By now, I am sure some of you have read the news about yesterday's shooting. If you haven't, allow me to fill you in.
Payton S. Gendron, the man who opened fire on a Buffalo supermarket did not originally live there. The 18 year old drove all the way to carry out the heinous act, dressed in military style clothing, and was recording the whole process on live as he attacked civilians.
What do we know about the victims? 10 have been killed and 3 have been wounded. What's particularly interesting about this attack, is that it was motivated by racism, as 10 of the 13 who were attacked were black, and the attacker had a racist slur written on the rifle.
Now these were the facts. As of right now, this has been classified as a hate crime. Let's get to what I think about this.
If you cannot tell from previous answers I have given on this website, I am not a fan of the 2nd ammendment. This is exactly why. This is a guy who was willing to drive HOURS to that specific place to kill those people in cold blood. Would he had been able to do it using only a knife? The answer is no.
If guns were not all that bad and it's the people who are bad, how are we going to identify and stop these attacks before they happen? We don't have any technology that reads the human mind to stop these attacks before they happen. The "good guy with the gun" is just a terrible argument, because most people that walk around do not have access to guns. Someone shows up with a rifle, what are you going to do? Are we going to blame the people who were killed now for not having a gun on them at the time of the attack? What if someone is a carrier, but at the time of the attack, their gun was at home, ir in their car? What do you say to that?
These arguments are nonsensical. We said that the motivation for this one was racism. If we were to go after every person now who says something shady about black people online, you would call this a totalitarian state, and ask for your first ammendment rights to not be violated. So if we cannot go after the bad people, or the guns that they use to murder people, what the FUCK are we going to do? Thoughts and prayers?
Note: Stick to the topic. I do NOT want to hear anything about "black-on-black" crime or anything related to it. This is serious.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
The next weapon of choice for this guy would likely have been bombs, not knives.
Let's assume that that was the case. How accessible would that have been? Even if he was to detonate a bomb, it would take him some time to install it, so police would be called immediately. Not very easy to not get caught. Also, he would most likely have to make one at home, because they don't sell those to civilians. Not a very good assessment.
" I am not a fan of the 2nd ammendment. This is exactly why. This is a guy who was willing to drive HOURS to that specific place to kill those people in cold blood. Would he had been able to do it using only a knife? The answer is no."
He needed a car to do it too. Funny how people like you never want to limit car ownership in any way but more people die from car accidents each year than due to "gun violence". And by the way, "gun violence" includes the violent criminals who get shot while trying to rape/murder/rob people which I don't actually call it a bad thing when they get shot.
Dumbest argument ever. Ok, let's go there and talk about cars. Cars were not designed to kill people, but rather to take people from point A to point B. Would you say the same thing about a horse? People used to ride on horses back in the day. Should riding horses now be illegal as well? Also, why did I just say about criminals in my post? Stick to the topic. This is a white kid who went to a black neighborhood and murdered black people. He planned on shooting up another spot as well before he was arrested. Why don't you talk about that instead? No whataboutism.
Of course firearms are designed to kill because killing isn't inherently wrong or bad. That's why all of your favorite politicians have armed security guards. That's why the cops have guns. That's why the military has guns. That's why security guards have guns. If killing was inherently wrong then self-defense that results in death would be an evil and illegal thing but it ain't. Think deeper.
"This is a white kid who went to a black neighborhood and murdered black people. He planned on shooting up another spot as well before he was arrested. Why don't you talk about that instead? " That's a funny comment when only 2 lines in your long winded post even mentioned race. I followed your lead there. I did notice that you claimed "a good guy with a gun" is a myth even tho there was a good guy with a gun there who tried to stop the bad guy and failed. I guess if a fire fighter tried to stop a house fire & dies in the fire you would claim that he never really existed and fire fighting is a bad idea.
Find even 1 comment I've ever posted to G@G about race where I supported race based violence & I will spend time responding to your race baiting.
So, let's get this straight. I never said the act of killing is always wrong, I just said that guns are designed to kill. Obviously self-defense is justified. The whole argument was that you cannot compare a vehicle that was designed for transportation to a weapon that was designed to murder. That was your point, not mine.
Going back to the previous discussion. I assume you were talking about the former police officer. This is once again were you are mistaken. They had a background, so any person with a law enforcement/military background should be verified to carry. This kid had no prior record, and the attack came out of nowhere. How do you trust regular everyday people to carry at this point? You don't. Find me an instance where former service personnel have committed mass shootings on US soil. They are not perfect, but they are held to a higher standard and are expected to do be more responsible. That still doesn't beat the argument of prevention being over cure. Prevention is getting rid of semiautomatic rifles, cure is "the good guy with the gun" which as you can see has failed miserably. Side note: if the firefighter dies in the fire, there are more on the way. It's a whole squad of them. Can't make the same argument for one person trying to stop an active shooter.
I never said you supported violence. I said you were deflecting from the argument. Why are you getting defensive about the statement? Also, race-baiting is a racist term.
Argument? All I see is you being emotional and talking to yourself as far as your original post goes. You say most people don't have guns. 1. Not everybody should have a gun. Some people are too emotional to handle the responsibility. 2. States with restrictive gun laws tend to have less gun ownership. Of course the VIP security guards are always armed. Do the math. If having a gun wasn't effective defensive strategy then they wouldn't have guns just like they don't carry around carrots & bananas to fight with.
So you call me emotional for calling you out on getting defensive. Got it. Your point is still useless, considering mass shootings still happen in Texas and Florida, where guns are more common. No "good guy with a gun" to stop it from happening. Are we just gonna pray that an ex military veteran will be there in the right place at the right time with a gun everytime? Do you realize how strange that sounds? Only police can stop the shooter with either an arrest, or execution on the spot. By then, many people would've already died. If the "good guy with a gun" is unsuccessful, or killed by the shooter, it's still useless. You wanna turn the country into an active warzone with everyone carrying AR-15s. Remove the guns from everyone except for government forces.