Yet another needless mass shooting

[Octavious]

Precedent and the consent of wider society cover most of it, I would say. A remarkable number of things are only allowed to exist because they've been around for a long time, and wouldn't stand a hope in hell of being allowed if they were new ideas, from fireworks to motorbikes.

If American society was strongly against gun ownership it would stop, but it isn't. American society is strongly against personal attack helicopters.

From a practical point of resisting tyrannical governments, the people don't need heavy weapons. This has been explained to death by various people so I don't see any value in explaining it again.

[Jamiet99uk]

From a practical point of resisting tyrannical governments, the people don't need heavy weapons. This has been explained to death by various people so I don't see any value in explaining it again.

Which people?

Links?

I dispute this claim. A fat middle-aged white man from Reno with a handgun he just bought from K-Mart would not be able to resist the US Government if it was really hell-bent on oppressing him.

[President Eden]

From a practical point of resisting tyrannical governments, the people don't need heavy weapons. This has been explained to death by various people so I don't see any value in explaining it again.

Which people?

Links?

I dispute this claim. A fat middle-aged white man from Reno with a handgun he just bought from K-Mart would not be able to resist the US Government if it was really hell-bent on oppressing him.

Look at literally every single failed war against a guerrilla insurgency the US has fought since the end of WWII, there's several examples.
Not everyone rising up is a fat middle-aged guy with a handgun.
You knew that, and you're being disingenuous as hell for even pretending otherwise.

[Condescension]

From a practical point of resisting tyrannical governments, the people don't need heavy weapons. This has been explained to death by various people so I don't see any value in explaining it again.

Which people?

Links?

I dispute this claim. A fat middle-aged white man from Reno with a handgun he just bought from K-Mart would not be able to resist the US Government if it was really hell-bent on oppressing him.

Have you seen Afghanistan? That's people with cheap rifles, homemade bullets and IEDs taking on the world's most powerful militiary and doing quite a bit of damage.

If the US government wanted to *exterminate* the population, they'd be able to do that no probbo. But if you want to oppress a populaton, you can't nuke or carpet bomb them, you have to use infantry and airstrikes and that is absolutely something that irregular forces with small arms can fight.

[Condescension]

The thing is, I believe an oppressive government is more likely to make use of the people with guns than fight them. Populism is some scary shit.

[Jamiet99uk]

The thing is, I believe an oppressive government is more likely to make use of the people with guns than fight them. Populism is some scary shit.

Now, this I can somewhat agree with.

[Jamiet99uk]

From a practical point of resisting tyrannical governments, the people don't need heavy weapons. This has been explained to death by various people so I don't see any value in explaining it again.

Which people?

Links?

I dispute this claim. A fat middle-aged white man from Reno with a handgun he just bought from K-Mart would not be able to resist the US Government if it was really hell-bent on oppressing him.

Look at literally every single failed war against a guerrilla insurgency the US has fought since the end of WWII, there's several examples.
Not everyone rising up is a fat middle-aged guy with a handgun.
You knew that, and you're being disingenuous as hell for even pretending otherwise.

No, but plenty of the people buying guns, and advocating for their right to continue to buy guns, absolutely are middle aged white guys in no fit state to fight a protracted campaign of guerrila insurgency. You know that too. So what role are they going to play in resisting the tyranny of the gubbermint? Why do they need handguns to do it?

[MattyofG]

Look you need explosives if you're going to do an insurgency, end of question.

Furthermore, if you want to do an insurgency, literally anyone can get guns. Hell, the jews in Warsaw got them.

You do not need them to have them up front because you cannot stop people from getting them.

I would only agree that guns could theoretically be useful in the setting of genocide, but as the South Sudan showed us, that usually just turns into to sides trying to genocide the other, which is not much better.

To be clear, I am not saying that you don't need guns to have an insurgency, of course you need them. What I am saying is they are not sufficient by themselves and that having them in advance is not a useful strategy. If you are really interesting in preventing a government takeover, you need to go full bore into militia with training, ammo and supply drops hidden and periodically refreshed, safe houses and the like. Most of the gun-righters are not doing that, so we know their claims are bullshit.

P.S. Just because someone tried to explain why they think they are right about armed insurgency, doesn't make it any more correct. Lots of your friends and colleagues are wrong about this sort of thing I'm afraid. I'm not here to change your mind though, I'm just telling you how it is, you come off as complete loons to the rest of us, because we see the power fantasy for what it is, a fantasy.

[Randomizer]

Look you need explosives if you're going to do an insurgency, end of question.

Timothy McVieh and the Oklahoma City bombing how easy it was to make a massive explosive out of farming supplies. Anyone who wants to spend the time researching it can make a variety of explosives short of a nuclear bomb and that's only because of the trouble getting refined materials.

[MattyofG]

He didn't say that. The accident/suicide point is dead on. You are correct though, you are more likely to need a gun for non-recreational use then to be killed by a mass shooter. Both are vanishingly rare for the average American. There are certain parts of the country that, the value of a firearm goes up, but those areas are not super common and oddly enough, usually not populated with people who support gun rights.

You would think if you lived in a bad neighborhood you'd be more interested in personal gun rights, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Might have something to do with ethnicity. Gun-righters tend to be white and the urban poor are usually more minority heavy.

[Greg_the_republican]

It’s not the guns, it’s the people who own the guns. I still support the 2nd Amendment all the way.

[Jamiet99uk]

Pro guns.
Anti gun owners.
Perfect sense.

[CroakandDagger]

Don't be a prick.

[President Eden]

He didn't say that. The accident/suicide point is dead on. You are correct though, you are more likely to need a gun for non-recreational use then to be killed by a mass shooter. Both are vanishingly rare for the average American. There are certain parts of the country that, the value of a firearm goes up, but those areas are not super common and oddly enough, usually not populated with people who support gun rights.

You would think if you lived in a bad neighborhood you'd be more interested in personal gun rights, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Might have something to do with ethnicity. Gun-righters tend to be white and the urban poor are usually more minority heavy.

The demographic question here makes perfect sense to me. Rural areas have less crime, so people who are more concerned about the possibility of being attacked by violent criminals value living in rural areas more. Rural areas have sparser police presence, so people who live in rural areas are more likely to need to defend themselves. People in both of those groups would also tend to place a higher priority on gun rights and gun ownership.
Conversely, people who are less concerned about the possibility of being attacked by violent criminals would place lower emphasis on crime rates as a factor in where they live. Urban areas have larger police presence, which might lend people living in urban areas to place greater reliance on government forces for their protection. People in both of those groups would tend to place a lower priority on gun rights and gun ownership.

And to be completely frank, the gun control question has always been about whites. Minorities who own guns and value that are even less likely to support gun control than whites who do, since they are more likely to distrust government than whites are. Gun control discussions only seem to spark when the mass killings involve white children that can be paraded on the news nonstop for a week and shake the average apathetic American citizen into caring; minority children, especially inner-city blacks, die from criminal violence at much higher rates than white children, yet national discussions about gun control don't ever crop up when the nightly news reports a dozen murders in Chicago or Los Angeles over the course of a weekend. Your most visible gun rights advocates are rural whites, and your most visible gun control advocates are urban whites.
There may be a correlative trend between race and gun rights views, but I think that trend is an expression of a broader urban/rural divide on the question (which speaks to the demographics concerns above, as well as other common questions, like hunting) rather than a separately relevant trend unto itself.

[Jamiet99uk]

So, President Eden:

How do you propose to protect innocent US youths from being needlessly shot to death?

I would propose huge restrictions on the rights of citizens to own guns. I'd more or less ban that, in fact.

You disagree.

Ok.

What's your answer?

[President Eden]

Jamie there is literally no point to talking to you about this, you don't engage anybody who disagrees with you with anything close to an open mind, you frequently reduce complex situations to one variable without regard for any issues beyond the one at hand and you frequently use emotional appeals and rhetoric to obfuscate logical points you disagree with.

Sorry bud, I like you personally but there's no point to talking politics with you.

[Condescension]

So, President Eden:

How do you propose to protect innocent US youths from being needlessly shot to death?

I would propose huge restrictions on the rights of citizens to own guns. I'd more or less ban that, in fact.

You disagree.

Ok.

What's your answer?

Why is he obligated to provide an answer?

[Jamiet99uk]

So, President Eden:

How do you propose to protect innocent US youths from being needlessly shot to death?

I would propose huge restrictions on the rights of citizens to own guns. I'd more or less ban that, in fact.

You disagree.

Ok.

What's your answer?

Why is he obligated to provide an answer?

Why am I obligated to answer you?

[Condescension]

So, President Eden:

How do you propose to protect innocent US youths from being needlessly shot to death?

I would propose huge restrictions on the rights of citizens to own guns. I'd more or less ban that, in fact.

You disagree.

Ok.

What's your answer?

Why is he obligated to provide an answer?

Why am I obligated to answer you?

Pedant, you know what I meant.

[Durga]

If the government wants to become tyrannical your measly guns and lack of training ain't gonna do shit.

And has PE said anything substantial in his blocks of text? Can someone please tldr and translate it for me