Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I sincerely hope that everyone here is safe and healthy. For those affected, I hope you will recover soon. I am sorry for you and your family. 

What is your opinion on this horrific event? Surely all the deaths will be avenged, and fairly. 

It is being called "the worst mass shooting in US history". What does this mean for humanity?

The cops took three hours to get there, according to what I was told.

... I'm not going to comment on that too much, but hearing that seriously pisses me off.

I had to console a friend of mine for a few hours when I woke up today. He was shaken up very badly from losing a lot of friends in the shooting.

My heart goes out to your friend.

I'm sure there is a rational explanation behind the cops not arriving quickly enough. At least that's what I'm hoping for.

A rational explanation for thirty minutes, sure. Maybe the police station was kind of far. For an hour? Okay, maybe they were busy. Maybe. It was a huge emergency, with lots of people in danger and dying, so I find it difficult to believe that they had anything even remotely more pressing. But fine. Three. Hours? Three? ... I don't buy it. (And people wonder why I'd like to have my own gun.)
 

You are well in your right to own a gun. Anti-gun advocates are going to use this to push their agenda as well, so get ready for that.

 

Anyway, it's not like the police can burst inside the building Clint Eastwood style and open fire. It's a delicate situation with a lot going on. It isn't everyday that our law enforcement agencies (non federal) deal with terrorism. Especially what's now being called the second most devastating terror attack in our history. They were likely trying to figure out how to best deal with the situation while minimizing casualties as best they could, which does take time (I remember watching a documentary on this cultist incident that took days to settle). They can't predict how a man like this would react to anything they did, so they aired on the side of caution.

There's a big difference between a hostage situation and an active shooter.

In a hostage situation, a state will call in whatever its version of SWAT is - guys that are highly and specifically trained for infiltrating buildings - and establish a perimeter until SWAT variant arrives and enters. Unless shots start getting fired, in which case, the regularly trained police on hand will infiltrate.

With an active shooter, it's game on. There's no fiddling around. Police respond and stop the threat.

If Local Cop Joe is at the plaza, going through the Dunkin Donuts drive through for a cup off coffee, and a shooter starts going to town on the Wal-Mart across the street, he's going in. Not tomorrow, not after breakfast, NOW! He might wait 30 seconds if backup will arrive within that amount of time, but otherwise, it's cowboy up time.

"Not tomorrow, not after breakfast, NOW!" Sorry, but that's bullshit. I have two years experience of cop-related shit, and I know for a fact that cops do not just barge in. They need to get a layout of the place, get a description, depending on the guns they have for the job, they may need to get back up, etc.

No. It's not bullshit. If there is an active shooter, cops are going in. No, they won't run in the front door jumping up and down like an idiot, but they're going in, and not sitting down with tea to make a detailed plan and call up the county archives for blueprints of the building.

If you live in a town and call 911, and say your wife is shooting at you and give them your address, police will be inside your house in minutes. They won't be circling the fucking building for three hours.

Hostage situations, where there is not active shooting, that's different. Then they have time to bring in specially trained men and women to breach the building tactfully.

I'll just speaking from the experience I have from my classes. That's different, you don't need a description. There were about three hundred people in that building, of course they want to take special care in how they approach the situation. However, I'm not that caught up on the case, I'm just trying to give some examples of things my teacher has said.

Your college classes are not the same thing as actual police training. They simply cannot compare.

But you never leave an active shooter in a building with people. In the Walmart example, Local Cop Joe IS going in, and that is not a question.

Now, in this nightclub deal, I don't know what they thought was going on when they arrived. There is a split in belief/training on what to do when you have a man with hostages that HAS shot people, but isn't CURRENTLY shooting people. The common/majority training is after shots have been fired you breach and stop the threat. He's already shown willingness to kill people, so you're only giving him more time to do that. A minority training is still out there that if he's not currently shooting, you wait for the specially trained unit to arrive and breach. But that's the minority.

Personally, I think the latter policy isn't pro-active enough when dealing with a known shooter. And most departments tend to agree, hence why it's a minority approach.

All of this is a moot point though if the department knew there was an active shooter in the building when they arrived.

High school classes, actually. Even if it's being taught by a former police officer?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I've only heard one side, really (the cop's).

There's a time to wait for backup, but when people are actively dying, that is not the time to wait.

Example: You pull over a vehicle with plates linked to a felony and four big, muscular men sporting gang tattoos inside. You radio dispatch and wait for backup. (Police should be calling for backup on all felony stops.)

Example: A nutcase starts shooting up a preschool and dispatch sends all available units. You're the first one on scene. and you hear gunshots coming from inside. The next squad car won't arrive for several minutes. You don't wait. You go in. But you're not going in like some fucking idiot cowboy in a Hollywood movie. The goal is to stop the threat, and you can't do that if you're dead. Just as you can't do that, standing outside with your thumb up your arse.

I completely understand and agree with what examples you're giving. Just giving what my teacher said, too.

Hang on, you're saying if I go into a building and start shooting, and there's a cop outside, he won't bust in to take me down because he doesn't know the layout of the place?

Dude. I didn't say they took three hours to do something. I said they took three hours to get there. To arrive on the scene. How much strategy do you think it takes to drive to a crime scene? Even if all you're going to do there is stand around like an idiot or put tape around it, they ought to have been there sooner, period. My mom worked for the police, my uncle was a cop, and I'm not oblivious to police procedure. There was no excuse for this.

So what I'm reading about the three hours is that it took them that long to do something, not to get there. The police were at the scene treating it like a hostage situation for about two hours until the tactical team came in. Then it took them another hour before the call was made to go in.

Okay, so I found this that they "had to wait three hours to access the situation, get armoured vehicles on the scene, and make sure they had enough personnel." So I guess that's their excuse.

You are in right mind to have a thought of owning a firearm. You have to do what you have to do to protect your family.

Mason, please don't be an idiot. We're not John McClane. Having guns in a shooting do not make the situation better. It leads to confusion and more people getting shot.

What's better than one person with a gun running around in the dark?

Everyone with a gun running around in the dark. 

Yes, it is the biggest terrorist attack since 911. 50 people were killed and 53 were injured.

And yes, I pray those injured and killed will have their revenge.

Fuck ISIS.

I wish humanity comes to its senses. 

1. Nobody even knows if it's ISORE yet.

2. You know that whole deal with eyes and eyes, right?

Nope.

If everybody started taking each other's eyes, we sure wouldn't have that many eyes left. There'd be one guy left with one eye, and he'd totally be able to get away from all the blind people, but do you really think you're gonna end up being that guy who doesn't have to give an eye? You're not gonna end up being that guy. There's 7 billion people in the world. You have a one in 7 billion chance of having one eye left over. And then you have to hide the fact that you have an eye left from an entire civilization of eyeless people who want to find you and take your eye. How long to you think your one-eyed self is going to last, isolated from all of civilization? Not long. And when you come back to civilization? They're gonna have guards everywhere that check for leftover eyes at the entrance to all the places, to make sure that an eye for an eye leaves the WHOLE WORLD blind, not just 699,999,999,999 people. Your fucked. Revenge is fucked.

This is a wonderful story based on "an eye for an eye makes the world blind".

Didn't 3,000 or something people die in 911? This one doesn't seem as huge as it's made out to be, but nonetheless, a tragic event. My heart does go out to the families of the ones who were lost.

Sonic, you're back!

Well, I said since 911.

Oh, nevermind then.

And the reason I'm not as active lately is because of finals.

Mine are already over, sucker!

I read it on the newspaper today. Definitely horrible.

Really it wouldn’t surprise me if this guy was just a self loathing closet case and just claimed he was an ISIS supporter to gain ultra infamy because he knew he was going to wind up dead shortly after completing his task.

I'm going with End, there is no records that he has ever been associated with ISIS.

I'm just going to put this right here.

"I pray those injured and killed will have their revenge. Fuck ISIS." ~ MasonJarGuzzi

/// 20 MINUTES LATER ///

"I'm going with End, there is no records that he has ever been associated with ISIS." ~ MasonJarGuzzi

Clearly, End has Jedi caliber persuasion skills.

*slow clap*

Mason is a loyal End's minion after all. He's even willing to die for Father End.

Lol.

According to the state's news, he saw a gay couple make out and grope each other in public like, a week earlier and he freaked out.

Probably was a closet gay if it bothered him that much.

That's my thought exactly.  He probably should have just chosen a less strict religion.  It would have been healthier for everyone.

I get a little perturbed when I see anyone making out in public since young children could witness it, but I've never felt like going "kill crazy" because of it.

I don't think you can choose a religion, really.

Cassius Clay

He was converted, he didn't pick it.

Hmm, see I think there is a difference between a missionary or whatever convincing you through words or whatever that they are the "one true religion" and people whacking you upside the head with bibles, belts and korans until you break.

To me it's all really silly, since Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. You'd think that'd be good enough to allow the others to live in peace, maybe band together to exterminate some Zeus worshiping pagans...

To be fair, the Quaran does specify that Jews and Christians deserve special treatment for that reason, and need only pay a tax to Islam rather than be exterminated by those fucking pagans.

Do you think that every religious person was indoctrinated against their will?  It seems to me that the vast majority are drawn to it out of fear.

You don't decide what you believe in. You can't just decide to start believing in Santa. If someone genuinely believes that Allah is real and wants them to kill gays, they can't just stop believing.

You were right.

Really terrible. The three hour response time that Kiel mentioned is very suspicious. I looked it up and the Washington Post confirms that it was three hours. Do you guys think that it's possible that there could have been someone in the police that actively tried to slow the police, or am I just talking out of my ass?

Have you ever driven to a place in the city before? It takes time, especially when you have to organize and brief bunch of guys and vehicles and equipment in order to send them into a situation where they have a very faint idea of what's going on from a few sources who grabbed their cell phones and started frantically describing something that was happening, that not everyone was immediately aware of to begin with... And then come all the fiddly variables, like technical difficulties, if the people couldn't be heard over the club noises very well, etc. etc. It generally takes a while for cops to get to any situation.

Of course, there's also the fact that it's an insanely long time, but never blame on malice what could just as easily be stupidity. Blame lazy pigs.

You're talking out of your ass. The police, no matter your opinion of them, weren't deliberately taking a long time.

A response time that slow is absolutely suspicious to me.

Yeah, I agree. The police obviously planned being late because they are a bunch of evil monsters. 

Seriously, why do you think they were late? I'm putting it up to being poorly prepared and poorly informed when the shooting commenced. 

This has been the first mass shooting (that I can immediately remember) that has some actual numbers behind it. Most usually only take a handful of people.

 

Anyway, it does bother me that the police took so long (again, there's probably a rational explanation for it). It doesn't personally bother me since...well it just doesn't. The FBI certainly dropped the ball here. No other way around it. Part of the blame, for lack of a better word, could be placed on those who closely knew him and didn't report anything, as well as the mosque he regularly attended. I wouldn't doubt that he said anything that would have raised red flags while he was at the mosque and they didn't turn him in.

 

What does this mean for humanity? There are worse things that happen in the world on a regular basis. What this means for the U.S. is that there will be more fuel for anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Oh god, I can't wait for Trumps anti Muslim speech tomorrow.

#FuckTrump

At least he'll address the problem. And it'll be entertaining to watch. Win-win.

I want to first say that I am absolutely sickened by the fact that someone would shoot up a club just because it's full of homosexuals. Not clear yet how I feel on the ISIS part. If he's part of ISIS, hell, more power for Trump. Speaking of presidential candidates, this is going to push more of Cunton's gun law bullshit. This is clearly a huge reason for why we need to be able to carry guns on us. As for the part with the police? I'm not really sure, I mean, I have a certain amount of respect for police (I've taken two years of Criminal Justice, and I have an uncle who's a cop), but yeah, there are some crooked cops out there. I'll probably have a better opinion as we learn new things.

More people having guns in mass shootings do not make things better. Life is not an action movie where Joe the gun-loving hick grabs his AR-15 and drops some mass shooters. When there ARE guns in situations like these, we don't see the shooters getting shot quickly, we see the chaos and confusion leading to more deaths as people with guns have no idea what the fuct is going on.

Not to mention regulating gun ownership makes it harder for a mass-shooter to acquire fire-arms in the first place.

My Google search revealed this:

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Just because something is not widely publicized, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Edit: And another list: http://concealednation.org/2015/10/here-are-5-times-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/

And another: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit?utm_term=.khmgkgaK24#.fwdxrxmb9Z (some of these are repeats from the other two, but there are new ones in there too)

Alright, little over a dozen is a small fraction of the amount of mass shootings, but still pretty significant, right?

No. Look into these to any degree and you find tha t these examples don't hold up. In Grundy, to start with, the "citizens" we're all law enforcement who were off duty, some retired. In Edinboro, the killer was finished with what he was planning by the time an armed citizen confronted him, which shows that these things are short and confusing so by the time people can get their shot together, it's all over. In Pearl,the killer was also finished shooting. In New Church, the citixen was a security guard, which is unmentioned for the most part. In Winnemucca, it's a marine.  Then majority of times these go on the citizens are either trained police men, security guards or soldiers, or fail to actually stop the shooting. Sure, there are exceptions, but in a country with daily mass shootings, a little more than a dozen over twenty years doesn't amount to Jack shit.

Now, let's go to the opposite end of the scale. We see all the time people using legally purchased guns for mass shootings, crime announcers of passion, in a thousands of times the numbers of the measly amount saved by armed citizens.

How do we know the killer was finished shooting? What's to say they wouldn't have continued? The percentage where an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting will be small, solely because in many states there is a small amount who carry, and most likely they don't carry everywhere. Whether or not the person in question was current/former law enforcement shouldn't matter. If they're off-duty, they're not necessarily going to be carrying a gun. If they are retired or off-duty, and are carrying a gun, they are carrying it as a private citizen. Also, even if you're armed, it doesn't mean you're going to step into such a situation where you're presenting yourself as a target.

I'm not saying it's the norm, nor am I advocating for or against gun ownership. I'm just showing that there are examples where it has happened.

He had left the scene, the police said they thought there was very little chance of him continueing, in one of the cases he'd run out of ammo.

Of course it matters, they're receiving full training that comes from being law enforcement, unlike the people who can just buy a gun from a gunshow with no training.  Many people have gotten killed trying to stop these things with guns, so yeah, tehy present themselves as targets.

Sure, there are examples, but in a country where there are mass shootings literally more than once a day, these examples are as insignificant as me pointing out that falling from planes without parachutes aren't dangerous because some people survive.

Why is it that you dismiss anything brought up to you that doesn't fit your narrative only to bring up the same level of dismissable evidence against your opposition?

How do I do that? Surely you must coincide that one or two dozen examples out of tens of thousands of cases are infinitesimal irrelevant, while over one percent of ALL deaths in America is a hell of a lot bigger, or 80% of mass shootings being caused by legally purchased guns?

A man who has been connected to terrorism (twice) shouldn't be able to get their hands on a gun in the first place. A tragedy of this size would not have happened if the man had not had a gun on him and it sickens me that people are using this tragedy to argue that they need guns to protect themselves when so much evidence points to the contrary.

My heart goes out to those who have been affected. I don't have any other words for this, but I truly wish the best for you and I'm so sorry.

Well jesus fuck, that's insane. A Muslim Extremist killed a shit ton of gays at a gay nightclub. I'm genuinely curious what made him so much more successful than the others. I think this'll raise a lot of important questions about Islamic Extremism, which because people are stupid will lead to some bullshit like a Sikh getting knifed and nothing changing, and Gun Laws, which because people are stupid will lead to the classic "More guns were necessary! Gays could've shot back!" Realistically, this event will change nothing, the shitty gun laws will stay the same and both Islamaphobia and Islamism will spread. 

I was just reading what the shooter's dad was saying, and it turns out he's as big a piece of shit as his kid. He said "I'm sad my son took it upon himself to deliver punishment to the homosexuals, that is God's duty". So, fuck him, I suppose. I guess the shooter was another product of homophobia, shitty parenting and fundamentalist religious upbringing which made him the prick he is.

He's not actually an extremist since he was following what his holy book says to the fucking T. Now that I think about it, I've never seen a situation where there was an armed assailant that had the would-be victims shoot back. Well, I've seen a few, and they turned out pretty well.

Some though was about to rob an old man and got shot by the old man (the police found this funny). A gunman broke into someone's house and was shot dead by the people living there (they weren't charged). Etc. But these are private situations, not big, pubic ones.

And there's not much more we can do with gun laws. Background checks don't do much. You'd only fail if you went in like a snarling animal demanding a way to kill people more efficiently. And I'm not in favor of banning guns in any way because it would be unconstitutional.

A mental health screening prior to purchasing a sidearm would help. They issue one to pretty much every police candidate in the U.S. Also, many security agencies require their employees to take one. So I don't see any reason why a citizen that wants a sidearm shouldn't have to take the test too. The test typically runs like $100-$200 and it's an annoying pain in the ass if you're a sane human being, but I think that's worth the trouble of preventing a few incidents like this.

If you're mentally unstable, you don't deserve the right to own a firearm.

Some states already do that, mental screenings don't do much. This man wasn't mentally ill. Unstable, yes, but nothing that would raise any red flags. Just his ideals. Remember that church shooting? Everyone said he was mentally ill until they found out he was perfectly sane. Having extreme ideals doesn't automatically mean you are sick in the head. In fact, a great deal of people that go on to become killers (in this context) aren't mentally insane. Nothing in their background would raise any red flags either.

Obviously this guy was an exception since the FBI should have brought him in.

So... Bucky was right and mental screenings would have prevented this.

I think they're still figuring out how he got the guns, but as I said (unless you chose not to pay attention), mental screenings won't do much since most people that go on these shooting sprees aren't insane. Not saying they've never worked, they have. They just aren't as effective as you'd think.

Even by themselves they're fairly effective. Combined with other forms of screening, they're more so. Hence, saying "There's not much we can do," isn't true, because we can do a lot.

We are already doing a lot with the gun regulations that we currently have. Okay, what do you think we can do to prevent this from happening in the future?

I'd recommend following the precident set by Australia in how they dealt with it, which were tremendously effective.

Yes burn all the guns haha, take it from those redneckers.

totally serious 100%

You can take muh gerns when you pry em from my diabeetus-riddled sausages!

oh god Malk

VT and Aurora were both committed by men who would have failed a mental health evaluation.

A seatbelt doesn't save everyone's life, but you're still a fool if you don't wear one.

I've never heard of those situations, and I never said that mental screenings do nothing, just not much. I don't doubt that they prevent some mentally unstable people from getting guns, but as I said, many of these shootings are done by people who can easily pass these tests.

He's just given two prominent examples, which they would've stopped, which is a lot, and there's many more.

And what does Australia do? I'd look it up but I'm about to go to work.

Banned all assault weapons, got quite strict mental health checks and much stricter background checks, eventually banned the majority of all guns.

Meant that there has not been a single mass shooting since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre where 35 people died (20 years without a mass shooting). Aside from banning certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, the legislation required all firearm licence applicants to show “genuine reason” for owning a gun, which couldn’t include self-defence. The government also instituted a massive, federally financed gun buyback program and then proceeded to destroy all the guns, which cost I think $500million back then - percentage wise, if a buyback program on that scale was carried out in the US, 40 million guns would be bought by the government. Our prime minister had to wear a bullet-proof vest when he announced it lol; it really would be a political nightmare ('the government is taking our guns rawr'). As for now, what Steve said basically ^

The aussie sums it up perfectly.

Mental health screenings wouldn't prevent all shootings, but it would help if we weren't handing out sidearms to people who had mental illnesses.

He follows his religious book to a tee, which is extreme. If you're going to label extremist as NOT following the rules, then you could say every Christian in America besides West Baptist is extremist. I mean, the amount of stonings of prostitutes isn't high here for a Christian nation. 

Yeah, on small events like that it can go well, but not in big, confusing mass shootings, and there's as many cases of a guy shooting a family member by accident. 

How is there not much we can do? Stricter background checks, for instance or banning assault rifles. Also, it being unconstiutional isn't an arguement. The constitution allowed for slavery. It was meant to be changed as time goes on. That's why the gun rights law is in the second AMENDMENT.

First, this isn't a Christian nation nor has it ever been. Second, most people here don't take their religion that seriously, but that's a different kind of discussion.

I disagree. I don't think we have enough data to say that it wouldn't have gone better if someone else was armed. Most people that I know that open carry know how to use their gun very well.

Background checks don't do much. Plain and simple. Failing the test is much harder than passing it. Why? Because most cases, people who go on a shooting spree don't have anything disqualifying in their background.

Actually, it is an argument. The constitution never allowed nor disallowed slavery. It simply never addressed it until the Civil War era. And the second amendment allows the bearing of arms in order for their to be a civilian militia in the case of governmental tyranny that needs to be overthrown. It is not to be infringed upon.

Banning assault weapons wouldn't do much either.

I meant the majority of the people here are Christian. People don't take their religion seriously, but they're not extremist for it. If you're going to say this dude wasn't a Muslim Extremist because it's not extreme for a religious man to follow his religious book, then you have to say Christians here are extremist for NOT following their religious books.

The fact that many people shoot loved ones in a safe situation at home, by accident, speaks that many gun owners aren't responsible. The fact that you know exceptions is irrelevant.

That's not true. Aurora was mentally fucked, as was the guy last night. There's many red flags in these killers that should not

No. It was put in so militias would be able to repel a British invasion as maintaining a full army would be too expensive, and to put down slave revolts. And this was a time where they had muskets. Now, we have assault weapons that can fire a hell of a lot more bullets a lot more accurately, and it needs to be changed. Thomas Jefferson said we should have a "revolution" every twenty years as morals change. The constitution was made to be changed and amended, as shown by the fact that there is a second AMENDMENT. The fact that the constitution says something is not an arguement, because it was meant to be changed, and it horrifically old-fashioned nowadays.

It means they won't be able to do this with more effective assault weapons, which is a step in the right direction, if a small one.

The fact that you know exceptions to gun owners harming friendlies is irrelevant as well. These are all case-by-case. I'd rather allow our citizens to have a fighting chance and I think it's wrong to take it from them. Had you been in that situation, I bet you would hope that you had some way to defend yourself rather than waiting to die.

One of the few cases with a mentally unstable person (I'm taking your word that's he's insane since I know nothing about Aurora). There isn't evidence proving that he was mentally unstable and it's irresponsible to slap this label on anyone that has extreme ideas. He knew what he was doing and was fully aware of it. If you're saying he's mentally insane, then you'd have to label all of ISIS as well as any devout follower (whether or not they're violent) of any religion as insane as well.

 

That's not entirely correct. The British were a reason why we'd want a standing militia, but we also wanted to fight against any tyranny. The British government had become a tyrant to us and it was clear that a government, any government, can  become tyrannical. Including us. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to allow our citizens a chance to defend themselves from and overthrow a government that became a tyranny. And it's clearly lined out that our founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to fight against our own government if this indeed were the case. The modernization of weaponry is irrelevant. And it has been changed. Constantly. That's why more amendments were added as time went on. The second amendment, as well as others, have always stood. If we're going off of your logic, that would mean that we should be able to chance the 1st since it's apparently old-fashioned. Who wants free speech these days? Am I right?

 

What you seem to want is the banning of all guns, not just assault weapons. If you want to ban assault weapons because they kill a lot of people, it would be more logical to ban handguns as well since they kill exponentially more than assault weapons. Is that the "right direction" you are referring to? So once assault weapons are banned, where will you go next and where will you stop? Problem is, you can't ban all guns without violating the constitution and banning only assault weapons is illogical if you're looking to take away weapons that kill a lot of people.

No, it's not. There's no examples of people stopping mass shooters through guns, so your point of it keeping them safe it useless. There are exceptions, but if you own a gun, you're most likely to shoot one of your family members, so they're not making people safer.

I would say if you're a devout follower of any idealogy to the extent that you want to kill people, then yes, you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, and that would come up in a background check.

The main, pragmatic reason was to fight against the British and slaves. Fighting "Tyranny" wasn't the main reason behind it. More importantly, the modernisation of weaponry is essential. At one point, we had the right to travel in whatever form we wished. Now that we have things like planes, we decided to increase regulations.,

Yes, it's been changed. Which shows it's not perfect, and the founding fathers knew this. Hence, to say that simply because it says something is a reason to follow it isn't a good arguement. 

I'm not against guns because it's in the constitution. The fact that something is in the constitution isn't an arguement for or against it. There are many essential reasons for free speech, which there are not for guns.

Well, the right direction is banning MOST guns, but that's an unreasonable goal for a country like America. Reducing the amount of guns is a more realistic goal, and keeping them in safer hands. The fact that it violates the constitution isn't relevant unless you assume that it's a perfect document, which is clearly isn't.

I don't know about you but I think the modernisation of weaponry is entirely relevant. I mean, when the Second Amendment was enacted, I reckon they were thinking about your average American citizen defending themselves if need be against someone who steps on their land. I don't think they would've have the foresight to know that guns would evolve to such an extent where mass shootings take place on a daily basis because guns took forever to reload, and certainly did not have the speed nor accuracy to shoot down mass amounts of people.

That's not why the second amendment was enacted. It was specifically so that American citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government, if need be. 

Yeah my bad. (I'm sorry all I see are redneckers XD) But my point stands that mass shooting on the scale seen in these days would not have been feasible in 1791 with the firearms available.

It was enacted so that the US couldn't have to fund a massive army that could repel British invasion or, most likely, slave revolts. The "overthrowing tyranny" was bullshit tacked onto the end, and is pretty irrelevant when the US Government have tanks, drones and attack helicopters. What does "overthrowing tyranny" even mean? No one made a successful stand when the government was found to be wire tapping journalists, or the Patriot Act was in order, or detaining people without cause. 

"Also, it being unconstiutional isn't an arguement. The constitution allowed for slavery. It was meant to be changed as time goes on. That's why the gun rights law is in the second AMENDMENT." ~ Steve

"Actually, it is an argument. The constitution never allowed nor disallowed slavery. It simply never addressed it until the Civil War era. And the second amendment allows the bearing of arms in order for their to be a civilian militia in the case of governmental tyranny that needs to be overthrown. It is not to be infringed upon." ~ Danaos

Honestly, Danaos, you really don't even know what you're talking about. That quote perfectly exemplifies your ignorance on the nature of the U.S. Constitution.

Have you heard of Prohibition? An amendment was made to ban alcohol. Later, another amendment was made, repealing the ban on alcohol. So Steve is spot on. The Constitution is meant to be changed as time goes on and necessity changes. Thomas Jefferson actually advocated that the Constitution be entirely re-written every two decades or so to keep it modern and relevant to the needs of the current time period.

Now, personally, I support gun owners and gun rights, but only to a reasonable extent. Having most of the citizens armed with hunting rifles and shotguns was a huge disincentive for Russia to invade the U.S. during the Cold War. It's a horrible challenge fighting a determined population on their homeland as is, even more so when every random bloke is able to take pot shots at you from every bloody corner. And hunting is a proud, time honored tradition, and people deserve the right to uphold that tradition/sport/recreation. Now, I don't see what reason anyone other than a police officer or military member would need a high capacity automatic weapon for. Are you going to go hunting with your AK-47? I hope not. But I digress.

But from a true fundamental standpoint of the nature of the Constitution, anything can be altered if the need is seen fit to do so. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be no different from repealing the 18th Amendment. And while I would staunchly appose such action, saying that it cannot be done is simply incorrect. When you spout off about things you don't properly understand, you're only harming your own cause because you make yourself look a fool.

Shit, isn't it insane that America banned alcohol for a while? Seems like a weird part of history.

Indeed. My family hunts, my in-laws open-carry (practical) handguns. Neither my father-in-law or mother-in-law want to go around shooting folks. The point is that knowing people around you are willing and able to defend themselves is a deterant for a lot of criminals. Sure, there are the crazy ones who don't care, and I'm not saying intimidation would've worked on this bastard, (though maybe I'm wrong, maybe if he had seen someone else armed in there, he would've thought about his mortality, who knows?) 

They generally want to make it back home in one piece just as much as you do. Realizing they're not the strongest guy in the room or the only one packing heat can make a difference. I don't want an assault rifle or a rocket launcher or anything ridiculous, I don't want to kill anyone, but I'd love to hunt with my folks some time and I'd like to open-carry for the people in the admittedly rather sketchy areas where I work to understand that fucking with me is not a very good idea. (If only because cops are too heavy to carry around. ;p)

Some though was about to rob an old man and got shot by the old man (the police found this funny). A gunman broke into someone's house and was shot dead by the people living there (they weren't charged). Etc. But these are private situations, not big, pubic ones.

Oh, if you want to hear something funny, read about the guy that tried to rob a gun store. :P

not surprised. guy posted on /b/ like 30 minutes before - so they got a new record.

The only joke so far is "So a muslim walks into a gay bar and the bartender asks what he'll have. He says 'shots for everyone!'"

Pretty sure ISIS just claimed him for w/e. I cringe at how all the news networks around are overreacting and doing things completely inappropriate like releasing his name and stuff just for ratings.

Overall meh/10 can't wait until next week when this is all forgotten and next season when another tragedy happens.

Edit:: Posted the same thing in a discord chat with a reply that says "So America is starting summer of this year pretty hot eh? What will autumn bring?"

Ford knows what's up.