An active shooter is on the loose at Reynolds High School in Oregon, according to reports.
KPTV said that the response at Reynolds is “massive” and says it is an “active shooter” situation with several injuries. The shooting took place shortly after 8 a.m. local time
A large number of emergency vehicles were staged in front of the school, KGW-TV reported.
The FBI and SWAT team are on the scene. KOIN-TV also said that homicide detectives were there as well but there’s no word on if there were any deaths.
A student tweeted that the school was placed on lockdown and police cars rolled up, the station said. KPTV reported that the school was indeed locked down, and officials are asking local residents to stay away from the campus until the situation is secure.
Reynolds High School is located on SW Cherry Park Road in Troutdale, Ore., which is a suburb of Portland.
Daemonhammer wrote: Whats up with all these school shootings? Its as if the educational system in USA wasnt bad enough so there is the added posibility of getting shot.
Well, there weren't that many of them, really, for quite a while. Then the media went nuts with the first one (Sandy Hook, I think). The fact that it was being "glamorized" as such caused there to be copy cats among the unstable crowd, which is mostly kids who are still mentally developing, emotionally volatile due to hormones/bullying/being kids, and just plain easy to influence.
The question we should be asking is "Why didn't this happen with Columbine?"
Daemonhammer wrote: Whats up with all these school shootings? Its as if the educational system in USA wasnt bad enough so there is the added posibility of getting shot.
Well, there weren't that many of them, really, for quite a while. Then the media went nuts with the first one (Sandy Hook, I think). The fact that it was being "glamorized" as such caused there to be copy cats among the unstable crowd, which is mostly kids who are still mentally developing, emotionally volatile due to hormones/bullying/being kids, and just plain easy to influence.
The question we should be asking is "Why didn't this happen with Columbine?"
Actually the real glamour started with the Amish School Shooting, that was when the copy cats started to appear.
Daemonhammer wrote: Whats up with all these school shootings? Its as if the educational system in USA wasnt bad enough so there is the added posibility of getting shot.
Well, there weren't that many of them, really, for quite a while. Then the media went nuts with the first one (Sandy Hook, I think). The fact that it was being "glamorized" as such caused there to be copy cats among the unstable crowd, which is mostly kids who are still mentally developing, emotionally volatile due to hormones/bullying/being kids, and just plain easy to influence.
The question we should be asking is "Why didn't this happen with Columbine?"
Actually the real glamour started with the Amish School Shooting, that was when the copy cats started to appear.
I don't recall that one, but I'll take your word for it. That's not exactly the section of the news I particularly enjoy reading.
I recall reading that when it comes to mass shootings copy cats that happen in the recent aftermath are extremely common. After there is one high profile shooting it is to be expected that there will be several more in the following weeks.
I've heard it suggested that one of the factors is saturated media coverage and 24 hour 'rolling' news of these events that occurs in their wake. Especially when the name and footage of the perpetrator is repeated over and over again. Certain disturbed individuals then see it as an instant way to achieve fame. It's an interesting theory.
Daemonhammer wrote: That would create a snowball effect possibly until the media gets bored.
That's exactly what happens.
That or we have a fortunate break where at that moment in time there isn't a disturbed individual right at the tipping point where the reinforcement of the media would make the push(and so we don't have a shooting and the media runs its course)
Sensationalism is one of the more dangerous aspects of the media. Its just not nearly as obvious with other things.
Just look at what celebrities do and the ripples they cause in social media. Its no different than if we blare the face and name of a mass shooter over the news, it makes them a celebrity.
Except in this case they aren't causing panic, or presenting a tangible danger. So there is nothing you can do but beg the media to not glamorize things. Which they will ignore because the media are total scumbags.
So how come these shootings don't happen as often in other places, since they also have mass media organisations? Is the american media particularly bad?
Da Boss wrote: So how come these shootings don't happen as often in other places, since they also have mass media organisations? Is the american media particularly bad?
I couldn't say. I don't really watch other news organizations.
I own fire arms because I can given the 2nd Amendment. I do not hunt, sport shoot, or use my weapons to survive. I just own to own. To others I seem to be a very evil guy for I own "Assault" weapons. A type seen from OIF and OEF. I also own another "Assault" weapon that date back to the Korean War that has been handed down in my family Third generation recipient. I also own some collector weapons. Yet I am "evil" because I own them just to own them due to the 2nd Amendment allowing me to own them. Yet I am viewed by some as questionable due to actions individuals have done using "Assault" weapons. Yet I am not a victim. Nor do I advocate. Yet I own for the old "Oh Shi-za" moments, the occasional shoot in backyard moments, and at times a discussion topic. I won't press my view on why you should own a weapon but if ask for advice I can give you advice for whatever reason one think they should own a weapon. Its your money. Its your time. Its your investment. If you feel you should not own a weapon then who am I to tell you otherwise. Respect my decision and I respect yours.
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
That's quite interesting, although the question that has to be answered is whether it is just correlation or cause. I seriously doubt that that is the reason why crime has plummeted, just that it has not contributed to crime.
If you are hunting any dangerous animals, or are hunting in areas with dangerous animals, it is very advisable to have a large caliber pistol in addition to whatever your rifle is. Examples would be bear and pig.
For the same reasons, hand guns are ideal for home defense. They're also fun to shoot.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
2nd amendment. You should know this silly.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
Grey Templar wrote:Not correct.
If you are hunting any dangerous animals, or are hunting in areas with dangerous animals, it is very advisable to have a large caliber pistol in addition to whatever your rifle is. Examples would be bear and pig.
For the same reasons, hand guns are ideal for home defense. They're also fun to shoot.
A shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.
There is no "better" for home defense. There is what works best for the guy in the situation.
To expand on that. I own 3 shotguns, a handgun, and a rifle. My handgun is the one that I keep a magazine loaded for in the event someone wants to experience a tension pneumothorax on my living room floor.
Yes, the militia does still exist. The right to bear arms is permissive, not restrictive. It doesn't have to spell out every single weapon that a person can legally own. Like every other right in the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right to bear arms rests with the people.
Easy E wrote: I heard NPR mention that we have statistically had one school shooting occur for every week of the school year over hte last two years.
Note: that doesn't mean there was one a week but that we have had the same number occur as their have been weeks of school.
I saw another article on that... and it was quite statistically fallacious... Some of the shootings occurred on school grounds, but in no way could be considered school shootings... some didnt even take place near a school.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
I'm sorry.. but we don't maintain a "Free State" by singing kumbaya and holding hands now do we? Then yeah, it does specifically state we need to be able to buy things that create big fething holes.
Jihadin wrote: Within 100 meters or did they bump up the school zones?
One of the debunked incidents happened at 9pm, two school age kids (they were at least highschool aged) were playing an illegal game of dice, and had a dispute over money owed.
Another that did take place on a school, and presumably at or near "school hours" was some girl who already had a decent gang-related rap sheet shot her own leg (somehow)
Jihadin wrote: Within 100 meters or did they bump up the school zones?
One of the debunked incidents happened at 9pm, two school age kids (they were at least highschool aged) were playing an illegal game of dice, and had a dispute over money owed.
Another that did take place on a school, and presumably at or near "school hours" was some girl who already had a decent gang-related rap sheet shot her own leg (somehow)
Grey Templar wrote: So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.
Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.
Grey Templar wrote: There was probably a different school culture back then, and kids being less sensitive overall. And less culture of entitlement.
Also not nearly as much social media where things can build up pressure to the breaking point.
Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Except in this case they aren't causing panic, or presenting a tangible danger. So there is nothing you can do but beg the media to not glamorize things. Which they will ignore because the media are total scumbags.
Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I couldn't say. I don't really watch other news organizations.
Maybe our news media is much worse than others.
Your news isn't any worse.
You want to talk about culture, talk about the US gun culture. Maybe then you'll start moving towards an answer that makes some sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: It's not just the US. On the same day the Sandy Hook attack occurred, a dude in China walked into an elementary school and slashed 22 kids.
"A one off event happened at one place out of the whole rest of the world therefore the US doesn't have a problem!"
That's a bit like arguing that there isn't a problem with radiation around Chernobyl, because sometimes people in other parts of the world also get cancer.
Grey Templar wrote: So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.
Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.
Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.
Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.
Gee. Reaching way way way back into antiquity to bring forth more clarification. Mass school shooting did not start in the 90's. This incident was highly publicized. Even has an episode on Investigation Discovery
The Cleveland Elementary School shooting took place on January 29, 1979, in San Diego, California. Shots were fired at a public elementary school. The principal and a custodian were killed. Eight children and a police officer were injured. A 16-year-old girl, Brenda Spencer[1] (born April 3, 1962), who lived in a house across the street from the school, was convicted of the shootings. Tried as an adult, Spencer pled guilty to two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon, and was given an indefinite sentence. She is currently in prison.
A reporter got through to Spencer after the shooting while she was still in the house. He said Spencer told him she carried out the shooting because she 'didn't like Mondays'.[2] Spencer later said she did not recall making the remark.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
2nd amendment. You should know this silly.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...
when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.
Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....
that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.
Grey Templar wrote: So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.
Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.
Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.
Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.
yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",
it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.
That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.
china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,
but i guess since those are with knives no one cares, because somehow, its worse to be killed with a gun then a knife right?
Privately owned ships, armed with the best weapons money could buy in that day and age, took more then 1,200 British ships as prize during the War of 1812. That is after the 2nd Amendment was law in this nation, just incase you weren't sure Trex.
So to spell it out, private citizens were in possession of the most powerful weapons known to man at that time, directly in the time frame the founding fathers, the guys who wrote all that stuff, were still kicking around doing their thing.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe it is just correlation, but it certainly kills the idea that more guns = more violent crime.
No, it doesn't. That's terrible analysis. It disproves the idea that the only causative factor is guns, but no-one on Earth is claiming that's the only factor.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.
The distinction between 'glamorized' and 'might be perceived as glamorized by disturbed people' is massive, and using the former as shorthand for the latter produces nonsense thinking. It ends up with an idea in which you are placing blame on the media for the insane interpretation of fringe nutters.
Do we really want to blame JD Salinger for Hinckley's attempted shooting of Reagan? Or the Beatles for Charles Manson?
That you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.
How much you figure they run though? If it was on sale? Minus the emotional garbage baggage.
easysauce wrote: yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",
it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.
That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.
Yeah, that's why after everyone in Australia learned about Martin Bryant we had that that rash of zero mass killings that's continued to this day.
china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,
Junk analysis. First up, a primary driver in the murder rate is the rate of development in a country. More education and more prosperity means less murder. So the situation in the US should be compared to countries with similar levels of development, such as Europe, Australia or Japan.
And holy crap just look at the damn numbers, please. You have an incredible rate of homicide, gun homicide and spree killing compared to any of those countries. At some point you just have to fething recognise the reality of the situation and start being a little bit honest with yourselves.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
2nd amendment. You should know this silly.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
You may wish to look at District of Columbia vs Heller if you want some jurisprudence that isn't 168 years old. The modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not require inclusion in a militia to exercise your rights, but for any lawful purpose such as self defense.
We can never have a meaningful debate with people throwing out derp as hard as they can with both hands on each side of the debate; Joe The Plumber on one side and "ban all handguns" on the other.
sebster wrote: Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.
I see no problem with the idea that students in the 90s, such as... say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had a better school culture and a lower sense of entitlement which prevent them from engaging in a violent antisocial fashion. Frankly I think you're just being difficult.
so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...
when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.
Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....
that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.
yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",
it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.
That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.
Pot meet kettle, I believe both of you are black.
Nothing has changed, the media was glamorising gun wielding psychos back in the 20's and earlier.
sebster wrote: Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.
I see no problem with the idea that students in the 90s, such as... say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had a better school culture and a lower sense of entitlement which prevent them from engaging in a violent antisocial fashion. Frankly I think you're just being difficult.
djones520 wrote: Privately owned ships, armed with the best weapons money could buy in that day and age, took more then 1,200 British ships as prize during the War of 1812. That is after the 2nd Amendment was law in this nation, just incase you weren't sure Trex.
So to spell it out, private citizens were in possession of the most powerful weapons known to man at that time, directly in the time frame the founding fathers, the guys who wrote all that stuff, were still kicking around doing their thing.
Is that clear?
This is an excellent example.
The Privateer concept was one of the important factors in keeping America safe(and other countries used them as well)
Give private citizens official license(including the same rights and protection due to prisoners of war) in exchange for their military services.
Owning your own private warship was basically the equivalent of owning a nuke back then. And often the private ships would be better armed than the government simply because things were expensive.
Maybe he was just trying to kill one of the myriad venomous monsters that infest your death-world-esque continent, and slipped. A Huntsman spider, maybe, or perhaps a drop bear.
I know Australians are all convicted criminals and everything, but it's just cruel and unusual punishment that you guys have to live on that death continent with nothing but nail guns and hammers to keep you safe from the drop bears.
djones520 wrote: I know Australians are all convicted criminals and everything, but it's just cruel and unusual punishment that you guys have to live on that death continent with nothing but nail guns and hammers to keep you safe from the drop bears.
and the locusts disguised as field mice as they come and eat all the crops
Heh.
The most feared creature actually inhabits the Perth region. Known colloquially as the "American serviceman" this creature seems to have amazing powers over women and an increadible ability to find alcoholic beverages. The creature is truly terrifying when after imbibing said beverages and voiciferating (<- made up word- sounds very Richard Attenbourough though) to whoever is near about how much better "home" is.
Shush you. I agree with you , aussie BBQs are quite crap *ducks* I am a much bigger fan of Brazillian style. No plates, chicken hearts, and casava flour. feth me now I'm hungry.
Bullockist wrote: Heh.
The most feared creature actually inhabits the Perth region. Known colloquially as the "American serviceman" this creature seems to have amazing powers over women and an increadible ability to find alcoholic beverages. The creature is truly terrifying when after imbibing said beverages and voiciferating (<- made up word- sounds very Richard Attenbourough though) to whoever is near about how much better "home" is.
I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.
djones520 wrote: I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.
Oh, it's absolutely true. Australian liberty is best liberty.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.
When you're defending your self you want control with the weapon. A shotgun is fine in the hands of a person who can aim correctly and handle the recoil.
For others a Rifle/Carbine/Pistol are better because they will have more control with a smaller weapon.
Also machine guns are legal if you take the proper steps to aquire one.. be prepared to pay out the wazzooo for one.
easysauce wrote: yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",
it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.
That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.
Yeah, that's why after everyone in Australia learned about Martin Bryant we had that that rash of zero mass killings that's continued to this day.
china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,
Junk analysis. First up, a primary driver in the murder rate is the rate of development in a country. More education and more prosperity means less murder. So the situation in the US should be compared to countries with similar levels of development, such as Europe, Australia or Japan.
And holy crap just look at the damn numbers, please. You have an incredible rate of homicide, gun homicide and spree killing compared to any of those countries. At some point you just have to fething recognise the reality of the situation and start being a little bit honest with yourselves.
nope its totally valid, the main reasons behind the mass murders may be different, but they are still mass murders... again, you are making a farce of it by trying to act like one mass murder is somehow worse then another, simply by the tool used, or the reason for it occurring.
also, its quite disingenuous to credit gun laws in aussie town made in 1996 with the decline of gun crime, when the trend of gun crime/deaths was ALREADY heading down well before the laws were passed... so crediting them for a trend that was well established before they were created is just bad analysis.
djones520 wrote: I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.
There's nothing magical about American sailors. Everyone is a panty dropper over here. We like to feth.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.
The distinction between 'glamorized' and 'might be perceived as glamorized by disturbed people' is massive, and using the former as shorthand for the latter produces nonsense thinking. It ends up with an idea in which you are placing blame on the media for the insane interpretation of fringe nutters.
Do we really want to blame JD Salinger for Hinckley's attempted shooting of Reagan? Or the Beatles for Charles Manson?
I'm not saying that we blame the media for, in essence, doing their job... Just that there have been those who've made suggestions that in certain situations, there are better ways to do that job (ie, not create a situation where a nutter sees an opportunity ie. mass shooters).
I would suppose that the better MH professionals realize that they are also one facet of this nebulous issue. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about the medication situation, at least not in the short term.
Seed, the thing is, we DO actuely have spiders the size of dinner plates over here. A lot of people think it is exaggeration, but it, well, isn't. I mean, I've seen a mubcrab sized huntsman before.
easysauce wrote: nope its totally valid, the main reasons behind the mass murders may be different, but they are still mass murders... again, you are making a farce of it by trying to act like one mass murder is somehow worse then another, simply by the tool used, or the reason for it occurring.
You're missing the point. First up, all that stuff about one murder being less serious than another is just silly, so stop that.
Second up, it is a basic reality that a really big driver of homicide is the level of material wealth. So we can pick any rich country, compare it to any poor country and observe the poor country will have more murders per capita. But just doing that tells us nothing about any other factors.
So, if we control for wealth by choosing only countries with similar levels of wealth, we observe that US sits way outside of the rest of the developed world. None of the other explaining factors work, because the US doesn't have more crazy people (or any poorer means of caring for them), nor does it have more crime or drugs, and in fact in other forms of crime its actually slightly lower than the average in the rest of the developed world. And yet homicides are so much higher, and they're done with guns, which the US has such a uniquely high number of.
also, its quite disingenuous to credit gun laws in aussie town made in 1996 with the decline of gun crime, when the trend of gun crime/deaths was ALREADY heading down well before the laws were passed... so crediting them for a trend that was well established before they were created is just bad analysis.
I claimed no such thing. Obviously a primary reason for the absence of a gun massacre since Port Arthur is the general rarity of gun massacres in Australia. I merely pointed out a single counter example to the junk theory that mass media is responsible for the subsequent attacks. Similar arguments can be made in any other country that has had a high profile mass killing, without any series of follow up massacres.
or maybe the laws were just SO effective, they went back in time and started reducing crime in the past...
No, prosperity has increased over time, with the effect I have already described to you. Add in the specific 'tipping point' factors that drove down crime in the US in the early 90s and you can explain the overall decline in the murder rate.
What you are basically doing here is attempting to state that guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, therefore they are not part of the explanation at all. Which is just terrible analysis.
But hey, if you've got it all figured out, perhaps you could explain why the US has such a higher murder rate than other developed countries.
I think both of you are missing the point, we are talking about panty dropping and spiders the size of dinner plates. Important issues first, trivia later! the shrouded lord gets it!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'm not saying that we blame the media for, in essence, doing their job... Just that there have been those who've made suggestions that in certain situations, there are better ways to do that job (ie, not create a situation where a nutter sees an opportunity ie. mass shooters).
I would suppose that the better MH professionals realize that they are also one facet of this nebulous issue. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about the medication situation, at least not in the short term.
I apologise for my strong response, as it was a reaction against people who are attempting to explain away the issue of gun massacres by reference to what are fairly minor side impacts.
I agree that there are better and worse ways of covering stories like this. I personally am not at all comfortable with the way 24 hour news agencies will show live streams from the events, often before they are fully under control.
And I agree that mental health is part of this issue, though I'd have to repeat again that mental health is not very well managed anywhere in the developed world, but we have nothing like the number of massacres.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
2nd amendment. You should know this silly.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...
when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.
Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....
that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.
.
Where did I say all handguns are high caliber? I may not agree with their legality but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there is a significant difference between the damage a .22 can do in comparison to a 45.
Relapse wrote:
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
So you hate handguns because they are used to kill people?
Why do you assume I hate handguns? Personally, I'd rather shoot a rifle over any other weapon type. I'd rather shoot a target at 200 yards+ then at 50 and I like the stability of having the butt against my shoulder.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.
2nd amendment. You should know this silly.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
You may wish to look at District of Columbia vs Heller if you want some jurisprudence that isn't 168 years old. The modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not require inclusion in a militia to exercise your rights, but for any lawful purpose such as self defense.
We can never have a meaningful debate with people throwing out derp as hard as they can with both hands on each side of the debate; Joe The Plumber on one side and "ban all handguns" on the other.
In summary, the original wording of the Second Amendment was reinterpreted to mean something else. So it's okay for the extreme gun advocates to justify the legality of firearms on the basis that it is in the Constitution and was reinterpreted as a living document, but at the same time shout down any reinterpretation they disagree with? You can't have it both ways. It's either subject to reinterpretation or it's not.
The problem with handguns more so than rifles and shotguns is that they are easy to conceal and that alone makes them significantly more dangerous. Any jackass on the street can pull a handgun out and gun you down without a warning, but at least in the case of the rifle you'll see the damn thing before. The biggest problem with firearms is that they are easy to acquire and cheap. Anyone can go into a pawn shop and drop $200 or less on a 40 caliber semiautomatic pistol and go kill someone. The entire process could take under an hour. There needs to be at least a sales delay and a deeper background check. I think the best way to handle it would be to make firearm sales outside of certified dealers illegal, limit areas where they can be sold to rural areas and city outskirts, and require some form of license to purchase one. Not necessarily a concealed carry license, but something somewhat less restrictive. Simply making them harder to acquire could deter crazies from purchasing them.
Grey Templar wrote: I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.
Not so fun when in Sydney and the spider is very venomous and can jump a meter. Also fun to find whilst gardening.
A friend of mine from Australia that moved here told me of the great fun he used to have as a child teasing Funnel Spiders with a stick. The fun lasted until his father caught him at it one day.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Trexmeyer,
When you make a statement like you did about handguns, my assumption is that you hate them.
Grey Templar wrote: I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.
Not so fun when in Sydney and the spider is very venomous and can jump a meter. Also fun to find whilst gardening.
A friend of mine from Australia that moved here told me of the great fun he used to have as a child teasing Funnel Spiders with a stick. The fun lasted until his father caught him at it one day.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Trexmeyer,
When you make a statement like you did about handguns, my assumption is that you hate them.
Another one is poke-the-spider. You find a spider on a wEb (a big spider) and get a stick to poke it. 1 point for a leg, 5 for the abdomen, 10 for the head, 50 for the eyes, 100 for the fangs, and a visit to the nerse's office if it spits something into your mouth or eyes.
Or pouring daddy's vodka on a spied thou found inside a tree in the backyard and watch it commit suicide.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.
When you're defending your self you want control with the weapon. A shotgun is fine in the hands of a person who can aim correctly and handle the recoil.
For others a Rifle/Carbine/Pistol are better because they will have more control with a smaller weapon.
Also machine guns are legal if you take the proper steps to aquire one.. be prepared to pay out the wazzooo for one.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He is interpreting that as you can bear arms in militias. That was the court pecident for a long time. Just thought I'd let you know .
On a side note, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to any weapon you want just as the 1st does not allow you to say whatever you want. If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights. That's why automatic weapons and weapons over a certain caliber can be banned. I'm always amazed at how many people point to the second amendment, but don't know this.
What you are basically doing here is attempting to state that guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, therefore they are not part of the explanation at all. Which is just terrible analysis.
But hey, if you've got it all figured out, perhaps you could explain why the US has such a higher murder rate than other developed countries.
While guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, one thing that I think can/should be looked at is a comparison between the US and Switzerland. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland has just as much of a gun-rich culture as the US (as in, they are not averse to seeing/owning firearms), however they do have fewer gun deaths per year compared to the US.
So what gives? They would seem to be on the same level as the US is most every respect, except for the wealth divide. I mean, they have better working healthcare systems in place, I'd bet they have better education systems (as in free/cheap university fees), etc. All of which means greater economic "freedom" for everyone there. Couple that with the fact that they would seem to have clear guidance on their National gun laws vs, city/municipality laws (ie. what applies federally is also guaranteed to apply locally, unlike the US)
I dunno, there really is a ton going on there and if we could really figure out the best solutions to our greatest differences, some things may change
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, one thing that I think can/should be looked at is a comparison between the US and Switzerland. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland has just as much of a gun-rich culture as the US (as in, they are not averse to seeing/owning firearms), however they do have fewer gun deaths per year compared to the US.
So what gives? They would seem to be on the same level as the US is most every respect, except for the wealth divide. I mean, they have better working healthcare systems in place, I'd bet they have better education systems (as in free/cheap university fees), etc. All of which means greater economic "freedom" for everyone there. Couple that with the fact that they would seem to have clear guidance on their National gun laws vs, city/municipality laws (ie. what applies federally is also guaranteed to apply locally, unlike the US)
I dunno, there really is a ton going on there and if we could really figure out the best solutions to our greatest differences, some things may change
Maybe some other factors include;
- lack of gang violence
- secure border that doesn't permit cartels to ship in guns and drugs (or the DoJ to send out guns)
- homogenized culture
- not vilifying gun owners
- better mental health services
- population size
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, one thing that I think can/should be looked at is a comparison between the US and Switzerland. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland has just as much of a gun-rich culture as the US (as in, they are not averse to seeing/owning firearms), however they do have fewer gun deaths per year compared to the US.
So what gives? They would seem to be on the same level as the US is most every respect, except for the wealth divide. I mean, they have better working healthcare systems in place, I'd bet they have better education systems (as in free/cheap university fees), etc. All of which means greater economic "freedom" for everyone there. Couple that with the fact that they would seem to have clear guidance on their National gun laws vs, city/municipality laws (ie. what applies federally is also guaranteed to apply locally, unlike the US)
I dunno, there really is a ton going on there and if we could really figure out the best solutions to our greatest differences, some things may change
Maybe some other factors include;
- lack of gang violence
- secure border that doesn't permit cartels to ship in guns and drugs (or the DoJ to send out guns)
- homogenized culture
- not vilifying gun owners
- better mental health services
- population size
- Ammunition being much harder to come by and store on private property.
- The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.
When you're defending your self you want control with the weapon. A shotgun is fine in the hands of a person who can aim correctly and handle the recoil.
For others a Rifle/Carbine/Pistol are better because they will have more control with a smaller weapon.
Also machine guns are legal if you take the proper steps to aquire one.. be prepared to pay out the wazzooo for one.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
He is interpreting that as you can bear arms in militias. That was the court pecident for a long time. Just thought I'd let you know .
On a side note, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to any weapon you want just as the 1st does not allow you to say whatever you want. If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights. That's why automatic weapons and weapons over a certain caliber can be banned. I'm always amazed at how many people point to the second amendment, but don't know this.
Just because that is the convenient interpretation the Supreme Court has decided on doesn't mean its right.
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.
When you're defending your self you want control with the weapon. A shotgun is fine in the hands of a person who can aim correctly and handle the recoil.
For others a Rifle/Carbine/Pistol are better because they will have more control with a smaller weapon.
Also machine guns are legal if you take the proper steps to aquire one.. be prepared to pay out the wazzooo for one.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
He is interpreting that as you can bear arms in militias. That was the court pecident for a long time. Just thought I'd let you know .
On a side note, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to any weapon you want just as the 1st does not allow you to say whatever you want. If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights. That's why automatic weapons and weapons over a certain caliber can be banned. I'm always amazed at how many people point to the second amendment, but don't know this.
Just because that is the convenient interpretation the Supreme Court has decided on doesn't mean its right.
Legally, it does. That's how American government works. Unless you want to stage a revolution and completely re-do america, your going to have to deal with it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
He is interpreting that as you can bear arms in militias. That was the court pecident for a long time. Just thought I'd let you know
U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1: Chapter 13 - The Militia
section 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Going by US Code... all males between 17-45 that are not disabled are militia members
On a side note, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to any weapon you want just as the 1st does not allow you to say whatever you want. If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights. That's why automatic weapons and weapons over a certain caliber can be banned. I'm always amazed at how many people point to the second amendment, but don't know this.
The 2nd amendment is suppose to grant people any and all arms. Up until 1968 you could purchase any weapon you wanted to in the united states and have it mailed directly to your door, hell there are catalog pages for purchasing Machineguns and Anti-tank rifles from the 50s.
If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights
If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights
Which should never happen.
So there should be no prisons in the US? No mental institutions?
If you are going to disregard the social contract then you should think very carefully what that means, a couple of years living in Somalia would give you a good idea.
What you are basically doing here is attempting to state that guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, therefore they are not part of the explanation at all. Which is just terrible analysis.
But hey, if you've got it all figured out, perhaps you could explain why the US has such a higher murder rate than other developed countries.
While guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, one thing that I think can/should be looked at is a comparison between the US and Switzerland. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland has just as much of a gun-rich culture as the US (as in, they are not averse to seeing/owning firearms), however they do have fewer gun deaths per year compared to the US.
So what gives? ... ...
What gives is that the information is inaccurate.
In Switzerland gun holding is pretty widespread because of their system of a citizen army (a real one, not a "well ordered militia" on the US model.) A large proportion of the population therefore hold a weapon at home which is a state issued military item. Some years ago, though, due to concerns about the increasing use of these weapons for suicide, the rules were changed to keep the ammunition at the local army depot.
The Swiss on the whole don't feel a need to keep weapons for their own sake as private individuals. The weapon ownership pattern of shotguns and rifles for sporting uses is basically similar to other western European countries.
Boing Boing ran a very good article about the problems of gun research in the USA. Worth reading because it doesn't support either side of the argument.
Jebus. I had a real nightmare of a thought....Spider Potato Gun...after you try to shoot one at me in Aussie...and after I pry myself off the ceiling. I'm going to beat you with a fire axe, along with your car and make you eat that freaking gun side ways and force it out SIDEWAYS
Co'tor Shas wrote: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He is interpreting that as you can bear arms in militias. That was the court pecident for a long time. Just thought I'd let you know
U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1: Chapter 13 - The Militia
section 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Going by US Code... all males between 17-45 that are not disabled are militia members
On a side note, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to any weapon you want just as the 1st does not allow you to say whatever you want. If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights. That's why automatic weapons and weapons over a certain caliber can be banned. I'm always amazed at how many people point to the second amendment, but don't know this.
The 2nd amendment is suppose to grant people any and all arms. Up until 1968 you could purchase any weapon you wanted to in the united states and have it mailed directly to your door, hell there are catalog pages for purchasing Machineguns and Anti-tank rifles from the 50s.
If there is a compelling reason the government can limit you rights
Which should never happen.
First off, I wasn't choosing a side on the militia quote, I was just saying what his position was because you did not seem to understand it. Second, actually read the 2nd amendment, specifically the part "well regulated". Third, were you there? Did you talk to the framers? If not, than it's up to the court to decide. If they rule that it meant that the government could ban certain guns, all you can do it get another amendment passed (which is about as likely as the NRA calling for all guns to be banned). Fourth, ever heard of yelling fire in a crowded theater. You have rights, right up until they infringe on others rights or well-being.
Grey Templar wrote: None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.
Yealling ''fire'' in a crowded theatre is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivilant reason for restricting the 2nd.
I'm not talking about 2nd amendment rights, I'm talking about rights in general. A good example for guns is you are not allowed to bring a gun into a crowded building.
Would you be OK with having to register to own guns?
Then why aren't you complaining about having to register to vote? It's a right, so why do we have to register?
They should tie your voting history to your name as well
So you would be OK with mandatory background checks?
Uh... that happens today.
Ever heard of a gunshow?
Then no, I don't support a license to own weapons. (other than the Class 3 ones)
As to the Gun Show Loophole, if you're a licensed dealer, you're still required to do the background check. If not, then simply you're just two consenting adults making a commercial transaction.
There is something I would like to point out. I'm not arguing for or against guns. I don't really care either way. What I have gotten sick of is this automatic default to the second amendment by people who don't know what they are talking about. People who don't seem to see the "well regulated". People who don't realize that can legally infringe on your rights. People who seem to think that they know exactly what the framers meant when it was written. It was a long time ago, they did not have this technology. It was not designed to allow people to have tanks, portable fully-automatic weapons, and super-long range artillery weapons, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST! We have absolutely no idea what the framers would write if it was written now. In fact, anyone who proports otherwise obviously does not know what they are talking about. It's like the people who say "the constitution isn't a living document" despite the fact that it is. Or the people who think they can say whatever they want because of the first amendment. When arguing about guns, try to remember these things (all of you pro and con): 1. Read the entire thing, both the "well regulated" and "the right to bear arms". 2. Peoples' rights are sacrosanct and should not be infringed for no reason. 3. Peoples;' rights can be infringed upon if there is compelling reason.
Now if you'll excuse me, I would like to leave this bi-partisan idiocy (the only bi-partisan thing there is at this point), so please think, and don't attack me after I have left.
(That is to all of you, not one person. Just letting you know.)
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is something I would like to point out. I'm not arguing for or against guns. I don't really care either way. What I have gotten sick of is this automatic default to the second amendment by people who don't know what they are talking about. People who don't seem to see the "well regulated". People who don't realize that can legally infringe on your rights. People who seem to think that they know exactly what the framers meant when it was written. It was a long time ago, they did not have this technology. It was not designed to allow people to have tanks, portable fully-automatic weapons, and super-long range artillery weapons, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST! We have absolutely no idea what the framers would write if it was written now. In fact, anyone who proports otherwise obviously does not know what they are talking about. It's like the people who say "the constitution isn't a living document" despite the fact that it is. Or the people who think they can say whatever they want because of the first amendment. When arguing about guns, try to remember these things (all of you pro and con):
1. Read the entire thing, both the "well regulated" "and the right to bear arms".
2. Peoples' rights are sacrosanct and should not be infringed for no reason.
3. Peoples;' rights can be infringed upon if there is compelling reason.
Now if you'll excuse me, I would like to leave this bi-partisan idiocy (the only bi-partisan thing there is at this point), so please think, and don't attack me after I have left.
(That is to all of you, not one person. Just letting you know.)
So what are you arguing about? Really.
The 2nd Amendment isn't hard to understand man.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just read the Heller decision. Your answer lies within...
Then why aren't you complaining about having to register to vote? It's a right, so why do we have to register?
I'll take registering guns if all the other restrictionns are lifted and we're just like voting rights. Toi be equivalent to vote you would have to:
*Take a background check.
*Not have committed a felony.
*Have multiple forms of government issued ID.
*Be limited in who you could vote for and how you voted.
*Be limited in what type of ink or voting machine you could use.
*Be subject to felony for voting in the wrong location.
*Not be permitted to vote in Chicago, Washington DC, New York, New Jersey etc. etc.
Then why aren't you complaining about having to register to vote? It's a right, so why do we have to register?
I'll take registering guns if all the other restrictionns are lifted and we're just like voting rights. Toi be equivalent to vote you would have to:
*Take a background check.
*Not have committed a felony.
*Have multiple forms of government issued ID.
*Be limited in who you could vote for and how you voted.
*Be limited in what type of ink or voting machine you could use.
*Be subject to felony for voting in the wrong location.
*Not be permitted to vote in Chicago, Washington DC, New York, New Jersey etc. etc.
Then why aren't you complaining about having to register to vote? It's a right, so why do we have to register?
I'll take registering guns if all the other restrictionns are lifted and we're just like voting rights. Toi be equivalent to vote you would have to:
*Take a background check.
*Not have committed a felony.
*Have multiple forms of government issued ID.
*Be limited in who you could vote for and how you voted.
*Be limited in what type of ink or voting machine you could use.
*Be subject to felony for voting in the wrong location.
*Not be permitted to vote in Chicago, Washington DC, New York, New Jersey etc. etc.
In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7 percent to 26.4 percent. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.
Then why aren't you complaining about having to register to vote? It's a right, so why do we have to register?
They have to have some way of acknowledging and recording the vote, it's also necessary for things like closed-primary elections and the like. Voter registration is necessary for the mechanics of voting to work.
There's also no monetary cost to registering to vote.
Registering to vote has not also historically been used to then come back after people for voting.
Firearm registration has a history of being used to disarm people. That's how the Nazi's disarmed most of the German populace in the 1930's, or for a more recent example, CA used the registry to confiscate certain makes of SKS rifles after banning them. They initially were not banned then the state decided they fell under the ban anyway but said that anyone who registered them could keep them, so many did. A court decision followed which said the State was not allowed to re-open the registry and thus all those weapons *couldn't* legally be registered, so then those that did register were identified and had to surrender their firearms after registering them in good faith.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?
And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))
At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.
His First question: Do miltias even really exisist anymore?
I replied stating that US CODE lists ALL Able-bodied men (not phsycially disabled) between the ages of 17 and 46 AS militia members.
His second statement is quote from a judge from Nunn v. State
Agian US CODE lists ALL Able-bodied men (not phsycially disabled) between the ages of 17 and 46 AS militia members.
Clauses were added to that code that includes women and excludes certain people.
Third, were you there? Did you talk to the framers? If not, than it's up to the court to decide. If they rule that it meant that the government could ban certain guns, all you can do it get another amendment passed (which is about as likely as the NRA calling for all guns to be banned).
Are you talking about the people who supported an open rebellion and used their own money to fund it? nope I wasn't there, nor you or anyone living today.
The government could ban all guns.. and they can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7 percent to 26.4 percent. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
America, a faction in deathhammer 2k
Wut?
O.o
We're blood thirsty?
Most cultures who call for people to be killed after committing a crime i would consider the same way. Next time some hideous crime is posted on dakka read the US response and responses from other countries, it makes interesting reading.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
America, a faction in deathhammer 2k
Wut?
O.o
We're blood thirsty?
Most cultures who call for people to be killed after committing a crime i would consider the same way. Next time some hideous crime is posted on dakka read the US response and responses from other countries, it makes interesting reading.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
America, a faction in deathhammer 2k
Wut?
O.o
We're blood thirsty?
just more projection really... most anti gun people dont trust themselves with guns, so naturally assume everyone is like them.
In reality, if gun owners were in fact as violent as Anti-gun people claim they were, there wouldnt be any anti gun people left.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
Does Russia count or are we considering the USSR different? They were involved in the Korean war and invaded Hungary in the 1950's, crushed the Prague Spring in the 1960's, fought in Afghanistan in the 1970's and 1980's in addition to proxy wars, fought in Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia in the 90's and 2000's, and Ukraine now.
Also I think the UK would count too. They fought Egypt and various colonial conflicts in the 1950's and 1960's, they fought Argentina in the 80's, and fought beside the US in just about every conflict since then.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
Does Russia count or are we considering the USSR different? They were involved in the Korean war and invaded Hungary in the 1950's, crushed the Prague Spring in the 1960's, fought in Afghanistan in the 1970's and 1980's in addition to proxy wars, fought in Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia in the 90's and 2000's, and Ukraine now.
Also I think the UK would count too. They fought Egypt and various colonial conflicts in the 1950's and 1960's, they fought Argentina in the 80's, and fought beside the US in just about every conflict since then.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
America, a faction in deathhammer 2k
Wut?
O.o
We're blood thirsty?
Most cultures who call for people to be killed after committing a crime i would consider the same way. Next time some hideous crime is posted on dakka read the US response and responses from other countries, it makes interesting reading.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
I think Europeans are sick of war. How many continental wars have there been that impacted nearly everyone? Two alone in the last one hundred years. How many for America? None. Violence has been a completely foreign concept for everyone outside of the military for the past 4-5 generations. As such there is still a bit of glamour to it.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to believe that people who believe they need guns because they need guns and then reference themselves dying before they lose their guns have a slightly angled viewpoint. Perhaps an acute obsession with death? I dunno , it's just strange.
America, a faction in deathhammer 2k
Wut?
O.o
We're blood thirsty?
Most cultures who call for people to be killed after committing a crime i would consider the same way. Next time some hideous crime is posted on dakka read the US response and responses from other countries, it makes interesting reading.
Also name one other country that has almost had a war every decade since 1945. Not an ongoing war, ones in new theaters.
I think Europeans are sick of war. How many continental wars have there been that impacted nearly everyone? Two alone in the last one hundred years. How many for America? None. Violence has been a completely foreign concept for everyone outside of the military for the past 4-5 generations. As such there is still a bit of glamour to it.
Are you really going to compare a fist fight to the impact of a years long war that wipes out a significant portion of the population to the extent that nearly an entire generation is wiped out? I don't know if you're being disingenuous or if you really don't understand the psychological impact on an entire society that total war can afflict. Americans have no idea what that it is like to have your birthplace conquered and destroyed.
trexmeyer wrote: Are you really going to compare a fist fight to the impact of a years long war that wipes out a significant portion of the population to the extent that nearly an entire generation is wiped out? I don't know if you're being disingenuous or if you really don't understand the psychological impact on an entire society that total war can afflict. Americans have no idea what that it is like to have your birthplace conquered and destroyed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, one thing that I think can/should be looked at is a comparison between the US and Switzerland. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland has just as much of a gun-rich culture as the US (as in, they are not averse to seeing/owning firearms), however they do have fewer gun deaths per year compared to the US.
So what gives? They would seem to be on the same level as the US is most every respect, except for the wealth divide. I mean, they have better working healthcare systems in place, I'd bet they have better education systems (as in free/cheap university fees), etc. All of which means greater economic "freedom" for everyone there.
The wealth divide is considerable driver, I agree. But I'd argue that a large part of the difference between the gun cultures of the two countries. Having an assault rifle stored and disassembled for use as part of government run training for national defense is very different to having a pistol in the home (or on your person) in case something happens. I mean, in 2012 there was more than 3,400 people killed in arguments - that's about four times as many as were killed in gangland violence. Now we can't say that a firearm directly contributed to all of those killings, but we can certainly say that having a gun nearby in a heated moment increases the chance of a really rash decision being made.
And funnily enough Switzerland has, among Europe, the health care system that's closest to your own, and much closer now that ACA is in place (mandatory insurance, minimal government provision of healthcare). The end result is nowhere near as expensive as the US system, but compared to other countries in Europe you're looking at paying a lot more for basically the same results. The calls we've seen in the last few years that call for it to be lauded are almost entirely political in nature.
Couple that with the fact that they would seem to have clear guidance on their National gun laws vs, city/municipality laws (ie. what applies federally is also guaranteed to apply locally, unlike the US)
I think that's a really good point. One of the issues that gets lost in the debate is that clarity and consistency in laws is at least as important as the tightness of any restrictions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Maybe some other factors include;
- lack of gang violence
As I've said possibly a dozen times now, gang violence is way overestimated as a driver of the US murder rate. Out of the more than 12,000 murders in the US, gangland killings are responsible for about 800.
Racial issues are responsible for very few murders. Seriously, go look at the numbers.
- better mental health services
There is absolutely nothing to suggest Switzerland or any other country has superior mental health services to the US. Mental health is poorly funded and organised everywhere.
- population size
Umm, having more people doesn't somehow make them more murderous.
Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
I remember when I was a kid and there was a spider that set it self up on the kitchen roof. A huntsman, so about the size of your palm, but harmless. Mum wanted to kill it or at least get it out of the house, but Dad said it was harmless. I called it 'wolfie' and said good morning and good night to it every day. After a week it disappeared, and we kind of forgot about it.
About a month after that we woke up in the morning and there were tiny baby spiders covering the ceiling of the kitchen, living room and dining room. Millions of them.
Never saw a spider last long in the house after that.
Jihadin wrote: Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
What are you even talking about now? What post are you responding to? How is this post relevant to anything? You just come across like a completely uncivilized psychotic. Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse as possible?
I remember when I was a kid and there was a spider that set it self up on the kitchen roof. A huntsman, so about the size of your palm, but harmless. Mum wanted to kill it or at least get it out of the house, but Dad said it was harmless. I called it 'wolfie' and said good morning and good night to it every day. After a week it disappeared, and we kind of forgot about it.
About a month after that we woke up in the morning and there were tiny baby spiders covering the ceiling of the kitchen, living room and dining room. Millions of them.
Never saw a spider last long in the house after that.
Discovery Channel had a mini series about those situation. One house that was in North Carolina was over ran by Brown Recluse. Another house in a northern state I believe was built over a garter snake
Experts said the home was likely built on a winter snake sanctuary - called a hibernaculum - where snakes gather to hibernate for the winter.
A friend of mine from Australia that moved here told me of the great fun he used to have as a child teasing Funnel Spiders with a stick. The fun lasted until his father caught him at it one day.
.
He is a very lucky man and living proof that children are dum.
We need to just use real police off duty, a color of the law job, they roll into the schools, maybe two to three or more depending on the school size and work there during the hours that school is in progress. Gun free zones are the problem, not strict gun control...
If the Police doing the job happen to be SWAT or Patrol Rifle, then they work at the school in their full kit. End of school violence. At college campus allow conceal carry, and again, the school hires off duty cops to patrol on foot with full kit.
Jihadin wrote: Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
What are you even talking about now? What post are you responding to? How is this post relevant to anything? You just come across like a completely uncivilized psychotic. Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse as possible?
I quite like the post, I think Jihadin summed up humanity well.
Jihadin wrote: Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
Actually, as already established over dozens of gun threads, it does matter what country you are from (and within that country it does matter what sex and ethnicity you have). The rates of violence and murder vary greatly. The question is what social factors impact on one country or group within that country to make them more likely to be violent, more likely to murder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Discovery Channel had a mini series about those situation.
Wasn't really that much of a situation in our case. I went to school. Apparently Mum sprayed the gak out of the ceiling, fogged up half the house, used like two cans of spray. Next day she went back for the survivors. And no spider was ever allowed to last more than about 10 seconds in our house ever again.
Jihadin wrote: Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
Actually, as already established over dozens of gun threads, it does matter what country you are from (and within that country it does matter what sex and ethnicity you have). The rates of violence and murder vary greatly. The question is what social factors impact on one country or group within that country to make them more likely to be violent, more likely to murder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Discovery Channel had a mini series about those situation.
Wasn't really that much of a situation in our case. I went to school. Apparently Mum sprayed the gak out of the ceiling, fogged up half the house, used like two cans of spray. Next day she went back for the survivors. And no spider was ever allowed to last more than about 10 seconds in our house ever again.
Jihadin wrote: Its the human race here. Violence is in our nature. It can be verbal. It can be physical. Literature can inflame violence. Religion can instigate violence. It does not matter what country, continent, race, sex, ethnic, or age. Human beings are quite capable of violence. I am quite quite capable of extreme violence and remain calm. A few others on here in Dakka are the same way. You are quite capable to act in extreme violence. We're human. Welcome to the human race and its creative way to kill our fellow humans. Without violence then we as a Nation should not exist as the same to those European nations formed 1900 and upward
Actually, as already established over dozens of gun threads, it does matter what country you are from (and within that country it does matter what sex and ethnicity you have). The rates of violence and murder vary greatly. The question is what social factors impact on one country or group within that country to make them more likely to be violent, more likely to murder.
Except that, on a species level, we humans seem to be nowhere near as creative as when we are creating new, inventive ways to kill each other.
Sure, sharpening a stick and hardening it in a fire was "originally" invented to kill animals for food, but very quickly "Ugg" became chief of his clan, because he figured out that the pointy end when into "throg" very easily, and he stopped moving. Unfortunately for Ugg, he was dethroned by Muck, who figured out that certain rocks could be hardened, and they made red stuff come out of Ugg even easier than his burnt stick.... And so on, and so forth.
I mean, how many inventions can we directly or indirectly attribute civilian uses from it's original "war time" purpose?
Jihadin wrote: So your mum gave a violent end to the spiders.
edit
Now the family continues to do so
Well I moved out about 15 years ago, and spend most of that time living in harmony with spiders and all other animals - a state commonly referred to as being a lazy ass bachelor. Now I'm married to an Italian, and they kill anything that enters the house like its some kind of religious conviction
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Except that, on a species level, we humans seem to be nowhere near as creative as when we are creating new, inventive ways to kill each other.
No argument here on that point. Just that in a conversation about actual violence, it's worth noting how much society and circumstance can affect that instinct.
Jihadin wrote: So your mum gave a violent end to the spiders.
edit
Now the family continues to do so
Well I moved out about 15 years ago, and spend most of that time living in harmony with spiders and all other animals - a state commonly referred to as being a lazy ass bachelor. Now I'm married to an Italian, and they kill anything that enters the house like its some kind of religious conviction
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Except that, on a species level, we humans seem to be nowhere near as creative as when we are creating new, inventive ways to kill each other.
No argument here on that point. Just that in a conversation about actual violence, it's worth noting how much society and circumstance can affect that instinct.
First Sebster. Don't ever, ever and I mean ever piss off your wife. ITALIAN
A violent act though does not have to mean just "killing another human". It also involve destroying property like your fire axe wielding teen you had there a bit back. Exterminatus on insects, even violent thoughts can be construed as violent reaction. Even a violent outburst when your star football player totally bolo's a easy kick into a goal.
I mention before
A individual is product of his environment. The individual thought process though is an unknown. You cannot predict when someone brain goes off the reservation. To complicate things more is the availability of potential weapons within reach. That can be anything. Fire arms though is the media magnet. Unless its something off the wall. Like a nail gun. or
In January 2013, police were called to a trailer park in Snohomish County, Washington after residents heard fighting from a neighbor’s home. When police arrived, they found 192-lb Lange apparently passed out on her 175-lb boyfriend—with her chest completely smothering his face. Although some might consider death by breasts the best way to go, it seems the boyfriend did not enjoy his final moments, as witnesses heard him screaming for Lange to get off, and investigators discovered clumps of her hair in his dead hands.
A guy shot up my university at the time with handguns. I would be OK with a complete ban on them for everyone without a reason to own one. They changed the laws about them at the time, but I'm not sure what they did or if it had any effect.
I haven't had a university be shot up since as far as I know, so chalk another one up for gun control, I guess.
(You do not need a handgun to defend yourself from huntsman spiders, as they are friends. Gigantic friends that can fit in tiny spaces and then fall out alarmingly when they have the opportunity. Once I turned on a garden tap and a huntsman fell out of it.
Sydney Funnelwebs are another thing entirely, and IMO the best reason to prevent global warming is to avoid the Sydney Funnelweb habitation zone moving any further south. Maybe people should be allowed to own handguns in NSW.)
I once filled a water bottle up (the metal kind) and about an hour later took a mouthful. Tasted funny so I opened the bottle and poured out a the water. Tiny, tiny spiders came out. So, so many of them. *shudders*
Jihadin wrote: First Sebster. Don't ever, ever and I mean ever piss off your wife. ITALIAN
I piss her off about seven times a day. What can you do?
I mention before A individual is product of his environment. The individual thought process though is an unknown. You cannot predict when someone brain goes off the reservation. To complicate things more is the availability of potential weapons within reach. That can be anything. Fire arms though is the media magnet. Unless its something off the wall. Like a nail gun. or
Sure, did you remember the one about the grown man who started strangling a kid over a Call of Duty game? They weren't even in the same house, the guy had to put down his controller, walk about five minutes, open the door and he was still pissed enough to start strangling this kid. Incredible stuff, really.
Anyhow, as random as any individual instance might be, across a whole population it works out pretty consistently. We can say with great confidence, for instance, that the US will have about 11,000 to 12,000 murders this year. A small number will be planned, and the rest will be people under some kind of stress reacting in the worst possible way. Now, I think it is reasonable to accept that there is some greater level of stress in the US (the wealth inequality as mentioned earlier), but I don't believe Americans are somehow more likely to react poorly to stress than any other developed country - you guys aren't just inherently more murderous.
And so we have to look at what difference there is in the US that makes you two or three times more likely react in the worst possible way and murder someone. You mention the availability of weapons and that anything can be a weapon, but at what point do we recognise that guns are more effective at the job, and therefore more likely to trigger a response? I mean, people mention a nail gun, but those things are unwieldy as anything...
And you can say that guns are the media magnet, but most of those murders will be carried out with gun, and only a dozen or so will get mass media coverage.
And you can say that guns are the media magnet, but most of those murders will be carried out with gun, and only a dozen or so will get mass media coverage.
That dozen will saturate the 24-hour news cycle for days or even weeks on end though.
In January 2013, police were called to a trailer park in Snohomish County, Washington after residents heard fighting from a neighbor’s home. When police arrived, they found 192-lb Lange apparently passed out on her 175-lb boyfriend—with her chest completely smothering his face. Although some might consider death by breasts the best way to go, it seems the boyfriend did not enjoy his final moments, as witnesses heard him screaming for Lange to get off, and investigators discovered clumps of her hair in his dead hands.
Lange was charged with second-degree murder.
Are we talking 38DD's here or larger? You need to be able to cover the nose and mouth completely.
In January 2013, police were called to a trailer park in Snohomish County, Washington after residents heard fighting from a neighbor’s home. When police arrived, they found 192-lb Lange apparently passed out on her 175-lb boyfriend—with her chest completely smothering his face. Although some might consider death by breasts the best way to go, it seems the boyfriend did not enjoy his final moments, as witnesses heard him screaming for Lange to get off, and investigators discovered clumps of her hair in his dead hands.
Lange was charged with second-degree murder.
Are we talking 38DD's here or larger? You need to be able to cover the nose and mouth completely.
I need pictures.
For research.
Kronk, she was 192lbs... If you saw pictures, the term "what has been seen cannot be unseen" comes to mind
Grey Templar wrote: None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.
Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivalent reason for restricting the 2nd.
I'm not talking about 2nd amendment rights, I'm talking about rights in general. A good example for guns is you are not allowed to bring a gun into a crowded building.
Would you be OK with having to register to own guns?
No, I'm not ok with having to register to own guns, or that I in fact own guns, or that I own X, Y, and Z guns.
And why would being in a crowded building be a compelling reason not to carry a gun?
austrailia, didnt have a gun problem before the 96 laws were passed,
they didnt have one after the laws were passed,
crediting the laws for solving a problem you never had, is silly.
Here in canada, we have had gun mass murders as well, and have passed very restrictive laws against them, also with the express intent of solving the mass murder problem.
yet we have still had mass murders, and OFC there is a crowd that simply repeats the same mantra of "make more gun laws"
If more gun laws would have prevented this oregon shooting, then why did they not prevent the moncton shooting in canada a few weeks ago?
Canada already has every anti gunners dream laws passed, yet the solution to every single shooting is just more laws...
and the "solution" to the oregon shooting is to emulate canadas laws... even though canada, with all the laws people are proposing in the states and THEN some, still has the same thing happening from time to time.
The reality is, these shootings are extremely rare, and kill far less people then far more mundane objects like cars, swimming pools, bats/fists/knives and so on.
The reality is that anti gun people are not only as a rule grossly mis informed on guns, but they are outright hoplophobic.
Good to see you anti gunners actually being honest and admitting it is in fact about banning guns, not "reasonable" gun control laws though. At least be honest about what the end game is with all of this.
-Shrike- wrote: - The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.
Ummmm.... no.
You know how that lame interpretation came about? Here's what happened.
After the civil war ended, you had the terrorist wing of the Democratic party (the KKK) running amok, doing their best to intimidate the recently freed slaves.
It just so happened that some of these recently freed slaves had firearms. There must have been a few times where the Klan got shot up pretty good. Well, we can't have that now. We mustn't have colored folk shooting up the white guys and voting however they want. Enter the "militia only" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Here's a good way to disarm all those pesky black people so the former slaveowners can run things like they want.
So rest easy, libs and Democrats. You have your KKK forefathers to thank for this freedom-hating interpretation of the constitution.
In January 2013, police were called to a trailer park in Snohomish County, Washington after residents heard fighting from a neighbor’s home. When police arrived, they found 192-lb Lange apparently passed out on her 175-lb boyfriend—with her chest completely smothering his face. Although some might consider death by breasts the best way to go, it seems the boyfriend did not enjoy his final moments, as witnesses heard him screaming for Lange to get off, and investigators discovered clumps of her hair in his dead hands.
Lange was charged with second-degree murder.
Are we talking 38DD's here or larger? You need to be able to cover the nose and mouth completely.
I need pictures.
For research.
Kronk, she was 192lbs... If you saw pictures, the term "what has been seen cannot be unseen" comes to mind
Look, sometimes you just need a little cushion for the pushin'.
-Shrike- wrote: - The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.
Ummmm.... no.
You know how that lame interpretation came about? Here's what happened.
After the civil war ended, you had the terrorist wing of the Democratic party (the KKK) running amok, doing their best to intimidate the recently freed slaves.
It just so happened that some of these recently freed slaves had firearms. There must have been a few times where the Klan got shot up pretty good. Well, we can't have that now. We mustn't have colored folk shooting up the white guys and voting however they want. Enter the "militia only" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Here's a good way to disarm all those pesky black people so the former slaveowners can run things like they want.
So rest easy, libs and Democrats. You have your KKK forefathers to thank for this freedom-hating interpretation of the constitution.
Given the context that you pulled that quotation from, I would have thought it obvious that I was talking about Switzerland, unless you live in some really weird part of America.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
-Shrike- wrote: - The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.
Could you expand upon this point please
The guns are predominantly supplied for use by the militia, which consists of practically all men between the ages of 20-30. After your term in the militia finishes, you can choose to keep your gun, but without ammunition. This means that if the militia is ever called up, you can jump on a truck or something, and get to the nearest depot, where they'll supply you with ammunition. Private gun ownership for hunting and shooting does exist, but it's not really very different from England or most other European countries.
Grey Templar wrote: None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.
Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivalent reason for restricting the 2nd.
I can think of one good historical reason for restricting the 2nd: Great Britain, as in Great Britain will never invade the USA ever again.
American members, you are safe, you have nothing to fear. The British Army would struggle to break up a meeting of the WI, these days!
Maybe I'm preaching to the converted, but historically, the militia served 3 purposes:
1) To provide a defence against the French, and later the British.
2) To defend communities against any slave insurrection
3) To defend against a mass rebellion of Native Americans on the warpath a la Pontiac rebellion.
Now, given that Native Americans are undermining the rest of America with their Casinos, given that slave insurrections are highly unlikely, and given that the British can only afford 3 days worth of ammunition for its armed forces, the purpose of the militias would seem redundant.
Now, we all know the founding fathers were bitterly opposed to standing armies, but given that America has the world's most powerful standing army, I fail to see the purpose of any militias.
-Shrike- wrote: The guns are predominantly supplied for use by the militia, which consists of practically all men between the ages of 20-30. After your term in the militia finishes, you can choose to keep your gun, but without ammunition. This means that if the militia is ever called up, you can jump on a truck or something, and get to the nearest depot, where they'll supply you with ammunition. Private gun ownership for hunting and shooting does exist, but it's not really very different from England or most other European countries.
Thank you. I mis-read that as you saying firearms generally were not suited to private ownership
Grey Templar wrote: None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.
Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivalent reason for restricting the 2nd.
I can think of one good historical reason for restricting the 2nd: Great Britain, as in Great Britain will never invade the USA ever again.
American members, you are safe, you have nothing to fear. The British Army would struggle to break up a meeting of the WI, these days!
Maybe I'm preaching to the converted, but historically, the militia served 3 purposes:
1) To provide a defence against the French, and later the British.
2) To defend communities against any slave insurrection
3) To defend against a mass rebellion of Native Americans on the warpath a la Pontiac rebellion.
Now, given that Native Americans are undermining the rest of America with their Casinos, given that slave insurrections are highly unlikely, and given that the British can only afford 3 days worth of ammunition for its armed forces, the purpose of the militias would seem redundant.
Now, we all know the founding fathers were bitterly opposed to standing armies, but given that America has the world's most powerful standing army, I fail to see the purpose of any militias.
Sure... that's what you want us to believe... and as soon as we disarm as australia did, you're gonna start retaking "those troublesome colonies"
