guns, mass shootings and bad people

Someone pointed out we still haven’t seen the Tranifesto from Nashville, but the day this guy went down, we know all his motivations.

Just look at all those DEMon controlled states and cities, that have the strictest gun control laws on the books, and yet they are the ones with the largest number of crimes using firearms.  Homicides, murder, gang violence, etc.

Guns are not the problem.  Criminals are the problem.  The culture of “guns and violence solves everything” is also part of the problem.  Not having respect for other’s lives, property, is too part of the problem.  Telling people/individuals that it is other’s peoples fault for everything, not taking responsibilities for one’s OWN actions, etc.  Having activist prosecutors and activist judges who won’t keep criminals off the streets/out of our neighbourhoods, etc.  Allowing mob rule…

And the talk that during an active shooter situations, they need to send in social/mental health workers to try and talk the individual to stop when they have already crossed the borders of sanity and acceptable behaviour, I find laughable.

How the media glorifies the shooters (their name and image are all over the place) while those killed and their mourning families, you will be lucky if they list the names ONCE.  Stop naming the criminals (and giving them their fifteen minutes of fame).  Make them into the oppressors they are, and treat the TRUE VICTIMS as victims, those that died and the families/communities mourning their loss.

I’ve read that when crossbow technology was introduced, some nobles were very unhappy that an untrained peasant could easily use a crossbow to kill a fully-armored noble who’d trained all his life for battle. One noble went so far as to execute anyone found with a crossbow.

Like crossbows, guns are equalizers; they give power to ordinary people. Naturally, the elites hate that, and use any excuse to attack gun ownership.

Ironically, the elites have also demonized the police, and demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the police aren’t there to save you, thus undermining perhaps the most reasonable-sounding argument against gun ownership: you don’t need guns to defend yourself; the police will protect you.

As an added irony, I’ve also read that women have a physical advantage over men in firearm marksmanship. The average male heart beats more strongly than the average female heart, and thus interferes more with accurate shooting. (I’d also say that since the average male is also larger than the average female, men make easier targets!) One historical example that comes to mind is Annie Oakley, as well as a highly successful cadre of female Soviet snipers in WWII (I can’t remember where they were active; Leningrad, maybe?).

Despite those advantages, and despite woke Hollywood portrayals of kickboxing women taking down much stronger men, I don’t see feminists pushing women to get guns to defend themselves against men. Unlike martial arts, guns would actually scale well to the population, and don’t require a lifetime of special forces training. (Rather, it seems to be right-wing men who love to see women with guns.)

In short, guns can empower women -more- than they empower men. So I conclude anyone against guns is also against empowering women.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Roccandil.

The Left is demonizing the human race as a whole, claiming we’re bad for Nature, that animals are more important than people, that we’re locusts, polluters, etc., and they teach that in public schools. I’m persuaded that the Left’s dishonor of humanity is a significant variable contributing to mass shootings and other violent events.

At the same time, the Left rejects Nature’s fundamental configuration for the human race: that it’s our duty to produce and train our replacements, to sacrifice our preferences, careers, and even lives for the sake of the next generation. Rather, it’s increasingly obvious that the Left wants to be the Last Generation.

When a society rejects the natural duty of self-sacrifice, however, they innately move that burden of sacrifice to the children, who have no choice but to carry it. I don’t get the impression that that’s sustainable; Nature will select against it, and I suspect we’re going to see just how strong the Mama and Papa bear instinct really is.

Quite true. As someone who’s had martial arts training and been in a few fights, the best self-defense is avoiding dangerous situation.

You can’t always avoid becoming a victim of random violence or crime though, esepecially with how rampant street crime is these days. For those cases you want to be prepared. But in general, know the risk profile of your own activities and limit them accordingly. In my case I decided for myself: don’t right the subway and walk home alone from the station at night (though I was robbed at gunpoint in the subway at daytime, which goes to show it can happen anytime). Don’t go to a convenience store in a meth area at night. Don’t hang out at bars. Don’t drive through Comptom.

Okay so I’m another UK resident here and I’m a member of a gun club. I don’t hold a licence so I use a club gun but I know all about the hoops that have to be jumped through to get a licence. One member who recently applied was quizzed about the background of his daughter’s EX-boyfriend that never visited the family home any more.

Historically the armed crime rate in the UK has always been low compared to the US as a whole, though I (unlike many in my country it seems) know that the laws concerning gun owners in the US vary between different states and cities, even when we had no restrictions on firearm ownership at all.

Our laws have changed slowly over the last hundred and twenty years or so and we have gone from a nation where you could walk into a gunsmith and come out with whatever you could afford without any paperwork to one where only a few specific types of firearm are legally available and then only after a long and drawn out process. Each change in our law was slight, first registration, then licencing and finally effective prohibition of many types of firearm. I’ve heard the idea of the slippery slope being labelled as a fallacy but that really is what happened here and that is why whenever I here a gun control advocate in the US claim that they don’t want to ban guns entirely I just don’t believe them.

A recent boast I’ve seen about our gun control laws is that since the 1997 Firearms Acts we have had no mass school shootings. This ignores the fact that before the Dunblane killings that sparked our politicians trying to one-up one another about who could persecute law abiding gun owners the most we didn’t have any either. So our only mass school shooting happened when the types and numbers of firearms that could be owned were limited and to get a licence for the guns used in the killings a person had to prove why they needed them.

One fact that may really blow some people’s minds on both sides of the Atlantic ocean though is that technically under Section 1 of the Firearms Act it is still possible in the UK for a 14 year old to own a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round drum magazine, folding stock, forward vertical pistol grip and silencer fitted. Remember that the next time someone in the US says how much they envy our largely draconian laws.