America's Gun Violence

rgambs said:

If we really want to stop these mass shootings, the fastest way would be to attack the First Amendment, not the Second.
The vast majority of mass shooters lately have fit a specific internet activity profile, and quicker than rounding up the guns would be rounding up the people who fit that profile.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for that, not at all.  
We have a regular poster here who absolutely fits the mass shooter internet activity profile, and as disgusting as some of their posts are, I don't think they are a risk for that kind of atrocity. 
My point is just that we aren't going to be able to stop this problem without drastic measures, which means we aren't going to be able to stop it at all.

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

If we really want to stop these mass shootings, the fastest way would be to attack the First Amendment, not the Second.
The vast majority of mass shooters lately have fit a specific internet activity profile, and quicker than rounding up the guns would be rounding up the people who fit that profile.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for that, not at all.  
We have a regular poster here who absolutely fits the mass shooter internet activity profile, and as disgusting as some of their posts are, I don't think they are a risk for that kind of atrocity. 
My point is just that we aren't going to be able to stop this problem without drastic measures, which means we aren't going to be able to stop it at all.

I don’t really agree. But perhaps we think differently about what is drastic. This is a completely fixable issue should we actually want to fix it. It will take a much longer time to fix because a lot of people don’t care about it enough yet.  But it is frustrating that so many more people will have to die senselessly in the meantime.

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

If we really want to stop these mass shootings, the fastest way would be to attack the First Amendment, not the Second.
The vast majority of mass shooters lately have fit a specific internet activity profile, and quicker than rounding up the guns would be rounding up the people who fit that profile.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for that, not at all.  
We have a regular poster here who absolutely fits the mass shooter internet activity profile, and as disgusting as some of their posts are, I don't think they are a risk for that kind of atrocity. 
My point is just that we aren't going to be able to stop this problem without drastic measures, which means we aren't going to be able to stop it at all.

Here comes the thought police...sounds a bit fascist to me.  “Fits the active shooter internet activity profile”...who exactly?  I haven’t seen anyone here threaten anyone.  Essentially what you are advocating is that anyone against strict gun control measures get “rounded up”?  What a joke.  It sounds to me like you really just want to shut people up that believe differently than you do.  That definitely fits the active shooter profile.

Take a breath, maybe have a cup of coffee.  Take your helm off and put down your left-hand pitchfork, and read my post again.

rgambs said:

Oh, I know, I'm on Facebook lol
My point stands, you carry a fork and torch enough that you missed me explicitly saying I didn't advocate for that and accused me of doing so.

rgambs said:

I'm talking about people who are swindled by and peddlers of conspiracy theories from 4chan and alt-right news sources.  People who ascribe to crazy "truths" like false flags, the Clinton hit squad, globalist conspiracies, etc.
People who seriously fear feminism, communism, and white genocide.  People who talk about defending themselves from society and government with their guns, and running over protestors who block roads with such zeal that it reads like eager fantasizing.  People who are consumed with opposition to perceived radical liberalism so fervently they can't see they are radical conservatives.
When people display all those traits, they are fitting in with a pretty suspicious crowd.

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

I'm talking about people who are swindled by and peddlers of conspiracy theories from 4chan and alt-right news sources.  People who ascribe to crazy "truths" like false flags, the Clinton hit squad, globalist conspiracies, etc.
People who seriously fear feminism, communism, and white genocide.  People who talk about defending themselves from society and government with their guns, and running over protestors who block roads with such zeal that it reads like eager fantasizing.  People who are consumed with opposition to perceived radical liberalism so fervently they can't see they are radical conservatives.
When people display all those traits, they are fitting in with a pretty suspicious crowd.

I understand what you are saying, and I would also be suspicious of people like that as well.  I’m still not sure who you are talking about though?  Seems a bit strawman in my opinion. Then again, I don’t keep up with every poster around here to be able to say “there is 100% no one like that here”.  
I think I know who you are talking about on the AMT, but I have never been concerned about them to the extent that you obviously are.  

I don't think anyone on the AMT is violent and I'm not concerned about any of them, I was just making a point that drastic measures are the only thing that can stop this insanity. Even as a liberal who is willing to take some of those drastic steps, there are some which go to far, even if I think they would be effective.  Rounding up and interviewing, then keeping tabs on right wing extremists (as determined by internet activity) would be effective, IMO, but it isn't worth the erosion of freedom it would represent.

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

I'm talking about people who are swindled by and peddlers of conspiracy theories from 4chan and alt-right news sources.  People who ascribe to crazy "truths" like false flags, the Clinton hit squad, globalist conspiracies, etc.
People who seriously fear feminism, communism, and white genocide.  People who talk about defending themselves from society and government with their guns, and running over protestors who block roads with such zeal that it reads like eager fantasizing.  People who are consumed with opposition to perceived radical liberalism so fervently they can't see they are radical conservatives.
When people display all those traits, they are fitting in with a pretty suspicious crowd.

I understand what you are saying, and I would also be suspicious of people like that as well.  I’m still not sure who you are talking about though?  Seems a bit strawman in my opinion. Then again, I don’t keep up with every poster around here to be able to say “there is 100% no one like that here”.  
I think I know who you are talking about on the AMT, but I have never been concerned about them to the extent that you obviously are.  

I don't think anyone on the AMT is violent and I'm not concerned about any of them, I was just making a point that drastic measures are the only thing that can stop this insanity. Even as a liberal who is willing to take some of those drastic steps, there are some which go to far, even if I think they would be effective.  Rounding up and interviewing, then keeping tabs on right wing extremists (as determined by internet activity) would be effective, IMO, but it isn't worth the erosion of freedom it would represent.

So what are some of those drastic steps, as a liberal, you are willing to take, if you don’t mind me asking?  

Specific weapons and weapon accessory bans, a national registry and licensing process, strict penalties for improper storage, background checks and registration on all sales and transfers are a few...