LET'S BAN GUNS!

[Smitty-48]

It's not psycopaths, that's a misdiagnosis, psycopaths do not go on suicide missions, ever, self preservation, regime surivival, is the highest imperative to a psychopath, they don't even want to get caught, never mind go down swinging, psycopaths are all about stealth, they never come out guns a blazing. The mass shooters are not psycopaths, they're not crazy at all, they're not hallucinating, they're not irrational, this is just regular folk, who become enraged, to the point of being suicidal, and then decide to take a few with them when they go, cruel, perhaps, but not crazy.

Too narrow definition of a psycho, I say.

Anybody that goes to kill anybody they just possibly can has serious mental problems and a serious lack of empathy. Now they might not have the violent antisocial behaviour before, that's true, but at the moment they do show it. So you can call them psychopaths. Motivation being angry about something is telling.

Empathy can be compartmentalized, empathy schmempathy, angry violent anti-social behavior killing people without remorse? There's a name for that, it's called the military.

[Ex-California]

A common refrain I’m hearing is the success of Australia’s gun ban

Anyone have any facts for me on that so I can continue fighting the good fight?

[ssu]

It's like the PIRA, if they had just killed Margaret Thatcher? I wouldn't have sided with them of course, but at the same time, I wouldn't say she wasn't fair game. It was a war, she was targeting them, they weren't justified with blowing up random people in pubs, on the other hand, targeted assasination against DPH? It's certainly not crazy, it's not irrational, that's just war.

Reminds me how awesome Brits are in winning insurgencies. The IRA terrorist that likely did the most lethal terrorist strike on the British Army died as a free man: not enough evidence to convict him. The other terrorist (also not enough evidence to convict him) was killed when making another bomb.

Brits are great in fighting insurgencies: South Africa (the Boers), Malaya and North Ireland. They didn't loose, even if it cost them.

As with Americans...

Empathy can be compartmentalized, empathy schmempathy, angry violent anti-social behavior killing people without remorse? There's a name for that, it's called the military

But then you have a mission. You are ordered. It's a war. You don't start killing because you feel like it. It's not just compartmentalization, it's logic too.

Besides, one thing to note is that how many people don't get PTSD, are totally normal after being in a war. And actually for some war and killing can develop and grow up as human beings and they are more empathetic afterwards.

[ssu]

A common refrain I’m hearing is the success of Australia’s gun ban

Anyone have any facts for me on that so I can continue fighting the good fight?

Some charts. Tell that it's not so simply, but also can have an effect.

Australia:
If you take gun deaths, the answer is simple:


But for homicides?

(a bit too short graph to say anything)

More interesting is UK:

[Smitty-48]

But then you have a mission. You are ordered. It's a war. You don't start killing because you feel like it. It's not just compartmentalization, it's logic too.

Besides, one thing to note is that how many people don't get PTSD, are totally normal after being in a war. And actually for some war and killing can develop and grow up as human beings and they are more empathetic afterwards.

What mission? The mission is bullshit, the troops know it's bullshit, you do start killing people because you feel like it, you just get the Queen to sign off on it first, so they can't throw you in jail for it, it's a wanton killing spree, mass murder without remorse, with a get out of jail free card.

If you get PTSD, it's just because you're buying into that pacifism shit, you're letting the civilized dictate to your inner chimpanzee, you won't get PTSD, so long as you get in touch with homo sapiens sapiens as you really are underneath that thin veneer of parental training.

You're born a killer, your parents just condition you to supress it, but you can untrain that shit, just let it go, there's no there there, they're just your parents, what do they fuckin' know? My parents were pacifists, I was like "whatever, step aside, you hippie beatniks, ya'll ain't the boss o' me".

Don't know what shit they teach you in the Finnish Army, but in the Canadian Army, it was pretty simple; Obey-Bond-Kill, and then, wobbly pops down at the mess, and sleep like a baby after, mission schmission, that's for the officers to worry about.

You're in some foreign land, there are foreign people, and the United Nations Security Council says they are "bad"?

Whatever, can we shoot them, or not? Isn't China on the United Nations Security Council? So this has all been vetted by the Chinese Communists? OK, sounds good, when do we start shooting?

You might get PTSD if you lose the war, if you get your asses kicked in a brutal meatgrinder, but if you have overwhelming NATO firepower and you're pounding the shit out of some hapless third world patsies, what's to blubber about?

What was the mission again? Oh yeah, I remember now, close with and destroy with maximum speed violence and agression, copy that, stand by, stand by...

[kybkh]

[Smitty-48]

Why bother trying to argue that shit? It doesn't have any effect on the liberals, they don't care, stop deluding yourselves, when the liberals come for your guns, you're either gonna shoot them liberals dead, or you're not, what is the point of talking about it?

Call their bluffs, cold dead hands, come try and take em' if you dare, if they make you into outlaws, well then you're outlaws, so go ahead and shoot them liberals then, shoot them all, there's no reason to hold your fire, once you're an outlaw.

Like, what are you trying to say? "Please, please, liberals, let us keep our guns, cause were so bourgeois, we wouldn't kill you all, men, women and children, if you tried to take them away?" I mean, if that's what you're saying, you don't deserve those guns, just turn them in now.

Back your shit up, right wing Americans, there's nothing to argue about, either you're going to war for those guns, or you're not, if you're not, then you've already lost, and might as well just cut straight to the chase and capitulate now.

All this arguing from the right in America? That can only mean that they think they've lost the war already, becuase if you're really ready to go to war, there would be nothing more to discuss at this point. It's an impasse, the liberals are not going to change their position no matter what you say, either you're gonna kill them, or you're not, and if not, then quit asking, because the answer is no.

[Dand]

Oh yes,

The most macabre competition that only in the United States can emerge: which mass-shooter gets the most killed? Who gets 100 killed?

Only in America.

It's like the kid we had here who shot those Mounties down in Moncton, luckily, he was just after Mounties, he had a beef with the cops, but he also executed that operation perfectly, with an M14, single aimed shots, methodical, tactical, slow is smooth, smooth is fast, which is why them Mounties didn't stand a chance, and he didn't learn that in the military, he just picked it up on his own around the trailer park.

These kinds of mass shootings do happen, but they in the end are Limited in scope as typically those people that the killer has a grudge with are few too. Their objective is not to kill any person that they can. Luckily, psychopaths that go on these killing sprees have so many problems, that they simply don't have capability to wreck havoc that could be possible. In Iraq or Afghanistan you start to have "professionalism" in bomb attacks that the body count goes up (usually with timed bombs to go afterward off when the rescue effort is underway).

I'd say the "challenge" for a capable psycho nutjob would be to go to an NRA meeting and have there his or her psycho moment. Now that would be a true shootout and we could see how much protection having a gun around actually makes. Also would be interesting to see how capable the "Armed Militia" that some gun owners portray to be is in reality. And I bet many liberals simply couldn't resist to jeer about it (which would show their hypocrisy when it comes to the value of human life).

Anders Breivik carried out the deadliest shooting of all so it can't be "only in America". He wasn't just trying to kill random people too. He had a specific target and also killed the most people.

[Smitty-48]

Yeah, but in Norway, Breivik was an outlier, whereas in America, he'd just be run o' the mill.

It's just deeply ingrained in the American cuture, from all the way back, that shooting people is an accetable way to solve your problems, it's just an argument over who you can shoot and why, it's never "you can't shoot people" in America, it's just "you can only shoot these people under this circumstance".

Thing is tho, Americans can say "well you ain't the boss o' me, I'll shoot whomever I please, for whatever reason I decide, to solve whatever is a problem to me; free country, I can do the time, so whatever, come and get me, coppers, if you dare..."

Doesn't matter what kind of guns Americans have access to, Americans are clever when it comes to guns, they can make it work, ain't no gun control can stop them, culture is destiny, and in America, everybody can be John Brown, or John Booth, and there's nothing stopping them if they ain't gonna stop themselves, that's just a fool's errand.

[kybkh]