Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "British Member Of Parliament Jo Cox Assassinated" video.

  1. How was she shot? This was in the UK. They banned guns. This isn't supposed to happen.
    1
  2. ***** Haha, that's funny how you put that. If you live on a farm, you're lucky if you're allowed to own an air rifle for varmint control. Of course, only after a thorough background check and submitting all your vitals to be on record. A thing that's considered to be an older child's toy in the US. Of course, forget owning a handgun, those are strictly prohibited. In fact, you can't sell a non-lethal Airsoft toy to a kid in the UK. The point is that all of this is supposed to stop gun deaths. Does it? See, you banned guns in the UK, and it resulted in little to no difference in gun violence. In the US, we have 35,000 gun deaths per year in the US. Over 21,000 of those are suicides. There are an unknown number of justified homicides per year. The Violence Policy Center came up with the number of about 250 private citizens using firearms in a justifiable homicide. This does not include police or others in official capacities such as armed security. Of the almost 14 thousand deaths remaining, a hugely significant portion of that is gang-related violence from the some 33,000 gangs with some 1.4 million members in our inner cities. And here's the kicker: Gun deaths in the US have been declining since the 90's regardless of no significant legislation. In fact, most of that reduction of gun violence was thanks to task forces focusing on gangland violence. What people are all up in arms about in the US are those mass shootings using semi-automatic rifles that result in a number of deaths per year that equate to about what the UK has in gun deaths per year. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
    1
  3. ***** Because the UK has banned guns. Handguns are banned. Assault rifles are banned. Semi-automatic rifles are banned. Air guns with self-contained gas cartridges are banned. Stun guns are banned. Everything else is strictly on a need-to-own basis. So, yes, the UK has banned guns. Why do you say the UK hasn't banned guns when you know that they have? Or did you not know, and this is your first time hearing of it? We have the most school massacres in a year -- so? You had two shooting sprees decades apart before legislation and one mass shooting after. Australia has had several shooting sprees since its strict gun laws. Your legislation against the tool doesn't seem to work, and yet you think it's crazy the US doesn't do the same thing as you. "Einstein's" definition of insanity and all of that, you know.
    1
  4. ***** Your reading comprehension simply needs work then. Did I say they banned all guns, or did I only say they banned guns? Check again. Your last, school massacre, yes, but not your last shooting spree. Differentiating them simply because of their setting is being dishonest within the scope of the debate. "Post numbers of gun deaths in each country in your next reply." Why? Was there a large number of gun deaths in the UK prior to legislation? Or in Australia? UK has remained steady in the number of gun deaths prior to and after legislation. In Australia, the decline in gun deaths started sharply before legislation and has since experienced less of a decline.The US had a sharp decline in the 90's and has been slowly dropping since. Seems like they're all equal to me, with or without legislation. Violence, whether gun or otherwise, is typically a socio-economic issue, not a tool issue. That's why when the world's socio-economic outlook is bright, everyone's rates go down, whether they've passed laws against the tools used in the violence or not.
    1
  5. ***** Sure you "know what I was doing." You just jumped to conclusions is all. And, yes, there are legislators that would ban guns just like in the UK, so they are something to guard against. In fact, if there weren't such fanatical gun-grabbers, your side would probably get a lot more cooperation. But even then, there is questionable gain to be obtained from such legislation since, like I said, a significantly large portion of gun murders are committed by the 1.4 million members involved in gangland activity who have illegal guns anyway. Now do I think that if UK legislation was like the US that gun deaths would be higher? I would argue it would be the same. I also find it questionable that they knew what web sites this guy that did the Orlando shooting went to, but then didn't know he bought guns or did not know he was planning on committing a shooting? It's also worth noting that it's apparent that if terrorists want to use guns, they can. See the Paris shootings, Charlie Hebdo and the attempted train shooting for examples of firearms used by terrorists in a nation known for its strict gun legislation. For whatever reason in the UK cells, explosives are more popular instead -- even before gun legislation (IRA terrorist attacks).
    1
  6. ***** I'm not the one who brought up terrorists. I honestly think it's a non-issue if terrorists manage to kill a few hundred people a year the world over. Now when you get something significant like the the Paris attacks, London bombings, Orlando, 9/11, then there's a failure in intel there that really needs to be addressed. I also think that maintaining the natural right of the people to be armed to be a greater existential benefit than marginally reducing an already infinitesimally small death rate by overstepping the bounds of government to infringe on someone's natural right.
    1
  7. ***** Let me put it this way, when the 30-something mother and rap artist M.I.A. is on the terrorist watch list, unable to enter the US to perform and on the no-fly list because of her lyrics showing sympathies for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, it leads one to question the possible abuses available in such a legislation. That's why the NRA won't support it, and neither will I -- even if the NRA and I don't always see eye-to-eye.
    1
  8. ***** Oh, and firearm deaths, less justifiable homicide and suicides, I don't think even makes it on the top 50 causes of death in the US. I would consider that objectively insignificant.
    1
  9. ***** In a population of 320 million, 10,000 is insignificant. I know that you'd probably argue that 1 is significant. You seem to be a bleeding heart like that -- the type that sacrifices the future to feel better now.
    1
  10. ***** The United State leads in intentional homicide numbers in general, so why would gun homicides in the same nation be abnormal of that? There are over 100 nations that have homicide rates lower than the US, and gun violence is only a small portion of that, and removing gun violence entirely doesn't do much to change that position. Pay attention to the data. It's not guns -- it's a socio-economic problem.
    1
  11. ***** I can absolutely deny that. You have the "don't know" principle working against you on that one. You simply don't know how many of those 10,000 dead would have died anyway, even if guns were taken completely out of the equation. The question is, does the Second Amendment mean anything to the government, or have we lost our Republic to a dictatorial government that feels it is above the law?
    1
  12. ***** You're the one who claimed to know, not me. I just reject your theory until you prove it -- which would be an uphill battle for you. The Founding Fathers of the US put it in, even knowing that firearms are deadly weapons often misused, so I don't see how your argument that the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee this being an issue stands.
    1
  13. ***** Alright, we're going to dive into the common talking points now I guess? These have been done to death already by everyone else. I suppose I do need to address your entire post, however, so here goes. First: The well-regulated militia. In Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Congress is granted the ability to train and fund a militia that is at the beck and call of the Federal government. Today, that militia is known as the National Guard. That is quoted from the Section as "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" That is the well-regulated militia necessary for the protection of a free state which the first clause discusses. The second clause is the right to keep and bear arms recognized for the people. Not only people who are in a militia, not only certain people. Not certain arms. Finally, it concludes that this right shall not be infringed. That right is being infringed today, and every time a little is given of that right, the government continues to press to take that right away more. Now, yes, the Founding Fathers' most common weapon of the time was a musket; however, repeating firearms were not unheard of and examples of them can be found in Europe and the Americas as early as the 14th century. But, even then, let's look at their time. At their time, the choice was between a bladed weapon with a relatively lesser amount of killing potential and a musket with significantly higher killing potential. Were the people in 1781 only limited to weapons that had a limited killing potential? Were they limited to only bladed weapons and bows? No, they were expected and allowed to have the most advanced infantry weapons of the time. You can't even say that's true today. In regards to how the Founding Fathers viewed rights in relation to individual lives, let's review some letters. Thomas Jefferson to William Smith. 1787, 6 years following the ratification of the US Constitution and Bill of rights. Regarding the Shay rebellion which had seen the death of farmers and at least one government tax collector: "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?" Of course, Benjamin Franklin has a more popular quote from 1755's Pennsylvania Assembly reply to the Governor "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..." Now that the talking points are out of the way, and, I believe, very successfully rebutted, let's move on to the last point of your post. You think that less would die if we had tighter regulations? If we give up our rights to firearms, as what Franklin observed happened, when things go bad, it could have a cost much higher than those numbers who would not die every year with tighter gun laws. Indeed, it's possible to lose our entire autonomy as a nation with hundreds of millions of lives at stake. I do find that more important than thousands dying over the year.
    1