Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/12/17 07:09:51
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.
That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That is why Illinois was given 180 days to write a bill which would be considered acceptable.
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
They want to be assured of a measure of fame.
2012/12/17 07:31:38
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.
That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
Mostly because even when we take the time to educate it's thrown back in our faces or blatantly ignored. The definition of insanity and all that
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That is why Illinois was given 180 days to write a bill which would be considered acceptable.
Now you're just into semantics, is there an actual point here?
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
Yup, but it will get Obama another "NRA Rifle Salesman of the Year" award.
As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
They want to be assured of a measure of fame.
Multiple mass shootings have been still stopped by CCW holders however. The Oregon incident last week to cite a recent example, even if the active shooter just suicided at the first sign of armed resistance.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Kanluwen wrote: That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
I spend a lot more time than I should trying to do just that, but it's usually dismissed as mere semantics that don't change the fact that "WE NEED TO GET THESE MACHINE GUNS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!"
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That's certainly true, but places where you can't carry in a state which has CCWs are usually the exception rather than the rule.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
Aside from the Assault Weapon Ban, of course. Feinstein said today that she'd be introducing the bill to get it back in January. So, anyone who wants to pick up a tacticooled AR-15 wouldn't necessarily be unwise to do it now.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
They want to be assured of a measure of fame.
That sounds like a good argument for ditching "Gun Free Zones" to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 07:36:52
2012/12/17 07:46:13
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
2012/12/17 07:46:56
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
If you read it, it must be true.
2012/12/17 07:53:07
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
sebster wrote: Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein.
Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun. (To a degree, he was not incorrect. He just assumed he would be leading it is all...)
I will say this: as many countries have learned, the number one first line of defense against terrorism is the armed civilian. The reason is simple: while the Army, etc, are very good at their jobs, they're not everywhere. Civilians, by nature, are everywhere, at all times. An armed civilian has better odds of stopping a suicide bomber than even the best prepared security force. The real issue is that most US civilians are idiots when you hand them a gun. Most of them can barely aim, let alone keep focused while under fire, and they tend to do stupid gak like fire with a gun in each hand (only useful with certain very uncommon guns) or some other John Woo gak that does not work in the real world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse
I hate that term, because it's applied to everyone ranging from the legitimately prepared to the radical fringe. There is nothign wrong with being prepared for lack of basics. It happens a lot, even in the 'West' that you might have things like natural disasters. Or even man made ones.
'Always Be Prepared' is a hell of a motto.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/17 07:56:37
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2012/12/17 08:53:48
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun. (To a degree, he was not incorrect. He just assumed he would be leading it is all...)
No, guns had been freely available and were common for years before Saddam came to power, and throughout the period in which he was your man in the region. Iraq had a gun culture, not as strong as the US but not that different. And when Saddam came to power all those meant nothing, because Saddam was very popular among lots of the people with guns, and among the others... well there's a big fething difference between owning a gun and being willing and capable of mounting a genuinely meaningful resistance.
I will say this: as many countries have learned, the number one first line of defense against terrorism is the armed civilian. The reason is simple: while the Army, etc, are very good at their jobs, they're not everywhere. Civilians, by nature, are everywhere, at all times. An armed civilian has better odds of stopping a suicide bomber than even the best prepared security force.
fething what? How many cases can you mention in which a civilian with a private weapon has stopped a suicide bomber? Exactly how does a civilian go about picking out a suicide bomber anyway, just wave his gun around and proceed with the pat down?
Seriously, guns are fun to go shooting with, and hunting can put some cheap meat on the table. And that's it. Everything else is people playing imaginary games in their in which going dropping some cash on a gun means they're suddenly capable of fighting their government or an invading army. Or buying a pistol means they're now manly male protectors of their homes from the evil home invaders.
Now, against that, there's basically zero evidence that any practical level of legislation will stop a crazy getting his hands on some guns. Most massacres like this are carried out with legal, licensed firearms, and outside of extended clips in the Ft Hood massacre I don't think any of them would have played out that differently if the 'scary' kinds of mods hadn't been available. More gun laws just aren't going to solve this problem.
To me, the issue is not with guns, but with the crazy ass culture that surrounds guns in the US. The problem is with the assumption that people need some kind of lethal tool on their person, in some cases they believe they need such a thing on their person at all times, in order to be safe. It's with the assumption that getting a gun in your hand makes you a powerful, potential resistance fighter against your government or some invading army.
Keep drilling those fantasies in to people's heads, and sure enough a few on the fringes of normality will tip over into violence.
Of course, there's no legislation that'll fix that problem, so no-one talks about it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/12/17 08:58:34
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
sebster wrote: fething what? How many cases can you mention in which a civilian with a private weapon has stopped a suicide bomber? Exactly how does a civilian go about picking out a suicide bomber anyway, just wave his gun around and proceed with the pat down?
We don't often have suicide bombers in the US. I'm fairly certain there are other forms of terrorism than suicide bombing, however. There have been an awful lot of mass shootings stopped by a civilian with a concealed weapon. And, interestingly, every mass killing in recent history, save one, has been in a place where guns have been banned.
Seriously, guns are fun to go shooting with, and hunting can put some cheap meat on the table. And that's it. Everything else is people playing imaginary games in their in which going dropping some cash on a gun means they're suddenly capable of fighting their government or an invading army. Or buying a pistol means they're now manly male protectors of their homes from the evil home invaders.
Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.
2012/12/17 09:10:26
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.
So that's one hundred thousand, rapes, murders, kidnappings, assaults, home invasions and muggings foiled PER YEAR in the United States.
Not all DGUs (in fact the majority) involve shots fired or dead/wounded bad guys. Mostly, like Seaward said all it takes is drawing down to make the scumbag du jour decide to leg it.
Here's an interesting take on the forthcoming new CCW laws in Illinois from a Chicago dweller who has actually had to defend herself just trying to make it home at night. She's not alone in her story, there are many millions like it, but having a weapon better then pepper spray certainly can't be a bad thing.
Kinda fun basic logic image from the "Why yes, I do carry thanks" perspective.
And just for funsies people ask me why I get defensive about firearms, or why I can be hostile to the opposition in general when it comes to gun control debates. I admit it's very much dependent on the group of people and the individuals I'm talking with, but when the group opposing you includes nutcases like these you lose the desire to be polite.
Spoilered for size and some language
Spoiler:
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/12/17 09:21:34
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
sebster wrote: Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein.
Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun.
Saddam relaxed gun laws for his supporters, he didn't arm anyone that wanted a gun.
It is worth recalling that there is a distinction between banning access to something, and the subjects of the ban being able to obtain access to it.
Kinda fun basic logic image from the "Why yes, I do carry thanks" perspective.
Not really, honestly it is pretty lame.
The first problem is that they begin with "innocent life" instead of "life" which, alone, breaks the argument. I mean, what is 'innocent' life? That in itself is a complicated question.
Then we get to the yes/no disjunction regarding innocence. If no, the obvious conjecture is that innocent is not tacit to valuable, meaning that I could easily prefer to protect a valuable person instead of an innocent person; or presume that my innocent/valuable life is far more innocent/valuable than any other life presently at risk. The follow on being that I would love it if only the people I valued were permitted guns, I give no damn about the rest of you; and I know of no one important that wants to ban guns.
I would further like to know in why life , apparently, only given meaning by self-defense.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
If you read it, it must be true.
No need to be a wiseass, it was reported in a newspaper and I did add the caveat 'if true', I don't believe everything I read. But as it seemed to be a new dimension to this story it seemed worthy of mention.
2012/12/17 11:38:50
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Howard A Treesong wrote: No need to be a wiseass, it was reported in a newspaper and I did add the caveat 'if true', I don't believe everything I read. But as it seemed to be a new dimension to this story it seemed worthy of mention.
You're right, I apologize.
It could well be true. Even it if is, as Baron pointed out, there are many different levels of "survivalist." Some are what you would consider unreasonable, some are probably not.
2012/12/17 12:00:37
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
The BBC news this morning were reporting that she was a member of a 'Doomsday Cult' but beyond that, they didn't really go into much details (at least, not in the bulletin I saw) other than to say she stockpiled arms, food, supplies that sort of thing, in anticipation of some sort of world ending catastrophe. The BBC said it was quite a popular trend in the US, apparently.
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.
You're in such good company Kan. Keep fighting the good fight.
Cute.
Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control. And lets not rely on the police and the US justice system for our rights shall we? Their view of our rights is...limited. Else we wouldn't have a warehouse full of cases where the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated and have no need for the NAACP and the ACLU. These are the same guys that will try to arrest you, if you are a bystander videoing them beating someone. This is the group who should LEAST be listened to in terms of our human rights.
Do you want the guys hey played hey diddle diddle on Rodney King or helped hang civil rights workers in charge of your civil rights. feth that.
Ruby Ridge has no connection the '94 AWB... it is an excellent example of the over reach of Fedeal LEAs resulting in the murder of multiple citizens. We can confirm it was an over reach because of the massive controversy, the 3.1 Million settlement paid to the Weaver family, the COMPLETE overhaul of Federal LEA deadly force use, and got at least twelve FBI agents drug over the coals professionally speaking.
I hate that term, because it's applied to everyone ranging from the legitimately prepared to the radical fringe. There is nothign wrong with being prepared for lack of basics. It happens a lot, even in the 'West' that you might have things like natural disasters. Or even man made ones.
'Always Be Prepared' is a hell of a motto.
Indeed. We typically have three months of dry food that can be prepared in a barbeque pit, because, when you live in hurricane zones, thats what the government tells you to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: @kanluwen. So your saying that more areas allowing ccw would prevent more shootings
In Israel, the teachers are armed to protect against terrorists. In other countries the schools have armed persons on campus. Heck at my kids schools they have police and the local police can be there in 30 seconds. The Wife's ex was ejected by one. Inner city schools also have similar security.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/12/17 12:20:48
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/17 12:28:28
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Crablezworth wrote: But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
Quite true, but simply making it solely a "gun rights" issue is a cop out, too. In the end, it's not just guns and it's not just the mentally ill, it's the mentally ill with guns. Many argue vehemently that the issue could be solved simply by restricting access to firearms, and many more argue that the solution lies in better services for the mentally ill. Of course, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I agree completely, just lately I've noticed that shifting it to mental health and solely mental health seems to be the only tactic the "pro gun" lobby have been able to employ with any effect. I have no doubt that a mandatory psych test as one of the peaces of the puzzle in legal gun ownership is a good thing. I just believe that shifting focus entirely to some vague concept of "mental health" or "affordable meds" or affordable treatment or crime and punishment just serves to muddy's the waters because where the hell do you start? She describes like half the problems facing America in one go, you split people off in seventeen different directions with no where to start and you've effectively crippled any critical mass that the last incidents have built up. It's divide and conquer.
The problem isn't really gun crime, the problem is crazy people committing mass murder, as the situation in china recently showed, it's a lot harder to do with a knife than a firearm. You can't stop all the crazies; you can certainly take common sense steps to reducing the crazy’s access to efficient death machines.
Anytime you try and go down the road of sensible gun control, the super bat gak crazy build the “our secret muslim president wants to ban guns” strawman. And the slightly more sensible gun owners who still fear they might lose access to their preferred pass time, be it target shooting or hunting go with the “mental health” route.
1.) Individual Psych tests aren't exactly 100% trustworthy. The problem with the various "paths" is that they are generally good at lying, especially to someone who doesn't have an intimate relationship with them to help and spot the behavioral ques. The only way to really discern if a person is crazy or not is prolonged observation. 2.) Arguably, for the exact reason that the insane are difficult to detect without intense scrutiny and screening everyone should be allowed to carry guns at all times, barring of course those who have already been successfully identified as belonging to those with incompatible mental health issues. This of course must be taken in tandem with a program of gun education and responsibility. Making the innocent vulnerable does nothing but encourage those considering perpetrating.
Spoiler:
Crablezworth wrote:Ok so what reccomdations on the mental health front are we hearing?
The mental health thing is a copout, full stop. There will always be crazy people, there will always be firearms and we need a legislative firewall between them and firearms. Some people will be prefectly sane, own firearms and then one day snap, I'm under no illusion you can prevent every massacre, but you can certainly mitigate the damage.
Is it easier to create a system in which the entire population is forcibly assessed by mental health professionals OR create a comprehensive level of checks and balances including psych test for those wishing to acquire firearms? And maybe go one further and standardizing the process because some states are far worse than others in terms of gun control and cun crime.
The reason it’s difficult in many states to involuntarily commit individuals is that you have to prove that they are an imminent threat to themselves or others, which can be incredibly difficult. And even then as is shown its a temporary solution.
It’s very hard to make legislation to force people to take their meds. There will always be crazy people, the states just happens to have their fair share of them. Legislation to start forcibly assessing people and force feeding them medication is incredibly complex and inefficient.
1.) If you're saying that it's a cop out on the grounds of because of x we have no need to discuss y then yes. If it's on the ground that claiming mental issues excuses someone from being in control of their actions, then that's demonstrably false, and highly ignorant of the facts of the issue. 2.) Encouraging responsible gun ownership would actually mitigate the damage, as has been stated repeatedly. 3.) Again, psych tests are not trustworthy. They only work with a good degree of accuracy if the test taker is 100% honest. Especially if you want something and know that certain answers will lead to you not getting it. Unless the person is dumb they obviously won't answer yes to questions such as "Do you hear voices" on a background test they have to take because they wish to purchase a firearm. Take it from someone with a decent number of run ins with the mental health institution. 4.) Involuntary committal is pretty much a legislative problem. In Ontario all you need for someone to be committed for 72 hours observation is to sign a document stating that you were witness to them stating an intention to hurt themselves or others and you believed them to be serious. The follow up may be crap but the actual process for identification is pretty good in Ontario, as long as someone comes forward. 5.) Legislating someone to take their meds/treatment is easy. Effective enforcement is expensive and unpalatable due to a history of abuse of power and isolation.
Spoiler:
d-usa wrote:Well, I'm not saying that it screening and treatments wouldn't have made a difference. Although so far he doesn't seem to come across as a crazy mental type pre-shooting.
And I do think that gun laws can be improved. Trigger guards and gun storage devices should be mandatory, but would your kids know the combinations and then take the guns anyway?
It's not an easy fix and "hurr durr ban all guns" won't work.
Agreed, responsibility in the ownership of firearms is the number one way to prevent their misuse. My father is a perfect example of this in my opinion. (note our firearms are not for immediate need self defence) He keeps all of the bolts and firing pins in a separate locked safe from the firearms themselves, which all have trigger guards locked and in place. Ammunition for all weapons is stored in a separate safe. None of the safes are in the same room, and my father and mother are the only ones who know the combinations to the safes, as well as the location of the keys for the trigger locks. It might seem overboard, but there is no way in hell that I would be able to access their guns without them present and their permission short of a heavy duty welding torch and a several of hours or free time.
Crablezworth wrote:
d-usa wrote: Why not capitalize the crazy people in your post as well then?
Because crazy people without guns are starting bar fights, harming small animals or watching fox, not murdering 27 people with a fireaerm. And the odd ones who attempt to without a gun aren't meeting much success.
Not true, it's just the mass killers, not the serial killers, that use guns. Even then if they didn't have guns it's quite likely they would use other means. Enough propane to cause a sizable explosion is not difficult to gather by any means. Really, the only difficulty with that kind of set up is trigger mechanism.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Not sure if it's been posted in here or not already... But CNET ran an article saying that the group "Anonymous" posted certain members of the Westborough people's information, in retaliation to them announcing plans to protest at the school in CT.
It would seem that even groups like Anonymous who reportedly cause all sorts of mischief and mayhem online also have a collective conscience, and want those who were slain to be remembered properly.
This is most likely just the doing of a few individuals, by and large Anonymous seems to think the WBC are either crazy, hilarious, or rage inducing. That said, from what I've seen on the site the last few days they don't give two flying feths as to remembering the victims properly. The number of jokes image macros and overall dark humour that has sprouted from this affair would point to the contrary. Though that's pretty much par for the course with everything on there.
Spoiler:
Frazzled wrote:
Crablezworth wrote: Notice how knives are a far less efficient tool for killing people?
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them. ***We have them. Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check. ***We have that. Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them. ***We have that. The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous! ***They don't. You have to be a licensed dealer. A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold. ***Why? If i am a nutjob I could kill a bunch of school children with a baseball bat. Its not hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Having the rifle doesn't matter since of was left in the car, was not used, and didn't kill a single person.
Doesn't matter to those who want to ban it. The real question is why are all these known nutjobs roaming around free? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, but crazies should have mandatory treatment.
The problem is getting the population to accept widespread screening as well as the expense of the care for the "crazies" unless of course one opts for the rabid dog solution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 12:29:11
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2012/12/17 12:48:16
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
Agreed. I live in a democracy where even the police do not carry guns as a matter of course. I've never seen a live firearm outside of a military base in the UK - and I'm proud of my country because of it.
Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here!
2012/12/17 12:48:19
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
Agreed. I live in a democracy where even the police do not carry guns as a matter of course. I've never seen a live firearm outside of a military base in the UK - and I'm proud of my country because of it.
Good for you. Its not in your constitution, niether is your right to free speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 12:49:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/17 12:52:57
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
There are all sorts of problems with the idea of screening the whole population for mental disorders.
The gunman in this incident had no apparent mental disorder other than being a disruptive, intelligent loner, until he flipped. The same was true of the Hungerford gunman in the UK.
Most mass killers are men under some fairly ordinary stresses, who suddenly flip after a triggering event such as redundancy.
The cinema gunman seems to have been an exception in having an expressed prior history of mental disturbance.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
I will after you show me the USA 200 years from now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 12:54:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/17 13:02:41
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Iceland's got the US beat by about eight hundred years there Frazz. Also Switzerland by a couple hundred years, and The United Kingdom of the Netherlands if we're counting constitutional monarchies in the mix as well.
Oh and Ireland, though they probably count towards the UK for most of it.
No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 13:10:09
Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here!
2012/12/17 13:12:14
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Nah, realistically Ireland has only been self governing for the last 90 or so years. And "governing" is a strong word for what our political class occupy their time with
Good to see some more discussion of the culture of violence and gun worship in the US getting some mention. I think it must have a lot to do with what's happening, and that's where the push should be heading. I mean, if individual states want to tighten their gun laws up as well, I see no harm in that either.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2012/12/17 13:35:31
Subject: Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Iceland's got the US beat by about eight hundred years there Frazz. Also Switzerland by a couple hundred years, and The United Kingdom of the Netherlands if we're counting constitutional monarchies in the mix as well.
Oh and Ireland, though they probably count towards the UK for most of it.
Iceland has 8 people all related to each other and have no concept of the greatness of queso - savages!
Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.
Wait, the Netherlands is a country? Seriously? You're pulling my leg right, come on.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/17 13:36:51
Subject: Re:Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far,
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
