Just out of curiosity, to those who believe gun rights are critical to resisting government tyranny: do you actually believe arming the entire populace could stop government tyranny? I mean if, say, 60 million americans had automatic weapons, do you actually think they would be able to put up much of a fight? Assuming every american who is resisting becomes fair game for the government to put down with impunity, then I'm sure a few drone strikes, air bombings, missiles and, oh i don't know, tanks?, would wipe out the resistance in a week. i just don't see how this concept is based in reality when modern government warfare technology is so advanced.

(10-04-2015 06:07 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, to those who believe gun rights are critical to resisting government tyranny: do you actually believe arming the entire populace could stop government tyranny? I mean if, say, 60 million americans had automatic weapons, do you actually think they would be able to put up much of a fight? Assuming every american who is resisting becomes fair game for the government to put down with impunity, then I'm sure a few drone strikes, air bombings, missiles and, oh i don't know, tanks?, would wipe out the resistance in a week. i just don't see how this concept is based in reality when modern government warfare technology is so advanced.

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-50073...pid1100651

In short, yes. For the longer answer, click on the link above and read through the next 20 posts or so.

Quote:In the case of these mass shootings, there has always been a small subset of young men -- especially but not only American men -- perched somewhere between relative sanity and full-blown insanity, who would dream of death and destruction and of going out in a blaze of glory. But often enough these dreams would be inchoate -- they were not able to find a language and a context that would give them form and show them a direction in which they can act. They might have remained confused -- in their case, profitably confused. And so they might never have become directed to act, rather than dream.

With the Internet these evil dreamers can very rapidly get sorted out and pointed in a direction that allows them to perceive what they think of as their destiny. Just as a young player who wants to travel for pussy will rapidly and efficiently find a place like the RVF and begin to grind through the relevant information -- and to very rapidly acquire more sharply defined views and characteristics as a result of this relentless process; so, too, a budding freak like Adam Lanza or Chris Mercer will find his way to the relevant sources, and begin to grind through the information that interests him most and to which he is ineluctably drawn; and his evil dreams will become less confused and come into sharper focus.

In the particular history of this phenomenon, Columbine was an extremely important -- indeed defining -- event, because it happened at a time (April 1999) when the Internet was just becoming truly ubiquitous and its relentless machine was beginning to pick up steam. And of course the mass shooters of this time are almost invariably obsessed with Columbine and what they see as its mythos. Lanza in particular was a scholar of and expert in the minutiae of Columbine, and edited its wiki page with his (no doubt entirely accurate) autistic corrections. And Mercer saw himself as following in the footsteps of both the Columbine shooters and of Lanza.

Well said. Mercer identified with the guy who shot the reporters. Lanza identified with the Columbine shooters. Some Asian will be inspired by Cho.

And you can easily read about their preparation and methods with an eye towards "improving" on them. Every aspiring shooter now knows to use hollow points. Target schools because classrooms are soft targets with one egress point. Try to beat the "high score" - why not, fuckin' Wikipedia even lets you sort by body count.

(10-04-2015 05:38 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The reason these school and college shootings are on the rise is so obvious that it can be hard to see -- because it's literally staring us in the face. It's the Internet.

Most people do not realize (...)

Fuck.

(10-04-2015 06:07 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, to those who believe gun rights are critical to resisting government tyranny: do you actually believe arming the entire populace could stop government tyranny? I mean if, say, 60 million americans had automatic weapons, do you actually think they would be able to put up much of a fight? Assuming every american who is resisting becomes fair game for the government to put down with impunity, then I'm sure a few drone strikes, air bombings, missiles and, oh i don't know, tanks?, would wipe out the resistance in a week. i just don't see how this concept is based in reality when modern government warfare technology is so advanced.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of how guerilla movements/insurgencies operate. It's not guys wearing black hats fighting guys wearing white hats. The lines are all blurred during a mass insurgency. At the scale of mass revolt you're talking about you'd have pro-insurgency people at all levels of government who also aid and abet guerilla fighters. People in the government and the military aren't recruited from a foreign population. It would be a civil war with assassinations and other covert stuff going on everywhere. Who are they going to drone strike when allies and enemies can't even be properly differentiated? The power of guerilla warfare is that the more you drop bombs on innocent people the more people you end up turning against you.

A significantly armed and ideologically driven populace that aren't donning uniforms could absolutely shut the government down. Let me give you a fairly recent example in history..Colombia was very much on the brink of collapse due to narco terrorism. This is from <5000 hired guns under a drug lords pay bombing and causing terror. The only reason why the Colombian government was able to take back control was because at the end of the day you're still dealing with hired guns whose only motivation is money and power. Plus they had a lot of outside help from a significantly stronger country.

Ideologically driven people are much more dangerous. Just look at how effective the communist insurgency was in Mainland China back in the day. They converted entire rural villages right under the noses of everyone.

While it's been repeated, 'banning guns' will not solve any issue. The best arguments against anyone who says, "I believe guns should be banned" propose other alternatives.

Ban all alcohol - this will all drunk driving incidents and no one will die from alcohol poisoning
Ban all sugar/junk foods - this will decrease the national obesity epidemic from going higher.
Ban all fast cars - cars don't need to go that much over the speed limit so fast cars are pointless
Ban all sex - this will prevent stds from spreading and unwannted pregnancies. People can get pregnant alternative ways now, so sex isn't necessary.

Obviously they will say, "Well - that's different" but it's really not. Guns are a vice that people have - and much like every vice, it needs to be in moderation and can't be abused.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/10/02...-and-more/

Human Biodiversity blogger on this situation. He's liberal but sides on the "guns don't cause violence duh" side.

Here is something interesting.

Quote:Turchin, who studies population dynamics at the University of Connecticut, has discovered the violent upheavals seems occur along a roughly 50 year cycle. If he is correct, and if this pattern holds, with the violence of the 1960s and ‘70s considered, it seems that we are on course for rough times around the year 2020. The current signs are not at all promising.

(10-04-2015 10:30 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/10/02...-and-more/

Human Biodiversity blogger on this situation. He's liberal but sides on the "guns don't cause violence duh" side.

Here is something interesting.

Quote:Turchin, who studies population dynamics at the University of Connecticut, has discovered the violent upheavals seems occur along a roughly 50 year cycle. If he is correct, and if this pattern holds, with the violence of the 1960s and ‘70s considered, it seems that we are on course for rough times around the year 2020. The current signs are not at all promising.

Line that up with Armstrong's cycle of war and oh boy are we in for a fun next five years. Stay frosty.

(10-04-2015 05:38 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The reason these school and college shootings are on the rise is so obvious that it can be hard to see -- because it's literally staring us in the face.

I'd rep you again for that post, if I could.

Turns out you've been writing great stuff for so long I falsely-assumed that I'd already repped you. I've been double-checking lately. Rectified - my apologies.

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  While it's been repeated, 'banning guns' will not solve any issue. The best arguments against anyone who says, "I believe guns should be banned" propose other alternatives.

Pretty interesting when broken down by each one:

"In 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries and 11,208 deaths by homicide, 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention)." Source Wikipedia

11,994 death by guns not including suicides.

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Ban all alcohol - this will all drunk driving incidents and no one will die from alcohol poisoning

"Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States." Source NIH

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Ban all sugar/junk foods - this will decrease the national obesity epidemic from going higher.

"Each year, obesity contributes to an estimated 112,000 preventable deaths." Source NIH

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Ban all fast cars - cars don't need to go that much over the speed limit so fast cars are pointless

32,719 deaths in all car accidents Source

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Ban all sex - this will prevent stds from spreading and unwannted pregnancies. People can get pregnant alternative ways now, so sex isn't necessary.

Couldn't find for all STDs but just AIDS alone:

"An estimated 13,712 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2012" Source CDC

(10-04-2015 07:07 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Obviously they will say, "Well - that's different" but it's really not. Guns are a vice that people have - and much like every vice, it needs to be in moderation and can't be abused.

(10-04-2015 02:21 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 08:32 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  If you want to read about Australia's laws with less biased stats:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

That's why Iraq and the "Ickystans" are shitholes to live in unless you're an elite ( like an 1st world expat.) .
[b]I personally have given up on gun control for USA although I'm a flaming liberal, I don't see my gun-loving conservative countrymen as being prone to shoot me.

So... what you mean to say is you support gun rights?

In general, yes. Should a guy drive around with a water-cooled 1000 RPM mini-gun in his pickup bed? Hmmmmm... no.. One nut could take out 1000 people.

You've got to pick your battles politically. Fighting gun ownership in the USA is about as likely to succeed as taking the vote away from women. It's just pointless to argue because of the way the culture is. It just distracts from issues where the populace is deceived and wants things to be different.

Such issues include illegal immigration and wealth concentration.

Most Americans don't want what's happening in either of these areas, but with distractor issues like guns, LGBT stuff, the REAL MONEY ISSUES are kept out of the spotlight. Or they were.

Wealth concentration makes things way worse over all than a few hundred people a year dying from nutjob kids with guns. It's even worse than the chart below ( top 1% get 20% of all salary now instead of 10%) because capital gains are excluded.

However, most Americans are/were unaware, and AGAINST the extreme concentration of wealth that's happened over the last 20-50 years. Just like they are against uncontrolled immigration.

But also since I've worked in the criminal justice system and probably have seen and analyzed more rap sheets than anyone on this board, early gun offenses-- typically a 17-22 year old kid who's a dropout, gang kid, with a record of stuff like strong arm robbery-- I believe in the OPPOSITE of gun rights when they catch him with an unlicensed pistol. Someone with a violent crime history, caught with an unlicensed gun, I believe in very severe penalties. You've got to be TARGETED and SCIENTIFIC in policy decisions.

Most time I am looking at a murderer's rap sheet, it's the "masterpiece" of the idiot's "career" ( average IQ about 70-75) after escalating car theft, bullying, maybe a robbery, they have a early illegal carry charge, get out at 23 or so, then commit a murder. If only that young kid that should have NEVER had a pistol had been put away for 10-15 years, there would have been less carnage.

I've seen this pattern in many criminal histories. If we were willing to have training for menial jobs instead of glorification of gang culture, things might be different, but I don't see this happening and just want to be away from the whole problem. There is no solution to the problem of the underclass in my lifetime of maybe 30 more years.

But that isn't your usual bizarre outcast killer like we hear about ,like in this case.

These aren't the rednecks/conservatives/whatever that are real gun fans.

Like I say you have to pick your battles, and from a pinko's POV like mine the hollowing out of the working class's ability to live with a single earner and own a small home is far worse than the tragic but statistically insignificant random deaths guns cause. There are probably many more deaths from people falling asleep at the wheel from being too tired than there are thrill-killings from creeps like Oregon asshole or the Norwegian narcissist scumbag. People are driving around on three hours' sleep trying to pay rent, child support, and doctor (1%) bills.

TEAM don't use murderer's names. Anonymous shame and contempt should be their lot.

Dr Sanjay Gupta with some interesting insight, beyond just blaming the guns and calling for more laws he advocates social outreach for mentally ill loners.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gup...-violence/

"In many of the recent tragedies, the shooters were described as loners, full of emotional pain and who, at times, were blatantly antisocial. Most of society simply ignores those people, further marginalizing them. The interrupters would do the opposite; they would target those people.

"I think we should be developing outreach networks that look at high-risk situations and high-risk people through all kinds of methods. It could be as simple as word of mouth, through the dorms, postings on social media, and the Internet as a whole," Slutkin said. In medicine, it is referred to as active case finding. If done properly, it can prevent the spread of illnesses and lead to the early treatment of people who are already infected. "

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...n-control/

Quote:WHITE HOUSE: OBAMA PREPARING MORE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL

The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.

“It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

Earnest said he would “quibble” with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

“I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.

He admitted, however that he had no details for what the White House was working on, but asserted that the process was a “scrub” that was “ongoing.”

Earnest welcomed Hillary Clinton’s own gun control proposals announced this morning, but admitted that he hadn’t seen the full details of the proposal.

He also pointedly criticized the “gun show loophole” for allowing criminals and people with mental problems to buy weapons, blaming organizations like the National Rifle Association for blocking action in Congress on the issue.

Better buy ammo while you can find it, boys.



We live in a post-constitutional America. If Trump doesn't get his foot in the boot we're all gonna have it on our necks.

Can a president undo a previous president's executive actions?

As was inevitable to happen, he of course had a journal and complained about not having a girlfriend...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...5-19-33-43

Quote:ROSEBURG, Ore. (AP) -- The gunman who killed nine people at an Oregon community college said in writings he left behind that everyone else was "crazy" and ranted about not having a girlfriend, a law enforcement official said Monday..

delete

(10-06-2015 03:01 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  Can a president undo a previous president's executive actions?

Yes, of course.

(10-02-2015 12:05 AM)kaotic Wrote:  He isn't wrong about the media, they give them celebrity status.

What's scary is these loners long for attention and validation, that hey'll copy and idolize other mass shooters.

This is a copy cat mass shooting - yet the media isn't going to talk about mental health, just the fucking "assault" weapons used.

Just want to briefly address the issue of media attention and infamy that comes from committing a mass shooting. Ideally, the shooters in these incidents would not get national attention. Any news would be restricted to information relating to victims and helping the victims.

However, that demands restraint from ALL (non-fringe) sources. That means NO ONE is allowed to use the event to grab pageviews, promote narratives, and support political agendas. Once that line has been crossed, there's no use trying to suppress details.

(10-06-2015 02:16 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 12:05 AM)kaotic Wrote:  He isn't wrong about the media, they give them celebrity status.

What's scary is these loners long for attention and validation, that hey'll copy and idolize other mass shooters.

This is a copy cat mass shooting - yet the media isn't going to talk about mental health, just the fucking "assault" weapons used.

Just want to briefly address the issue of media attention and infamy that comes from committing a mass shooting. Ideally, the shooters in these incidents would not get national attention. Any news would be restricted to information relating to victims and helping the victims.

However, that demands restraint from ALL (non-fringe) sources. That means NO ONE is allowed to use the event to grab pageviews, promote narratives, and support political agendas. Once that line has been crossed, there's no use trying to suppress details.

That's a huge issue that of course the media takes no responsibility for. The Flannagan murders were a perfect example of the media's aggrandization of murderers coming back to hurt them, and yet it was never mentioned in the media that perhaps they were culpable. Same as this tragedy, if the media hadn't been giving celebrity status to all these psychos the last few years it wouldn't be inciting so many copycats now.

And this guy Mercer is just all over the place nuts. Bi-racial, Muslim sympathizer, ISIS lover, IRA lover, Occultist, Atheist, Nazi lover, yet hated White Christians, but is somehow a White Supremacist. I'd love to see the manifesto released, but I doubt it would provide many answers other than this guy just indiscriminately loved violence of all kinds. He seems like a cutter, or someone who engages in sado-masochistic activities like self-mutilation, as his world had been stripped of love, compassion and any human bonds and the only thing left in his world that made him feel anything was the pain of violence. A truly inverted worldview.


This is the Natural Born Killers generation we are seeing now, one of the most prophetic movies of our times I believe that really shows how the relationship of the media and violent criminals can lead society off the rails.
These kinds of people are so twisted they believe in these kinds of warped backwards fairy tales, like a princess finding her prince charming by being virtious, kind, fair and beautiful, but the opposite. They believe if you become that wicked violent psychopath you will be rewarded with fame, fortune and true love. And the media is making their twisted fantasies come true. Just ask James Holmes.

(10-04-2015 07:03 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 06:07 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, to those who believe gun rights are critical to resisting government tyranny: do you actually believe arming the entire populace could stop government tyranny? I mean if, say, 60 million americans had automatic weapons, do you actually think they would be able to put up much of a fight? Assuming every american who is resisting becomes fair game for the government to put down with impunity, then I'm sure a few drone strikes, air bombings, missiles and, oh i don't know, tanks?, would wipe out the resistance in a week. i just don't see how this concept is based in reality when modern government warfare technology is so advanced.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of how guerilla movements/insurgencies operate. It's not guys wearing black hats fighting guys wearing white hats. The lines are all blurred during a mass insurgency. At the scale of mass revolt you're talking about you'd have pro-insurgency people at all levels of government who also aid and abet guerilla fighters. People in the government and the military aren't recruited from a foreign population. It would be a civil war with assassinations and other covert stuff going on everywhere. Who are they going to drone strike when allies and enemies can't even be properly differentiated? The power of guerilla warfare is that the more you drop bombs on innocent people the more people you end up turning against you.

A significantly armed and ideologically driven populace that aren't donning uniforms could absolutely shut the government down. Let me give you a fairly recent example in history..Colombia was very much on the brink of collapse due to narco terrorism. This is from <5000 hired guns under a drug lords pay bombing and causing terror. The only reason why the Colombian government was able to take back control was because at the end of the day you're still dealing with hired guns whose only motivation is money and power. Plus they had a lot of outside help from a significantly stronger country.

Ideologically driven people are much more dangerous. Just look at how effective the communist insurgency was in Mainland China back in the day. They converted entire rural villages right under the noses of everyone.

It's probably because I just watched Narcos on Netflix, but that's exactly what came to mind to me, too. Also relevant is the concept of Threat Point, which is a term in bargaining theory that means the consequences of failure to reach an agreement. The idea of threat point might be one of the single most important themes in the whole first season of Narcos.

The point of guns is not necessarily to be able to completely overthrow the government in total war conflict. The point of weapons (along with a willingness and capability of using them) is to change the threat point in a bargaining arrangement.

Meanwhile in Chicago...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-chicago...story.html

It's been along hot summer in the Chi, and young black men are killing each other at accelerating rates every month, as there were 57 homicides last month, and over 2300 shootings this year.

"The majority of shooting victims in Chicago were 25- to 29-year-old men. The youngest victim was 11 months old, while the oldest was 81. An analysis of homicide victims from the end of August, based on preliminary Chicago police data, also showed that that more than three-quarters of homicide victims in Chicago were black. "

Yet we all know what the effect of any gun control legislation would be for the black market gun clients such as gang-bangers or criminals, the same as what it is today, nil.

The shooter as all shooters was on at least 5 medications - most of them related to psychosis, autism, ADHD:

Quote:[Mercer's mother] opened up about her difficulties raising a son who used to bang his head against the wall, and said that both she and her son struggled with Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder...

In addition to talking about guns, Ms. Harper, 64, was a prolific commenter in online forums dealing with medical issues, frequently answering questions from strangers with a tone of empathy and concern. She expressed having expertise in autism, saying that both she and her son — whom she never identified by name — had Asperger’s syndrome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mot....html?_r=0



By the way - interesting how they made him white in the media:




His mom and dad.

And here a few facts about those psychotropics - especially antidepressants and ADHD meds:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...-kill.aspx

Quote:Should Antidepressants Carry Black Box Warning for Homicidal Tendencies?

In 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided SSRI antidepressants must carry a black box warning that the drug can cause suicidal tendencies. But what about violence and homicidal tendencies? Despite mounting evidence that antidepressants and certain other drugs can induce violent behavior and has led to the tragic death of spouses, family members and friends, the FDA has done nothing to warn or curb the use of such drugs.

According to CCHR2:

"It is well documented that psychiatric drugs, particularly antidepressants, can cause a host of violent side effects including mania, psychosis, aggression, violence, and in the case of the antidepressant Effexor, homicidal ideation ... [P]eople with no prior history of violence (or suicide) became homicidal and suicidal under the influence of antidepressants. ... However, despite all the documented violence-inducing side effects of these drugs, the FDA has never issued black box warnings on antidepressants causing violence or homicide despite the
fact that at least 11 recent school shootings were committed by kids documented to be on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs."

Here another article with reputed links: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...1158942847


So despite the fact that the drugs have been declared guilty and Big Pharma has paid out billions in damages, the drugs continue to be prescribed as if they are manna from heaven.

Why is it still legal to prescribe those drugs to mentally unstable depressive people? Those pills would cause even healthy people to react more extreme - let alone some who are not mentally sound by any measure. Multiple recent shooters were on the autism spectrum - Adam Lanza, Holmes and now Mercer.

I have 2 extended family members who took anti-depressants and one even psychotropics for an extended period. One even reported aggressive thoughts and she is a 90 pound girl. Both people from my family stopped taking them and replaced them with good food and supplements. Both feel much better after the side-effects of those drugs wore off.

If they admitted that the drugs caused homicidal tendencies, and that all these shooters were on them, could the victims/families go after the pharmaceutical company?

(10-08-2015 03:07 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  If they admitted that the drugs caused homicidal tendencies, and that all these shooters were on them, could the victims/families go after the pharmaceutical company?

I doubt it. Those cases would be too high-profile and would never go to trial. It's even possible that some of the parents actually tried to sue, but those things certainly would have been settled out of court way before any official trial. For all we know - this might have happened anyway.