Add the vegas guy to that as well. Talk about planning!! He had what, over a dozen suitcases in his place right? He planted a car filled with tannerite (a damn big bomb by any measure; go watch the video in that link). And he shot at the fuel tanks at the airport trying to make those go boom as well. He could pull off the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, but he couldn't make a tannerite-filled car go bang. Then you have these goat fuckers in afghanistan and iraq who kill our soldiers on the regular with bombs made from fertilizer and set off with used batteries.
The people making bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq have learned from experienced bomb builders and have ample practice. We also only hear about the succesful bombs that go off there
Well, what I’ve been gathering is that if they’re being bullied for being LGBTQ or black or Muslim or fat or caring about equal rights or being a girl then the kid should suck it up and not be a snowflake and get over it and the bullies should maybe even be encouraged to continue, while if a kid is being bullied or ostracized for being a creepy/sexist/racist guy then everyone should bend over backwards to give him everything he wants without him having to change at all and the bullies should be punished.
There’s not a single response to any of these shootings that will be 100% effective. Until gun nuts stop rebutting every shooting with “that won’t stop x scenario” there will be no resolution. It’s a very complicated issue with at least a dozen or so actions needed to tamper down this violence. Unfortunately gun nuts will only agree if it stops every scenario and allows them to rise up in case of govt oppression. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
In reality though, these mass shootings are so statistically rare that they're basically irrelevant. According to WaPo, since 1999, the odds of a student being killed by a gun at school, on any given day, is 1 : 614,000,000. For comparison's sake, here's a list of the odds of death by a bunch of other common causes. So yeah, I'm a little pissed when public policy is being driven by an irrational fear, and as a result people are literally trying to re-write the Constitution.
I don't disagree with you but if we listened to Boss Hogg and followed his prescription for change it would have done diddly shit to prevent this most recent shooting, right? You can't have morons get in front of cameras directing their speech to the mass of morons who vote....especially when they are so wrong without counterbalancing all of the retardation with some truth, can you? There are definitely things that need to change but many of them have absolutely nothing to do with firearms. Many are going to be so unpopular and distasteful that you will want to lick your own ass to get the taste out of your mouth; to include revisiting HIPPA laws, Sanitariums and forced hospital stays..........As I have said before, we should all thank god these kids haven't figured out bombs yet because then firearms will be the least of our worries.
Let's not pretend like the Second Amendment was anything but a meaningless husk since at least 100 years ago.
I think he means that there is no way in hell that any modern militia will have any appreciable impact against the current military of the government. I'd go with 50 years instead of 100, but yeah... a few yahoos with AR-15's aren't going to be all that effective at keeping the government at bay. I'm not saying that the idea isn't nice, but it would be more than a long shot, I think.
Mainly that the original vision of the Second Amendment was a limited or non-existent central army, vastly outnumbered by the citizen militia under the command of the respective state governments. There was a great chipping away at this idea from pretty much the Washington Administration on (with a giant hammer swung at it during the Civil War), but I think it's safe to declare the notion officially dead by the time of the Militia Act of 1903 which formalized the federal supremacy over the state militias (now National Guards). The idea was never that a bunch of yahoos would self organize and overthrow the government, it was that the States would maintain military superiority over the Federal government by virtue of the large number of citizens who were armed, regularly drilled, and maintained greater loyalty to their home state than to federal authority. Foreign threats would be opposed by the states in concert, and tyranny by the states in opposition.
They would never beat them in an open battle, but they could harass them to the death, not so differently than guerrillas we've fought in the 3rd world. Of course, a scenario like that would involve countries like Russia and our middle eastern enemies funneling weapons in, not to mention people in the American military switching sides. What really makes it silly to me though, is that there has been exactly one substantial push back against the federal government (I'm not going to count things like The Whiskey Rebellion) and it was fought for a terrible reason, and ultimately accomplished nothing. The idea that Americans are going to rise up in unison firing on the feds is a retarded fantasy clung to by 9/11 truthers and birthers. Isn't it fair to point out though, that despite our lax laws in some states, there's no shortage of other nations with access to firearms? I'm not really sold on the idea that what's keeping our murder rate so high is that guns are available.
Ask France how they feel about knife control and rental truck control. People intent on doing harm, will find a way to do it.
Depends on a few things. How close is the guy with the knife? Is the guy with the semi-auto a good shot, and has he used that firearm platform before? Within about 20-30 feet, I'd rather face the dude with the semi-auto. You can close the distance and control the firearm. A dude with a knife can do some serious damage in close range though. When you're at a distance, if the guy is proficient with the firearm platform, then you're kinda fucked. But it's exceedingly difficult to accurately place rounds on a moving target with a rifle.