Crime Maine shooting - 18 dead

[F1980]

(1) The Communists in the Vietnam War had full armed forces on their side, not just the Viet Cong.

(2) The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't just have semi automatic rifles but machine guns of all calibres, explosives, RPGs, antitank rifles, mortars etc. The VC were even better equipped.

(3) You can't just 'steal a tank', like you might a car, and use it, it takes months of training for the crew (usually four people) to be effective. This applies to other military hardware.

(4) Comparing wars thousands of miles away, in poor, third world countries, to the force the US government could bring to bear on its own soil is like comparing how much you can lift with one arm to how much you can lift using your whole body.

You forgot to mention that the military in general is conservative. Every special forces person I've seen on TV or Youtube is pro 2nd amendment. It's not going to go well with the liberals if there's a 2nd civil war. They have nobody. They also pushed away police by siding with the BLM movement in recent years.

So, the conservatives have a hold on the majority of the US military, they also have a hold on police/SWAT and the militias. Who do the liberals have? I guess you could make an argument that the FBI is largely liberal since they're based in Washington DC.

Not to mention the 400 million guns conservatives own in this country and they're much better at using them, too.

Here's the most infamous sniper in the history of the world talking about it

 

[650lb Sumo]

Our last civil war kind of showed this is wrong.

Most in the north though it would be over in a week because the south had no standing army.

Then 4 years of hell on earth happens.

Why do you think it would be any different in a civil war now.

Honestly I know very little about the American Civil War, but off the top I can say (1) both sides had the latest in military technology, (2) they were roughly equivalent in numbers and resources (1:2 or 1:3 IIRC) and (3) many things are different now - transport, communication, population size, population density, weaponry etc. If your new civil war scenario is the country splitting in two, including the land, population, military and everything else, and those two fighting, rather than gun enthusiasts fighting the military, I agree that would be a closer battle.

You forgot to mention that the military in general is conservative. Every special forces person I've seen on TV or Youtube is pro 2nd amendment. It's not going to go well with the liberals if there's a 2nd civil war. They have nobody. They also pushed away police by siding with the BLM movement in recent years.

So, the conservatives have a hold on the majority of the US military, they also have a hold on police/SWAT and the militias. Who do the liberals have? I guess you could make an argument that the FBI is largely liberal since they're based in Washington DC.

Not to mention the 400 million guns conservatives own in this country and they're much better at using them, too.

Here's the most infamous sniper in the history of the world talking about it

In a civil war scenario between the right and the left in the USA I agree that the right would probably win, however that isn't what we were originally talking about. Also I don't know if you did this on purpose, you never really know who believes what they're saying or not, but it's amusing that you picked Chris Kyle as an example - he survived four special forces tours in a war zone but couldn't survive going about his civilian business in the USA. Calling him 'the most infamous sniper in the history of the world' is a good candidate for reddit.com/r/shitamericanssay.

Edit: Here's what happened when some gun enthusiasts tried to tell the Government 'Don't Tread On Me!' more recently:

 

[spamking]

And it's nonsense, since vehicles are a necessary risk. A modern society cannot function without transportation. The same cannot be said about guns, since most developed countries have strict gun laws. It's a false analogy.

A risk is a risk . . . they're addressed by implementing controls and accepting risks when needed. Vehicles themselves aren't the risk. Guns themselves aren't the risk.

LOL how is it junk?

Why is a comment about a criminal having the right to own a firearm junk? Seriously?

Why do you think you're here in this thread? Because a bad guy owned guns.

I like how you conveniently ignore this post . . .

But let's continue to blame the gun and cry for more laws.

Before last week's mass shooting in Maine that left 18 dead and 13 wounded, the U.S. Army says suspect Robert Card's commander was told he should not have access to an Army-issued weapon, and that it asked the local sheriff’s office to perform a welfare check.

In a statement to ABC News on Monday, Lt. Col. Ruth Castro, a U.S. Army spokesperson, said that following his mental health hospitalization and evaluation in mid-July, Card's commander was told he "should not have a weapon, handle ammunition, and not participate in live fire activity."

The Army also determined he should not be put in deployable status "due to concerns over his well-being," according to the statement.

 

[koquerelle]

But you felt the need to chime in? Thanks.

I asked a question and @Loiosh answered it. What's wrong with that? Are you mad because the answer doesn't fit your narrative?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

The gun control folks don't care about specifics. If they did, this entire conversation (we have as a society) would be different.



I never said that there wouldn't still be murders. I'm saying that regardless of where they happen, armed resistance can dissuade all but the most determined criminal most of the time.



Those people are complete tools and while might be a legal gun owner aren't the cream of the crop by any means. If showing up at a protest with a gun influences the situation, then why don't you see that allowing competent people to carry in these stupid gun free zones would as well?



Really? Those nut jobs usually form their own militias and get put on some watchlist.



Let's be real here . . . there are multiple groups with their own "gun culture" that you're referring to. Some might change and become more responsible and others won't even consider it.



Would you not agree that more people have died due to our votes? So you're okay if we check competency before folks are allowed to vote? Or if we required them to get a voter ID?



Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.



This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say lose the gun free zones and if they must exist in some locations provide better, hardened security.



I'm against irresponsible people in general . . . whether it's gun ownership, driving, having a kid or voting. The latter having the potential to cause much more long-term destruction.



This makes absolutely no sense to me. I like many others have completed the required training and obtained the state issued permits to carry. If the public is responsible for buying their own weapons they become gun holders.



People don't want to address the mental health aspect for some reason. People don't want to point out the actual demographics involved in gun violence. We as individuals can only address our own issues and hopefully contribute to addressing them on a larger scale.



Yeah, you are completely disconnected with what I've said and my stance on this issue.

I never said that there wouldn't still be murders. I'm saying that regardless of where they happen, armed resistance can dissuade all but the most determined criminal most of the time.

Again, you are completely glossing over the importance of the nature of the crime. There is a difference between your general crimes where the criminal has every intention of living vs. these kinds of crimes where the criminal either INTENDS on dying, or doesn't care if they live or die. You are not dissuading the latter with a gun.

Yeah, you are completely disconnected with what I've said and my stance on this issue.

How am I disconnected from what you've said/your stance? Your focal point is not about safety, it's about maintaining your right to bear arms. Is that an untrue statement? I"m not saying you don't care about safety at all, but it isn't your first priority.
If we're specifically talking about cases like this, these kinds of mass shootings, gun free zones don't address the issue. It just potentially reduces the amount of people killed.
For me, and others that may have my thinking, I don't think a so-called right should trump public safety. That doesn't mean get rid of the right, but there should be reasonable regulations.

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say lose the gun free zones and if they must exist in some locations provide better, hardened security.

This is not realistic in the least bit. This is about as realistic as people that say "WHy don't you just shoot the guy in the leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand?"
We don't live in some tiny country like Singapore. There's always going to be soft targets. If these kinds of shooters are searching for easy targets, they'll always exist. How do you harden all primary schools, colleges, hospitals, places of worship, grocery stores, elderly homes, etc, etc? Society is just supposed to be ready for a shoot out at all times, in every location?

Those people are complete tools and while might be a legal gun owner aren't the cream of the crop by any means. If showing up at a protest with a gun influences the situation, then why don't you see that allowing competent people to carry in these stupid gun free zones would as well?

They don't influence the situation in a meaningful way. And my point was about the mindset of people like this. People that use guns as a tool for intimidation. You want to add good guys with guns to counter them, when there should be no guns used whatsoever in situations like this.
I don't think most gun owners are like this, but it only takes one turds to ruin the punch bowl, and we definitely have more than one.

Would you not agree that more people have died due to our votes? So you're okay if we check competency before folks are allowed to vote? Or if we required them to get a voter ID?

Dude, this is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. There is no meaning to anything if one were to take this argument seriously. There's no way for you to legitimately quantify something like this, because a lot of it will come down to what you personally believe to be right/wrong. If you're against abortion, and I'm for it, then my vote "killed" a bunch of babies. If you vote Republican and I vote Democrat, and I say your vote killed social services that wound up killing people that couldn't get care that would have saved their lives.
This is not the same thing as a gun. There is a direct relationship between gun laws , the people that buy them, and the people they shoot.

People don't want to address the mental health aspect for some reason. People don't want to point out the actual demographics involved in gun violence. We as individuals can only address our own issues and hopefully contribute to addressing them on a larger scale.

In what world do you live in where this is reality? Who doesn't talk about mental health? The left has always talked about mental health. And it's what the right always talk about now when we get shootings like this.
You keep proving over and over that you only care about "demographics" and particular types of shootings. You keep trying to reference these "demographics" while ignoring the important differences when it comes to different kinds of crimes/shootings.
This kind of shooting is not the same thing as general gun violence. This conversation right now isn't even about general gun violence.
We have a thing called society, government, communities...we don't just worry about ourselves and hope for the best.

 

[oldshadow]

Honestly I know very little about the American Civil War, but off the top I can say (1) both sides had the latest in military technology, (2) they were roughly equivalent in numbers and resources (1:2 or 1:3 IIRC) and (3) many things are different now - transport, communication, population size, population density, weaponry etc. If your new civil war scenario is the country splitting in two, including the land, population, military and everything else, and those two fighting, rather than gun enthusiasts fighting the military, I agree that would be a closer battle.



In a civil war scenario between the right and the left in the USA I agree that the right would probably win, however that isn't what we were originally talking about. Also I don't know if you did this on purpose, you never really know who believes what they're saying or not, but it's amusing that you picked Chris Kyle as an example - he survived four special forces tours in a war zone but couldn't survive going about his civilian business in the USA. Calling him 'the most infamous sniper in the history of the world' is a good candidate for reddit.com/r/shitamericanssay.

Edit: Here's what happened when some gun enthusiasts tried to tell the Government 'Don't Tread On Me!' more recently:

At leat 72 million people own guns in the US. If half of them refuse to give up their weapons do you think the US government is willing to kill them to take their guns.

 

[650lb Sumo]

At leat 72 million people own guns in the US. If half of them refuse to give up their weapons do you think the US government is willing to kill them to take their guns.

If the government said something like, surrender your guns for market value in 30 days or we will send the army door to door to take them, and if you don't hand them over then or tell them where they are you go to prison for ten years, I expect 95%+ of people would surrender them, and even of the people who didn't, only maybe 10% would open fire on the army.

I don't think the government would give any order like that, at least for the foreseeable future. However if they did and a small fraction of people started shooting at the soldiers then obviously they would be killed. You would have to try to thwart the effort politically rather than by superior force.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/

Americans need some hugs and mass therapy sessions. Thats just nutty stats.

 

[Busgosu]

Isolated incident #876447295

 

[spamking]

Again, you are completely glossing over the importance of the nature of the crime. There is a difference between your general crimes where the criminal has every intention of living vs. these kinds of crimes where the criminal either INTENDS on dying, or doesn't care if they live or die. You are not dissuading the latter with a gun.

Sigh. Let me repeat . . . I never said that there wouldn't still be murders. I'm saying that regardless of where they happen, armed resistance can dissuade all but the most determined criminal most of the time.

How am I disconnected from what you've said/your stance? Your focal point is not about safety, it's about maintaining your right to bear arms. Is that an untrue statement?

The fact that this is your take away proves you're disconnected. And no, my point is not simply about maintaining my right to bear arms. How in the word can you read anything I've said and NOT understand the safety aspect?

I"m not saying you don't care about safety at all, but it isn't your first priority.

Who cares where safety or rights are on a list of priorities? They're directly related and one greatly impacts the other.

If we're specifically talking about cases like this, these kinds of mass shootings, gun free zones don't address the issue. It just potentially reduces the amount of people killed.

Getting rid of gun free zones is a step towards addressing the SAFETY issue. Is reducing the number of casualties not a step in the right direction? I know it's not what you seem to be focusing on, but come on . . .

For me, and others that may have my thinking, I don't think a so-called right should trump public safety. That doesn't mean get rid of the right, but there should be reasonable regulations.

We have reasonable regulations. We don't need more. This particular guy was already restricted from possessing a firearm. Law enforcement failed to act. What more do you want?

This is not realistic in the least bit. This is about as realistic as people that say "WHy don't you just shoot the guy in the leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand?"

Are you being serious right now? It's unrealistic to expect sensitive locations that have been deemed gun free zones to provide adequate security if they're going to prohibit concealed carry? Really? And going with the stupid "just shoot the guy in the leg" crap? Come on man. I thought you were better than this.

There's always going to be soft targets. If these kinds of shooters are searching for easy targets, they'll always exist.

I have never once said there wouldn't be. I never said every "easy" target would go away. I'm saying that those high profile locations where shootings have happened should have better physical security.

How do you harden all primary schools, colleges, hospitals, places of worship, grocery stores, elderly homes, etc, etc?

Many of those locations are already doing this now. I'm not so ignorant that I think it'll happen overnight.

Society is just supposed to be ready for a shoot out at all times, in every location?

Hyperbole much? We've already established that "mass" shootings are actually pretty rare. Those of us in society who can legally carry should be able to do so for our protection in every location without adequate security.

They don't influence the situation in a meaningful way.

Check out r/dgu on Reddit for how these people influence situations in meaningful ways.

And my point was about the mindset of people like this. People that use guns as a tool for intimidation. You want to add good guys with guns to counter them, when there should be no guns used whatsoever in situations like this.

I have never said I wanted gun owners to be able to confront this type of person. We're all individuals. We should be able to carry to protect ourselves. Where that line is drawn will be different for each situation and person.

Dude, this is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. There is no meaning to anything if one were to take this argument seriously. There's no way for you to legitimately quantify something like this, because a lot of it will come down to what you personally believe to be right/wrong. If you're against abortion, and I'm for it, then my vote "killed" a bunch of babies. If you vote Republican and I vote Democrat, and I say your vote killed social services that wound up killing people that couldn't get care that would have saved their lives.
This is not the same thing as a gun. There is a direct relationship between gun laws , the people that buy them, and the people they shoot.

Please. We vote for politicians who vote to go to war. We vote for politicians who vote to send guns and money to other countries at war.

In what world do you live in where this is reality? Who doesn't talk about mental health? The left has always talked about mental health.

Um, the same world you live in . . . do you hear Mom's Demand or Everytown immediately invoking the need to address mental health or do you hear them jump on graves and proclaim that the evil "assault rifle" must be banned?

You keep proving over and over that you only care about "demographics" and particular types of shootings. You keep trying to reference these "demographics" while ignoring the important differences when it comes to different kinds of crimes/shootings.

What? I have specifically talked about the type of shooting mentioned in this thread. You want to talk about the rest then start a new thread.

This kind of shooting is not the same thing as general gun violence. This conversation right now isn't even about general gun violence.

I've never said it was dude.

We have a thing called society, government, communities...we don't just worry about ourselves and hope for the best.

How in the flippin' world is improving physical security at historical soft targets, getting rid of gun free zones and supporting people being able to carry to protect themselves just worrying about myself and hoping for the best?

 

[spamking]

I asked a question and @Loiosh answered it. What's wrong with that? Are you mad because the answer doesn't fit your narrative?

I've already provided context to my "narrative". Why are you and @Loiosh ignoring that?

And I already addressed the issue in this comment that you seem to have ignored.

What did you expect? That I was lying about the types of shootings gun control folks use to push their agenda?

 

[Loiosh]

I've already provided context to my "narrative". Why are you and @Loiosh ignoring that?

And I already addressed the issue in this comment that you seem to have ignored.

You casually made a statement that is quite clearly contested to the point it's likely manufactured as propaganda.

Do you even care?

 

[spamking]

You casually made a statement that is quite clearly contested to the point it's likely manufactured as propaganda.

Do you even care?

I made a statement that I backed up with a social media post from a gun control group clearly showing what I was saying. Nothing you posted contested the point I was making. If you want to whine about propaganda then complain to Everytown.

Do I even care about what? Facts? Freedom? Cheese on a burger?

 

[koquerelle]

My point is that the high profile shootings folks use to push for more gun control happen in gun free zones.

You said "Mass shootings mostly happen in designated GUN FREE ZONES." You kinda moved the goal posts here.

 

[spamking]

You said "Mass shootings mostly happen in designated GUN FREE ZONES." You kinda moved the goal posts here.

Nope . . . it's quite obvious if you're paying attention this thread. We don't have threads on every mass shooting.

 

[oldshadow]

If the government said something like, surrender your guns for market value in 30 days or we will send the army door to door to take them, and if you don't hand them over then or tell them where they are you go to prison for ten years, I expect 95%+ of people would surrender them, and even of the people who didn't, only maybe 10% would open fire on the army.

I don't think the government would give any order like that, at least for the foreseeable future. However if they did and a small fraction of people started shooting at the soldiers then obviously they would be killed. You would have to try to thwart the effort politically rather than by superior force.

I think you way over estimate the number that would turn over their guns because the government has no real idea who and where they are. Which is another reason we will fight any form of national registery.

 

[Claude]

Bullshit as usual you know nothing about the US and I quoted the number of times guns are used in self defense. You ignore that.

Again, I didn't say you should not be able to own a gun. Just that you need to adopt what works for other countries in order to dimish the massacres. I have not seen one single good argument from pro-guns of why it's better not to follow what other countries do.

 

[Loiosh]

You said "Mass shootings mostly happen in designated GUN FREE ZONES." You kinda moved the goal posts here.

Yeah, that's what he said.

"Mass shootings mostly happen in designed GUN FREE ZONES."

All I can say is I'm glad I live in Canada.

 

[Claude]

A risk is a risk . . . they're addressed by implementing controls and accepting risks when needed. Vehicles themselves aren't the risk.

No, a risk is not a risk. That's a very ignorant statement. There are necessary risks and unnecessary risks.

Also, 600 massacres a year proves the risk is not near being well controlled.

Guns themselves aren't the risk.

No, but their easy access to them is. Laws regarding killing machines need to be strict otherwise innocent people will pay the price. Why is it so hard to look at the countries that are doint it better? You just said you don't care about them, so evidently, your ego is getting in the way.

Why is a comment about a criminal having the right to own a firearm junk? Seriously?

Except I didn't say "criminal". A criminal has already committed a crime. I said "bad guy" as a in a person who wants to harm innocent people. Big difference.

I like how you conveniently ignore this post . . .

Did you quote me? Oh yeah, you didn't.

Also what's your point? That they knew he shouldn't own guns but still owned them? How is this statistically relevant?

 

[floivanus]

Eh, I never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Taking Switzerland as an example again, the swiss love guns. They have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. It's part of their tradition. And yet, they've only had 1 mass shooting since 2001 and no school shootings ever.

Difference? They have very strict gun laws and automatic weapons are banned.

But, you wouldn't be willing to accept that, would you? So is it really a matter of being able to protect yourself or maybe, just maybe, it's a whim? Like a baby who doesn't want to let go of the toy.

“Automatic weapons” have been basically banned since 1934 in the USA, they were hit with an unconstitutional tax of $200 at the time (roughly $3500 today) and then outright BANNED on May 19, 1986, you either have to be a manufacturer WITH authorization from the chief of a local police department to own “for demonstration purposes” where you must surrender the firearms to the ATF when your license expires or be fortunate enough to own a firearm that was registered before May 19, 1986, which will set you back around $30,000, and take a year for the background check to go thru, unfortunately the majority of those guns are owned by rich collectors, museums, movie studios and law enforcement agencies; meaning your average American cannot get their hands on, let alone afford one.

The Swiss, along with the normal American citizen are allowed to own semiautomatic weapons tho.

How is it even legal to buy a silencer? What civilian purpose does a silencer have other than quietly murdering someone?

That shit is hilarious.

Not hilarious by ANY means, just like drag strips and race tracks have been shut down for years by whiny neighbors complaining about noise, so have hunting spots and registered shooting ranges, so at the least it helps people stop having annoyed neighbors whenever they’re trying to hunt or shoot.

For me suppressors are ideal for hunting deer or coyote, especially the coyote, so I am able to hunt at night (with my spooky scary night vision and thermal imaging) and be able to hear the animals and effectively track them, while not disturbing the farmers who pay me for dispatching the nuisance animals on their property while they sleep.