Mass Shooting in Las Vegas - 58 Dead at Least 515 Injured, Suspect Killed - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739318]This has been beaten to death. Americans keep guns as a check on our own government. That makes the government categorically unfit to determine that firearms are a privilege. [B]We accept the additional risk that comes from this. [/B] Part of being American is accepting some measure of increased risk in return for additional freedoms. We certainly forget ourselves sometimes, but it is one of the fundamental underlying principles of who we are.[/QUOTE] america has signed away all our rights and elected fascists already, what good are all the guns in the world gonna do us now?

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739363]Which is hilarious because that hasn't been viable for over a hundred years now. I wasn't at the meeting where we all agreed to this. Just because I was born here I have to be happy with the status of American gun laws? Is it? If I want to be a good American I have to be happy with the status quo because 'freeedom' or something? Also who sees a mass shooting of over 50 people and have the reaction of "Well they accepted the risk" as if they were in the military or a firefighter or something. Is this nation in such a horrifyingly shitty spot that going outside means I accept the risk that I'm going to be killed?[/QUOTE] You live in a democratic republic. Congratuations, you defacto agree with the law of the land.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739318]This has been beaten to death. [B]Americans keep guns as a check on our own government.[/B] That makes the government categorically unfit to determine that firearms are a privilege. We accept the additional risk that comes from this. Part of being American is accepting some measure of increased risk in return for additional freedoms. We certainly forget ourselves sometimes, but it is one of the fundamental underlying principles of who we are.[/QUOTE] I never understood this idea. When did this fear of the government that needs to be kept in check mentality start? Always makes it sound like one day they just decide to send the military after civilians and the only way to prevent that is with having a gun in the hand every every citizen.

[QUOTE=Judas;52739382]america has signed away all our rights and elected fascists already, what good are all the guns in the world gonna do us now?[/QUOTE] that's about the time when having guns would start coming in use

[QUOTE=butre;52739381]not over 20p and a pack of mayfairs they don't[/QUOTE] Yeah because we don't use pounds and Mayfair doesn't sell in the US. We do have people stabbing and [I]shooting[/I] people for 20 bucks and a pack of Malboro though, because even though you've somehow never heard of it, people mug people on the streets even though people have guns. It turns out that all the guns has not eliminated crime in the country, sorry to let you know.

[QUOTE=butre;52739364]when they get stabbed for 20p and a pack of mayfairs they're gonna wish they had that freedom back[/QUOTE] it's funny making a joke about being stabbed in Britain when the rates of violent crime are nothing in comparison to the US's but yeah the UK is where you'll get stabbed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739332]I think blood has to be processed quickly, or it does go bad. Once it has been processed, it is a little more stable. Obviously they can't expand with the increase in supply, which is understandable.[/QUOTE] You basically have a better timeframe once you get the blood anticoagulated, then you have a bigger window in which to centrifuge and separate the component parts, or keep it as whole blood, depending on your need. Only platelets need to be used quickly since they have a lifespan of around 5-7 days. Packed red cells may be preserved using glycerol and frozen, they'll last even up to 10 years, though regular packed cells only have a duration limit of 35 days.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52739373]Can you at least wait until the dead are buried before you start dancing on their graves?[/QUOTE] how am I dancing on their graves, if anything assuming that the tens of thousands of direct and indirect victims of gun violence accept the situation as it is because of some vague, rose-tinted notion of freedom is far more insulting

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739303]Something like a gun should be a privilege. Something that is capable of this kind of thing should be something you have to prove you understand, and prove you are fit to use it. It's not a bloody toy. Sure illegal firearms will always be a thing but it's not an all or nothing thing. If you make it much harder for people to get them, then you will see a lot less events like this, and more than likely lower death tolls.[/QUOTE] These kinds of guns are already incredibly difficult for law abiding people to get, on top of being extremely expensive. How many more hoops is an acceptable amount of hoops?

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739375]Attempting to sidestep from the argument by claiming that not everyone agrees isn't a particularly strong argument. Cultural norms and accepted values are obviously a thing with any nation. We have an obscene amount of firearms in circulation today and a nation founded on rebellion along with a mountain of evidence to support the US being a gun culture. A huge percentage of our design is owed to John Locke, who saw rebellion as the duty of citizens not being represented by their government. We have firearms for a pretty obvious reason.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is "to be an American means X" is entirely subjective and a matter of philosophy instead of fact. Just because John Locke had a style that others followed doesn't mean your average Joe knows or cares about it. To me, being an American means nothing, and while there are popular values that we all latch onto, guns aren't one of those values. It's a divisive topic, and you'll find many who disagree with it. I'm saying this as someone who is pro-Guns. What you and I think shouldn't be made out to be representative of anything but ourselves.

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52739385]I never understood this idea. When did this fear of the government that needs to be kept in check mentality start?[/QUOTE] Right about the time the American revolution ended and the government wasn't sure where the country was headed, if I'm not wrong.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739380]Guns as a check hardly keeps up with the technological advancements we have seen in recent decades. Maybe it was the case when 2nd amendment became a thing, but that's hardly the case now. It's not like most people are opting into being American either, most are born that way and simply have no choice. If hundreds of millions rose up against the government, it would topple guns or no guns. So what's the point of having the guns? How exactly is this having guns supposed to keep the government in check? In terms of keeping the government in check it only seems like it would really aid domestic terrorist groups?[/QUOTE] Yes, if everyone magically rose up, it wouldn't matter if they were armed. That isn't how a rebellion works. Only a portion of the population is driven to the point of armed rebellion. For that to work, firearms are necessary.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739384]You live in a democratic republic. Congratuations, you defacto agree with the law of the land.[/QUOTE] I defacto agree? Fucking bullshit, I follow the law, I don't have to agree with it. I vote for stronger gun laws, but that means me and anyone else who supports that view still has to be all for guns and accept them because I live here? How does me being in a republic mean I accept all of its laws. I live in a democratic republic, that means I get to not love the law.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739380]Guns as a check hardly keeps up with the technological advancements we have seen in recent decades. Maybe it was the case when 2nd amendment became a thing, but that's hardly the case now. It's not like most people are opting into being American either, most are born that way and simply have no choice. If hundreds of millions rose up against the government, it would topple guns or no guns. So what's the point of having the guns? How exactly is this having guns supposed to keep the government in check? In terms of keeping the government in check it only seems like it would really aid domestic terrorist groups?[/QUOTE] Guns are a huge economic industry for the US, a part of our culture as a people, and a massive hobby. Confiscation overall would do more harm than good, and a ban has been proven (1994 AWB) to not do anything at all. Again, banning the tool of a crime does nothing to prevent the crime. Gun violence is a consequence of a greater problem in America. Tackle that problem, and you can tackle gun violence.

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52739385]I never understood this idea. When did this fear of the government that needs to be kept in check mentality start? Always makes it sound like one day they just decide to send the military after civilians and the only way to prevent that is with having a gun in the hand every every citizen.[/QUOTE] 1651

[QUOTE=Judas;52739382]america has signed away all our rights and elected fascists already, what good are all the guns in the world gonna do us now?[/QUOTE] I can't tell if this is sarcasm when it's coming from someone who encourages and cheers on violence as a solution to political problems.

[QUOTE=butre;52739381]not over 20p and a pack of mayfairs they don't[/QUOTE] You should read the detroit or chicago local news crime blotter for a couple of weeks.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739380]Guns as a check hardly keeps up with the technological advancements we have seen in recent decades. Maybe it was the case when 2nd amendment became a thing, but that's hardly the case now. It's not like most people are opting into being American either, most are born that way and simply have no choice. If hundreds of millions rose up against the government, it would topple guns or no guns. So what's the point of having the guns? How exactly is this having guns supposed to keep the government in check? In terms of keeping the government in check it only seems like it would really aid domestic terrorist groups?[/QUOTE] Bad man starts doing bad thing sends goons to do bad thing the goons get shot not hard. If you're gonna say "Well they have tanks! and Planes! You're doomed!" I don't think you understand how many warm bodies walking the streets and kicking in doors are needed to actually occupy a nation. Take a look at the middle east and see what angry islamist goat farmers with rusted AKs and Enfields have done to basically every power that has tried to curb them.

[QUOTE=Judas;52739382]america has signed away all our rights and elected fascists already, what good are all the guns in the world gonna do us now?[/QUOTE] Could you be a bit more dramatic and a bit more exaggeration with your post?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52739407]Bad man starts doing bad thing sends goons to do bad thing the goons get shot not hard. If you're gonna say "Well they have tanks! and Planes! You're doomed!" I don't think you understand how many warm bodies walking the streets and kicking in doors are needed to actually occupy a nation. Take a look at the middle east and see what angry islamist goat farmers with rusted AKs and Enfields have done to basically every power that has tried to curb them.[/QUOTE] Islamist goat farmers were annihilated by the US military despite being on the other side of the world and the US military then left due to unpopularity back home.

[QUOTE=27X;52739406]You should read the detroit or chicago local news crime blotter for a couple of weeks.[/QUOTE] 2 cities heavy with gun regulation, but still have a lot of gun crime. Hm. It's almost as if gun bans doesn't do a damn thing to prevent gun crime. Huh, who woulda thunk.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;52739365]Can you make that argument without exploiting the victims and the dead? It's really distasteful.[/QUOTE] how is it exploiting anyone when it's a simple fucking fact about a thing that just happened and keeps happening. How come we don't say it's exploitation when the subject of such events involves a group of people that's mostly disliked on this forum? oh its only exploitation when its convenient to your worldview i guess

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739413]Islamist goat farmers were annihilated by the US military despite being on the other side of the world and the US military then left due to unpopularity back home.[/QUOTE] Exactly the point? It makes occupation a long, drawn out, costly option when the populace is actively shooting back at you. It doesn't matter if you can win every engagement. Eventually when bodies start rolling home people are going to wonder if its worth the trouble. Kind of a moot point more or less though. As soon as the 5th Trumpreich or etc. begins to try to remove the 2nd or similar you'll probably see vast swathes of the Military fucking off with said tanks towards the people.

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52739385]I never understood this idea. When did this fear of the government that needs to be kept in check mentality start? Always makes it sound like one day they just decide to send the military after civilians and the only way to prevent that is with having a gun in the hand every every citizen.[/QUOTE] It is a locke thing. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property? Same guy. Basically the father of the concept of consent of the governed. The idea is less that the government starts going after citizens directly, but rather that the government ceases to represent the people. We have all these rules that dictate how the government works, but there isn't really a punishment for violating them. The idea is that if you majorly fuck up your side of the contract, like refuse the peaceful transition of power, the civilians stop upholding theirs.

[QUOTE=butre;52739381]not over 20p and a pack of mayfairs they don't[/QUOTE] Yeah instead you just get shot and fucking die either way. The US is not some weird standout in "minimum acceptable requirements" for violence. People over in your "grand" country get shot and killed over literally fucking anything. Much like most of the world.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52739419]Exactly the point? It makes occupation a long, drawn out, costly option when the populace is actively shooting back at you. It doesn't matter if you can win every engagement. Eventually when bodies start rolling home people are going to wonder if its worth the trouble. Kind of a moot point more or less though. As soon as the 5th Trumpreich or etc. begins to try to remove the 2nd or similar you'll probably see vast swathes of the Military fucking off with said tanks towards the people.[/QUOTE] But the US population isn't going to maintain a resistance against the US military. Rebels would be wiped out too quickly to maintain proper resistance, like in Afghanistan. It also isn't on the other side of the world, it's in the military's backyard, and they'd have nowhere else to leave because of unpopularity.

Getting a bit off topic but I think an insurgency would last a long time in the South.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739420]It is a locke thing. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property? Same guy. Basically the father of the concept of consent of the governed. The idea is less that the government starts going after citizens directly, but rather that the government ceases to represent the people. We have all these rules that dictate how the government works, but there isn't really a punishment for violating them. The idea is that if you majorly fuck up your side of the contract, like refuse the peaceful transition of power, the civilians stop upholding theirs.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's a beautiful idea when the citizens have any mean to actually stop upholding their side of the contract, or if the government had actually been upheld to that at any point in the last 300 years, or if the common citizenry could be trusted when choosing to overthrow their representatives. Of course Locke isn't the sole founder of the country, we don't all base our opinions of him, and his ideas haven't even been enacted anywhere near as closely as you seem to think, so it's a pretty silly point. It's not like we based the entire nation off of John Locke, and I see even less of a reason why he'd matter to the current political climate.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739430]But the US population isn't going to maintain a resistance against the US military. Rebels would be wiped out too quickly to maintain proper resistance, like in Afghanistan. It also isn't on the other side of the world, it's in the military's backyard, and they'd have nowhere else to leave because of unpopularity.[/QUOTE] You think a military of few million could take on a 300 million person population? Even with all that equipment they cant face sheer numbers and deploying tanks and bombers would be the death sentence for the government.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;52739203]you can't possibly try to equate a homemade gun with a professionally tooled tried and tested design if this dude used a homebrewed mac10 or tec9 equivalent, theres no way he'd get the same numbers it also takes pretty expensive tools and a good amount of technical knowhow to make a decent gun, and not just some 1 shot zipgun[/QUOTE] This guy made an AK-47 out of a shovel. [url]http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/apparently-you-can-make-an-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/[/url] Guns can be made from pipes and nails. [IMG]http://1y7vgdz53a11xyb91s53s6d6.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/shotgun-6-1024x320.jpg[/IMG] Guns can be made from just scrap wood and metal. If it's ugly as hell, but it works, then it still works. [IMG]http://www.craphound.com/images/chechenhomemade.jpg[/IMG] And professionally tooled and tested is the same thing. As long as the shooter can get off a bunch of rounds before the gun falls apart, it's a success.