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

a reply to: Wayfarer

Around 6,800.

That's how many were estimated to have died in the Revolutionary war on the American side. It's estimated 17,000 more may have died due to conditions while held as POWs during that war.

Those people die so that the US would exist, with it's government and the Constitution that was later ratified.

Those people died so that others would have the right to freedom and liberty.

Apparently you would rather we just give that away?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
If i didn't kill anyone, why would I need to have to give up anything?

In the US we have a concept (albeit, dying it seems) known as "individual liberty". The rights of society cannot impede my rights as an individual.

To answer your question, I believe the answer to be "because by giving up something you can save peoples lives".

You are of course correct regarding the concept of liberty. Unfortunately (in my opinion) for many US citizens there is no death-toll high enough, no amount of their own family slaughtered by gun violence, no 'blood price' that would cause them to shift this stance voluntarily. It almost seems in an obtuse sense that fighting for gun rights is akin to fighting for the right to have the option/ability to kill wholesale. I personally don't like the idea of perpetuating a society (especially one that shuns healthcare and mental healthcare especially) that has that kind of widespread capability. Yes cars ramming into crowds can cause huge death-tolls, home-made bombs can as well, but I deign to think there are much more efficacious options and means of thwarting those than guns.

Lastly, I also understand that there are many who disagree with me and are fine with however many people die to gun violence and don't believe guns have anything to do with it, so I'm not operating in a vacuum of perspective.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity

Those people die so that the US would exist, with it's government and the Constitution that was later ratified.

Those people died so that others would have the right to freedom and liberty.

Apparently you would rather we just give that away?

I would rather give away a singular aspect of our right to freedom and liberty (gun ownership) if it means saving many lives. I believe we are so far past (in a deficient way) the ability to militarily resist our government that the original reason for it existing is no longer applicable.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You don't have to recognize the emotional aspect of it to answer the question.

Let me rephrase for you: How many people would you let die to keep your guns?

There's really only one answer to a question like that: All of them.


Because once you've surrendered your guns, whoever has issued you this ultimatum would come in and kill/torture/enslave everyone left. It would be perfectly easy for them to do, since all you could resist with then are ancient weapons.

It has been done before and quite well documented how groups of people were then rounded up and killed.

and I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a dangerous and messy free society than live under a "benevolent" regime where they are keeping me "safe" from "everything" (except the whims of the "leaders" of course).

a reply to: Thanatos0042

Fair enough, and again like I said earlier to another I applaud you at least making peace with the reality of it.

That being said, could you describe to me how the government dropping a hellfire missile on you from an MQ-9 reaper could be fought against with whatever weaponry you have at your disposal?

a reply to: Wayfarer

But that's just it. You're imagining something that would be bloodless and I assure you: It would be anything but bloodless.

Your "solution" would amount to nothing more than many more people getting killed and imprisoned.

Do not assume that Americans would be like sheep and simply give up their weapons. So not assume that there would simply be no more firearms simply because the sales of them were stopped.

Do you have ANY idea how long a well maintained firearm lasts?

Ammo? ha.......yah, that's something that will be stock piled quite a bit, and you can count on the many millions of people who own all the materials to do reloads will also have that stock piled.

Then of course there would be all the smooth bore replicas.....not to mention homemade guns (quite easy to make) which would only require shot and gun powder.

How do you make gun powder? Quite easily actually.

Do you honestly think that US citizens are nothing more than cowed sheep who would run bleating to the nearest Turn Your Firearms In Here facility willingly?

Anyone who thinks that really does not understand American gun culture.

Your solution is the same as: You have a cut on your arm that is infected - Solution: Cut off the arm.

originally posted by: Wayfarer


To answer your question, I believe the answer to be "because by giving up something you can save peoples lives".

Really?

You don't KNOW this to be true. Remember: the US government has exported untold numbers of firearms into the banana republics to our south. In fact, its likely where the m249 saw used by the shooter came from. That gun isn't legal to own by anyone, even with a tax stamp. And lets not forget that the lions share of gun violence happens along our southern border and in big cities. We can't do much with the southern border, and big cities already outlaw guns. Im just not sure I buy your assertion here.

In fact, i can say with conviction that it would COST lives, as people who live in rural areas and need guns to protect themselves and their animals would no longer have them. I guess they could call the sheriff about that bear tearing through the outer wall of the house. If the roads are passable, maybe the sheriff will get there in time. I know that just the simple armadillos dug enough holes in my backyard that my elderly dog dislocated both her knees one day running. The wildlife presents a real issue to those of us not living in a concrete jungle.

You are of course correct regarding the concept of liberty. Unfortunately (in my opinion) for many US citizens there is no death-toll high enough, no amount of their own family slaughtered by gun violence, no 'blood price' that would cause them to shift this stance voluntarily. It almost seems in an obtuse sense that fighting for gun rights is akin to fighting for the right to have the option/ability to kill wholesale. I personally don't like the idea of perpetuating a society (especially one that shuns healthcare and mental healthcare especially) that has that kind of widespread capability. Yes cars ramming into crowds can cause huge death-tolls, home-made bombs can as well, but I deign to think there are much more efficacious options and means of thwarting those than guns.

Lets be realistic and relevant here. Among the top 10 causes of death in the US, guns don't even rank. But the stuff that does rank....heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease are all caused by eating sugar. If and when we outlaw sugar in the US, i can potentially consider doing something regarding increasing gun laws. But you are talking about high hanging fruit that is solely an issue of emotion and not logic. If you want to actually save lives, ignore guns and look at sugar. Not only will you save lives, you will improve the lives of millions. I mean, whats swapping one tyranny for another, right?

Lastly, I also understand that there are many who disagree with me and are fine with however many people die to gun violence and don't believe guns have anything to do with it, so I'm not operating in a vacuum of perspective.

I just think people who use terms like "gun violence" are purposefully misrepresenting statistics. "Gun violence" is simply violence. Would you rather be clubbed to death? Stabbed? Hit by a car? Is there a preferred way to die violently? Why single out "gun violence" as if it is something special. Violence is violence, and if you aren't wanting to reduce violence on the whole, all you are doing is perpetuating half truths as truths.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Thanatos0042

Fair enough, and again like I said earlier to another I applaud you at least making peace with the reality of it.

That being said, could you describe to me how the government dropping a hellfire missile on you from an MQ-9 reaper could be fought against with whatever weaponry you have at your disposal?

You do nothing about the missile. Instead you focus your offense on a softer target that you can reach successfully.

This scenario assumes the people fighting the government are imbeciles.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks.

Who is to say the government would actually do that? Keep in mind that despite our advanced military we didn't do so well in Vietnam. We haven't done so well fighting terrorist cells either....American military might isn't what it used to be and there are newer and more advanced ways of fighting against it that have proven quite effective in the last couple of decades.

Sure, in a stand up, toe-to-toe fight, odds are definitely against a resistance force, but I don't think it would be one of those kind of fights.

After all, they will want to quell the rebellion with a minimum of innocent civilian casualties. This doesn't even include collateral damage from infrastructure damage that would have to be rebuilt after a Civil War. A broke government is one that won't be functioning.

Also, If the government starts to kill too many, other people will stand up and fight once they see the government doesn't care if they get caught in the crossfire. Sure, you'll have people who will still stand with the government, but probably not the majority. The roots of what founded this country runs pretty deep in most people.

So, lets look at some numbers - the US Military has what, 2.5ish million active and inactive members. Not all of them will stick with the government and turn on their own citizens. And they are spread around the world...with quite a bit of the existing military equipment...of which quite a bit they leave behind, some given to the country they leave it in and some destroyed. They would all have to be recalled and I don't see that happening realistically.

There are estimates of 270 to 310 million gun owners in America. Even if only 10% rise up, that's a significant number. Bear in mind that some of those are also going to be your paramilitary fanatics, who would actually be a boon in this kind of situation instead of the bane they currently are.Quite a few people now also own drones that are nearly as sophisticated as what the military has too.

While many do not have access to fully automatic weapons, I don't that that would ultimately matter. The phrase "spray and pray" exists for a reason lol.

So, I don't think it would be as clean cut as you suppose with your "what if they drop a hellfire missile on you" - but to answer your question, I would die in a fire - and I would be OK with that because Jesus, I do not want to live long enough to have to survive through any kind of Civil War lol

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It was just a hypothetical. The crux of the question is "are there any people that you love that you would willingly sacrifice to keep your guns".

Here's a hypothetical: Are there any people that you love that you willingly fight to the death for before willingly relinquishing your best bet at saving their lives before trusting in the promises of kidnappers?

a reply to: Wayfarer

That MQ-9 Reaper has a base, no? An operator? It requires fuel to fly. The Reaper itself may be untouchable while it's in the air with my weapon(s), but none of its support systems are invulnerable.

Same with any of the other supposedly invincible systems out there.

Does no one pay attention to what's been happening in Iraq or Afghanistan? Those same invincible systems are, by many accounts, very vincible.

That's not to say it'd be easy. It wouldn't be, it'd be damned dangerous, but doable.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think ultimately there is an argument to be made for continued occupational uses for guns, but does that really require a gun that can fire so many rounds in such a short time. A bolt action .30-06 would suffice to stop a bear I would think, and it wouldn't be able to kill almost 60 people in 2 minutes either.

a reply to: seagull

Perhaps, but I've worked in the defense industry, and I would be quite surprised if any kind of home grown militia could do much against our troops (assuming the government could actually get the troops to turn on the people).

I agree with the approach you and Texan have outlined though, its just that I would still put the overwhelming odds of success on the government forces.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think ultimately there is an argument to be made for continued occupational uses for guns, but does that really require a gun that can fire so many rounds in such a short time. A bolt action .30-06 would suffice to stop a bear I would think, and it wouldn't be able to kill almost 60 people in 2 minutes either.

It isn't legal to have a fully automatic weapon for 99.99% of the public. Im unsure anything else could be done, short of putting gun control laws into effect against the US Government.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think ultimately there is an argument to be made for continued occupational uses for guns, but does that really require a gun that can fire so many rounds in such a short time. A bolt action .30-06 would suffice to stop a bear I would think, and it wouldn't be able to kill almost 60 people in 2 minutes either.

It isn't legal to have a fully automatic weapon for 99.99% of the public. Im unsure anything else could be done, short of putting gun control laws into effect against the US Government.

Correct you are, but I had thought the shooter circumvented that with some kind of bump-fire stock. Re: your post above -
You are actually ahead of me on this, I didn't even know yet they found an M249. What a mess.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity

Those people die so that the US would exist, with it's government and the Constitution that was later ratified.

Those people died so that others would have the right to freedom and liberty.

Apparently you would rather we just give that away?

I would rather give away a singular aspect of our right to freedom and liberty (gun ownership) if it means saving many lives. I believe we are so far past (in a deficient way) the ability to militarily resist our government that the original reason for it existing is no longer applicable.

You mean to tell that a Ruger AR-556 isn't going to take down a drone?

The government owns the power grid. If they wanted us dead, they could - starting right now.

People are stupid.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Its what is the most popular report for gun type. There is rampant speculation against it, but I should add that it is only speculation for the most part.

But to have a fully auto rifle requires a tax stamp, a bunch of paperwork, a permission slip from the local sheriff, and a sum of cash that exceeds what a minimum wage employee would make in a year. The shooter in this case didn't have a lawfully owned weapon.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think ultimately there is an argument to be made for continued occupational uses for guns, but does that really require a gun that can fire so many rounds in such a short time. A bolt action .30-06 would suffice to stop a bear I would think, and it wouldn't be able to kill almost 60 people in 2 minutes either.

It isn't legal to have a fully automatic weapon for 99.99% of the public. Im unsure anything else could be done, short of putting gun control laws into effect against the US Government.

That's why he didn't buy illegal "fully auto," weapons.

He legally modified legal firearms.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think ultimately there is an argument to be made for continued occupational uses for guns, but does that really require a gun that can fire so many rounds in such a short time. A bolt action .30-06 would suffice to stop a bear I would think, and it wouldn't be able to kill almost 60 people in 2 minutes either.

It isn't legal to have a fully automatic weapon for 99.99% of the public. Im unsure anything else could be done, short of putting gun control laws into effect against the US Government.

That's why he didn't buy illegal "fully auto," weapons.

He legally modified legal firearms.

Prove it.

If the m249 saw reports are true, it would be impossible to modify.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

Its what is the most popular report for gun type. There is rampant speculation against it, but I should add that it is only speculation for the most part.

But to have a fully auto rifle requires a tax stamp, a bunch of paperwork, a permission slip from the local sheriff, and a sum of cash that exceeds what a minimum wage employee would make in a year. The shooter in this case didn't have a lawfully owned weapon.

I've been reading on this situation and even watched a few of the videos which contain audio of the event, and I'm wondering if this guy happened to use some sort of antique Gatling gun. Parts for which can easily be found online and assembled.

Have you listened to the audio?