Mass Killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown Conn.

[bobabode]

I woke up to the news report of a mass killing at an elementary school. Early reports at least 20 to 28 dead, mostly students.:(

[d-ray657]

I stopped by a store to get stocking-stuffer items for an 11 year old boy (Sunday School project) - reminded me of getting ready for Christmas when my kids were younger. Got out of the store, and was listening to the radio on my way to the office - heard the reporter talking in a sort of monotone about big numbers of kids and teachers killed by a gunman. By the time I got to work, I was bawling. I don't have an answer for any of this madness. Right now, I have nothing but sadness.

Regards,

D-Ray
Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

That's awful!

Pete

[noonereal]

I think serious gun control needs to over power the NRA.

[Oerets]

I think serious gun control needs to over power the NRA.

Just how bad does it need to get?



Barney

[piece-itpete]

It doesn't work.

Pete

[Oerets]

When it touches someones family, personally.:(




I don't need to personally be effected to see the urgency with this problem. Others a blind because of selfish reasons that they use weak arguments to justify.




Barney

[JJIII]

May God bless all those involved.

[d-ray657]

Why????

The world does not make sense to me right now. :(

[icenine]

This is just terrible......awful. How many times is this going to happen...

[piece-itpete]

May God bless all those involved.

Hear hear.

Pete

[noonereal]

Maybe it will and maybe it won't but this one is going to change an awful lot of peoples minds about the second amendment and the easy availability of firearms in the USA.

.

The second amendment was about arming a militia, it had nothing to do with a right to slaughter at will.

[piece-itpete]

I think we should consider what kind of society has this happen so regularly.

Pete

[d-ray657]

I think we should consider what kind of society has this happen so regularly.

Pete

That is a legitimate question. I'm so far from an answer that it is ridiculous.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

It doesn't work.

Pete

Really? So when was the last mass killing in Canada and Europe that diid not involve terrorists.

Of course considering that this country was born in violence you are probably right.

[Boreas]

That is a legitimate question. I'm so far from an answer that it is ridiculous.

Regards,

D-Ray

I don't know the answer either. All I do know is I'm no longer willing to live in a country which is too cowardly to confront this issue because of partisan politics.

John

[piece-itpete]

I think most countries were born in violence.

It turns out wiki has a list of school shootings. It does appear to becoming more frequent in 'modern' times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

Pete

[d-ray657]

This guy showed some leadership today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-our-hearts-are-broken/2012/12/14/eb40e7be-462b-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_video.html). He reflected the feelings that I was experiencing.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Unless and until we choose to do something about our culture of guns and violence, events such as this are things that we will have to accept as the cost of doing business in a society where even thinking aloud about meaningful gun control is shouted down (just ask Bob Costas). Unfortunately, this has become the new normal.:(

[BlueStreak]

I think we should consider what kind of society has this happen so regularly.

Pete

So, now when a killer kills....it IS societies fault? Interesting statement to say the least.

That is a legitimate question. I'm so far from an answer that it is ridiculous.

Regards,

D-Ray

Really, are you?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Unless and until we choose to do something about our culture of guns and violence, events such as this are things that we will have to accept as the cost of doing business in a society where even thinking aloud about meaningful gun control is shouted down (just ask Bob Costas). Unfortunately, this has become the new normal.:(

Thank you.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Really? So when was the last mass killing in Canada and Europe that diid not involve terrorists.

Of course considering that this country was born in violence you are probably right.

Interesting food for thought. Thanks, Rob.

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

Meanwhile, the Right Wing echo chamber will continue to rant and rave over Benghazi will shouting down anyone who suggests reconsideration of our gun laws.

[BlueStreak]

~60 incidences of gun violence in the UK so far this year. (Population ~65,000,000)

(Excluding law enforcement related deaths/injuries.)

~12,000 incidences of gun violence in the U.S. so far this year. (Population ~330,000,000)

(Excluding law enforcement related deaths/injuries.)

Approximately five times the population, but two hundred times the incidences of gun violence.....................................

And, our gun control laws have nothing to do with it?:confused: We're just more violent people?:eek:

You want to point out what isn't working? What we're doing----isn't working----at all. It's insane.

How long can we go on denying this?

Regards,
Dave

[d-ray657]

So, now when a killer kills....it IS societies fault? Interesting statement to say the least.



Really, are you?

Regards,
Dave

Of course we need to get control over the efficient killing machines that are readily available to anyone with a grudge and a sick mind. But there is something wrong when we are seeing so many examples of people who pay no heed to the lives they are shattering. There are some folks walking around with dead souls. And that is frightening.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Unless and until we choose to do something about our culture of guns and violence, events such as this are things that we will have to accept as the cost of doing business in a society where even thinking aloud about meaningful gun control is shouted down (just ask Bob Costas). Unfortunately, this has become the new normal.:(

I think politics has something to do with this. You see, the same people who look for tighter gun control also support abortion and want to raise taxes to pay down the debt among other things. Gun control is a powerful political tool for the right..................and a key element to the question of why so many working class folks vote against their own economic interests.

But, I suspect you already know this, Pat.;)

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

I think politics has something to do with this. You see, the same people who look for tighter gun control also support abortion and want to raise taxes to pay down the debt among other things. Gun control is a powerful political tool for the right..................and a key element to the question of why so many working class folks vote against their own economic interests.

But, I suspect you already know this, Pat.;)

Regards,
Dave

As you (and others on this board know), I've been a gun owner since middle school (nearly 50 years :(), have taught hunter safety, am a NRA Distinguished Expert marksman, and belong to a gun club. However, I'm not in denial about the idiocy of our gun laws.

[BlueStreak]

Of course we need to get control over the efficient killing machines that are readily available to anyone with a grudge and a sick mind. But there is something wrong when we are seeing so many examples of people who pay no heed to the lives they are shattering. There are some folks walking around with dead souls. And that is frightening.

Regards,

D-Ray

Desensitization. Hollywood? Video Games? Isolation/ lack of healthy social interaction? Lots to consider there, I'd say.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

As you (and others on this board know), I've been a gun owner since middle school (nearly 50 years :(), have taught hunter safety, am a NRA Distinguished Expert marksman, and belong to a gun club. However, I'm not in denial about the idiocy of our gun laws.

I know, and I'm glad to see that. Unfortunately, millions of American gun owners are still in denial. I'm still waiting for that scale to tip and wondering what sort of monsterous tragedy it will take to tip it.:(

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

What a tragic event. My heart goes out to all involved.

Hopefully the killers brother can shed some light on what led to this act. Having said that, in defense of gun owners rights, I doubt that the answer will be that the killer bought guns and wanted to try them out. Despite a recent rash of such events I am not convinced that guns are the problem. My hunch is that the problem is related to jealousy or the infinite bandwidth that gives these killers a worldwide audience for their cause. In this case there might not even be a cause. My understanding is that the killer was relatively young and at that stage of life young men can have weird things to prove.

This sucks.

[finnbow]

Here are some facts to chew on with regard to guns and mass shootings in the US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

[mpholland]

I am pretty sure there is an assault weapon ban in place in New Jersey and Connecticut. There are also no firearms allowed at schools in Connecticut. While I find this and other mass shootings tragic, and my heart truly goes out to all of the families, I don't see how gun laws helped in this situation.

[Oerets]

In this country a Electrician, Plumber and Doctors all need a license and follow regulations, why is this? But gun manufacturers and owners?



Barney

[mpholland]

I am OK with needing a license and training for gun ownership. I think that is a great idea. You need the same for motor vehicles which kill more people each year than guns do.

[BlueStreak]

My guitar wants to kill your Mama.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

In this country a Electrician, Plumber and Doctors all need a license and follow regulations, why is this? But gun manufacturers and owners?



Barney

Because we once had a rash of toilet plunger murders?:p
They were viciously left in the commodes of blind people..............

Regards,
Dave

[d-ray657]

So I called my sons tonight and told them that I love them. That helped . . . a little bit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[ebacon]

I love One Piece at a time Pete . . . a little bit more. :)

[BlueStreak]

Here are some facts to chew on with regard to guns and mass shootings in the US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Good stuff. Thanks, Pat.

[barbara]

Please use a little logic, analogies like the automobile one are specious and fallacious to the point of absurdity. No one goes out and runs down masses of people with the intent to harm & kill.

I agree. That tired, old argument just doesn't cut it.
Automobiles, if used in the manner they were manufactured for, transport. Guns, if used in the manner they were manufactured for, kill and maim.

[Boreas]

I am OK with needing a license and training for gun ownership. I think that is a great idea. You need the same for motor vehicles which kill more people each year than guns do.

That one never gets old, does it?

The intended purpose of an automobile is not to render death and destruction yet that is the precise purpose of a firearm.

John

[Oerets]

I just have to wounder how many mothers are looking at the husbands gun collection tonight in Newtown Connecticut.


Then thinking WHY?


Barney

[Boreas]

Here are some facts to chew on with regard to guns and mass shootings in the US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

A comparison of the charts at #5 and #7 is revealing. The chart at #5 shows that the number of "deaths due to assault" began to drop precipitously around 1977. The chart at #7, showing the level of gun ownership in the US, shows a marked decline beginning at precisely the same time.

Now consider the graph at #1. It shows that the number of mass shootings perpetrated with illegally obtained weapons is only about 1/5 the number committed with legally obtained weapons. These facts in combination clearly show that restricting legal gun ownership will reduce the number of "deaths due to assault".

John

[barbara]

Barney, I imagine there are a few fathers doing the same....

[Oerets]

Barney, I imagine there are a few fathers doing the same....

Can only hope!



Barney

[mpholland]

Please use a little logic, analogies like the automobile one are specious and fallacious to the point of absurdity. No one goes out and runs down masses of people with the intent to harm & kill.

My main intent in the statement was obviously agreeing to that particular form of gun control. The vehicle statement was just a fact, not an anti-gun control argument. Since you feel up to spewing shit tonight, go tell someone not armed with facts. Below are a small handful of many cases of people intentionally committing mass killings with vehicles.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/22/local/me-market22

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10837287

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Hepnarov%C3%A1

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/day-terror-came-downtown/content?oid=20584

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/world/europe/01dutch.html?_r=0

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/time-capsule/story-e6frg8h6-1111114224139

[BlueStreak]

I think my Dodge is psychotic. I know for a fact that it hates Squirrels and on more than one occasion has committed Squirrel-cide. I'm afraid I may have to remove the gas tank and lock it up in the shed, to keep it from going berserk and rampaging through the neighborhood.

[mpholland]

Deciding to kill people when you are drunk is far different than deciding to kill them because you have mental issues. The old man claimed that he tried to brake, but the witnesses told, and the jury saw, a different story. "No one goes out and runs down masses of people with the intent to harm & kill." That was your statement, in context. You are wrong. Country of origin was never even insinuated. I didn't miss the point. You see what you want to see in a simple statement and you don't agree with it so you make it personal against the poster. As I stated in my last post it wasn't an argumentative statement to begin with. Having a conservative gun owner stating, "I am OK with needing a license and training for gun ownership. I think that is a great idea.", should have actually made you feel pretty good, but you had to focus on the last part of the statement like it was intended as some sort of disclaimer.

[mpholland]

I think my Dodge is psychotic. I know for a fact that it hates Squirrels and on more than one occasion has committed Squirrel-cide. I'm afraid I may have to remove the gas tank and lock it up in the shed, to keep it from going berserk and rampaging through the neighborhood.

I could say the same about my .357 and it would sound almost as asinine.

[BlueStreak]

I have no problem with gun ownership as a general concept. But, I do have a problem with NRA folks who block every effort to control what gets distributed into our society and to whom it is distributed.

They claim no further controls are necessary and fight any further advancement. Sometimes they make good talking points in this regard, but it begs the question they never seem to have a sensible answer for;

How's that working out?

I guess they're waiting for someone they love to get killed.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

I could say the same about my .357 and it would sound almost as asinine.

Except your .357 was designed for the specific purpose of killing people. It's really pretty much useless for anything else. Although I have seen them used to crack nuts, it's messy, but it works.

Dave

[mpholland]

I would say no matter what purpose they were designed for, either one is going to do whatever the person in control of it wishes. The Dodge isn't going to drive itself, nor will the gun shoot itself.

[Boreas]

I would say no matter what purpose they were designed for, either one is going to do whatever the person in control of it wishes. The Dodge isn't going to drive itself, nor will the gun shoot itself.

People don't buy cars with the idea that it provides them with the option of exerting lethal force if they deem it appropriate.

John

[BlueStreak]

I wants to be a cowboy,
like in the wild west.

I wants to be a cowboy,
tin badge upon my chest.

I wants to be a cowboy,
and keep my iron near.

I wants to be a cowboy,
'cuz a cowboy gots no fear.

I wants to be a cowboy,
and keep my chest poked out.

I wants to be a cowboy,
I got lots o' shit to spout.

I wants to be a cowboy,
I gots the myth deep in my head.

That when ya become a cowboy,
ya won't never wind up dead.




Yippy ki ay, assholes!

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

I would say no matter what purpose they were designed for, either one is going to do whatever the person in control of it wishes. The Dodge isn't going to drive itself, nor will the gun shoot itself.

When was the last time we had a mass killing committed with anything but a gun? War and terrorist actions excluded. Did that freak attack everyone in the theater with salad tongs? Did the other guy drive into the mall and run all those people down with a golf cart? Columbine......The weapon of choice was Lebanon Bologna? The latest perptrator used.....a potato masher?

"Guns don't kill people, people do!"....No shit, ya don't say? And, it seems to be getting increasingly frequent, despite the fact that we sell guns by the tens of thousands in this country every day, doesn't it? If greater gun proliferation made a more peaceful society.............good gracious, we'd be livin' in paradise, by now wouldn't we?

But, we're not......Far from it.....Matter of fact, it jus keep on gittin' mo' worser every year doesn't it?

That's because La Pierre is a dumbass, and the NRA way doesn't work. We are going to HAVE to shove more strict laws down your throats eventually.

When are you guys going to realize that?

Regards,
Dave

[icenine]

I am pretty sure there is an assault weapon ban in place in New Jersey and Connecticut. There are also no firearms allowed at schools in Connecticut. While I find this and other mass shootings tragic, and my heart truly goes out to all of the families, I don't see how gun laws helped in this situation.

De jure is a legal term meaning written in law...de facto is the Latin for basically what really happens in real life. We have a ton of de jure gun laws, but anyone anywhere in the US can by a weapon, buy the ammo and shoot up any place they want too. It is really quite simple and easy. As you can see it happens all the time. It is not the gun itself. It is the open access to all manner of weaponry.....


guns do not kill people. People WITH guns kill people. We have to get rid of one side of that equation, and of course we cannot get rid of people.

[JCricket]

I tried to read this thread and couldn't. We lost 20 small children today. Do we have to fight about why today?

There is no answer that will make sense. I am sorry if I offend anyone with this.

Peace to you all, give your loved ones lots of extra attention this next week.

Mark

[d-ray657]

Deciding to kill people when you are drunk is far different than deciding to kill them because you have mental issues. The old man claimed that he tried to brake, but the witnesses told, and the jury saw, a different story. "No one goes out and runs down masses of people with the intent to harm & kill." That was your statement, in context. You are wrong. Country of origin was never even insinuated. I didn't miss the point. You see what you want to see in a simple statement and you don't agree with it so you make it personal against the poster. As I stated in my last post it wasn't an argumentative statement to begin with. Having a conservative gun owner stating, "I am OK with needing a license and training for gun ownership. I think that is a great idea.", should have actually made you feel pretty good, but you had to focus on the last part of the statement like it was intended as some sort of disclaimer.

I think that when a gun advocate recognizes the benefit of licensing and training as a prerequisite for gun ownership, we are seeing a much more rational position than that taken by the gun lobby. I don't think that it goes far enough, but at least we have the beginning of a conversation. MP's position leaves aside the paranoia that any licensing would just be the first step in the Obamamonster's plot to take all the guns away. When we start moving the boogeymen out of the conversation, we are making progress.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Zeke]

guns do not kill people. People WITH guns kill people. We have to get rid of one side of that equation, and of course we cannot get rid of people.

Concur.

When folks say "guns don't kill people," but "people kill people," it is an immense cop out and worthy of intellectual derision.

It would be like saying, when water happens, blame oxygen but not hydrogen.

BULLSHIT, you need both halves for these tragedies and we can only deter one.

WE SHOULD DO SO.

[barbara]

The escalating violence will only be addressed when enough people are negatively impacted. I think we have reached that point.

In my own little world... After years of walking the block and a half from the parking lot to the building I work in without feeling fearful, I now have a guard that escorts me (and other employees) to and from the parking lot. We've had five gun incidents since summertime in and around our building, three resulting in deaths. And, about twice a week I hear of a person being assaulted/robbed when they venture out of the building for lunch.

It's horrific when its a lone gun man gone off the deep end and I'm not trying to diminish what happened in that school, but the point I'm trying to make is that the violent environment has become the norm.... I feel like I work in a war zone.

Sorry for my rant, and thanks for listening. I'm just so weary of all the fear and violence.

[merrylander]

I wants to be a cowboy,
like in the wild west.

I wants to be a cowboy,
tin badge upon my chest.

I wants to be a cowboy,
and keep my iron near.

I wants to be a cowboy,
'cuz a cowboy gots no fear.

I wants to be a cowboy,
and keep my chest poked out.

I wants to be a cowboy,
I got lots o' shit to spout.

I wants to be a cowboy,
I gots the myth deep in my head.

That when ya become a cowboy,
ya won't never wind up dead.




Yippy ki ay, assholes!

Regards,
Dave

And there you have it, we glorified the wild west, remember Gunsmoke? Yet in real life Miss Kitty was a broken down probably diseased whore. The gunslingers were simply depraved adolescents. Movies popularizing vigilantes - make my day.

There was a time in England where the police never carried guns and neither did the crooks. Why, because the law came down on you really hard if you were carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Speaking of the Washington Post, Petula Dvorak's column made a lot of sense. We insist on safe car seats, bicycle helmets, safe cribs, everything to protect our children yet any deranged person seems to be able to get a pistol. They said the shooter was upset over his parents divorce. My son was seventeen when I divorced his mother, he did not go on a killing spree. In fact he is a better father than I was. That stupid woman he married wants to get sole custody of the girls and bring them down here to Jacksonville, NC where domestic violence is well above the norm. I would not consider raising children here in this country.

[Oerets]

So just when is an appropriate time to talk about gun violence? Will it take another ten, twenty or more events like the one yesterday to then be the right time?

Delaying the discussion will only allow more of these events to occur. Should not the fact that of the top 24 mass shooting in the past fifty years 15 were in the USA be enough?

We would all agree that if a gun related event similar to this were to happen every day in America something should be done. So it is just the frequency we disagree on. Some like me already see events close to this happening everyday across this nation, not as severe but still occurring.

I go back to pure selfishness on the part of some gun owners using scare tactics and arcane arguments to justify to themselves mainly their point of view. Fueled by the gun lobby controlled by the manufactures. So just dance on the end of the string.

Barney

[JCricket]

Is it possbile to remove every gun from society?

[barbara]

Is it possbile to remove every gun from society?

Probably not, Cricket. But, I don't think that is what anyone is advoacting. There are good and valid reasons for parts of the population to have ownership of guns. But, there is no good or valid reason why individuals have to have personal arsenals of high powered weapons at their disposal when they loose their grip on reality.

[JCricket]

Probably not, Cricket. But, I don't think that is what anyone is advoacting. There are good and valid reasons for parts of the population to have ownership of guns. But, there is no good or valid reason why individuals have to have personal arsenals of high powered weapons at their disposal when they loose their grip on reality.

A person can only pull a trigger one one(maybe two) guns at a time. Having 2 or 20 guns won't change that?

Secondly, it would be impossible to take a person with guns "when they loose grip on reality" and control the situation. Once they lose it, the point is mute.

So, back to the question, is it possible to remove all guns from society? The answer is an obvious no. Will any law prevent this from happening? The obvious answer is no. So unless all guns can be removed, another solution will need to be found.

Is there a way to prevent this from happaning again? Here again, no.

The fix is clearly not a "gun control law", but a shift in values across our country and culture. Maybe a gun control law is all we can do, but it will never fix the problem.

What drove the guy to do this? That is what needs addressed.

BTW - I lived two blocks from Columbine when it happened. I have/had friends and neighbors who lost their children in that tragedy.

Mark

[JCricket]

Another thought................
I grew up with guns. I personally have probably fired more than 20,000 rounds of ammnition in my life. No I am not military either. I KNOW about the culture of guns.

If you look at Pareto's 80/20 rule it applies. Eighty percent of all guns are owned by twenty percent of the gun owners. I would bet a huge amount of my money to say that those twenty percent of gun owners will never lose control and go berserk.

It is the folks who have only a few weapons that are the problem. An arsenal is not made of 4 or 5 guns. Not by a long shot. Although, I think that would be a really good statistic to use in examingin who owns and doesn't own guns - this might be a good way to identify a hot spot if you will.

I think most of these crazy shooters are folks who aquired their guns within a few months of the shooting. Here is a starting point to fix the problem.

[barbara]

Cricket...........sure, you're right, one can ony pull one trigger at a time. But, a person who collects an arsenal of high powered weapons is nuturting a mind set that is based in violence.
As for going off the deep end and losing one's grip on reality......I hear people on the news say about shooters (in general), "but, he was the nicest guy, who would have thougtht".....but, those people saying those things are casual acquintances. When one peels back the layers and talks to the people who really knew that shooter, you will find there were red flags in that person's life that weren't addressed for various reasons. Mostly, the reasons have to do with how we deal with (or, more appropriately, don't deal with) mental illness in our society.

[BlueStreak]

Is it possbile to remove every gun from society?

No, and that's not what I would suggest. But, obviously, there is a problem with them falling into the wrong hands. That's what needs to be brought under control.

Regards,
Dave

[JCricket]

No, and that's not what I would suggest. But, obviously, there is a problem with them falling into the wrong hands. That's what needs to be brought under control.

Regards,
Dave
Dave agreed!
My point, as long as there are guns in society, these things will happen. Secondly, since it is imposssbile to remove guns, these things will happen. Thus, controlling guns will not solve the problem.

The only remedy then would be to identify the folks that would do this. How can that be done?

I have ideas, but few pro gun folks would lke them.

[Wasillaguy]

So cars were designed to transport, and guns designed to kill. Yet cars kill more people every year. Sounds to me like cars are much more in need of further regulation, and guns are safe by comparison.
If my .44 were as poorly designed as a car, I could ride it to work.

[mpholland]

So cars were designed to transport, and guns designed to kill. Yet cars kill more people every year. Sounds to me like cars are much more in need of further regulation, and guns are safe by comparison.
If my .44 were as poorly designed as a car, I could ride it to work.

I am 99% against calling people stupid. If you even read the last few pages of this thread then I would say you are definitely falling into my 1% category. Either that or you are just some kind of troll/asshole.

Marc

[merrylander]

It seems to me that removal of handguns must be possible since Canada changed its laws to make ownership of handguns illegal. Only those 'special' types used in open compatitions are allowed.

Regardless, this latest shooter apparently had a form of autism and was on medication. Whoever wrote that prescription had a responsibility to enter his name in the national database. Had that been done he could not have legally bought the handguns. The same was true of the Gabby Giffords shooter, and the Aurora shooter did not exactly look like he had it all together.

You can legally buy guns at a gun show with no background check, or even buy as a personal transaction. Hell I just renewed my driver's license and needed my opthalmologist's signature and attestation that my eyesight is good.

I have looked into buying pistols online and did not see a single place that would ship direct, all require shipping to an FFL dealer local to the buyer.

It would appear that our gun laws have enough loopholes though, to drive an M1 Abrams through.

[Wasillaguy]

I am 99% against calling people stupid. If you even read the last few pages of this thread then I would say you are definitely falling into my 1% category. Either that or you are just some kind of troll/asshole.

Marc

So civility is on a thread by thread basis for you?

[mpholland]

Civility starts with leaving sleeping dogs lie. When it is obvious that a thread gets unnecessarily derailed and then through a little work by courteous people gets somewhat back on track it is hard to be civil to a wiseass that immediately decides to take it right back to the shitter.

[JCricket]

It seems to me that removal of handguns must be possible since Canada changed its laws to make ownership of handguns illegal. Only those 'special' types used in open compatitions are allowed.

Regardless, this latest shooter apparently had a form of autism and was on medication. Whoever wrote that prescription had a responsibility to enter his name in the national database. Had that been done he could not have legally bought the handguns. The same was true of the Gabby Giffords shooter, and the Aurora shooter did not exactly look like he had it all together.

You can legally buy guns at a gun show with no background check, or even buy as a personal transaction. Hell I just renewed my driver's license and needed my opthalmologist's signature and attestation that my eyesight is good.

I have looked into buying pistols online and did not see a single place that would ship direct, all require shipping to an FFL dealer local to the buyer.

It would appear that our gun laws have enough loopholes though, to drive an M1 Abrams through.

All pretty good points, but thre are a few flaws.
Here in Colorado, you need a background check to buy guns anywhere except from a private individual in their own home. Gun shows require it. Second, I don't believe Autism precludes you from gun ownership(it should), simple stating the law as I know it. Depending on the medication, it would - but that is in Colorado.

I do agree taht the system that should have identified him and this prevented this is what failed.
Mark

[merrylander]

All pretty good points, but thre are a few flaws.
Here in Colorado, you need a background check to buy guns anywhere except from a private individual in their own home. Gun shows require it. Second, I don't believe Autism precludes you from gun ownership(it should), simple stating the law as I know it. Depending on the medication, it would - but that is in Colorado.

I do agree taht the system that should have identified him and this prevented this is what failed.
Mark

Therin lies the problem, just go buy your guns in another state, oh but of course if the laws were set at the federal level all the states righters would be up inn arms, except for Scalia.:)

[BlueStreak]

It seems to me that removal of handguns must be possible since Canada changed its laws to make ownership of handguns illegal. Only those 'special' types used in open compatitions are allowed.

Regardless, this latest shooter apparently had a form of autism and was on medication. Whoever wrote that prescription had a responsibility to enter his name in the national database. Had that been done he could not have legally bought the handguns. The same was true of the Gabby Giffords shooter, and the Aurora shooter did not exactly look like he had it all together.

You can legally buy guns at a gun show with no background check, or even buy as a personal transaction. Hell I just renewed my driver's license and needed my opthalmologist's signature and attestation that my eyesight is good.

I have looked into buying pistols online and did not see a single place that would ship direct, all require shipping to an FFL dealer local to the buyer.

It would appear that our gun laws have enough loopholes though, to drive an M1 Abrams through.

And, that is the issue I have with it. Ubiquity and easy access. I believe the founders intended for us to have the right to possess guns. But, I don't believe they ever intended for us to be swimming in them or allowing lunatics to purchase/possess them.

The problem is that we have people among us who seem to wish to carry the phrase, "...shall not be infringed" to unreasonable extremes......and they vote.

Regards,
Dave

[Wasillaguy]

See, there you go again, name calling.
I may be a wise ass, I enjoy using sarcasm to make a point.
You may not find my perspective valid, but there are ways of saying so without becoming coarse. If we want a more polite society, and fewer people doing harm to each other, I suggest we must all do our part.

Now, back to my comment, I was completely serious. The automobile is obviously a very flawed device if it kills more people unintentionally than guns do- even though the people operating cars have been licensed to do so. Yet there's no lobby trying to further restrict cars. Dead is dead. While auto deaths are usually not intentional, they are predictable and accepted as the price we pay for transportation. However, if someone suggests that we must accept some atrocities as the price we pay for having guns for self defense, the idea is rejected.

[JCricket]

And, that is the issue I have with it. Ubiquity and easy access. I believe the founders intended for us to have the right to possess guns. But, I don't believe they ever intended for us to be swimming in them or allowing lunatics to purchase/possess them.

The problem is that we have people among us who seem to wish to carry the phrase, "...shall not be infringed" to unreasonable extremes......and they vote.

Regards,
Dave

See, there you go again, name calling.
I may be a wise ass, I enjoy using sarcasm to make a point.
You may not find my perspective valid, but there are ways of saying so without becoming coarse. If we want a more polite society, and fewer people doing harm to each other, I suggest we must all do our part.

Now, back to my comment, I was completely serious. The automobile is obviously a very flawed device if it kills more people unintentionally than guns do- even though the people operating cars have been licensed to do so. Yet there's no lobby trying to further restrict cars. Dead is dead. While auto deaths are usually not intentional, they are predictable and accepted as the price we pay for transportation. However, if someone suggests that we must accept some atrocities as the price we pay for having guns for self defense, the idea is rejected.

your logic is quite flawed. Well meant, but flawed.
There are no deaths that are predictable and accepted - sorry I don't buy that.

Secondly, since dead is dead, what does intention have to do with anyting?

Does anyone state we must "ACCEPT" atrocities to thus be able to defend oursleves? I don't know any sound minded person who states this.

They may askthe question of how do you preserve that right and still prevent these tragedies.

Hmm....................

[ebacon]

I read the two that obviously happened in the US and one was an 89 year old man who crashed through a barrier and hit the gas pedal when he thought he was hitting the brake, the other was a drunk driver. Try again. Sheesh.

One article is about Priscilla Ford. She intentionally drove a Lincoln down a Reno sidewalk and mowed down a bunch of people.

And just because someone in China mowed down people with a vehicle it does not mean that the information does not apply in the USA. What it shows, IMO, is what people, regardless of where they are, will do to satisfy their rage in the absence of firearms. If Americans did not have guns then we would use vehicles, or molotov cocktails, or knives, or whatever to kill.

Why we kill each other more than citizens of other nations is probably caused by a mix of reasons.

[Wasillaguy]

I predict that thousands of people will die in auto accidents in the next year.
I accept that it's the price we pay for convenient transportation.

Check back in a year and we will see if my prediction was correct.

[d-ray657]

One article is about Priscilla Ford. She intentionally drove a Lincoln down a Reno sidewalk and mowed down a bunch of people.

And just because someone in China mowed down people with a vehicle it does not mean that the information does not apply in the USA. What it shows, IMO, is what people, regardless of where they are, will do to satisfy their rage in the absence of firearms. If Americans did not have guns then we would use vehicles, or molotov cocktails, or knives, or whatever to kill.

Why we kill each other more than citizens of other nations is probably caused by a mix of reasons.

And some people can efficiently kill people without any type of weapon. But modern firearms are very efficient killing machines - more efficient I would suggest than an automobile. To continue the absurdity, the Connecticut killer would not have been able to drive an automobile into a classroom full of kids.

Nothing we do will eliminate the desire of some individuals to take the lives of others. We can decrease the harm that some such individuals can cause by depriving them of some of the more efficient killing machines.

We are unlikely to completely eliminate insanity, evil, rage, prejudice, hatred, recklessness, greed, and whatever else leads humans to harm one another. I am not willing, however, to concede that we should abandon any hope diminishing such causes, their effects, and the capability of people to express such characteristics/emotions in a deadly way.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

I predict that thousands of people will die in auto accidents in the next year.
I accept that it's the price we pay for convenient transportation.

Check back in a year and we will see if my prediction was correct.

And I advocate a much more extensive system of public transportation, which would eliminate some of the miles driven, and thus the traffic fatalities. I also favor tough legislation that prevents drunken driving - another major cause of traffic fatalities. Technology has introduced such things as seat-belts, airbags, collapsible engine compartments and other things that reduce the risk of death in an automobile. Simply because it is likely that deaths will occur, does not mean that we should not look at ways to eliminate them.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Watching the Right with all their contortions and specious arguments after this tragedy is disgusting. They don't want to undertake any action that would impede free and easy access to all sorts of weapons, even if similar actions had proven effectiveness elsewhere (Canada, Australia). I think it has much to do with the insecurities and fears inculcated in the Right.

What if the perpetrator in Newtown had been named Abdul Mohammed and had attended a local mosque? The Right would be frothing at the mouth over these murders rather than trying to rationalize them or sweep them under the rug.

[Wasillaguy]

Watching the Right with all their contortions and specious arguments after this tragedy is disgusting. They don't want to undertake any action that would impede free and easy access to all sorts of weapons, even if similar actions had proven effectiveness elsewhere (Canada, Australia). I think it has much to do with the insecurities and fears inculcated in the Right.

What if the perpetrator in Newtown had been named Abdul Mohammed and had attended a local mosque? The Right would be frothing at the mouth over these murders rather than trying to rationalize them or sweep them under the rug.

Muhammad would likely have used a bomb, and killed many more children.

i dont agree that a pro-gun viewpoint is intended to rationalize this tragedy. It could be argued that these tragedies are used to rationalize gun control.

[finnbow]

Muhammad would likely have used a bomb, and killed many more children.

i dont agree that a pro-gun viewpoint is intended to rationalize this tragedy. It could be argued that these tragedies are used to rationalize gun control.

I said if Mohammed had been the perp in CT (i.e., if he had done exactly the same thing).

What is particularly disgusting is the Right saying that, out of respect, we shouldn't talk about our gun laws until the grieving in CT is over. That's a cop out in my opinion. They know full well that in our democracy actions can only be taken when a problem is acute and fresh in our memories.

[ebacon]

And some people can efficiently kill people without any type of weapon. But modern firearms are very efficient killing machines - more efficient I would suggest than an automobile. To continue the absurdity, the Connecticut killer would not have been able to drive an automobile into a classroom full of kids.

Nothing we do will eliminate the desire of some individuals to take the lives of others. We can decrease the harm that some such individuals can cause by depriving them of some of the more efficient killing machines.

We are unlikely to completely eliminate insanity, evil, rage, prejudice, hatred, recklessness, greed, and whatever else leads humans to harm one another. I am not willing, however, to concede that we should abandon any hope diminishing such causes, their effects, and the capability of people to express such characteristics/emotions in a deadly way.

Regards,

D-Ray


It's entirely possible to mow down a bunch of kids at a bus stop, or school crossing, or soccer field, or . . .

All it takes is will.

Wasn't there some psycho rich broad in the Hamptons that went bezirk and mowed down a crowd outside of a nightclub?

Ah, here it is. Lizzie Grubman. She injured 26. No deaths. I don't know what kind of injuries her Mercedes inflicted but my guess is that they are more than bruises and paper cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Grubman

[Wasillaguy]

And I advocate a much more extensive system of public transportation, which would eliminate some of the miles driven, and thus the traffic fatalities. I also favor tough legislation that prevents drunken driving - another major cause of traffic fatalities. Technology has introduced such things as seat-belts, airbags, collapsible engine compartments and other things that reduce the risk of death in an automobile. Simply because it is likely that deaths will occur, does not mean that we should not look at ways to eliminate them.

Regards,

D-Ray

A death every 12 minutes in this country, you'd think many of your ideas would have been implemented long ago, and there would be a perpetual thread on this board about the ongoing horror. But no. Traffic deaths are accepted in this country.

[finnbow]

A death every 12 minutes in this country, you'd think many of your ideas would have been implemented long ago, and there would be a perpetual thread on this board about the ongoing horror. But no. Traffic deaths are accepted in this country.

A modern society can live without an overabundance of easily available firearms. It cannot live without transportation.

That said, American drivers suck for the most part. Drive for a few years in Germany and you'll realize how bad drivers here are. The difference is even more profound if you're driving around the DC area (as opposed to uncrowded rural roads).

[ebacon]

Speaking of Germany, they do have a problem on the roads that we have less of, namely geisterfahrer (ghost drivers). For those unaware of the term, a geisterfahrer is a driver that is intentionally driving the wrong way on the autobahn. They might do it because they are drunk. My uncle, who had a wrecker service, said that young people also do for thrills or on dares or bets. In Germany geisterfahrers are a daily occurrence.

The point of the story is that people have energy to burn and thrills to get. If a society tries to squeeze them in too much then the thrills will manifest somewhere else. It's like trying to squeeze a waterballoon.

[merrylander]

See, there you go again, name calling.
I may be a wise ass, I enjoy using sarcasm to make a point.
You may not find my perspective valid, but there are ways of saying so without becoming coarse. If we want a more polite society, and fewer people doing harm to each other, I suggest we must all do our part.

Now, back to my comment, I was completely serious. The automobile is obviously a very flawed device if it kills more people unintentionally than guns do- even though the people operating cars have been licensed to do so. Yet there's no lobby trying to further restrict cars. Dead is dead. While auto deaths are usually not intentional, they are predictable and accepted as the price we pay for transportation. However, if someone suggests that we must accept some atrocities as the price we pay for having guns for self defense, the idea is rejected.

When was the last time you saw anyone being road tested for their driving ability? I got trained and tested by Bell Canada before they would let me in one of their vehicles, got the driver safety buttons to prove it.

As Pat noted the drivers in this area are nuts, they tailgate like crazy.

[Dondilion]

Desensitization. Hollywood? Video Games? Isolation/ lack of healthy social interaction? Lots to consider there, I'd say.

Regards,
Dave

I believe video gaming is the major one here. It is the closest to participation in a killing. Some play this 24/7. :eek:

[wgrr]

I think serious gun control needs to over power the NRA.

I am not a flaming Conservative but, what gun control do you propose?

I am also not in favour of throwing people in the loony bin without just cause. Do they still have a loony bin or is it now called privatised jails and prisons.

As most of you know here I am not an anti gun nut. I don't know what the answer is. The one thing I do know, is when income inequality or better said reward inequality exits in a society of monkeys, apes, human children and adults, to the point where they feel "cheated"; shit happens that isn't pleasant. There are many studies. You can google them if you want too.

God rest the souls of all the victims of senseless shootings.

More later, I had some emergencies at work I
had to attend to.

[mpholland]

Although many would be considered preventable, I think the vast majority of vehicle deaths are accidents. A bit off topic, but I think that alcohol and cell phones cause an overwhelming majority of accidents. Talking on cell phones, texting, and drinking while driving are all illegal in most places. Making something illegal doesn't stop the behavior.

[BlueStreak]

I am not a flaming Conservative but, what gun control do you propose?

I am also not in favour of throwing people in the loony bin without just cause. Do they still have a loony bin or is it now called privatised jails and prisons.

As most of you know here I am not an anti gun nut. I don't know what the answer is. The one thing I do know, is when income inequality or better said reward inequality exits in a society of monkeys, apes, human children and adults, to the point where they feel "cheated"; shit happens that isn't pleasant. There are many studies. You can google them if you want too.

God rest the souls of all the victims of senseless shootings.

More later, I had some emergencies at work I
had to attend to.

Really? I thought we were all supposed to celebrate being cheated and idolize those who have grown fat from the fruit of our labors.............

I'll have to dig up one of those (obviously communist) studies you speak of.;)

Regards,
Dave

[bhunter]

What a tragic event. My heart goes out to all involved.

Hopefully the killers brother can shed some light on what led to this act. Having said that, in defense of gun owners rights, I doubt that the answer will be that the killer bought guns and wanted to try them out. Despite a recent rash of such events I am not convinced that guns are the problem. My hunch is that the problem is related to jealousy or the infinite bandwidth that gives these killers a worldwide audience for their cause. In this case there might not even be a cause. My understanding is that the killer was relatively young and at that stage of life young men can have weird things to prove.

This sucks.

Nicely stated! The cause is much greater than the availability of firearms. Unearned celebrity and the manufactured demand for immediate satiation can also be blamed. Previous childhood bullying seems a constant in these school shooting cases.

[icenine]

Why are fireworks illegal?

[diamondsoul]

"what gun control do you propose?"

Pretty easy. For starters ban assault rifles outright. Make the waiting period for the purchase of any gun longer.

BTW I have owned guns and used them for hunting. They do usually kill whatever you're hunting, that is if you're a half decent shot anyways.

Being a Canadian I really don't get what all the mania about gun ownership is south of the 49th, doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when you take an honest look at the numbers.

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1544&stc=1&d=1355632573

[BlueStreak]

Nicely stated! The cause is much greater than the availability of firearms. Unearned celebrity and the manufactured demand for immediate satiation can also be blamed. Previous childhood bullying seems a constant in these school shooting cases.

Bullies do suck. You, I, ebacon and the First Lady all concur on that point. However, many of us have been bullied at some point in our lives and didn't cut loose with a murdering spree. Hell, I've been bullied, beaten by my own mother and been diagnosed with cronic depression. Soon, I'll reach 50 and I haven't slaughtered any innocents. Not a single one.

But, I'd still like to know just how anyone using a weapon that doesn't explode or shoot projectiles in a rapid fashion would manage to kill so many while strolling through a school or shopping mall. I'd still like to know what the rationalization for citizens possessing military grade firearms is.

My favorite is the "more guns" argument. "If the teachers had guns in their desks one of them might have killed the shooter early on." Yeah, maybe so.
But, I can't help but wonder how long it would be before a teacher would reach the end of his/her rope with a room full of spoiled, undisciplined not nosed brats and start shootin' them his/her damn self?

Then we'd be talking about arming the students...............:rolleyes:

Woot, woot! All aboard the crazy train, destination America! YEEEEEHAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
Dave

[JCricket]

Bullies do suck. You, I, ebacon and the First Lady all concur on that point. However, many of us have been bullied at some point in our lives and didn't cut loose with a murdering spree. Hell, I've been bullied, beaten by my own mother and been diagnosed with cronic depression. Soon, I'll reach 50 and I haven't slaughtered any innocents. Not a single one.

But, I'd still like to know just how anyone using a weapon that doesn't explode or shoot projectiles in a rapid fashion would manage to kill so many while strolling through a school or shopping mall. I'd still like to know what the rationalization for citizens possessing military grade firearms is.
My favorite is the "more guns" argument. "If the teachers had guns in their desks one of them might have killed the shooter early on." Yeah, maybe so.
But, I can't help but wonder how long it would be before a teacher would reach the end of his/her rope with a room full of spoiled, undisciplined not nosed brats and start shootin' them his/her damn self?

Then we'd be talking about arming the students...............:rolleyes:

Woot, woot! All aboard the crazy train, destination America! YEEEEEHAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
Dave

Dave, what is a military grade firearm? Is it one that makes you more dead than a non military grade firearm? Give me a ruger 10-22 pistol and 10 magazines and I would be armed ot the teeth. In fact, that weapon would likley be far more effective because of its size and how much ammo a person could cary. It may not be an assualt rifle, but you would be just as dead.
What always suprises me is how many people don't get killed when one of these lunatics goes nuts. Seriously!

My point, I am not sure it really matters what type of gun you use. Dead is dead and I don't know of a single firearm that won't kill you with a single shot. I also know that 20 rounds in a few guns could easily equate to 20 dead folks. I also know that reloading is no big deal for an experienced shooter.
These lunatics might be less deadly with different firearms, but I kind of doubt it.

[ebacon]

Here's a blurb on German gun laws and their rash of school shootings. It was written in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting-laws

Gun laws are not the answer. There is something else going on. I'm tired now, but a cursory glance at the school shootings seem to have a pattern. The shooters are typically in their early 20s, previously attended the schools, and for whatever reason have grudges.

It might be that the shooters are despondent because they are worried that they will never find work and blame the school. I don't know, I just have to believe that increasingly unstable socioeconomic situations are a big part of the equation. People tend to get edgy when they don't know what's next. That's why job stability is always a big issue in union negotiations. The easier a society makes it for people to mess with each others livelihoods the more stressed the people get and the more likely a few of them are to act out. It's simple statistics. That's my take at least.

[merrylander]

The odd part is that as it turns out his mother was not a teacher at the school, she was unemployed and a gun collector. In fact some reports suggest that she was one of those slightly paranoid types who live in fear. The shooter himself apparently did not attend the school, or had not attended for some time. If he bore some sort of grudge he had been holding it for a long time as he was 20 years old and the school is K-4.

I recently saw a pellet gun that holds 15 rounds and has a muzzle velocity of 550FPS. Now my Crossman only has a MV of 350FPS yet it can bury a flat nosed wadbuster full length or more into hardwood. Got myself a box of the pointed variety must try it out on some oak trees. If 350FPS can bury them deep in hardwood 550FPS ought to go pretty deep in someone's hide. Oddly enough when a county police officer was her on some unrelated call he was rather impressed with its appearence as it is a copy of a Colt Python.

[BlueStreak]

Why are fireworks illegal?

Excellent question.

Dave

[ebacon]

The odd part is that as it turns out his mother was not a teacher at the school, she was unemployed and a gun collector. In fact some reports suggest that she was one of those slightly paranoid types who live in fear. The shooter himself apparently did not attend the school, or had not attended for some time. If he bore some sort of grudge he had been holding it for a long time as he was 20 years old and the school is K-4. . . .

Yes, there are some things that don't add up with the family situation of this shooter. It will be interesting to hear the story when it comes out.

My understanding is that he was a student at the school, was expelled for disciplinary problems, and then home schooled. I also find it strange that the mother had a gun collection. Maybe she got them in a divorce. Maybe she is a doomsday prepper. But I doubt that she is a gun collector in the typical sense of preserving history or heirlooms for the simple reason that it would be a statistical outlier for a woman to be engaged in that sort of hobby. At least I have never heard of it.

One thing that seems to be recurrent in school shootings is the black clothing. In the German school shooting case I posted earlier the article said that the kid was a fan of the video game Counter-Strike. The outfits in that game are typical black tactical uniforms. That might be a seed.

As far as video games alone being the problem, I don't think so, but they may well be part of it. Or if not the game, the internet aspect that goes along with multi-player games.

I helped moderate a gaming board for a few years (teamplayergaming.com). We hosted Counter-Strike (CS) along with other popular first person shooters. Out of all the games CS clearly caused the most problems in game and in the associated forums. The game plays at a faster pace than most games (too fast for me for sure -- I tried to play and could not match the kids reaction times). Given that games frantic pace emotions often ran high and fights often ensued that divided the on-line community.

Luckily our community had an outstanding moderating team. We had a good mix of younger mods and adults and prided ourselves on working together to keep troublemakers out and clean players in. Younger members often used their online experiences as subjects of school papers, they used their moderating experiences on their resumes, etc. We were by all accounts a professional operation.

But it is easy to imagine that a kid could really get despondent in the online realm. Let's say he causes some trouble in the game because he repeatedly thinks his strategy is better than the CS squad leaders in the games. As such he runs lone wolf, messes up the strategy, and repeatedly takes the fun out of the games for the players that are playing nice and following the squad leaders orders. Those lone wolves eventually get banned for non-teamplay.

Once they are shown the door they get together online with other players that have also been banned and then, within that group of misfits, one might be so ill behaved that he even gets kicked out of the misfit group. What would run through a kid's head if he is not even good enough, or more likely too arrogant, to be a misfit? I don't know. But I suspect at that point he will be thinking about revenge.

For some time I have pondered the effects of rejection on the internet. I'm not certain that the human brain is wired to deal with being rejected by thousands of people. It's like getting ignored or kicked out of a village. And the emotions are not limited to say teenagers. Even on this board or on AK we occasionally see posts from adults that express frustration for feeling like their posts are ignored. The ego is delicate.

The communication bandwidth that we have put in place over the last twenty years has brought with it some new problems IMO. The human brain isn't yet adjusted to being in a community that big and fitting in with so many different opinions.

[JJIII]

For some time I have pondered the effects of rejection on the internet. I'm not certain that the human brain is wired to deal with being rejected by thousands of people. It's like getting ignored or kicked out of a village. And the emotions are not limited to say teenagers. Even on this board or on AK we occasionally see posts from adults that express frustration for feeling like their posts are ignored. The ego is delicate.

The communication bandwidth that we have put in place over the last twenty years has brought with it some new problems IMO. The human brain isn't yet adjusted to being in a community that big and fitting in with so many different opinions.

Here may be another example of that. This was fairly recent near my neck of the woods.

http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-defriending-led-double-murder-tennessee-194607349.html

[merrylander]

I'm curious, in these multi=player online games does everyone know wher the other players are located?

[ebacon]

I'm curious, in these multi=player online games does everyone know wher the other players are located?

No. Not unless the players tell each other. It's just like any other internet discussion.

[merrylander]

No. Not unless the players tell each other. It's just like any other internet discussion.

So a mass killing by a disgruntled player would be a little hard to pull off. Then again most of these whack jobs seem to go for innocent bystanders.

[ebacon]

Here is a thread on teamplayergaming.com regarding the shooting. Some of you might find value in reading gamers reactions.

http://www.teamplayergaming.com/news-politics-religion-other-high-drama/107159-connecticut-school-shooting.html

[BlueStreak]

How about this;

We use violence as entertainment, in movies, games and even books. How often do we speak of violent acts in casual conversation as if they are justified, even glorifed in some cases?

Weaker minds and the mentally ill sometimes, unfortunately, lose the ability to differentiate between the fantasy of a movie or game and the realities of picking up a deadly weapon and using it in the real world. They may hear Grandpa proudly telling war stories and not understand that killing VC in Khe Sahn in 1969 is different than shooting up a crowded theater in Colorado in 2012.

Now add a society that has become so saturated with deadly weapons that such a disturbed young man can simply steal a few from his MOM, and have himself a spree. Or, in certain states, (AZ, for example.), simply walk into a dealership and purchase them---WITH a documented history of mental illness. (You can argue the legality of that all you want. It happens.)

Sorry guys, I still support the second amendment....tenuously. I say that because I think that the only recourse we have left is for even those of us who don't care for guns to go buy one anyways to protect ourselves...........from our fellow citizens.
But, I'm beginning to think the founders made a horrendous mistake in ever letting this monster out of the bag to begin with. The words, "...shall not be infringed." should have been left out of the wording. (Something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.)

I'm afraid there is only one answer to this problem and Finn has already covered it, quite succinctly. But, that will never happen here, because we are a nation full of folks determined to continue down that road to Hell, than to compromise an inch.

(And don't give me any stupid stories about killer cars or stabbing Chinamen or "gun control doesn't work" becasue all of that crap is getting pretty worn out as the death tolls climb...but only here in second amendment land.

Bon Voyage, America!

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

I could go for more gun control in the US if there was a way to craft it that made sense.

Last night I did a little searching on the internet about German gun control (sorry to always refer to Germany, it's just that that is my only solid reference outside of the US).

From what I gathered the German structure basically creates a matrix of types of guns (seems largely based on magazine capacity and muzzle energy) and types of shooting sports. For the lowest risk guns, such as air guns, the law is liberal and ownership and shooting are broadly allowed. At the most restrictive level are high caliber hunting weapons and need must be shown, such as possession of a hunting license. In the middle are target weapons and again need must be shown such as membership in a shooting club. Even then the membership must be over one year.

The law also allows for in-home inspection.

What I don't understand is how they dispose of the guns once a person loses his need status. For example if a person gives up target shooting and stops paying his club dues or attending meets, then what happens? I don't know.

Having said all that, it is easy to justify such a system in Germany. All of their land is managed and they are packed in there almost like puzzle pieces. They don't have the wilds of say Appalachia, or Alaska, or the expanse of states like Arizona and Nevada. If any more gun laws are put in place I think it would be best to do it state by state. Maybe that's where we don't see eye-to-eye on the issue on PC. A person in Los Angeles will have a different perspective than a person in rural Tennessee.

[Bigerik]

I can't imagine what need a person in Tennessee would have to own an assault rifle then one in Los Angeles would.

[Bigerik]

Just had to walk away from a thread on AK about the whole issue. I've actually been avoiding it here too. I just can't get past the concept of people who are ok with the deaths of 20 kids in a school as long as it doesn't effect their rights to own guns. "My property, and my right to own guns as many and of whatever kind I want, is more valuable then your childs life". No, no one has come out and said that. But that seems to me to be the crux of the argument.

[ebacon]

I can't imagine what need a person in Tennessee would have to own an assault rifle then one in Los Angeles would.

It's not about need. The issue with gun control is crafting language that works in a particular society.

Take assault rifles for instance. The only difference between an assault rifle and a semi-auto hunting rifle is appearance. One looks scary and one looks pretty. There isn't much difference between say a 30 round magazine and a 5 round magazine. A practiced shooter can swap magazines in less than a second.

So where does that leave us? It appears to me that the problem is in the so-called soft skills. Why do American gun manufacturers and the media scare Americans with doomsday shows and appeal to their insecurities by marketing scary looking guns? Because it's the easiest way to make money. And in a nation where money = blessed by God the effects are perfectly predictable when looked at from the 30,000 foot level.

Sorry, but I have to bring up Ayn Rand again. One of the serious philosophical arguments against her Objectivism is in the area of aesthetics. In a nutshell the argument goes like this. If a society focuses on money as a measure of goodness then what happens to art (aesthetics)? The high arts are less profitable than art that appeals to the masses or the lowest common denominator. We can apply that to guns, too. If a gun is handcrafted and touched up with engraving, perhaps a family monogram, and nice hand checkering on the grips, then it will cost more and have more meaning to the family. In every philosophy but Objectivism that would be good.

On the other hand Objectivism says the wealthiest job creator must be the smartest or else he would not be rich. Such a philosophy forces a race to the bottom -- persuade the most people to buy the highest profit margin guns. What mix results? An industry that scares people and sells them guns with stamped receivers and CNC machined stocks that hold even more accessories such as tactical flashlights and what not. More money = better in Objectivist anarcho-capitalism. The Objectivist faction would say that the solution to gun problems are an innovation that sells well enough to effect a change.

You guys know where I stand on Objectivism. I hate it. But I also have to see both sides of the debate.

[BlueStreak]

Just had to walk away from a thread on AK about the whole issue. I've actually been avoiding it here too. I just can't get past the concept of people who are ok with the deaths of 20 kids in a school as long as it doesn't effect their rights to own guns. "My property, and my right to own guns as many and of whatever kind I want, is more valuable then your childs life". No, no one has come out and said that. But that seems to me to be the crux of the argument.

I think you may be onto something.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

"Sorry, but I have to bring up Ayn Rand again. One of the serious philosophical arguments against her Objectivism is in the area of aesthetics. In a nutshell the argument goes like this. If a society focuses on money as a measure of goodness then what happens to art (aesthetics)? The high arts are less profitable than art that appeals to the masses or the lowest common denominator. We can apply that to guns, too. If a gun is handcrafted and touched up with engraving, perhaps a family monogram, and nice hand checkering on the grips, then it will cost more and have more meaning to the family. In every philosophy but Objectivism that would be good.

On the other hand Objectivism says the wealthiest job creator must be the smartest or else he would not be rich. Such a philosophy forces a race to the bottom -- persuade the most people to buy the highest profit margin guns. What mix results? An industry that scares people and sells them guns with stamped receivers and CNC machined stocks that hold even more accessories such as tactical flashlights and what not. More money = better in Objectivist anarcho-capitalism. The Objectivist faction would say that the solution to gun problems are an innovation that sells well enough to effect a change.

You guys know where I stand on Objectivism. I hate it. But I also have to see both sides of the debate. "

Great stuff, and I concur. Especially the bolded statements, which can be applied to far more products than just guns and would explain, in part, the "junkiness" of so many of todays products.

I also don't see how a society focused on maintaining the happiness and wealth of a handfull is supposed to lead to anything but horrendous disparity.........as it evidently is.

Regards,
Dave

[bhunter]

It's not about need. The issue with gun control is crafting language that works in a particular society.

Take assault rifles for instance. The only difference between an assault rifle and a semi-auto hunting rifle is appearance. One looks scary and one looks pretty. There isn't much difference between say a 30 round magazine and a 5 round magazine. A practiced shooter can swap magazines in less than a second.

So where does that leave us? It appears to me that the problem is in the so-called soft skills. Why do American gun manufacturers and the media scare Americans with doomsday shows and appeal to their insecurities by marketing scary looking guns? Because it's the easiest way to make money. And in a nation where money = blessed by God the effects are perfectly predictable when looked at from the 30,000 foot level.

Sorry, but I have to bring up Ayn Rand again. One of the serious philosophical arguments against her Objectivism is in the area of aesthetics. In a nutshell the argument goes like this. If a society focuses on money as a measure of goodness then what happens to art (aesthetics)? The high arts are less profitable than art that appeals to the masses or the lowest common denominator. We can apply that to guns, too. If a gun is handcrafted and touched up with engraving, perhaps a family monogram, and nice hand checkering on the grips, then it will cost more and have more meaning to the family. In every philosophy but Objectivism that would be good.

On the other hand Objectivism says the wealthiest job creator must be the smartest or else he would not be rich. Such a philosophy forces a race to the bottom -- persuade the most people to buy the highest profit margin guns. What mix results? An industry that scares people and sells them guns with stamped receivers and CNC machined stocks that hold even more accessories such as tactical flashlights and what not. More money = better in Objectivist anarcho-capitalism. The Objectivist faction would say that the solution to gun problems are an innovation that sells well enough to effect a change.

You guys know where I stand on Objectivism. I hate it. But I also have to see both sides of the debate.

Let the proverbial arrows fly.

I'm of the opinion that the above is misintrpretation of Rand's work largely put forth by business people. BTW, a similar thing happened with Musashi's "The Book of Five Rings" and Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" when used in the context of business. Wealth itself is less important to Rand than the process of obtaining that wealth. Moreover, one can be monetarily poor and still be productive.

[ebacon]

Let the proverbial arrows fly.

I'm of the opinion that the above is misintrpretation of Rand's work largely put forth by business people. BTW, a similar thing happened with Musashi's "The Book of Five Rings" and Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" when used in the context of business. Wealth itself is less important to Rand than the process of obtaining that wealth. Moreover, one can be monetarily poor and still be productive.


Just stop it. You are clearly one that bases an opinion on her fiction. In her book, "Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal", she gets down to brass tacks as to how her philosophy works. It is, without question, the meanest, most heartless, piece of writing on the Earthball. On its face it is more mean than even Mein Kampf.

Rand professes bits of knowledge such as there is no point in listening to stupid people because they can not teach you anything. Hillbillies should not be able to own radio stations because they are too stupid to understand transmitters. The more money you have the smarter you are. etc. etc.

It is a dog-eat-dog, fuck everyone except me and my team philosophy. It has no regard for society and no respect for government except one -- to use the police state to protect property rights. And after the richest have gypped the masses to where they can't afford to support their own police forces then who pays the cops? And who wins?

You can defend Ayn Rand all you want but I don't have to believe the bullshit.

[bobabode]

Just had to walk away from a thread on AK about the whole issue. I've actually been avoiding it here too. I just can't get past the concept of people who are ok with the deaths of 20 kids in a school as long as it doesn't effect their rights to own guns. "My property, and my right to own guns as many and of whatever kind I want, is more valuable then your childs life". No, no one has come out and said that. But that seems to me to be the crux of the argument.

My sentiments exactly, exactly. I have only one suggestion, go look at the photos of these kids and their teachers and really think about gun control. I'll not be engaging in any goddamn debate about it other than to say anyone who thinks their second amendment rights trumps this horror has something seriously wrong with them deep down. There is a real sickness in this country fostered and encouraged by what the present NRA stands for.

I'm out of this discussion.

[BlueStreak]

Just stop it. You are clearly one that bases an opinion on her fiction. In her book, "Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal", she gets down to brass tacks as to how her philosophy works. It is, without question, the meanest, most heartless, piece of writing on the Earthball. On its face it is more mean than even Mein Kampf.

Rand professes bits of knowledge such as there is no point in listening to stupid people because they can not teach you anything. Hillbillies should not be able to own radio stations because they are too stupid to understand transmitters. The more money you have the smarter you are. etc. etc.

It is a dog-eat-dog, fuck everyone except me and my team philosophy. It has no regard for society and no respect for government except one -- to use the police state to protect property rights. And after the richest have gypped the masses to where they can't afford to support their own police forces then who pays the cops? And who wins?

You can defend Ayn Rand all you want but I don't have to believe the bullshit.

Excellent, and very well stated. One only needs to watch the Rand interviews, wherein you can see facial expressions as well as hear the words, to understand that you hit the nail square on the head with this post. That was one creepy, rotten to the core woman. Makes my skin crawl. The Jackal that spawned the anti-christ....that's how creepy that bitch was.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

So, now when a killer kills....it IS societies fault? Interesting statement to say the least.
.....
Regards,
Dave

To some degree.

Of course we need to get control over the efficient killing machines that are readily available to anyone with a grudge and a sick mind. But there is something wrong when we are seeing so many examples of people who pay no heed to the lives they are shattering. There are some folks walking around with dead souls. And that is frightening.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think what we need is a hard look on what's changed over the past 30 years.


I love One Piece at a time Pete . . . a little bit more. :)

To quote you not too long ago, you know you love me :D

It's not about need. The issue with gun control is crafting language that works in a particular society.

......

In relation to our laws, I agree. Guns were around a while back - why the spike in these types of things?

I think one needs to think hard about what's really wrong and not just knee jerk it.

Pete

[Bigerik]

I think what we need is a hard look on what's changed over the past 30 years.


Pete

30 years ago? That's about when Reagan was elected, right? ;)

[finnbow]

I think part of it was the number of conservative Democrats who lost their seats after voting for the assault weapons ban in 1994. Since then, the Dems have punted on the issue of more effective gun control and the GOP has become even more emboldened in their gun craziness. For example, just yesterday on the Sunday morning talkies, Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was lamenting that the principle at Sandy Hook didn't have an M4 (the militarized, automatic carbine version of the M16) in her office so she could have shot it out with the perp. Feckin' brilliant.

[Boreas]

I think part of it was the number of conservative Democrats who lost their seats after voting for the assault weapons ban in 1994. Since then, the Dems have punted on the issue of more effective gun control and the GOP has become even more emboldened in their gun craziness. For example, just yesterday on the Sunday morning talkies, Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was lamenting that the principle at Sandy Hook didn't have an M4 (the militarized, automatic carbine version of the M16) in her office so she could have shot it out with the perp. Feckin' brilliant.

The "more guns" argument is all over the right wing media. That and more concealed carry, "the only form of gun legislation which has been proven to work".

John

[Boreas]

I'm rapidly growing to hate this country.

http://mashable.com/2012/12/17/sunday-night-football-newtown/

John

[Bigerik]

The "more guns" argument is all over the right wing media. That and more concealed carry, "the only form of gun legislation which has been proven to work".

John

Do they actually believe this crap? Are they so totally removed from reality?

[Bigerik]

I'm rapidly growing to hate this country.

http://mashable.com/2012/12/17/sunday-night-football-newtown/

John

That is truly tragic. But not surprising.

[piece-itpete]

There has been a spike in rampages because blue dog dems lost their seats?

What's effective gun control? All the ban will do is make them more expensive. Are poor folks more likely to go ape than the wealthy?

One solution I'm hearing is more security in the schools. Which amounts to a gun in the hands of the good guys.

Pete

[Boreas]

There has been a spike in rampages because blue dog dems lost their seats?

What's effective gun control? All the ban will do is make them more expensive. Are poor folks more likely to go ape than the wealthy?

One solution I'm hearing is more security in the schools. Which amounts to a gun in the hands of the good guys.

Pete

There's not a single word in this post that makes any sense at all.

Congratulations! That takes some real effort!

John

[BlueStreak]

Do they actually believe this crap? Are they so totally removed from reality?

Oh, yes, they do.

When are they going to realize that these shooters generally end up killing themselves? Do they really think someone who plans on committing suicide or expects to get shot in the process by cop or security guard is going to be deterred by the prospect of getting killed?:confused:

It's just nuts. Like using gasoline to put out a fire. A man told me recently that we have to find a way to keep the guns out of the killers hands, without affecting legal owners............................

A). How often do we have any idea someone is a "killer" before he has killed?

B). Where did the gun originate from? Usually from a legal owner/dealer who has failed to execute the required checks, operates in a lax control atmosphere or the "black market"---and those weapons usually originate from legal owners/possessers who have had their weapons stolen or don't give a damn who they sell them to.

It's still comes back to ubiquity, proliferation and access. All of which require tighter regulation and enforcement to address. And the NRA and it's obsessed minions will have no part of that, so I guess we're just phucked.

Kiss Little Johnny good night and pray he lives through tomorrow.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

One solution I'm hearing is more security in the schools. Which amounts to a gun in the hands of the good guys.

Pete

And higher costs that your tightwad party will refuse to pay unless the school cuts the money from elsewhere. Say---science classes or toilet paper, perhaps?:rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

The Rock Hill Herald in South Carolina

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-15-at-12.53.09-PM.png

[Boreas]

A good op ed by Nick Kristof

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?_r=0

John

[BlueStreak]

Okay, it's so small I can't read it. Not even with bifocals. #132.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

ACH! Okay, I get it, now! Geez.

Dave

[CarlV]

There has been a spike in rampages because blue dog dems lost their seats?

What's effective gun control? All the ban will do is make them more expensive. Are poor folks more likely to go ape than the wealthy?

One solution I'm hearing is more security in the schools. Which amounts to a gun in the hands of the good guys.

Pete


There's not a single word in this post that makes any sense at all.

Congratulations! That takes some real effort!

John
+1


Solutions? How about forced mandatory praying to Mike Fuckabee's god?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7sjchFQi7Qw#t=0s


All these things and the NRA chooses not to be a part of the solution, so they are part of the problem IMO. They just protect the source of their 3 martini lunches and lavish conventions, caring about the US citizen as much as Adelson or the Koch bros. They are a real cancer on real Americans. Typical worthless lobbyists.
If they had any brains they would be setting up something with DiFi who will present her bill again or something similar. Instead they will just sit on their asses and lose some more credibility kinda like that POS Norquist.



That needed to be said. :)


Carl

[icenine]

Just last week Pete you were saying that woman in the home invasion robbery in Cleveland should have had a rifle or weapon in her home. Well this woman in Connecticut had an automatic rifle in her house....look what happened...

[finnbow]

There has been a spike in rampages because blue dog dems lost their seats?

That's not what I said, Pete. What I said was that ever since the Assault Weapons ban in 1994 ended up costing Dems their seats in 1996, Congress has backed away from any meaningful reforms. Instead, the opposite has happened. The NRA's minions in Congress and the States have been passing ever-friendlier gun laws to allow guns in national parks, bars, etc and carrying on about how we'll be safer with more guns.

BTW, the Assault Weapons ban "sunset" in 2004. That may have influenced the uptick in rampages (and maybe not).

[finnbow]

I'm rapidly growing to hate this country.

http://mashable.com/2012/12/17/sunday-night-football-newtown/

John

I was also more interested in the 49'ers/Pats game than I was in Obama's speech. Had I been interested in the speech, I would have tuned to CNN. Then again, I didn't tweet about my preference for football over a politician's speech. I simply spun an LP and waited Obama out and then watched football.

In truth, I'm sick and tired of the 24/7 media coverage of this event. Sticking microphones in the faces of grieving parents and kids isn't my idea of news.

[Boreas]

I was also more interested in the 49'ers/Pats game than I was in Obama's speech. Had I been interested in the speech, I would have tuned to CNN. Then again, I didn't tweet about my preference for football over a politician's speech. I simply spun an LP and waited Obama out and then watched football.

In truth, I'm sick and tired of the 24/7 media coverage of this event. Sticking microphones in the faces of grieving parents and kids isn't my idea of news.

And, for that reason, I haven't watched any of it except on overseas sources. That being said, the President's speech is another matter and the hateful and racist nature of those tweets is inexcusable and unforgivable.

John

[piece-itpete]

Pat I agree. I think it's an awful whoring out on the medias' part, disgraceful. If I was one of those affected I'd be furious.

Pete

[finnbow]

And, for that reason, I haven't watched any of it except on overseas sources. That being said, the President's speech is another matter and the hateful and racist nature of those tweets is inexcusable and unforgivable.

John

Agreed, but I don't think it was necessary for NBC to preempt football for a Presidential speech covered on a bunch of other channels. I've gotten so sick of politicians that I pretty much can't even stand listening to ones that I like/respect/agree with (and there are precious few of those).

[Oerets]

I keep hearing the drum beat of arming the schools now for protection. Ask yourself what has changed in this country to now allow for that to even be a thought? How or what is different from when we were children?

Lets face it the USA is a very violent country. Or at least that is how it is being portrayed in the media. Either we take steps to lessen the violence or get use to the violence.

In this country some parents see little problem with their kids watching something like Saving Private Ryan or playing video games. But lay the law down on those same kids see anything regarding sex! Can't have it both ways ya know if one is an influence to behavior?????




Barney

[Boreas]

I keep hearing the drum beat of arming the schools now for protection. Ask yourself what has changed in this country to now allow for that to even be a thought? How or what is different from when we were children?

Lets face it the USA is a very violent country. Or at least that is how it is being portrayed in the media. Either we take steps to lessen the violence or get use to the violence.

In this country some parents see little problem with their kids watching something like Saving Private Ryan or playing video games. But lay the law down on those same kids see anything regarding sex! Can't have it both ways ya know if one is an influence to behavior?????




Barney

What's different is the availability of military type automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. This is very new. Essentially nobody had weapons like this 30 or so years ago. Now millions of people have them and essentially anyone can get one legally.

John

[barbara]

What's different is the availability of military type automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. This is very new. Essentially nobody had weapons like this 30 or so years ago. Now millions of people have them and essentially anyone can get one legally.

John

Exactly.
When I was in school and someone had a beef, they duked it out with their fists in the school yard. Now, with the availability of guns, the school yard fight has escalated to shooting it out.

[piece-itpete]

I'm sorry, but people only go postal when they can get certain guns?

I'd like to mention this again, because nobody commented on it - holding these weapons and bits to what's available on the open market only make them cost more.

Barbara I read an article from a retiring NYC cop 10-15 years ago iirc, he said the same thing about gang warfare too. I've said it before, as society becomes cruder and more crass can violence be far behind?

Pete

[Boreas]

I'm sorry, but people only go postal when they can get certain guns?

I'd like to mention this again, because nobody commented on it - holding these weapons and bits to what's available on the open market only make them cost more.

Barbara I read an article from a retiring NYC cop 10-15 years ago iirc, he said the same thing about gang warfare too. I've said it before, as society becomes cruder and more crass can violence be far behind?

Pete

I did.

John

[barbara]

Pete, so, you think that if weapons were more expensive it would be a part of the solution? Or are you saying it would make the problem worse?

[piece-itpete]

The assault weapons 'ban'? I think it would make it neither better nor worse. Just more expensive.

So target shooting with these amazing (and they are) guns would be only for middle and upperclass people. It would stop nobody determined to use them for evil. See Breivik.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I'm sorry, but people only go postal when they can get certain guns?

Pete

No, the availability and subsequent possession of such weapons makes people gone postal even more deadly.
Far more capable of doing far more damage in a shorter period of time.

Do they not?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Pete, so, you think that if weapons were more expensive it would be a part of the solution? Or are you saying it would make the problem worse?

It just might. More expensive = less accessible. Anyone have any data as to the average financial status of mass murderers and killers in general? My guess is the vast majority of them are lower middle-class and below.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

No, the availability and subsequent possession of such weapons makes people gone postal even more deadly.
Far more capable of doing far more damage in a shorter period of time.

Do they not?

Regards,
Dave

If one weapon is no more deadly than the next, rapid fire, greater accuracy, etc., then what would be the point in choosing one over the other when the intent is to kill?

Dave

[Bigerik]

If one weapon is no more deadly than the next, rapid fire, greater accuracy, etc., then what would be the point in choosing one over the other when the intent is to kill?

Dave

And if they are all the same, what does It matter if the assault rifles are banned?

[Oerets]

What's different is the availability of military type automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. This is very new. Essentially nobody had weapons like this 30 or so years ago. Now millions of people have them and essentially anyone can get one legally.

John

I agree that is a part of the equation how much don't know. The only reason for their existence is for the military. You do not need a rifle with a magazine with the capacity of over four or five for hunting. That would be for something like ducks. If more you should not be hunting.

Now for target practice yes a high capacity mag but a 1022 works just as well as a 223. I will gladly just use my ten round mag and destroy the thirties if it would in anyway stop this type of crazy behavior in the future.

No comments on the remark on how a violent movie or video game will not effect a young child mental health, but let that same child see a women's or a man's naked body or people having sex is then seen as totally different.:confused:




Barney

[d-ray657]

There are a lot of areas where I don't agree with Michael Gerson (he is, after all, a former Bush speech-writer). But he can often be counted on to speak reasonably. He provided some perspective (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-we-are-not-helpless-against-gun-violence/2012/12/17/68cd94a4-4882-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html) on the tragedy.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

There are a lot of areas where I don't agree with Michael Gerson (he is, after a former Bush speech-writer). But he can often be counted on to speak reasonably. He provided some perspective (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-we-are-not-helpless-against-gun-violence/2012/12/17/68cd94a4-4882-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html) on the tragedy.

Regards,

D-Ray

Very thoughtful and well written and right on point.

John

[Zeke]

TOne solution I'm hearing is more security in the schools. Which amounts to a gun in the hands of the good guys.

By all means, let's introduce yet ANOTHER unstable element with a gun. :rolleyes:

Or, do you think Mall Cops should be armed: because that's what you'll get.

[Zeke]

What's different is the availability of military type automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. This is very new. Essentially nobody had weapons like this 30 or so years ago. Now millions of people have them and essentially anyone can get one legally.

John

If I had a cigar in your presence, I would give it to you.

[bobabode]

By all means, let's introduce yet ANOTHER unstable element with a gun. :rolleyes:

Or, do you think Mall Cops should be armed: because that's what you'll get.


Hi Zeke. Did you hear that Louis Gomert wished that Principal Dawn Hochsprung had a "Saw" M4 7.62 machine gun in her hands when she went to confront the deranged gunman in the hallway? I have no doubt that this beautiful and kind lady would have been horrified and sickened by such talk. I know I am.:(

[wgrr]

30 years ago? That's about when Reagan was elected, right? ;)

Yes, the economic choices of this country in the last 30 years have been catastrophic to it's citizens: to say the least. We continue to practice idiotic economic, trade, and fiscal policies, that are wreaking havoc on the middle and poor class of this nation.

As people feel more and more like their security is at stake and they have basil instincts that lead them to fear for their futures.

Mass fear in the right wing propaganda machine also started around this time. Go listen to Limbaugh's old radio shows. They were amusing , and I listened, until I realized, many years ago, he was ridiculing women, the homeless, etc... making them the problem. Now the machine is in full gear warning use that So************************m is a stones throw away and we need to arm ourselves for the future battle against Communist style rule in the US.

The idiots that know nothing of So************************m, Communism, Fascism, dictatorships, etc... are afraid. They are stockpiling weapons and ammo for the imaginary civil war that is coming. The most recent mass murderer's mother was one of these people. The guns were her property.

The paranoia seeps into the psyche of anyone around. That includes her insane son.

People are afraid for their future well being. They are starting to snap more frequently and committing mass murder. It has accelerated in the last 12 years. Overall, the murder rate in the US is going down. Explain that to me.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201207/mass-murders-are-the-rise

Until we address the underlying social issues we will see no improvement in the disturbing, increased, mass murder trend.

[piece-itpete]

....

No comments on the remark on how a violent movie or video game will not effect a young child mental health, but let that same child see a women's or a man's naked body or people having sex is then seen as totally different.:confused:

Barney

Desensitizing children to violence is Hollywoods' god given right. Their sewerish pop culture is really freedom of speech!

By all means, let's introduce yet ANOTHER unstable element with a gun. :rolleyes:

Or, do you think Mall Cops should be armed: because that's what you'll get.

Seen the entrance to a city school lately?

Hi Zeke. Did you hear that Louis Gomert wished that Principal Dawn Hochsprung had a "Saw" M4 7.62 machine gun in her hands when she went to confront the deranged gunman in the hallway? I have no doubt that this beautiful and kind lady would have been horrified and sickened by such talk. I know I am.:(

She would much rather have those children shot? Btw I understand what you mean.

Here's where I'm coming from. Show me that specific measures will actually do something, not just be a placebo so we can feel good about 'doing something' whether we actually do something useful or not.

And more - down in bad neighborhoods most children have seen someone get shot. There's often stories of them getting caught in the crossfire.

But that's the hood. Not newsworthy. I can see the shaking heads in those neighborhoods, parents sad and understanding yes but tutting softly mumbling it's all different when it's suburban kids at risk.

Not pointing at anyone. Just some thoughts.

Btw it's beginning to look like it's the mothers' fault.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Desensitizing children to violence is Hollywoods' god given right. Their sewerish pop culture is really freedom of speech!



Seen the entrance to a city school lately?



She would much rather have those children shot?

Here's where I'm coming from. Show me that specific measures will actually do something, not just be a placebo so we can feel good about 'doing something' whether we actually do something useful or not.

And more - down in bad neighborhoods most children have seen someone get shot. There's often stories of them getting caught in the crossfire.

But that's the hood. Not newsworthy. I can see the shaking heads in those neighborhoods, parents sad and understanding yes but tutting softly mumbling it's all different when it's suburban kids at risk.

Not pointing at anyone. Just some thoughts.

Btw it's beginning to look like it's the mothers' fault.

Pete

Pete, you have a point about the deaths in the Hood not receiving near the attention that they should. But wouldn't increasing the presence of firearms increase the possibility of someone being caught in the cross-fire? Again, it brings to mind the circumstances in Aurora. If everyone was packing, isn't it likely that cross-fire would have been deadly as well?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I understand D but if I or mine were getting shot at I'd rather be armed than just, um, killed.

I keep thinking of Chicago or DC compared to what I see in Cleveland, those cities made it almost impossible to own a gun in your own house and a crime if you used it justly. A crime to protect youself when the city failed! A sane person wouldn't live in those neighborhoods if they could help it.

Perhaps we need to pass a clip limit law or similar just to make people feel safer. Who knows, maybe it'll do something. I suspect the real problem is holding up thug life as an example to our children.

Pete

[merrylander]

Want to know what is the problem? Just go shopping at your neighbourhood supermarket. Florence comes home in an irritable mood, so unlike her. Simply because they reach over her, push her basket away, and apparently none was ever taught the phrase "excuse me". It is just as well not everyone is armed or there is one place you might see a bloodbath.

[CarlV]

Want to know what is the problem? Just go shopping at your neighbourhood supermarket. Florence comes home in an irritable mood, so unlike her. Simply because they reach over her, push her basket away, and apparently none was ever taught the phrase "excuse me". It is just as well not everyone is armed or there is one place you might see a bloodbath.

No joke, they built one of those super Safeway here, big, ugly cement, dark so you can't see the color of vegetables properly. bring a flashlight if you don't want to buy green Russets and yes they are there for sale.
The employees who got moved from my old are not as pleasant as they were in the old store, the new help is even less pleasant to the point of rude, you could write a book on rudeness from the general customers. I do not go there anymore unless something I want is on a really good sale and even then I cringe.

Carl

[barbara]

Regarding shopping and violence..... Yesterday I went to get a fishing license for my son for a Xmas present and right behind the counter were two semi automatic weapons for sale.
I've just never noticed before how accessible they were. I could have laid down my charge card and created a whole new news story today.

[bobabode]

Desensitizing children to violence is Hollywoods' god given right. Their sewerish pop culture is really freedom of speech!



Seen the entrance to a city school lately?



She would much rather have those children shot? Btw I understand what you mean.

Here's where I'm coming from. Show me that specific measures will actually do something, not just be a placebo so we can feel good about 'doing something' whether we actually do something useful or not.

And more - down in bad neighborhoods most children have seen someone get shot. There's often stories of them getting caught in the crossfire.

But that's the hood. Not newsworthy. I can see the shaking heads in those neighborhoods, parents sad and understanding yes but tutting softly mumbling it's all different when it's suburban kids at risk.

Not pointing at anyone. Just some thoughts.

Btw it's beginning to look like it's the mothers' fault.

Pete

Nice potshot, Pete. So we should have an M4 7.62 fully auto assault rifle in a glass fronted box in every classroom with a sign that says Break Glass in Case of Emergency? Teachers need to learn how to lay down covering fire in the classroom? Seriously? I know that isn't where you were going but until we can actually talk about this maniacal gun culture that threatens everyone we will see nothing but more of the same.

[ebacon]

Regarding shopping and violence..... Yesterday I went to get a fishing license for my son for a Xmas present and right behind the counter were two semi automatic weapons for sale.
I've just never noticed before how accessible they were. I could have laid down my charge card and created a whole new news story today.

It's been that way for a while. In 1983 I turned 18 and made it a point to buy a gun (and a Playboy magazine but I digress :D). I walked into a sporting goods store in major shopping mall, filled out a form, paid cash, and walked through the mall with a 12 ga. shotgun and ammo. It felt awesome.

What is wierd is that I would not have been allowed to walk into the mall with that gear. But hey, someone made money that day and I was a safe looking white kid so not so much as a glance from the security guards.

[piece-itpete]

My friend tells stories of sitting on a car windowsill firing a full automatic at streetsigns in residential Cleveland in the 70s.

Nice potshot, Pete. So we should have an M4 7.62 fully auto assault rifle in a glass fronted box in every classroom with a sign that says Break Glass in Case of Emergency? Teachers need to learn how to lay down covering fire in the classroom? Seriously? I know that isn't where you were going but until we can actually talk about this maniacal gun culture that threatens everyone we will see nothing but more of the same.

Bob, no, and I didn't mean that to come off so badly. Sorry.

What I mean is, in this brave new millenium, if there are going to be these problems I suspect the principal wishes she would've had a way to stop him. Unfortunately she didn't. And to her immortal credit died trying anyway.

I'm not threatened by guns. If the mother in this instance locked her guns up perhaps we'd be talking about something else. Guns have always been readily available in this country.

Pete

[bobabode]

The right to plink shouldn't threaten my right to not be shot going about my peaceful pursuits. Here's an anecdotal experience for you. I'm fishing on the East Fork of Lytle Creek and I keep hearing stuff going through the treetops above me. It takes me a while to tumble but then I rear the report of gun way off in the distance. Holy SHIT! Those are bullets! I get my ass outta there and head up the main fork road and there are some yahoos plinking, one of them with a goddamn Uzi. I don't even talk to them but I do stop at the Ranger's station and get a ho hum, we will look into it response. Will I go back? I like fishing but not with that risk. My point is that we do not require even the barest of firearms safety courses here in California.

The gun folk need to accept my right not to be shot as much as I respect their right to shoot. Mandatory registration of all firearms, mandatory schooling in gun safety would be a good start.

[piece-itpete]

Morons should be taken to task. They still shoot guns in CA? :D

I absolutely agree about gun safety training. I'd be fine with it taught in all public schools, the earlier in grade school the better. For everyone.

But the feds will never know I have firearms unless I use them. And I'm moderate about it, not some survivalist with an armory in a bunker out back. Heck you don't need to look like a cross between Rambo and Nugent - I know very level headed yuppie suburban types with surprising cabinets in their mcmansion basements - you'd never know.

Pete

[bobabode]

My friend tells stories of sitting on a car windowsill firing a full automatic at streetsigns in residential Cleveland in the 70s.



Bob, no, and I didn't mean that to come off so badly. Sorry.

What I mean is, in this brave new millenium, if there are going to be these problems I suspect the principal wishes she would've had a way to stop him. Unfortunately she didn't. And to her immortal credit died trying anyway.

I'm not threatened by guns. If the mother in this instance locked her guns up perhaps we'd be talking about something else. Guns have always been readily available in this country.

Pete

We're good, Pete. I know you're a good egg but we need to get a handle on this problem. You know where I'm coming from and if I was in your shoes I would be worried too about the government coming down with some heavy handed draconian measures. The time for the NRA to stop all of their paranoid nonsense and help us lefties "feel better" about our safety is now. The problem is not insurmountable because there are too many guns out there. Let's work together, instead of at cross purposes. Finnbow has my utmost respect in his ideas. Let's get it done before the government does their bumbling and stumbling heavy handed approach. How about the NRA hosting some sort of town hall style meetings? I promise not to kick Wayne La Pierre in the nuts too fucking hard...

[bobabode]

We are posting over each other simutaneously. :D Can I at least get a Kumbaya, my friend?:eek:

Here's what is playing the way I see it.

On one hand you have Ted and Wayne with their little peckers out, waving them about daring anyone to fuck with their goddamn second amendments rights! (Effin' idjits!:rolleyes:)

On the other hand you have the villagers parading their dead kids around bereft and heartbroken. The media is gleefully lapping it up. (effin' ghouls)

Let's preempt the circus and make the world safer for all of us. Guns need regulation of some sort, can we start with that?

BTW, it's tougher to rescue a pet from a shelter than it is to purchase an AR15. Crazy, isn't it?

[piece-itpete]

Kumbaya? :D

It is. I swear, I've never tried to hit a target at 100 yards throwing my cat! :eek:

Hey, a new sport :hmm:

I'm hemming and hawing all over this. Regrdless of ones' take over the 2nd amendment they obviously considered it important, so I do too. I also see this as part of a larger issue and would hate to see it papered over, but it probably will.

Pete

[merrylander]

The assault weapons 'ban'? I think it would make it neither better nor worse. Just more expensive.

So target shooting with these amazing (and they are) guns would be only for middle and upperclass people. It would stop nobody determined to use them for evil. See Breivik.

Pete

So we need hollow point flesh destroying rounds for target shooting?:(

[merrylander]

When SCOTUS looked at the 2nd they totally ignored "A well regulated militia . . ."

[barbara]

When SCOTUS looked at the 2nd they totally ignored "A well regulated militia . . ."

Selective vision. Happens a lot in politics.

[bobabode]

Kumbaya?

It is. I swear, I've never tried to hit a target at 100 yards throwing my cat! :eek:

Hey, a new sport :hmm:

I'm hemming and hawing all over this. Regrdless of ones' take over the 2nd amendment they obviously considered it important, so I do too. I also see this as part of a larger issue and would hate to see it papered over, but it probably will.

Pete

Dude! You would regret it! My wife and I :olove cats, probably too much. Her hobby is rescueing the lil critters. I keep calling her the neighborhood "cat lady" every time she wants to feed some stray. Then I find myself laughin' my ass off and thinking, oh well, it could be worse. She could have a thing for possums or racoons? Maybe I should get me a Dalmation pup to keep them company?:eek:

I'm hearing that same hemming and hawing all over the place and I get it. I'm listening to Steph Miller on the DVR and there was a caller who said he was a lapsed NRA member who just re-upped to help them come to the table and sit down with the villagers. I swear, if I didn't know any better I would have been thinking it was Finnbow but he said he would rather stick sharp pointed sticks in his ears than listen to left wing radio. (Besides, the guy said his name was Richard.) To Stephs credit she didn't hang up on him or launch into some lefty gay tirade:rolleyes:. She thanked him and wished him well with his endeavors. Pretty cool headed for a L.A. lesbo leftist, IMO, but then her Dad was Goldwater's running mate in '64.

[merrylander]

We still have three of the five feral's we feed and care for. All have been spayed - or we would probably have a lot more. They have electric kitty campers on the porch to keep them warm when the temperature drops. Florence is allergic else they might even have come in.

There, Missy is the orange tabby, Freckles is the calico, and Cali, their mother is the tabico

[piece-itpete]

Rob my dad does the same thing, I think he has a wholesale rate on spay and neutering :)

Bob lookie here. After a burst of emotion we're talking evenly... for the moment lol.

Pete

[Dude111]

Yes its very sad indeed :(

[bobabode]

Rob my dad does the same thing, I think he has a wholesale rate on spay and neutering :)

Bob lookie here. After a burst of emotion we're talking evenly... for the moment lol.

Pete

You and I both utilize humor to defuse some of the stronger emotional issues floating around. Sometimes we get a ton of crap for not being serious. No biggie. I welcome the derision and also fart in your general direction!:p

Back on topic, today is a bad day. Six more little babies are being buried in Conn. and my bleeding liberal heart is torn up. I know your's is too. Tragically it has taken this horrific mass murder of the most vulnerable and innocent of us to force movement on this issue. I just hope that something really happens this time but the cynic in me doubts it will. :( Already there are voices (O'Reilly & Hannity pulled the corks out his pieholes) on the right making idiotic claims that it's the lack of god and machineguns in the classroom that are to blame for this. Seriously?

[barbara]

What in the world would the likes of oreilly and Hannity know about any god?
They pray to the god of television ratings, for heaven's sake!!

[d-ray657]

What in the world would the likes of oreilly and Hannity know about any god?
They pray to the god of television ratings, for heaven's sake!!

Always a good time for some Zappa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4) :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

[barbara]

Always a good time for some Zappa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4) :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

.........lol!

[bobabode]

Always a good time for some Zappa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4) :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

Boss Limbaugh's theme song?:rolleyes:

[JJIII]

This may be interesting to some...

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

[barbara]

This may be interesting to some...

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

Sorry, but most if this is just providing excuses for not addressing the issue. While there might be a kernel of truth in each of the 'myths', cited, they lack credibility when looking at the bigger picture.

[JJIII]

Sorry, but most if this is just providing excuses for not addressing the issue. While there might be a kernel of truth in each of the 'myths', cited, they lack credibility when looking at the bigger picture.

No need to apologize, I didn't write the article. After reading it I came away with the impression the he was only saying that knee-jerk reactions and conceptions do not get us where we want to be. A different approach is needed. I wish I knew what would work.

[piece-itpete]

I like the article JI, because there's something in there for everyone to disagree with it's probably right ;)

Pete

[Boreas]

This insanity from the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#).

"The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death."

Having anything resembling an intelligent dialogue with people who think like this is utterly pointless.

John

[BlueStreak]

No need to apologize, I didn't write the article. After reading it I came away with the impression the he was only saying that knee-jerk reactions and conceptions do not get us where we want to be. A different approach is needed. I wish I knew what would work.

I have an idea....

You keep the weapons out of the hands of the killers. But, how do you know someone is a killer, before they kill? Many of these folks are first timers, and some have no history of mental illness. Make it illegal for a loon to buy a gun? Been doing that for years. How's that working out? He just steals one or gets it from a "black market" source, (Who most likely, purloined it from a legitimate source.), or maybe buys it from a sloppy dealer who doesn't always do a proper backround check. (Gun shows.)

As I see it, the problem is we are awash in the damn things. So, what do you do?

Arm teachers? Yeah, until a stressed out teacher shoots up the classroom. Then, I guess that idiot La Pierre will want to arm six year olds? And, that it still does nothing about shootings in dark movie theaters, churches, at gas stations, shopping malls......................

You know, as I see it, the NRA is like a fireman who thinks fire should be fought with gasoline. 'You'll never get rid of fire entirely, so this must mean you need MORE. The problem is there are too many buildings that haven't burned yet.'

Regards,
Dave

[JJIII]

Is this what you want Dave?

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=631&q=guns+being+distroyed&oq=guns+being+distroyed&gs_l=img.12...2215.10453.0.12733.20.8.0.12.12.0.15 6.777.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.JBTRw90Oq2s

[BlueStreak]

Is this what you want Dave?

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=631&q=guns+being+distroyed&oq=guns+being+distroyed&gs_l=img.12...2215.10453.0.12733.20.8.0.12.12.0.15 6.777.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.JBTRw90Oq2s

No, I want guns that have no sensible purpose in the hands of private citizens --------off the market. And the crybaby rednecks who think they have a right to them can just go fuck themselves.

And, don't give me any "people can be killed with anything" nonsense either. That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. An AK47 or even a semi-auto AR15 is a far more efficient killer than six shot revolver and we ALL know that.

Our laws are far too lax...that is why our statistics SUCK. That is the distinction between us and our allies who do a much better job of controlling proliferation. And, that is why they've been burying those kids in Connecticut all week.

Whether you, or anyone else likes to hear it or not that is the goddamn truth, John.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Reading our local paper yesterday, they have a big front page article about how our school system is 'prepared and ready' for these kind of attacks. I read it of course. From what I can see the plan is, be shot.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Is this what you want Dave?

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=631&q=guns+being+distroyed&oq=guns+being+distroyed&gs_l=img.12...2215.10453.0.12733.20.8.0.12.12.0.15 6.777.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.JBTRw90Oq2s

No, I think we can do a much more efficient job of recovering the materials used in those killing machines. You know, swords in to plowshares. :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Is this what you want Dave?

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=631&q=guns+being+distroyed&oq=guns+being+distroyed&gs_l=img.12...2215.10453.0.12733.20.8.0.12.12.0.15 6.777.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.JBTRw90Oq2s

Is this what you want?

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/morning_call/2012/12/tn-lawmaker-to-intro-bill-secretly-arm.html

John

[JJIII]

No, I want guns that have no sensible purpose in the hands of private citizens --------off the market. And the crybaby rednecks who think they have a right to them can just go fuck themselves.


Regards,
Dave

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[JJIII]

Is this what you want?

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/morning_call/2012/12/tn-lawmaker-to-intro-bill-secretly-arm.html

John

I don't think arming teachers is the way to go. How about this?

http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com/tag/sullivan-central-high-school/

[Boreas]

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Join the Militia.

John

[Boreas]

I don't think arming teachers is the way to go. How about this?

http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com/tag/sullivan-central-high-school/

Nope.

John

[barbara]

Arming teachers has to be the most illogical solution I've heard.

Some day some student will make a typical high school wise a$$ comment and it will throw that stressed out teacher over the line. The gun will come out and someone will get hurt.

For crying out loud, we took paddles out of the classrooms and now we want to put guns in them?

All this hysteria.... I hope the decision makers can keep level heads and do the right thing.

[BlueStreak]

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly what type of "arms" does the 2nd gaurantee you, John?

Muskets and bayonettes? Or everything up to nuclear bombs?

Why can't you get past the "all or nothing" mindset?:confused:

Have I said anything about "taking" ALL guns?

This is completely ridiculous, it truly is.

Do I think people should be able to defend themselves against lunatics with semiautomatic weapons? Sure.

However, my prevalent thought IS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!

Alright, I'm getting mad now. Time to step out for a while.

Have a Good Day.
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Join the Militia.

John

:D:):p

Regards,
Dave

[JJIII]

For crying out loud, we took paddles out of the classrooms


Maybe that's the problem in the first place.

[JJIII]

Nope.

John

Looks like it worked to me. Where am I wrong?

[JJIII]

Join the Militia.

John

How do you know I haven't?;)

[piece-itpete]

Seeing as the militia is every single able bodied man, you are in it ;)

Agreed on the paddles btw.

Pete

[Boreas]

Looks like it worked to me. Where am I wrong?

It "worked" that time because the SRO happened to be at the right place at the right time. Schools are big places with lots of rooms. Do you put a SRO in all of them?

More importantly, SROs are nothing more than a reflexive reaction to a problem. They are in no way a solution. The idea that a school shooter will himself be killed at some point in his assault is NOT a deterrent. They don't care. They expect to be killed anyway. In fact, many of them kill themselves.

John

[Boreas]

Seeing as the militia is every single able bodied man, you are in it ;)

Agreed on the paddles btw.

Pete

"Well regulated"?

John

[merrylander]

Yeah look what the militia did for Madison, I used to drive by the building in Brookeville where he brought the government while the Irish Guard was burning down the Whitehouse, after they ate all the food and drank the wine.

The Framers admittedly had a lousy experience with Cornwallis' troops and so did not want a standing army. However I do believe 1812 changed their minds.

[piece-itpete]

There is no doubt the founders intended a man to be armed, as a matter of fact expected them to be - it was part of ones' duty.

Part of our disagreement perhaps starts at our POV. Many arguments made for gun control or even disarmament make sense imo, at this point in time and/or where we are at right now.

However this is such a miniscule sliver of history. We are extremely lucky and it's unlikely we will remain so for long.

Any time you want to be depressed let me know :D

I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree, but what's the fun in that lol.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Rob, that doesn't bode well for the 'well regulated' argument! :eek: :)

Pete

[merrylander]

Rob, that doesn't bode well for the 'well regulated' argument! :eek: :)

Pete

That is why I laugh everytime someone proposes that English be the official language. As Churchill put it - "The Americans and the British, two friendly peoples separated by a common language." Even the Supremes can't understand plain English.:rolleyes:

[icenine]

Exactly what type of "arms" does the 2nd gaurantee you, John?

Muskets and bayonettes? Or everything up to nuclear bombs?

Why can't you get past the "all or nothing" mindset?:confused:

Have I said anything about "taking" ALL guns?

This is completely ridiculous, it truly is.

Do I think people should be able to defend themselves against lunatics with semiautomatic weapons? Sure.

However, my prevalent thought IS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!




Alright, I'm getting mad now. Time to step out for a while.

Have a Good Day.
Dave


Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ......

[JJIII]

"Well regulated"?

John

Yeah, I eat lots of fruit!:D

[bobabode]

Yeah, I eat lots of fruit!:D

Does that help with bile and vitriol? Maybe we need to regulate toilet paper?:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Seeing as the militia is every single able bodied man, you are in it ;)

Agreed on the paddles btw.

Pete

Okay, so when does the "well regulated" part kick in?

In my trips to nearby Colonial Williamsburg, I can't help but notice the "Armory" which, I'm told, is where the bulk of the "military" weapons were kept.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

You like the decor? It's gun nut paradise :)

It means trained btw...

Pete

[bobabode]

You like the decor? It's gun nut paradise :)

It means trained btw...

Pete

Bullshyte! :rolleyes::D Get a dicktionary.

[piece-itpete]

Look up corruption of blood while you're at it ;)

Pete

[JJIII]

Bullshyte! :rolleyes::D Get a dicktionary.


Look what "regulated" meant back then...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

Wrong link.

[barbara]

One can Interpret the second amendment any way they want to but in the end, I'm pretty sure it was not the intention if our founding fathers to have kindergarten classes massacred at the hands of a deranged individual.

[bobabode]

Regulators were a popular thing out here in the west, back in the day. They had necktie parties.:(
It seems that the mythical gunslinging he-man concept never died out from what I've been reading lately-coming from the NRA.
Sorry, it wasn't right or Christian then and it isn't now.

[piece-itpete]

Didn't know you were a Christian Bob ;)

Pete

[Boreas]

You like the decor? It's gun nut paradise :)

It means trained btw...

Pete

No, it doesn't. It means controlled and supervised.

John

[piece-itpete]

In 2012 perhaps.

Pete

[JJIII]

One can Interpret the second amendment any way they want to but in the end, I'm pretty sure it was not the intention if our founding fathers to have kindergarten classes massacred at the hands of a deranged individual.

I can not and will not argue with that!

[JJIII]

No, it doesn't. It means controlled and supervised.

John

I'm sorry. I posted the wrong link above. This is what I meant to post.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=meaninf+of+regulated+in+1776&oq=meaninf+of+regulated+in+1776&gs_l=hp.12...1913.16397.0.18620.28.27.0.1.1.0.170. 2354.22j5.27.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.kd_HKqY3CgQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&fp=eeaed9fac54bfaee&bpcl=40096503&biw=1366&bih=601

[BlueStreak]

A link to "guncite.com" for their unbiased interpretation of what "well regulated" means..................Ha, ha, ha, ha..........

Now that that's out of the way;

From even their list of definitions, #1 is;

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

Hello.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

You like the decor? It's gun nut paradise :)

It means trained btw...

Pete

That does look kinda cool.

Damn lot of good all those guns did him....................;)

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Didn't know you were a Christian Bob ;)

Pete

Son of a preacher man, amongst other things, Pete.:rolleyes: You know, one of those damn commie, soshalist Methodist ministers.:cool:

[Boreas]

A link to "guncite.com" for their unbiased interpretation of what "well regulated" means..................Ha, ha, ha, ha..........

Now that that's out of the way;

From even their list of definitions, #1 is;

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

Hello.

Regards,
Dave

Every one of those sites has a pro-gun agenda, even "The Thinking Catholic Strategic Center".

Also, not a single one of them named a source for their definition of regulated.

John

[JJIII]

Every one of those sites has a pro-gun agenda, even "The Thinking Catholic Strategic Center".

Also, not a single one of them named a source for their definition of regulated.

John

Seems to me that their interpretation of what "regulated" meant at that time in history has as much validity as yours today does.

[Boreas]

Seems to me that their interpretation of what "regulated" meant at that time in history has as much validity as yours today does.

Of course it seems that way to you but if their definition had any historical validity, don't you think they would have cited a contemporary dictionary definition? (They did have dictionaries then.)

John

[mpholland]

It has always been my take that "well regulated" was to mean trained and disciplined as the main problem with the militia was a lack thereof. I think Madison's original idea of the militia would look somewhat like the national guard. At that point in time, the militia was to be the main military force of the country, huge in comparison to the federal troops. I also believe 1812 changed his attitude on this.

Tench Coxe pretty much summed up the founders feelings:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

I believe this can be construed to mean that the militia, or the common man, should have weapons, at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has. I also think that maybe they should have thought a bit more about the words highlighted in red.

Let's not forget the declaration of independence either:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

[bobabode]

Interesting individual, MP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

Father of the American cotton industry and a member of Lord Howe's army. He appears to have re-thought that position, luckily ~ as in he's lucky not to have been tarred and feathered by my ancestors from both Pennsylvania and Virginia.:)
While I've never felt the need, I most certainly am qualified to join the Sons of the American Revolution but I have been to a few concerts at DAR Constitution Hall, though. Good times!;)

Sorry for the digression, I may be in me cups tonight but I'll ne'er tell.;) Safety and Happiness! Sounds like a toast!

[mpholland]

We have a lot of missing family records. Some burned in famous fires. I can't find much between the paternal family coming over from England and my great, great grandfather, Thomas Jefferson Holland, coming over the Oregon trail and settling in Crow, Oregon. I would be interested to know more about the early settling in America and my ancestry.

[bobabode]

We have a lot of missing family records. Some burned in famous fires. I can't find much between the paternal family coming over from England and my great, great grandfather, Thomas Jefferson Holland, coming over the Oregon trail and settling in Crow, Oregon. I would be interested to know more about the early settling in America and my ancestry.

Funny thing is that the Mormon Church is the best repository of genealogical info that is available currently. Ancestry.com is a resource my older brother uses, he's the family history geek/archivist.


(Sorry for callin' you a geek if you're reading this, brother Bill!:D)

[Boreas]

I suspect that if Coxe were alive today he'd find the 2nd Amendment anachronistic and superfluous.

John

[BlueStreak]

It has always been my take that "well regulated" was to mean trained and disciplined as the main problem with the militia was a lack thereof. I think Madison's original idea of the militia would look somewhat like the national guard. At that point in time, the militia was to be the main military force of the country, huge in comparison to the federal troops. I also believe 1812 changed his attitude on this.

Tench Coxe pretty much summed up the founders feelings:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

I believe this can be construed to mean that the militia, or the common man, should have weapons, at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has. I also think that maybe they should have thought a bit more about the words highlighted in red.

Let's not forget the declaration of independence either:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

"...at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has."

Yeah, but could they have conceived of the type of weapons and hardware the military now has available? They were speaking from the perspective of a world of single shot muskets and bayonettes. Mortars and cannon at the worst. I just can't accept that we are expected to adhere to 240 year old rules as if nothing has changed and we have no intelligence of our own to deal with that which has changed. Today, the "standing federal army" possesses weapons that can level an entire city, fifty times the size of the largest cities of their day....in the blink of an eye.

Hypothetically, how do you think the founders would react to the knowledge that the nation has grown to over 300 million and a single shooter can suit up in bullet proof and bullet resistant gear and mow down 50+ people in a few minutes?

The constitution also charges the government with the task of ensuring "domestic tranquillity". I believe in trying to solve every violence problem with "more guns" in the hands of private citizens can eventually lead to a breakdown in law and order. And bring about vigilantism and anarchy.

Having spent a little time in Africa, I understand that "Warlords" are rarely agents of any federal or provincial governments. In fact they tend to rise in lieu of an effective governing body. They are usually private individuals who have gained the financial might to buy guns, hire goons and wreak havoc on the citizenry. Do you see what I'm getting at? At what point does the private individual, clothed in the "right" to amass as much of whatever type of weapon he desires----become a potential menace to his fellow citizens?

I think my questions are reasonable and my points valid. I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

:(Ohhh, man. Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket the funerals of the kids killed in Conn. Their contention is that these kids didn't love God enough or didn't hate gays enough. This is the sickest thing I've ever heard of. Wow, can they really be this twisted? :mad: Now, I'm weeping again.

[icenine]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

[bobabode]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

Problem children aka the Teabaggers don't like judges, Ice. Except for Scalia, maybe. Remember the hatred they developed for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obamacare? They shut up a little bit when their Republican friends pointed out that the Supreme's serve for life:rolleyes:.

31 NRA senators have toed the line on the subject and refused to appear on camera to be grilled about their views. Not lecturing you, my friend. Well, maybe a little. Sorry.:o My post above yours has me a little unhinged at the moment.

[icenine]

Problem children aka the Teabaggers don't like judges, Ice. Except for Scalia, maybe. Remember the hatred they developed for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obamacare? They shut up a little bit when their Republican friends pointed out that the Supreme's serve for life:rolleyes:.

31 NRA senators have toed the line on the subject and refused to appear on camera to be grilled about their views. Not lecturing you, my friend. Well, maybe a little. Sorry.:o My post above yours has me a little unhinged at the moment.

Well hopefully this time something gets done Bob.....too bad something like this had to happen.

[bobabode]

Well hopefully this time something gets done Bob.....too bad something like this had to happen.

Yep. Tragically. I hope there isn't any of the expiration date nonsense like the last assault weapons ban.

[Oerets]

Reinstating a ban unless it also includes the weapons and mags already in the public. Do just the one without the other will not fix the problem I'm afraid. They need to make owning the assault weapons a Federally Permitted and regulated entity.

Sorry but not just everyone should be able to own a gun! Throw the book at them and lock up offenders. Hell we lock up pot smokers with more time the some weapons offenses.

Barney

[merrylander]

:(Ohhh, man. Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket the funerals of the kids killed in Conn. Their contention is that these kids didn't love God enough or didn't hate gays enough. This is the sickest thing I've ever heard of. Wow, can they really be this twisted? :mad: Now, I'm weeping again.

Somehow I cannot see the parents of all the lost children standing by while those perverts rant and rave. Nor do I see the Newtown police interfering.

[piece-itpete]

The Patriot Riders'll take care of those freaks. Violence and hate is what they want, like the KKK. I think the proper response is to laugh at them.

That does look kinda cool.

Damn lot of good all those guns did him....................;)

Regards,
Dave

Lol my thought too. I tried to find a good pic but they just don't do it justice.

Son of a preacher man, amongst other things, Pete.:rollyes: You know, one of those damn commie, soshalist Methodist ministers.:col:

May Heaven help us all :D

It has always been my take that "well regulated" was to mean trained and disciplined as the main problem with the militia was a lack thereof. I think Madison's original idea of the militia would look somewhat like the .......... any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

Excellent, thanks!

Pete

[BlueStreak]

"...at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has."

Yeah, but could they have conceived of the type of weapons and hardware the military now has available? They were speaking from the perspective of a world of single shot muskets and bayonettes. Mortars and cannon at the worst. I just can't accept that we are expected to adhere to 240 year old rules as if nothing has changed and we have no intelligence of our own to deal with that which has changed. Today, the "standing federal army" possesses weapons that can level an entire city, fifty times the size of the largest cities of their day....in the blink of an eye.

Hypothetically, how do you think the founders would react to the knowledge that the nation has grown to over 300 million and a single shooter can suit up in bullet proof and bullet resistant gear and mow down 50+ people in a few minutes?

The constitution also charges the government with the task of ensuring "domestic tranquillity". I believe in trying to solve every violence problem with "more guns" in the hands of private citizens can eventually lead to a breakdown in law and order. And bring about vigilantism and anarchy.

Having spent a little time in Africa, I understand that "Warlords" are rarely agents of any federal or provincial governments. In fact they tend to rise in lieu of an effective governing body. They are usually private individuals who have gained the financial might to buy guns, hire goons and wreak havoc on the citizenry. Do you see what I'm getting at? At what point does the private individual, clothed in the "right" to amass as much of whatever type of weapon he desires----become a potential menace to his fellow citizens?

I think my questions are reasonable and my points valid. I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Dave

Here I go again.:o I really was hoping for a response to this, but we somehow got sidetracked to those Westboro freaks.

Anyone care to share a thought?

Regards,
Dave