General "mass killings" thread

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Comrade said:

Just a few thoughts I have.

...some good thoughts in there... 

A few things I'd want to comment on.

1 hour ago, Comrade said:

there is far more gun crime in areas that have far stricter gun laws.

Please provide any figures upon which you are relying to verify that statement, because I don't think its factually accurate.

You perhaps mean to say that cities generally have more gun crime than rural communities, but that's more a function of population density and crime of all kinds being higher when you have a high volume of people living right on top of each other. (moreover the effects of gun laws are minimal when implemented on a purely localized level, such that guns move freely between unregulated and regulated zones. This for example has been an identified problem in Chicago; easy access to and free flow of firearms from neighboring rural Indiana essentially negates any and all efforts to control the prevalence of access to firearms at the state or city level)

Where you have seen gun control policy implemented at a NATIONAL rather than state or local level, the data unmistakably supports the proposition that stricter gun laws reduce violent crime. 

1 hour ago, Comrade said:

 Israel has guns everywhere due to a mandatory draft and our violent crime rate is relatively low 

 Israel represents a novel but effective approach to the issue.

As you've alluded to, the distinguishing feature of Israeli policy is that Israel has a military draft. Moreover, the draft is gender-nuteral. Men and women are both drafted into the IDF at the age of majority and, as part of the drafting process, receive a fitness-to-serve exam. 

What this means is that virtually every Israeli is going to be receiving a military-grade mental health evaluation and screened for psychopathic tendencies as soon as they turn 18. If they fail the test they are permanently flagged. Their info is placed in a national data base. And they will have their gun rights restricted + immediately draw the scrutiny of law enforcement personnel if they walk into a gun shop and try to purchase an Uzi.  (Then of course if an Israeli is actually flagged as dangerously mentally ill--its a universal healthcare country, so persons flagged by the system actually get access to affordable medical treatment as a matter of public policy instead of being left to their psychotic impulses and pipelined into the the criminal justice system. Thats a whole other thing America is doing wrong)

We have...absolutely nothing of the sort...

Paranoid schizophrenics, radicalized jihadists, persons with restraining orders for domestic violence--anyone in this country can own and operate an AR-15 with the minimal effort of attending a local gun show, and buying over-the-counter from a private vendor. No-questions-asked.

As opposed to the outright bans imposed by countries like Britain and Japan, the cornerstone of Israeli gun control policy is rigorous mental health screening and background checks.  You have lots of guns. But you have a strong system in place to make sure they don't wind up in the hands of crazy people. 

That's a system that balances public safety interests in reducing the prevalence of gun crime against the rights of lawful, responsible gun owners and a system that America would do well to adopt.  

 

1 hour ago, Comrade said:

1) A lot of people (on all sides of the debate) seem to misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The point of it is to say "right, the government has no right to disarm me and if the people want to create a militia, the government is going to need to crush it by force if they want to stop it". It doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms; it simply denies the government a legal way to disarm the citizenry, technology be damned.

 

1 hour ago, Comrade said:

You cannot claim that the police are indiscriminately shooting blacks and that Trump is a Nazi... and then ask for them to be the only ones armed. Because if those statements were true, I'd want the black community armed to the fucking teeth as some sort of protection.

 

This is a really interesting point. Think about what its really saying for a moment. 

If you look at the actual Founding Era treatises explaining the intent of the 2nd Amendment--its unequivocally because the Founders envisioned that a check against government overreach and oppressive injustice would be an armed populace having the power to open fire upon offending instrumentalities of government--the ONLY persons in modern America using their 2nd Amendment rights in the manner envisioned by its drafters are the Black Power activists assassinating police officers, in retaliation for the unpunished murder of young black men at the hands of law enforcement.

Which most reasonable people on all sides would today agree is a terrible fucking idea, and condemn as the worst kind of criminal violence. Calling instead upon aggrieved parties to enact change through legitimate democratic processes of electing lawmakers receptive to their issues, and changing the laws which protect racist police. 

...its almost as though the whole train-of-thought behind the operative intent of the 2nd Amendment is a relic of 18th century political theory, and has no place in a modern democratic society with stable and long-standing institutions for non-violent redress of grievances...  

In a sense this is a rehashing of the old argument between the followers of Martin Luther King and the followers of Malcom X that defined the tension of the Civil Rights Movement: Accepting as true that America is a racist country and that by behaving lawfully we are acquiescing to the oppression of a racist power structure, is it better to break the law and kill the oppressors and fight the power? Or is it better to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, show love and brotherhood in the face of hatred and ignorance, and provoke the public conscience into awareness of this great injustice until the law changes?

Malcom X said: "Fight the power!"     

MLK said: "Nonviolent civil disobedience."

I think history has ultimately vindicated MLK's approach as the one that leads to favorable change of social attitudes and reformations of law. Whereas the factions answering violence with violence served only to undermine the moral high ground of their movement and dampen the social imperative to remedy the injustice against them.

So agreeing that Trump is a fascist and police are indiscriminately shooting Black people--I still don't see the 2nd amendment as an effective or appropriate remedy.  I foresee things getting worse--not better--if some young hotheads get the idea that the answer to Trumpism is to arm themselves to the teeth and turn their guns against the State. (American Democracy is well and truly fucked  if all other avenues of redress are exhausted, and that's what it comes down to)

Being a liberal democracy with longstanding stable institutions of lawmaking and an independent judiciary means that we combat injustice with voter waves and court filings. Not with armed conflict and political violence. (Which again. The very fact that we've come to define the latter as the crime of "domestic terrorism" in the modern ethos makes the whole 18th century body of theorycrafting around the second amendment look--quite frivolous, by any contemporary standard)    
 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Life said:

I took a nice long break to do a lot of reading and evaluation so here's my two cents.

 

1) A lot of people (on all sides of the debate) seem to misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The point of it is to say "right, the government has no right to disarm me and if the people want to create a militia, the government is going to need to crush it by force if they want to stop it". It doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms; it simply denies the government a legal way to disarm the citizenry, technology be damned.

It's similar to the 1st amendment in that respect. It's not that I have the right to free speech; it's that the mandate on violence has no legal ability to silence me, no matter how heinous the words I say are. It may seem like a small word-game but it's much bigger than that.

Now, just because I can bear arms doesn't mean I should do so. But it is important for people to at least understand the principle behind the 2A before piping up (and this is extended to those who are against guns altogether).

 

2) I spent 3 years sleeping with an M16A1 under my pillow. I've been shooting rifles since the age of 10. And I think I know why most city people (being that I grew up in a big city) don't understand why there is far more gun crime in areas that have far stricter gun laws.

It's the culture. When you grow up around guns in a controlled manner (and I mean by culture, not by laws), you learn to respect the gun for what it is: a killing tool. You don't fuck about with it and you're far less likely to pull the trigger when aiming at another person (because rule number 1 is to never aim even an empty weapon at something that you're not going to shoot 100%). These are not ideas that friends of mine understand about guns... because they never grew up around weapons. And when you don't grow up around weapons, you don't learn to respect them.

 

3) There is no "right" or "wrong" solution here. The UK has to ban knives and restrict acid sales because those are the weapons of choice there. Israel has guns everywhere due to a mandatory draft and our violent crime rate is relatively low (if you're not in South Tel Aviv). No one answer is going to work everywhere.

But I will say this: You cannot claim that the police are indiscriminately shooting blacks and that Trump is a Nazi... and then ask for them to be the only ones armed. Because if those statements were true, I'd want the black community armed to the fucking teeth as some sort of protection.

Are there issues with the US police? Absolutely. But why would you claim to be victimized by the government... and then ask them to disarm you? It makes no sense.

 

Just a few thoughts I have.

I'd advocate disarming the police and the citizenry. Works for my country. Though obviously America is too far entrenched to do something like that overnight.

[Life]

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

 Israel represents a novel but effective approach to the issue.

As you've alluded to, the distinguishing feature of Israeli policy is that Israel has a military draft. Moreover, the draft is gender-nuteral. Men and women are both drafted into the IDF at the age of majority and, as part of the drafting process, receive a fitness-to-serve exam. 

What this means is that virtually every Israeli is going to be receiving a military-grade mental health evaluation and screened for psychopathic tendencies as soon as they turn 18. If they fail the test they are permanently flagged. Their info is placed in a national data base. And they will have their gun rights restricted + immediately draw the scrutiny of law enforcement personnel if they walk into a gun shop and try to purchase an Uzi.  (Then of course if an Israeli is actually flagged as dangerously mentally ill--its a universal healthcare country, so persons flagged by the system actually get access to affordable medical treatment as a matter of public policy instead of left to their psychotic impulses and pipelined into the the criminal justice system. Thats a whole other thing America is doing wrong)

We have...absolutely nothing of the sort...

Paranoid schizophrenics, radicalized jihadists, persons with restraining orders for domestic violence--anyone in this country can own and operate an AR-15 with the minimal effort of attending a local gun show, and buying over-the-counter from a private vendor, no-questions-asked.

As opposed to the outright bans imposed by countries like Britain and Japan, the cornerstone of Israeli gun control policy is rigorous mental health screening and background checks. 

That's a system that balances public safety interests in reducing the prevalence of gun crime against the rights of lawful, responsible gun owners and a system that America would do well to adopt.  

This is the only one I really want to comment on because you've actually said some factually incorrect things here.

- There are no such thing as "gun rights" here. Every single piece of hardware is owned by the military, even if they are only used by private contractors and citizens. You cannot buy a gun; only petition the army for permission to have one. And knives are also effectively illegal meaning that if my home gets broken into, I effectively have nothing to defend myself with on a legal basis.

I personally am lucky because one of my roommates is currently in service in a combat unit so we actually do have a rifle in my apartment. But when she finishes, there goes my right to self-defense.

- That "military-grade health evaluation" that you mentioned is not as effective as you think. In fact, it's far worse. And I can say this for a fact because it almost barred me from serving in a combat unit despite the fact that I was and am in perfect mental health. Oh and I was never given a reason for why I was barred from combat service but I got lucky in overturning it because I had to fight and risk military jail. And I'm not the exception here.

What you are implying is that I (as a law-abiding and mentally healthy citizen) would then be entirely barred from the basic right to self-preservation what may have been a simple clerical error or a misdiagnosis without ever being given a reason as for why. And I would have to risk jail time to fight for that right. No, thank you.

- As an extra thing, we have no 4th amendment here either. If the IDF wanted, they could search and seize my home in a heartbeat and I would have no legal recourse OR the ability to defend my property. That's another thing of note and something that all totalitarian states have in common. Luckily, it's an army made up of the yeomanry so it won't realistically happen any time soon.

Just wanted to correct some incorrect statements here.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Life

[Shoblongoo]

17 minutes ago, Life said:

- There are no such thing as "gun rights" here. Every single piece of hardware is owned by the military, even if they are only used by private contractors and citizens. You cannot buy a gun; only petition the army for permission to have one. And knives are also effectively illegal meaning that if my home gets broken into, I effectively have nothing to defend myself with on a legal basis.
 

Right.

So when you're talking about Israel as a country that has managed to reduce violent crime, you're not talking about a country that has reduced violent crime in the absence of gun control policy crafted and enforced at the national level.  

Which makes your initial deceleration that "Israel has guns everywhere and our violent crime rate is relatively low" just a tad bit misleading.

You have guns on active duty service personnel, and persons who have been screened and cleared by your government to continue carrying weapons after their term of service expires. That is all.

Americans would lose their shit if we implemented a system of controls even as permissive as the system used in Israel. And the Israeli system is comparatively mild, compared to some of the gun control laws that exist in other countries. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

One thing to know for the people who think gun control leads to oppression. Most of the recent gun control measures are the result of legislative action. A legislative body is beholden to the constituents of wherever they are from and who they represent. If they vote in favor of an arms ban, it's nominally because the people of their region want there to be one. An executive gun ban is the one that must be considered an affront to civil rights, as there is a precedent that those at the top are more inclined to consolidate power and not be beholden to the people of their nation. The jackboots will not fall so long as the leader isn't the one proposing and enacting it. 

Edit: they can suggest it, but as it showed with Obama, that doesn't mean it's a guarantee in a Democracy.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Hylian Air Force

[Life]

5 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Right.

So when you're talking about Israel as a country that has managed to reduce violent crime, you're not talking about a country that has reduced violent crime in the absence of gun control policy crafted and enforced at the national level.  

Which makes your initial deceleration that "Israel has guns everywhere and our violent crime rate is relatively low" just a tad bit misleading.

You have guns on active duty service personnel, and persons who have been screened and cleared by your government to continue carrying weapons after their term of service expires. That is all.

Americans would lose their shit if we implemented a system of controls even as permissive as the system used in Israel. And the Israeli system is comparatively mild, compared to some of the gun control laws that exist in other countries. 

Yes and for good reason too.

If the army decided to randomly invade my home, I have:
1) No legal recourse.
2) No legal option for self-defense.

Now imagine that I am a political dissident who speaks out against my government (I actually am because I'm a libertarian while my gov't is leaning farther towards an ethno-theocracy every day rather than being a liberal democracy). What Maduro did to his political opponents in Venezuela could legally happen to me. I'm not exaggerating when I say this; the only thing that prevents this from even having a chance at happening is that the generals of the IDF are left-wing.

This is the point I am making. If your citizenry can only be armed at your government's good graces, what happens when a totalitarian shows up?

I'm not saying the USA is perfect. But this is the other half of the argument that actually happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Life

[Moblin Major General]

10 minutes ago, Life said:

Yes and for good reason too.

If the army decided to randomly invade my home, I have:
1) No legal recourse.
2) No legal option for self-defense.

Now imagine that I am a political dissident who speaks out against my government (I actually am because I'm a libertarian while my gov't is leaning farther towards an ethno-theocracy every day rather than being a liberal democracy). What Maduro did to his political opponents in Venezuela could legally happen to me. I'm not exaggerating when I say this; the only thing that prevents this from even having a chance at happening is that the generals of the IDF are left-wing.

This is the point I am making. If your citizenry can only be armed at your government's good graces, what happens when a totalitarian shows up?

I'm not saying the USA is perfect. But this is the other half of the argument that actually happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

The last time a Western nation became truly totalitarian, a war was fought on 4 continents and created the state of the world today, as well as your country, Life. As long as the lessons of our past are not forgotten, the paranoia of a disarmed society falls flat, and fall to us, the current generation, to ensure that those lessons are not forgotten. Though my nation has a leader that could be counted among dictators, dissent has been far from crushed, in fact it has only intensified, if only because the ghosts of the past haunt the present.

[Shoblongoo]

45 minutes ago, Life said:

This is the point I am making. If your citizenry can only be armed at your government's good graces, what happens when a totalitarian shows up?

I'm not saying the USA is perfect. But this is the other half of the argument that actually happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

...you either have a functioning democracy with the institutions to constrain a totalitarian and assert rule-of-law, or you don't. (America is being stress-tested on that front right now. We have the free press, an independent judiciary, the co-equal legislative body, the psuedo-independent justice department and federal bureau of investigations--every institution charged with constraining an authoritarian executive working overtime to keep Trump in check. We have Trump working every day to brand them as crooked and untrustworthy and as enemies of the country; so compromising the public trust in its own longstanding institutions of democracy and the legitimacy of what they do that a true authoritarian can operate around them, unrestrained. And there's an open question as to which way the country is going to break before its all over) 

If you truly wind up at the point that the only way to answer the totalitarian is for the citizenry to bear arms against him, you no longer have a democracy to protect. You have a third world country and at that point all bets are off--fuck the law, because the law means nothing in a tinpot dictatorship where the executive doesn't have to follow it and can change it on a whim. At that point you just do what you need to do to keep your family safe.   

A goal of any stable democracy should be to never, ever, ever, ever, EVER get to that point. 

45 minutes ago, Life said:

Now imagine that I am a political dissident who speaks out against my government (I actually am because I'm a libertarian while my gov't is leaning farther towards an ethno-theocracy every day rather than being a liberal democracy). What Maduro did to his political opponents in Venezuela could legally happen to me. I'm not exaggerating when I say this; the only thing that prevents this from even having a chance at happening is that the generals of the IDF are left-wing.

Granted--Netanyahu is a rightwing nationalist shithead. But the Israeli left is still alive and well; it just needs a leader and a figurehead for a new generation. (again sort of the same problem we're having in America right now. The left is energized and chomping at the bits for someone who can capture that energy, but the national leadership is a hot mess atm. There's no new up-and-comers; just the same old Reid's and Pelosi's)

Its not so dire as you make it out to be. Vote Likud out of power and bring back the Kadima coalition.

If enough Israelis get pissy about the way Netanyahu is running the country, it will happen. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Life]

9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...you either have a functioning democracy with the institutions to constrain a totalitarian and assert rule-of-law, or you don't. (America is being stress-tested on that front right now. You have the free press, an independent judiciary, the co-equal legislative body, the psuedo-independent justice department and federal bureau of investigations--every institution charged with constraining an authoritarian executive working overtime to keep Trump in check. You have Trump working every day to brand them as crooked and untrustworthy and as enemies of the country; so compromising the public trust in its own longstanding institutions of democracy and the legitimacy of what they do that a true authoritarian can operate around them, unrestrained. And an open question as to which way the country is going to break before its all over) 

If you truly wind up at the point that the only way to answer the totalitarian is for the citizenry to bear arms against him, you no longer have a democracy to protect. You have a third world country, and at that point all bets are off. 

Granted--Netanyahu is a rightwing nationalist shithead. But the Israeli left is still alive and well; it just needs a leader and a figurehead for a new generation. (again sort of the same problem we're having in America right now. The left is energized and chomping at the bits for someone who can capture that energy, but the national leadership is a hot mess atm. There's no new up-and-comers; just the same old Reid's and Pelosi's)

Its not so dire as you make it out to be. Vote Likud out of power and bring back the Kadima coalition.

If enough Israelis get pissy about the way Netanyahu is running the country, it will happen. 

It's far more complicated than just "vote Kadima". The entire left wing is a mess, not just the leadership.

 

And asking me to vote left-wing is asking me to vote against my own principles. I'd rather not vote in that case. Because I'm either abstaining or voting Zehut.

 

But the point I was making was the principle about firearms and an armed citizenry. Either we agree on that basic principle or we don't.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Life

[Shoblongoo]

37 minutes ago, Life said:

But the point I was making was the principle about firearms and an armed citizenry.

...its a consideration...

As far as competing considerations of public policy are concerned: I think the consideration of reducing violent crime is more compelling than the consideration of having a theoretical check against a hostile government takeover by totalitarians and fascists. 

Emphasis on "theoretical." 

On paper, the political theorycrafting looks nice.

In practice, the segment of the population that has for years been telling us they need to stockpile guns in case the fascists take power is the same segment of the population now in lockstep behind the first literal fascist ever elected to high office in America.   

Go figure. 
 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[blah the Prussian]

3 hours ago, Life said:

1) A lot of people (on all sides of the debate) seem to misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The point of it is to say "right, the government has no right to disarm me and if the people want to create a militia, the government is going to need to crush it by force if they want to stop it". It doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms; it simply denies the government a legal way to disarm the citizenry, technology be damned.

It's similar to the 1st amendment in that respect. It's not that I have the right to free speech; it's that the mandate on violence has no legal ability to silence me, no matter how heinous the words I say are. It may seem like a small word-game but it's much bigger than that.

Now, just because I can bear arms doesn't mean I should do so. But it is important for people to at least understand the principle behind the 2A before piping up (and this is extended to those who are against guns altogether).

 

FUCKING FINALLY someone brings this up here, I've wanted to talk about this for a while. The thing is, the American Revolution is one of a very few violent revolutions(which is what a revolution done by a militia would categorically be) that did not end in tyranny, and that's because in America the revolution was carried out with the direction of a specific group of people; it wasn't lead by normal people, it wasn't disorganized. Other revolutions have a decidedly less rosy track record. The Nazis are unique in that they're one of the only totalitarian regimes to come to power mostly non-violently. The Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, Maoist China- they came to power in violent rebellions by ordinary citizens, not a slow government consolidation of power. They came to power on the backs of the people you're saying would be in militias- people who start out as idealistic freedom fighters against a tyrannical government, but who conflict turns full of hate, because that's what violence does. So, accepting the premise that the government is slowly consolidating power, I'm taking my chances with them, because I'm fairly certain that whatever replaces it violently would be much worse.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Life said:

- That "military-grade health evaluation" that you mentioned is not as effective as you think. In fact, it's far worse. And I can say this for a fact because it almost barred me from serving in a combat unit despite the fact that I was and am in perfect mental health. Oh and I was never given a reason for why I was barred from combat service but I got lucky in overturning it because I had to fight and risk military jail. And I'm not the exception here.

Could possibly be because you have an avatar honoring Lenin on a website :P Also on the note of draft for everyone, it's the last kind of country I'd personally want to live in, but it does seem to work to some extent. Norway, Finland and Switzerland all have forced military drafts and are all among the safest countries in the world. On the other hand, there's plenty of other countries that have forced military drafts that absolutely aren't safe. As far as Israel goes, it does actually rank pretty low on the Global Peace Index, though that's more based on level of violence rather than level of crime, and Israel has that nasty Palestine situation.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jotari

[Shoblongoo]

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Could possibly be because you have an avatar honoring Lenin on a website :P Also on the note of draft for everyone, it's the last kind of country I'd personally want to live in, but it does seem to work to some extent. Norway, Finland and Switzerland all have forced military drafts and are all among the safest countries in the world. On the other hand, there's plenty of other countries that have forced military drafts that absolutely aren't safe. As far as Israel goes, it does actually rank pretty low on the Global Peace Index, though that's more based on level of violence rather than level of crime, and Israel has that nasty Palestine situation.

...the perpetual wars and intifadas and the sheer number of armed hostiles on every border make it all the more impressive that those crime levels are as low as they are, tbh.

Israel doesn't realistically have the luxury of being able to disarm its population, for reasons that have absolutely nothing  to do with 2nd amendment political theory or the proposition that an armed citizenry prevents tyranny.  
 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

46 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

FUCKING FINALLY someone brings this up here, I've wanted to talk about this for a while. The thing is, the American Revolution is one of a very few violent revolutions(which is what a revolution done by a militia would categorically be) that did not end in tyranny, and that's because in America the revolution was carried out with the direction of a specific group of people; it wasn't lead by normal people, it wasn't disorganized. Other revolutions have a decidedly less rosy track record. The Nazis are unique in that they're one of the only totalitarian regimes to come to power mostly non-violently. The Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, Maoist China- they came to power in violent rebellions by ordinary citizens, not a slow government consolidation of power. They came to power on the backs of the people you're saying would be in militias- people who start out as idealistic freedom fighters against a tyrannical government, but who conflict turns full of hate, because that's what violence does. So, accepting the premise that the government is slowly consolidating power, I'm taking my chances with them, because I'm fairly certain that whatever replaces it violently would be much worse.

Well considering the Americans didn't actually change anything of the political system when they rebelled, it wasn't even technically a revolution. They just changed the power base from a distant government to a local one. They didn't fight against monarch in the name of democracy, they just fought for freedom and then decided democracy was the best process to go once they got it. If they wanted to, they could have instigated Washington as presiding King of America and nobody would have batted an eye.

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...the perpetual wars and intifadas and the sheer number of armed hostiles on every border make it all the more impressive that those crime levels are as low as they are, tbh.

Israel doesn't realistically have the luxury of being able to disarm its population, for reasons that have absolutely nothing  to do with 2nd amendment political theory or the proposition that an armed citizenry prevents tyranny.  
 

Yeah, Israel certainly has a lot more going on than the typical country. Probably shouldn't have brought up the peace index at all. But likewise, because Israel is involved with the turbulent middle east, I don't think it's a great comparison to other countries that aren't in such a volatile situation.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jotari

[Life]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Could possibly be because you have an avatar honoring Lenin on a website :P Also on the note of draft for everyone, it's the last kind of country I'd personally want to live in, but it does seem to work to some extent. Norway, Finland and Switzerland all have forced military drafts and are all among the safest countries in the world. On the other hand, there's plenty of other countries that have forced military drafts that absolutely aren't safe. As far as Israel goes, it does actually rank pretty low on the Global Peace Index, though that's more based on level of violence rather than level of crime, and Israel has that nasty Palestine situation.

That's tongue-in-cheek humour from about a year ago that I haven't changed (I also have a sweatshirt that reads "Communists are bad people"). I though the title of "legal plunder" would show my disdain from Communists considering that it is what I view most taxation as and only "right wing nut jobs" use that term at all.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Life said:

That's tongue-in-cheek humour from about a year ago that I haven't changed (I also have a sweatshirt that reads "Communists are bad people"). I though the title of "legal plunder" would show my disdain from Communists considering that it is what I view most taxation as and only "right wing nut jobs" use that term at all.

A little less misleading than one of your previous moods, "Make Communism brutal again." I found that one so amusing, I messaged you about it.

[Life]

Just now, Jotari said:

A little less misleading than one of your previous moods, "Make Communism brutal again." I found that one so amusing, I messaged you about it.

That one? I literally quoted an American Communist professor for that. A George Ciccarello-Maher, if I recall correctly. Which led to a New York Times piece on how he was getting "attacked by trolls".

That was fun.

[Shoblongoo]

Oh look; another one down in Nashville. Shooter is a mentally disturbed white male in his 20s with an AR-15. shocking no one.

[Moblin Major General]

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Oh look; another one down in Nashville. Shooter is a mentally disturbed white male in his 20s with an AR-15. shocking no one.

Nashville, you say? Great, this is going to be the talk of the town for months, especially if someone died. Fuck me.

Edit: He was nude and it was at a Waffle House. I knew those things were dangerous.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Hylian Air Force

[Shoblongoo]

...well we all know what needs to be done now. Armed guards in every Waffle House, amiright??? ?

Edited April 22, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

...well we all know what needs to be done now. Armed guards in every Waffle House, amiright??? ?

Private business. That's on Waffle House to pay for that. If they want it, they'll shell out for it. Private property is on the owner to protect.

[Lord Raven]

On 4/22/2018 at 12:47 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

Private business. That's on Waffle House to pay for that. If they want it, they'll shell out for it. Private property is on the owner to protect.

Yeah, but he's pointing out the absurdity in the argument ("security guards" is an argument used to block poignant gun reform).

If anything this shows continued reinforcement that gun crime is far from limited to schools and the idea that security guards fix this issue is laughable when private institutions are targeted as well. Small businesses can't even afford that, so instead of making sensible gun legislation you're forcing poverty on people and their business if they want to keep a madman with a gun from massacring them, or so they'd think. 

Also, I will point out that five years ago there was a shooting at my local mall. There's security there, too. What happened there? It's just not an end-all be-all argument and businesses shouldn't have to take the burden on themselves for basic security when Congress refuses to even discuss this.

[Moblin Major General]

The worst part is, the bastard who did this is still out there, and it happened in what equates to my backyard. And he has more guns than the one he left at the Waffle House. Does he just want to get out of the state? Or is he planning something even more sinister than what he's already done?

[Sias]

40 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The worst part is, the bastard who did this is still out there, and it happened in what equates to my backyard. And he has more guns than the one he left at the Waffle House. Does he just want to get out of the state? Or is he planning something even more sinister than what he's already done?

Wait what, he's still out there? I thought he got caught already?

The first article that comes up when I search "waffle house shooting" is this one, which confirms that he was arrested. Another interesting point: Apparently the shooter was actually disarmed after killing his four victims... by someone without a gun.

[Jotari]

36 minutes ago, Sias said:

Wait what, he's still out there? I thought he got caught already?

The first article that comes up when I search "waffle house shooting" is this one, which confirms that he was arrested. Another interesting point: Apparently the shooter was actually disarmed after killing his four victims... by someone without a gun.

Well that just goes to show, instead of armed security guards, we should have badass Xiaolin Monks stationed everywhere. Let the uniform of peace be a bald head!