But hey getting on a plane isn't a constitutional right, but apparently being able to murder the fuck out of your fellow citizens is!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Obama-isnt-looking-to-disarm-you

Obama isn't looking to disarm you... has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

If only something could be done....

On the other hand, I'm sure praying will fucking work....

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 13th, 2016 10:20pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Sorry, but I am still against banning people from owning weapons based on browser history. Our government has a very nebulous definition of what it takes to be considered a terrorist.

Look at the individual in this shooting, the FBI suspected him, he underwent three FBI interviews and an undercover probe where he admitted to having terrorist ties. The FBI removed him from the terrorist watch list after all of that. Yet you can get added to the watchlist by looking at ISIS affiliated websites.

So, if we did follow the recommendations of the President, the terrorist would still have been OFF the watch list and able to buy guns, while the person who went to an ISIS site might be unable to.

The point is that no specific regulation is going to stop these shootings, other than to ban firearms altogether. I'm not willing to sacrifice that right.

This is a *quality response. *promote sane outrage!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 13th, 2016 10:33pm PDT - promote requested by PlayhousePals.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by PlayhousePals.

no single regulation is going to stop the shootings but a collection of regulations/laws/policies can definitely help and the right collection of regulations/laws/policies could very well stop these shootings. doing nothing or repealing regulations/laws/policies is clearly not working and those policy makers should have been able to figure that out by the time the thought had finished running through their minds.

Pat Kiernan

Nirvana fallacy

"We can't fix it perfectly so we should do nothing".

And it wasn't just browser history, the guy was under investigation by the FBI. He made statements to his co-workers supporting IS and he had previously abused his spouse (that on its own should be enough to ban him from owning a weapon).

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

You do realize, don't you, that most modern western nations do not even come close to banning firearms altogether and still they don't come close to the US history of gun violence and mass shootings. I'm sure part of it is just cultural but mostly it's just due to a collection of rules and regulations that restrict what kind of weapons can be owned, how they can be used, and stringent checks on the people who want to acquire them. Check out this article for some info about gun ownership in Canada.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/13/news/how-us-gun-laws-stack-canadas-wake-florida-shooting

That is not the point. Government works a certain way and rarely is it in the favor of individual liberties. We knee jerked after 9/11 and created the Patriot Act, you know, the set of rules that gave us torture, drone strikes/raids into sovereign nations without their permission, and the NSA checking everything.

If you ban people from one of their constitutional rights because they end up on a government watchlist, then you have set a precedent for further banning. Then next we can torture people in lieu of the 5th amendment because they are on a watchlist (oh wait, we sorta already did that to a couple of us citizens in Guantanamo). The FBI fucked up and removed this guy from surveillance, even though he had ample terrorist cred. That shouldn't have happened, but should we lose our freedom because of their screw up?

North of the border, anyone wishing to buy a gun or ammunition must have a valid licence under the Firearms Act, and to obtain a firearms licence, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period. The law further prohibits military-grade assault weapons such as AK-47s and sawn-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.

There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection."

Based on your article and what else I've read, that means that pump, bolt action, and single shot rifles/shotguns are ok. Everything else is pretty much a no go. Sounds like some pretty heavy restrictions, although I did note there is a huge demand for ar-15 style rifles to be allowed in Canada.

But yes, the bulk of our shooting issue is the culture of our country. We are very diverse in culture, as well as familial structure. I would say that our culture and population is unlike any other in the world (except Australia, oddly. from what I've seen, I think they are sort of the USA lite version). Realistically, barring massive limitations to gun ownership, we are not going to stop mass shootings in the USA. I honestly don't think we will stop it then either, what with the sieve of a border we have, guns will just become the new coke/meth. Not to mention AR-15 style rifles aren't exactly hard to build. Other than the barrel and the bolt, most of the other pieces can be hand milled out of semi finished pieces that are completely legal for anyone to have.

Maybe we could do like Switzerland, their gun control seems to work.

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

Conan OBrien on Orlando has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

All is talking about gun regulations, or lack there of for this terrible event.


Guns are not the root cause.

Muslim religion is the root cause for this mess.

I've never supported loss of freedom for security, but yeah, it was one of the many things that the general public was willing to give up after 9/11. The Patriot Act is literally the stupidest thing we have ever allowed to go into place and the sad thing is that most of the people who voted for it didn't even bother to read it.

Gun violence is definitely part of our culture. It's almost a joke to see that the places that are the most restricted on guns usually have the higher rates of gun violence. Florida is the odd one out this time, they have relaxed gun laws and still got hit. I guess one thing that made it worse is that most places that sell alcohol for a certain amount of their profit (bars/clubs/etc) aren't allowed to permit concealed carry holders on premises. I fully understand the logic behind that, alcohol and weapons of any type don't mix, but maybe some armed security guards?

Of course no one is talking about a full gun ban. However, once you compromise the 2nd Amendment, you place the decision in the hands of our legislature. You know, the super functional branch of our government that never makes mistakes. You also allow them to decide 'what' you need.

I've not been to NZ, but I seriously doubt that the cultural dichotomy that is present in the USA is remotely represented in NZ.

I support abortion rights, I support gay marriage, I would love to be able to trip out to the local head shop and buy some weed, and I don't think heavily restricting guns would solve the issues we are looking at. The last two mass shootings were terrorist related. Prior to that, they have primarily been mental health related. We have one of the worst mental health policies and systems in the world. Medicate first, don't hospitalize, don't provide therapy, and other such bright ideas. Ever since we passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, homelessness and acts of violence by the mentally ill have been on the rise. Inpatient centers have become rare and, like I said, most people get a pill and a swift kick in the ass out the door. I would be willing to bet if we fixed our health care issues in regards to the mentally ill and maybe put a 15 day waiting period on the purchase of ANY gun, we would stop 99% of these mass shootings.

@Mordhaus

The idea of US being a gun violence culture just makes no sense to me. A gun ownership culture among a subset of the population sure, but a culture of resolving conflict with violence? No, it's a product of gun availability. The numbers ChaosEngine quoted on guns / 100 people really is the unique differentiator that makes murder rates some 5-20x the developed country average.

Poverty leading to crime, poor mental health treatment are the tinder but the easy access to weapons is what leads to the death tolls to combust incomparable to any other developed country. Also if legislators can't pass gun control after Sandy Hook, or even restrict people on or previously on the terrorist watch-list from buying guns then the idea of any kind of slippery slope is farcical.

We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. For a person who wants to go out in a blaze of infamy, we are custom tailored to give them their last 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Again, we have a nebulous definition of what it takes to get on the watch list. I could be placed on it simply by stating something to the effect that "I support ISIS", even though I don't. Restricting people who manage to end up on a government list is the same as removing their right to a firearm after committing a felony offense, only you have removed every single bit of their right to a legal defense. There is no due process to being placed on a US watchlist, you get put on and fuck you if it was a mistake. Maybe they'll take you off later, who knows?

I am not going to defend a slippery slope argument on this, I don't have to. It's already happened in the years since 2001. The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights. Not only our rights, but other countries. We have violated their security, spied on their people and leaders, and we perform acts of war on their territories with impugnity. All because we lost two buildings and 2,996 people; a heinous act, but one our government exploited to put us into 2 wars with a death toll to people who may not even be our enemies that dwarf our loss. In short, we fucking have the slippery slope process down to a SCIENCE.

What absolute fucking bullshit!

I'm so sick of this child like interpretation of the constitution.

Oh slippery slope... same document used to give people the RIGHT to own other humans...

Oh slipper slope... the RIGHT to vote is clearly intended for white men and land owners only.

etc... etc... seems like we're up to like 27 HEINOUS infringements on YOUR rights by now.!

Its absolutely utterly fucking ridiculous. The entire country is held hostage from even discussing the issue. The government isn't even allowed to collect data.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

We are the ONLY ones doing this at anywhere even close to this rate. And we can't even discuss potential solutions rationally without it being turned into some paranoid hypothetical tyrannical enslavement scenario.

Its fucking pathetic. So yeah... your right lets not even make a fucking attempt at solving our issues.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 13th, 2016 10:20pm PDT - promote requested by Januari.

True, the constitution has some screwed up parts. However, there is a process in place to make or change amendments. If the bulk of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment, using the methods in place to do so, so be it. I'd give my guns up in that case. If the legislature decides to pass an unconstitutional law as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act, then they aren't getting them. The problem with unconstitutional laws, by the way, is that SCOTUS can always wink at the bill of rights and say that it is constitutional. I don't care for that, but again, it is a legal interpretation of the document if they do it. I'd give up my guns if that happened.

I don't even really have an issue if we go back to the assault weapon ban of the 90's. I get that we can make some changes and cut down on these incidents. I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision. You give someone due process to avoid being on the list, like we do to people accused of felonies before they are convicted, no problem. But as it stands, our President is just tossing an idea out there that absolutely violates multiple rights and people are eating it up like it was candy.

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.

Everyone.

I think you're wrong about the root cause, but you'll continue to follow the same themes and nothing will get done.
Do you have or need an assault rifle? If not, why do you continue to support what's tragically killing these people. How about more money to mental health. What about the Republicans blocking legislation stopping people on the no fly list being able to get guns just recently. Nothing gets fixed. We just move on to the next tragedy which is a sure sign of stupidity as individuals and as a nation.

Assault rifles ( M16 rifle.) are illegal. People like you don't know what your are talking about.

There are rifles (Ar15)that look like assault rifles abut are just regular rifles.

The guy was on a mission to kill gays in the name of Allah. The gun was just a tool.

The no fly list is woefully flawed. YEs it gets some bad guys but a lot of good guys too.

Check you own name
http://www.no-fly-list.com/

Yep nothing gets fixed- so keep doing the same elect Hillary.

Vote for Trump - I mot saying he is perfect but - he is the only only one standing against the norm.

Look at everyone tying themselves in knots trying to avoid blaming muslims for typical muslim behaviour.

How is it 'typical' for anyone to behave this way?

The sad thing is this is a state where you can still be fired from your job for being gay. So, you know, be careful where you throw stones. One might argue he was inspired as much by good old fashioned homegrown 'murican hatred as he was by Islam.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/President-Obama-Answers-a-Question-About-Gun-Laws

President Obama Answers a Question About Gun Laws has been added as a related post - related requested by iaui.

That's just absurd. You're drinking the Kool Aid.

I live in a country with ~1m or 3.2% of the population is Muslim. They are the second largest religion in our nation. They are perfectly peaceful. You live in a country where ~3m Muslims live, comprising 1% of your country's population.

How many of those people were involved in this act yesterday? What percentage?

You can own an AR15 in NZ.

You can have high capacity magazines in NZ.

It is a popular 3-gun competition and hunting firearm.

"but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people."

Yet you still allow ownership of these items, and still have murder rates by firearm (and in general) lower than most of the world.

NZ's laws work because they stop criminal and crazy people from owning these items.

Australia banned semi auto rifles of all types and high capacity magazines outright (except for some very exceptional circumstances) yet our firearm homicide rate (and general murder rate) is on average worse than NZ's.

One can allow these items to be owned, they just need to be the right people (you already alluded to that).

Forget about the old armed populace vs tyrannical government trope. Unless you want to admit that there would be a civil war at that point (large amounts of the armed forces would revolt, military weapons in hand, against attacking their own families).

There have been at least 3 mass shootings in Australia since 1997 (defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed - the same as the popular https://www.massshootingtracker.org/ )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

One could include a 4th incident in NSW this last week where our poorly trained police shot 5 people. One guy with a knife and 4 bystanders. Check that line of fire yeah?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot-man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102

none of what you said makes any point showing why gun control shouldn't be discussed or implemented. and i specifically didn't say "a collection of gun laws/regulations". i said "a collection of laws/regulations/policies". there is a plethora of policies or lack thereof that are talked about often to deflect from the gun debate after [yet another] mass shooting but it's always lip service. the main deflection de jour is "mental health" but very little if anything is done about that. and the problem stems from way beyond guns and mental health. minimum wage laws, health care, education, income disparity/poverty, mental health care, gun laws, etc. all play big roles in an event like this. guns are obviously the first issue that needs to be looked at but because of the second amendment, there is never a real conversation about it. it's just shut down. all without even validating the justification for the second amendment to begin with. it's just presumed to be an axiom.

but even accepting that it is, move on to the next issue and it's the same thing: obstruction of any conversation or modernization. "oh we can't do that 'cause it costs money". well, all the data shows not doing it (investing in education, health care, poverty, etc) is many times more expensive than investing in it. across the board.

so now your whole country just sits there feeling bad for itself, wallowing in how fucked your social structures are, and passing the buck from one issue to the next until the news cycle forgets about one specific event effected by all these things and moves on to the next event effected by all these things but is aesthetically different and the whole process starts over again. meanwhile complaining about ineffective your political system is yet consistently voting in low numbers for the entrenched or the psychotic. certainly never for the thoughtful or nuanced. [i'm being hyperbolic here, but your politicians and voting record as a poplulation are fucking terrifying if not useless]



point being: watching this happen time and time and time again: the tragedy, the grief, the looking for answers, refusing to see the answers that are plain as day from the outside, pointing to the closest issue you aren't directly effected by, and finally forgetting the whole thing and/or accepting it as normal is really, truly sad and tragic.

@31s holy hell i pity whoever marries this woman.

you should. True story, I flew from San fran to Auckland. In san fran i had my bags searched, my hands swabbed by guys with guns for drugs, a full body scan and shitty looks off security guards. Landing in auckland i got "ayyy bro, did you see the (rugby) game ? We smashed 'em!".

I live in NZ. Its fucking awesome.

Yowza! That wasn't MY experience landing in Auckland from Australia during Little Feat's April 2001 tour. They pulled out ALL the stops from dogs to a selected body search [one of the techs was detained because his glasses case smelled of marijuana!] The St. James Theater and the people we met there were delightful however and the country is absolutely stunning. I'd go back in a heartbeat [after fumigating my clothes and belongings of course] =o)

I would love to go, but I have an incredibly irrational fear of flying.

There's no such thing as a peaceful muslim. You're talking about followers of an ideology explicitly founded on a policy of tyranny and murder.

Yeah, the first part is demonstrably false.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike this tendency to revoke terrorist's Muslim cards post-atrocity because a "true" Muslim would never do such a thing, but it kinda goes both way, dunnit? Either you are making some sizable edits to the definition of "peaceful" or you're suggesting that Muslims who don't murder aren't really Muslims. Could it be that "Muslim" isn't as powerful a descriptor as either you or "Muslims" might want it to be?

You can say the exact same thing about Christians or Jews. Violence in the name of religion is what a "true believer" does, because any non-believer is an agent of evil, so sub-human and not worthy of empathy or understanding.

It's not the particular brand of religion that's the problem, it's religion itself.

I'm pretty sure that all major religions in one form or another instruct believers to attack non-believers with violence and/or death. Most also contradict themselves by saying violence is wrong, leaving the "rules" open to interpretation, ostensively making all religions nothing more than excuses for atrocities that would otherwise be clearly inexcusable.

Keep drinking that Kool Aid.

There are over 4 million peaceful Muslims in North America alone. And then there's this guy who you are pretending represent all of those Muslims.

If the second part is true the first part is true.

Islam is a cult of totalitarian evil. Its founder was a warlord, a mass murderer, a slaver and a rapist, around the emulation of whom the entire operation is sustained.

Muslims who don't murder are exactly as guilty as muslims who do. Decent, peaceful people don't join nazi cults.

The Kool Aid I'm drinking, @iaui, is education and objective thought.

Proof the Democrats want to abolish the Second Amendment. This has my Democrat friends that own a gun re-think who they are voting for this year. Especially one who voted Obama but brags about his SBR'd AR-15.

Yeah, no, it does not follow. What people say they are, or even what say they believe, is not necessarily how they act.

Humans murder. I am a human. Ergo I am a murderer.

Dunno. seems pretty fallacious.

It follows exactly. We are accountable for the things we do and for the things we would do if circumstance allowed.

Were I to tell you I was, say, pro-choice, you would be in a strong position to guess at my attitude toward a particular ethical question. If you then learned that I'd had no abortions personally, would you therefore label me a pro-lifer in spite of my stated position?

Well then, what if I tell you about an infamous tyrant of my acquaintance, a monster who committed every crime against humanity he had the means to commit, and whom I believe to be the very best person who ever lived. I tell you I intend to follow the shining example of this nightmare, shall we say religiously, for the rest of my life. Do you really presume to claim that no negative inference can be drawn about my character whatsoever? What guess would you make about my propensity for insane, vicious murder?

I have yet to have an abortion, it might be said largely in consequence of my lacking certain procedural necessities. Yet I remain pro-choice. The majority of muslims in civilised countries, the minority in muslim countries, have committed no great atrocities. Yet they remain muslim.

Or swim. That would really impress people.

logic is not your strong point, is it?

and the sharks

I dunno. I feel it could go either way.

On one hand, the sharks would probably think it was kinda dumb.
On the other, they might be impressed with your cajones.

Either way, for some reason, I am picturing the sharks as mexican gangsters. My mind goes to weird places at times.....

you must have made them think you were an aussie. :-) special treatment for them aussies you know !

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by cricket.

eh? working fine for me

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; either it was accidentally declared dead or ChaosEngine is planning to manually replace the embed with a backup - declared notdead by ChaosEngine.