouldn't have them--but, because of a fresh atrocity, we throw all of this out the window and look for anything--and little thing--that can be done to superficially seem like we're trying hard.

I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm saying that's what people who have the power to legislate do every. single. time. something like this occurs, and it's also what they do every time an election comes up. We have our government officials who politicize this stuff rather than lead in grieving and actually responding like human beings, and it bleeds more and more into the way that the general public is reacting. This is why I get so passionate about people who immediately jump to politically charged reactions--they steal away my ability to grieve and taint it with false outrage in search of votes and support.

I can't help but think that Mr. Burke would say, "Gaspode, my comment doesn't apply to this situation." Maybe that's just me talking

a reply to: Phage

You really should dive into researching the reasoning behind the second amendment--there's plenty of preserved writings from the founding fathers on the issue of why the second amendment was ratified into the constitution.

To get you started: The Founding Fathers Explain the Second Amendment.

I mean, these are the words of the people who actually participated in discussing and writing the constitution, so their reasoning should leave you well enough satisfied, even if the final wording of the amendment doesn't specifically discuss it. Here are a few, just for ease of reference:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“To disarm the people…is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

So, do I need to supply further proof of the intent of the Founding Fathers concerning the reasoning behind the second amendment, or does that suffice? These should be plenty of proving statement to satisfy your need for the "express purpose" that you claim not to know about--maybe because you didn't look very hard?

Americans right now.

I need a gun for the safety of my family, it has nothing to do with my ego.

Come out to Arizona and sit on my property and see what happens when you try to shoo away some of the wild animals that destroy my property and livestock.

originally posted by: thesaneone
I need a gun for the safety of my family, it has nothing to do with my ego.

Come out to Arizona and sit on my property and see what happens when you try to shoo away some of the wild animals that destroy my property and livestock.

Your family would be statistically safer if you didn't own a gun. Facts that you seem to ignore because YOU personally would rather believe the fantasy. That's your ego.