and stop running from it. It is the price of having a second amendment. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MASS SHOOTINGS... and more of them, as society crumbles.
It is time we simply nodded and admit when the SJWs shriek about blood and gore and children dead and horror and the crazy price of our insistence. Yes. It is true.
BUT
The lie that is implied is that restrictive laws like Japan or those of European countries lead to less firearms violence. They do.... sorta. It is time we stopped trying to deny that there are potentially, or sorta, or kinda, less acts of murder with firearms in a restrictive country, and instead hammer on the fact that the murder of innocents changes only in terms of time and intensity.
The USA will have spectacular, grisly, and periodic episodes of mass violence so long as we have 2A and an element of evil/crazy . It will. There is no way to avoid this.
The difference is the punctuation of time and intensity.
The reason for 2A IS TO FORESTALL AND AVOID MASS MURDER BY THE MOST EFFECTIVE MASS MURDERER IN HISTORY, THE STATE. Where you have an unarmed population, you don't have them shooting each other (YAY!!!), but when the real murder pros get going, it more than makes up for the low numbers.
Lets take an example from Europe. Although they have had a few shootings, let's just set the number of shootings since 1945 at ZERO (just to stack the argument against us), and let's set the number of shootings in the USA from MOTHER JONES stats from 1982-2017 (defined as 4 or more killed in public places found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0), and extrapolate that back to 1945. Following that approach gives is 700 deaths in the USA due to mass shootings since 1982 (25 years). Doing a quick proportion (25/52 = 700/X) would give us 1452 victims of mass gun murder since 1945. Let's round up to 1,500 for ease of quants, and to stack the deck against us even further.
That is 1500 lives against zero lost to senseless gun violence, which could have been prevented had we just had "reasonable" gun laws, like England, or Denmark. Even though these statistics are skewed, lets look at what happens when we look at the REAL statistics on mass murder, which you can do simply by looking at the periods of time when mass murder DOES occur in unarmed countries.
The number of murders in ONE COUNTRY ALONE (Germany), where the state murdered its own civilians, who were unable to resist, is estimated to be well over 2 million. This does not count Polish, Lithuanian, Czech, Romanian, or Hungarians. Just German citizens. Nor does it include the millions of persons killed in USSR in savage mass ethnic cleansings that make the HUTU TSUTSI stuff in Africa look like a kiddie spat in a sand box. Just Germany. That four year period is over 2 million.
Comparing the rates of slaughter, if we adopt the "enlightened" gun control laws to stop the rates of murder, then we will need 1300 years of "reasonable" gun laws to catch up with the carnage of Europe.... Germany in particular. The time gaps get bigger if we consider the bloodshed of other countries, and stretches into millenia if you consider the price paid by nation states to invade and subjugate another nation, because its citizens were unable/unwilling to defend themselves.
You see, it is not that other gun control policies have LESS mass murder. They just have different KINDS and different INTENSITY AND COMPRESSED TIMES of murder.
I generally throw out these stats to a SJW hoplophobe and tell them "get back with me in a thousand years, when the records are close to even, and we can talk."
edit (technically, this illustration is mathematically imprecise, as the real number of years is actually 1300 divided by 4, or 325). You can just throw that out, and if a sharp lib sees it, you can say "congrats... you just have 260 or so years to go!
It is time we simply nodded and admit when the SJWs shriek about blood and gore and children dead and horror and the crazy price of our insistence. Yes. It is true.
BUT
The lie that is implied is that restrictive laws like Japan or those of European countries lead to less firearms violence. They do.... sorta. It is time we stopped trying to deny that there are potentially, or sorta, or kinda, less acts of murder with firearms in a restrictive country, and instead hammer on the fact that the murder of innocents changes only in terms of time and intensity.
The USA will have spectacular, grisly, and periodic episodes of mass violence so long as we have 2A and an element of evil/crazy . It will. There is no way to avoid this.
The difference is the punctuation of time and intensity.
The reason for 2A IS TO FORESTALL AND AVOID MASS MURDER BY THE MOST EFFECTIVE MASS MURDERER IN HISTORY, THE STATE. Where you have an unarmed population, you don't have them shooting each other (YAY!!!), but when the real murder pros get going, it more than makes up for the low numbers.
Lets take an example from Europe. Although they have had a few shootings, let's just set the number of shootings since 1945 at ZERO (just to stack the argument against us), and let's set the number of shootings in the USA from MOTHER JONES stats from 1982-2017 (defined as 4 or more killed in public places found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0), and extrapolate that back to 1945. Following that approach gives is 700 deaths in the USA due to mass shootings since 1982 (25 years). Doing a quick proportion (25/52 = 700/X) would give us 1452 victims of mass gun murder since 1945. Let's round up to 1,500 for ease of quants, and to stack the deck against us even further.
That is 1500 lives against zero lost to senseless gun violence, which could have been prevented had we just had "reasonable" gun laws, like England, or Denmark. Even though these statistics are skewed, lets look at what happens when we look at the REAL statistics on mass murder, which you can do simply by looking at the periods of time when mass murder DOES occur in unarmed countries.
The number of murders in ONE COUNTRY ALONE (Germany), where the state murdered its own civilians, who were unable to resist, is estimated to be well over 2 million. This does not count Polish, Lithuanian, Czech, Romanian, or Hungarians. Just German citizens. Nor does it include the millions of persons killed in USSR in savage mass ethnic cleansings that make the HUTU TSUTSI stuff in Africa look like a kiddie spat in a sand box. Just Germany. That four year period is over 2 million.
Comparing the rates of slaughter, if we adopt the "enlightened" gun control laws to stop the rates of murder, then we will need 1300 years of "reasonable" gun laws to catch up with the carnage of Europe.... Germany in particular. The time gaps get bigger if we consider the bloodshed of other countries, and stretches into millenia if you consider the price paid by nation states to invade and subjugate another nation, because its citizens were unable/unwilling to defend themselves.
You see, it is not that other gun control policies have LESS mass murder. They just have different KINDS and different INTENSITY AND COMPRESSED TIMES of murder.
I generally throw out these stats to a SJW hoplophobe and tell them "get back with me in a thousand years, when the records are close to even, and we can talk."
edit (technically, this illustration is mathematically imprecise, as the real number of years is actually 1300 divided by 4, or 325). You can just throw that out, and if a sharp lib sees it, you can say "congrats... you just have 260 or so years to go!
Last edited:
Further, I just got through reading "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. One of th recurrinng themes among the militia leaders was the hopeless disparity of technical advantage the British regulars had. The Continental Army suffered massive defeats over and over due to this, but the guerrilla movements of the militia actually won the war. Different tactics.
