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.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
"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
I'm always confused by the mental health argument. You hear people say that, but there is never a push to reform and fund our mental health system. If people actually think that the way to prevent these tragedies is through the mental health system, shy isn't anything done. Maybe I've missed something?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: It wasn't... in fact, he's a jackass for politicizing this.
Let's get something straight. Obama is *for* confiscation. Anyone who's arguing that he's not is deluding themselves...
A.) Of course, if he said nothing, there would be an equal amount of spittle-flecked keyboards
B.) The unintentional irony on that second sentence is just.... immeasurable. President Obama, probably the weakest president on gun control in a generation, supporting confiscation, while stating that people are deluding themselves? I mean, you literally don't even realize how ridiculous that is. And, that's sad.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
Do I?
When the media totes the gun deaths in the United States, they so seldom discriminate.
Doesn't change the fact that the mental health issue is hardly a mask, especially in these highly publicized instances (you know, the ones that have everyone clamoring) that clearly involve mental health issues.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm always confused by the mental health argument. You hear people say that, but there is never a push to reform and fund our mental health system. If people actually think that the way to prevent these tragedies is through the mental health system, shy isn't anything done. Maybe I've missed something?
Nobody ever won an election saying that they would fix the mental health system.
Also, rich pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money selling anti-depressants to people. I doubt if they want mental health care fixed, 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
The point of the graph is the reaction to the deaths from terrorism compared to the reaction to deaths from gun violence. Numerous freedoms were curtailed, new agencies set up and massive amounts of money spent to "fight" terrorism. Not to mention the two wars.
I could make a similar argument with regard to the moves in certain quarters to legally restrict abortion, but you're smart enough to join those dots (as I am sure you were smart enough to take Obama's meaning when he said it directly in his speech).
When you compare that reaction to the reaction to the number of gun deaths in your country, it does look pretty weird.
Also, Obama is a politician. It's his fething job to politicise important issues, like regular mass shootings.
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.
In the 19th and for most the 20th century, SCOTUS were quite happy to uphold gun control laws.
Hell, before Heller, SCOTUS ruled 4 times that the 2nd wasn't a blanket individual right to own arms.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
whembly wrote: It wasn't... in fact, he's a jackass for politicizing this.
Let's get something straight. Obama is *for* confiscation. Anyone who's arguing that he's not is deluding themselves...
A.) Of course, if he said nothing, there would be an equal amount of spittle-flecked keyboards
B.) The unintentional irony on that second sentence is just.... immeasurable. President Obama, probably the weakest president on gun control in a generation, supporting confiscation, while stating that people are deluding themselves? I mean, you literally don't even realize how ridiculous that is. And, that's sad.
The failure to pass reasonable gun laws after Newton, as written, only equates to "confiscation of all guns / total gun ban" if you're mindlessly repeating crazy person talking points. Which, sadly, is par for the course.
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
Da Boss wrote: The point of the graph is the reaction to the deaths from terrorism compared to the reaction to deaths from gun violence. Numerous freedoms were curtailed, new agencies set up and massive amounts of money spent to "fight" terrorism. Not to mention the two wars.
I could make a similar argument with regard to the moves in certain quarters to legally restrict abortion, but you're smart enough to join those dots (as I am sure you were smart enough to take Obama's meaning when he said it directly in his speech).
When you compare that reaction to the reaction to the number of gun deaths in your country, it does look pretty weird.
Not really weird.
There are regulation.
Also, Obama is a politician. It's his fething job to politicise important issues, like regular mass shootings.
But before we have all the information? This is his "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin" moment again...
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
Do I?
When the media totes the gun deaths in the United States, they so seldom discriminate.
Doesn't change the fact that the mental health issue is hardly a mask, especially in these highly publicized instances (you know, the ones that have everyone clamoring) that clearly involve mental health issues.
When street gangs turn Chicago into the OK Corral, I seriously doubt that mental health issues are the driving factor.
When a known racist murders African Americans in a church, again I doubt it's down to mental health issues. His racism made perfect sense to him, just as my hatred of racists would probably confuse the hell out of him.
I'm not denying that mental problems plays a part in some shootings, but I believe that it's a very insignificant number of cases.
No doubt, there are plenty of people in America who commit suicide without the use of guns.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/02 16:02:02
"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
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
The point being that supreme court decisions change, Heller being one of those cases, and it my change back in time. So just saying "the supreme court disagrees with you, therefore what you are saying is always wrong" isn't an argument that works.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
"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
whembly wrote: It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Now we're having a different argument from your ridiculous idea that Obama pushed for banning / confiscating guns. This is called "moving the goalposts".
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I don't even know that gun controls would actually work, at least not for decades.
There are so many guns in america already that it seems pretty unlikely that making them completely illegal would do much to stop gun deaths for a pretty long time.
But hey, you guys engaged in that pointless war on drugs for decades, so maybe you might have the stamina to attack something else that's quite a lot of fun when done responsibly but can kill you/mess up your life when indulged in irresponsibly!
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
You know as well as I do that if Obama said grass was green, the Republicans would automatically disagree. Years ago, Congress would cooperate for the greater good on various issues, nowadays it's horribly polarised.
"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
whembly wrote: It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Now we're having a different argument from your ridiculous idea that Obama pushed for banning / confiscating guns. This is called "moving the goalposts".
When did I say Obama pushed for "banning / confiscating" guns.
I said he's *for* those concepts, as in I believe that the basis of his political beliefs.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
For lack of a better source, it does go on to say that 80% of the homicides in Chicago are Gang Related. We just had 50+ shootings in back-to-back weekends. If you want a real thrill, check out the weekend numbers here every Monday. It's a riot.
Where was Obama's outrage about the deaths these past 2 weekends which killed twice as many people? Where was his impassioned speech? What is his plan to curb the violence in his own state?
Another mass shooting sears deep into our collective consciousness, but it is hype and hysteria on the rise, not violence.
Another mass shooting sears deep into the collective consciousness of the American people. Another school — this time a community college in an otherwise peaceful town in rural Oregon — is devastated by a young man taking aim at students trapped in classrooms. Nine are murdered, and many others wounded, before the gunman is killed in a shootout with the police.
Within a few hours, President Obama appeared before the camera, reinforcing the notion that America is under siege. “Somehow this has become routine,” noted Obama with obvious emotion. “The reporting is routine.”
Although the sense of urgency may be overstated, Obama is certainly correct about the almost formulaic media response. The Oregon shooting had countless news outlets flooding the airwaves and the Internet with questionable statistics on the incidence of mass shootings along with sidebar listings of the deadliest shooting sprees in U.S. history. In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.
For context, media folks reminded us of the unforgettable, high profile shootings that have taken place over the past few months, hinting of a problem that has grown out of control. They lumped together rather different types of incidents (the hate-inspired church killing in Charleston, the random shooting at a Louisiana movie theater in which two victims were slain, and the targeted killing of two employees of a Virginia television station by a disgruntled former co-worker seeking payback for perceived mistreatment) as if there is a pattern emerging.
Further adding to the state of alarm and confusion, headlines featured scary yet conflicting statistics from various sources. By reducing the standard threshold in defining a mass shooting (four or more killed by gunfire, not including the perpetrator), the incidence can reach incredible proportions. For example, the “Mass Shooting Tracker” website redefines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people (including the assailant) are shot, but not necessarily killed. By this criterion, there have been nearly 300 thus far this year.
Notwi
thstanding the sadness caused by each of these tragedies, nothing has really changed in term of risk. One can take virtually any period of months or years during the past few decades and find a series of shootings that seemed at the time to signal a new epidemic. The ‘80s were marked by a flurry of deadly postal shootings, which gave rise to the term “going postal.” The ‘90s witnessed a string of mass shootings in middle and high schools carried out by alienated adolescents with access to borrowed guns, prompting the venerable Dan Rather to declare an epidemic of school violence.
More recently, the “active shooter” has become the new boogeyman armed with a gun. Of course, there were shootings in public places long before this frightening catchphrase was created. Nowadays, any time someone shows up with a gun in a school, a church, a movie theater, a shopping mall or a restaurant, twitter becomes alive with messages of alarm.
I certainly don't mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts.
According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
SO because one gak bag goes completely off the rails, you want to lump the millions who do not into the same category. It is your right to do so.
* By the way, have they released how/where he got the gun or even type of gun yet? All I've heard was 'hand gun' and saw a picture from the crime scene focusing on a shell casing which lends credence to that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/02 16:13:30
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
The point being that supreme court decisions change, Heller being one of those cases, and it my change back in time. So just saying "the supreme court disagrees with you, therefore what you are saying is always wrong" isn't an argument that works.
Thank you. I could not have stated it better.
America, and people in general have showed they are smart enough to have to readily available guns. If guns really did anything for defense, this would not have happened.
There is no need for personal gun owner ship on this level like there is for a country like Svalbard where you regulary have to have one for polar bears
Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
Vancouver hadn't had a riot until their hockey team lost the cup. Canada should ban hockey.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
