Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Several killed in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Dec 14, 2012#1

Charlie Don't Surf

Well. This is just horrible.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

Dec 14, 2012#2

FnordBear

All we can really do is hope for the best outcome possible given the circumstance.

Lets just keep the victims and their families in our thoughts and hope some politician or activist doesn't turn this from a tragedy to a travesty.

Dec 14, 2012#3

Dave

The principal and school psychologist were the first victims. Apparently the father of one of the kids is a shooter.

Up to 27 killed and at least 18 are kids. Rumors are that they have someone else in custody related, but that's conjecture.

I'm moving this to the politics sub because it's going to be about guns very, very quickly. And, I believe, rightly so.

Dec 14, 2012#4

Charlie Don't Surf

I wasn't going to bring it up since I posted in General, not that subforum, but this is just so fucked up.

Dec 14, 2012#5

FnordBear

Feels awkward to me right now...I bought a new gun yesterday...

Dec 14, 2012#6

Piotyr

Reports are that the kids were kindergartners. As the parent of a kindergartner, this makes me despairingly sad.

Dec 14, 2012#7

Dave

The problem is that we as a country can not have a real conversation about guns and the effect they have on our society. They are too easy to get and when used they do this kind of damage.

Dec 14, 2012#8

Espy

This is just the most horrible thing.

Dec 14, 2012#9

FnordBear

Reuters live coverage. Not sensationalized like some outlets (so far).

Dec 14, 2012#10

drawn_inward

This is so awful. I've been a pro-gun person in the past, but I am starting to lose taste for those arguments.

Why hurt kids? I am going to cry at work now.

Dec 14, 2012#11

Hylian

This is a terrible tragedy and I can only imagine how the families/victims that are being out through this. Other than that I am at a loss for words..this is just such a unbelievably tragic and unnecessary event.

Dec 14, 2012#12

Piotyr

An entire kindergarten class is unaccounted for right now, the room where most of the shooting took place.

AN ENTIRE FUCKING KINDERGARTEN CLASS IS FUCKING GONE.

Dec 14, 2012#13

WasabiPoptart

I have friends on Facebook who have been making posts about this and I just cannot find the words to comment. I am so sad for their families.

Dec 14, 2012#14

Dave

I'm having fucking flashbacks, man. I literally know what these parents are going through.

Dec 14, 2012#15

CrimsonSoul

drawn_inward said:
This is so awful. I've been a pro-gun person in the past, but I am starting to lose taste for those arguments.

Why hurt kids? I am going to cry at work now.

This. I thinks because I have 3 elementary school aged kids

Dec 14, 2012#16

Dave

Want to make a wager? I'd be willing to bet one of the victims was the child of the shooter and the shooter and the child's mother either were or are having difficulties.

Dec 14, 2012#17

Officer_Charon

I think that's one of the theories being bandies about right now

Dec 14, 2012#18

Ravenpoe

I literally cannot understand this kind of monstrosity. How does someone get to a place where they want to murder kids?

To say this is a tragedy just doesn't seem strong enough.

Dec 14, 2012#19

Dave

My daughter just told me they searched his house & found a body.

Dec 14, 2012#20

FnordBear

Anyone who would do something like this is evil. There is no other word for it.

Dec 14, 2012#21

ThatNickGuy

I was on the phone with my mother when she found out and subsequently told me. This is not just horrifying, but disgusting.

Just...Jesus. I don't even know how to react to this.

Dec 14, 2012#22

Dave

The body found is the parent of the shooter.

Dec 14, 2012#23

Chad Sexington

Dave said:
Want to make a wager? I'd be willing to bet one of the victims was the child of the shooter and the shooter and the child's mother either were or are having difficulties.

Sounds like he was a 20 year old guy who was fired from the school this AM.

Dec 14, 2012#24

Dave

The shooter. *facebook removed*

[DOUBLEPOST=1355512560][/DOUBLEPOST]REPORTEDLY the shooter.

Dec 14, 2012#25

Piotyr

I don't think the shooter information should ever be public in cases like these. Part of the drive to do something like this is the recognition, for better or worse.

Dec 14, 2012#26

Dave

You are entirely correct. Link removed.

Dec 14, 2012#27

Gilgamesh

Piotyr said:
I don't think the shooter information should ever be public in cases like these. Part of the drive to do something like this is the recognition, for better or worse.

Recognition? What good is that if you're dead?

Related note: Why do all these mass killings always end with them shooting themselves? What was the point then?

Dec 14, 2012#28

CrimsonSoul

Gilgamesh said:
Recognition? What good is that if you're dead?

Related note: Why do all these mass killings always end with them shooting themselves? What was the point then?

Yeah. Just kill yourself and be done with it don't take innocents with you

Dec 14, 2012#29

North_Ranger

Gilgamesh said:
Recognition? What good is that if you're dead?

Related note: Why do all these mass killings always end with them shooting themselves? What was the point then?

Wild guess? Leave this world with a bloody mess. The shooters who do want to get caught alive are those with "a message" - like the Utöya shooter, Breivik.

Dec 14, 2012#30

Piotyr

Gilgamesh said:
Recognition? What good is that if you're dead?

Related note: Why do all these mass killings always end with them shooting themselves? What was the point then?

People want to be remembered after they're dead. Committing an atrocity is one way to do it.

Dec 14, 2012#31

Dave

His mother was the teacher of the kindergarten class.

Dec 14, 2012#32

Charlie Don't Surf

CrimsonSoul said:
Yeah. Just kill yourself and be done with it don't take innocents with you

Actually, no, please, no one ever kill themselves.

Dec 14, 2012#33

Gilgamesh

Piotyr said:
People want to be remembered after they're dead. Committing an atrocity is one way to do it.

That just makes no sense. People remember you, what does that get you when you're gone? I just can't wrap my brain around it.

Dec 14, 2012#34

Ravenpoe

Gilgamesh said:
That just makes no sense. People remember you, what does that get you when you're gone? I just can't wrap my brain around it.

I would hope that most sane people can't comprehend whatever serious defect leads to this.

Dec 14, 2012#35

Krisken

I just woke up and this is the first news I see. I think I'm going to be sick.

Dec 14, 2012#36

Dave

Sometimes you find humor in these things, even if the humor is dark and hides tears. I did laugh at this and I'm glad I took it down.

Dec 14, 2012#37

Piotyr

Gilgamesh said:
That just makes no sense. People remember you, what does that get you when you're gone? I just can't wrap my brain around it.

A room full of kindergartners is gone because some guy had mommy issues. Sense left the building well before this took place.

Dec 14, 2012#38

Dave

Never mind. Seems his page got hijacked by Anonymous. And other pages have sprung up that are saying it's him but they are fake.

Dec 14, 2012#39

Espy

Dave said:
Sometimes you find humor in these things, even if the humor is dark and hides tears. I did laugh at this and I'm glad I took it down.

Seriously. How much would this suck to happen to you if it wasn't you?

Dec 14, 2012#40

sixpackshaker

Gilgamesh said:
That just makes no sense. People remember you, what does that get you when you're gone? I just can't wrap my brain around it.

It is similar to suicidal teens fantasizing about who would be crying at their funeral. Nowadays they just want to be known as the most successful spree killer.

Dec 14, 2012#41

Dave

~~His ACTUAL page hasn't changed at all.~~

There have been several fake pages made. Most by anonymous. So this guy may or may not be the guy. If he's not the guy then this shit is just plain wrong.

Dec 14, 2012#42

Espy

Also, I can't handle anymore of this news today. I'm getting offline before I lose it. See you all in a while.

Dec 14, 2012#43

Gared

Various unconfirmed sources have been reporting all day long that a second suspect was spotted in the woods, in camo, and that when police approached him he threw his hands in the air and shouted "I didn't do it! I didn't do it!" before being taken into custody for questioning. Most recent report indicates it may be the shooter's younger brother.

Dec 14, 2012#44

North_Ranger

Espy said:
Also, I can't handle anymore of this news today. I'm getting offline before I lose it. See you all in a while.

Been in your situation, Espy dear chap. When I was doing my exchange year in Ireland, there was the first of the two school shootings Finland suffered in the past decade. I was in a complete state of shock, even went to the college chapel to sit and pray for a moment - me, an agnostic. And when some of the people asked me what was wrong, I told them what had happened... and one asshole just laughed and went "Man, you Finns are crazy".

I'm not a violent man, but at that situation, in that state of mind... I swear, I had to use every iota of my mental fortitude not to smash that guy's head through the wall.

You do what you need to do, Espy. We'll be here... Go hug your wife and kid. For all of us.

Dec 14, 2012#45

CrimsonSoul

Gared said:
Various unconfirmed sources have been reporting all day long that a second suspect was spotted in the woods, in camo, and that when police approached him he threw his hands in the air and shouted "I didn't do it! I didn't do it!" before being taken into custody for questioning. Most recent report indicates it may be the shooter's younger brother.

If this is true and he knew his brother was going to do it I hope he charge him with murder too

Dec 14, 2012#46

Gilgamesh

sixpackshaker said:
It is similar to suicidal teens fantasizing about who would be crying at their funeral. Nowadays they just want to be known as the most successful spree killer.

What good is it if you can't watch them cry over it. Faking a death to see who comes to your funeral makes more sense.

Dec 14, 2012#47

Dave

Obama is giving a statement. He's trying not to cry.

Dec 14, 2012#48

Dei

This guy is a sick fuck, and having 2 kids in school I am basically trying to not even think about it.

And as much as I want to go the gun route, considering people in China just resort to knives to do the same shit (happened again this week wtf World), I just have to hate the person. I could swallow him shooting his mom... I mean, I certainly wouldn't condone it and it's still totally fucked up. But why in the fucking hell would you go shoot up her class of 5 year olds?! There are no words.

Dec 14, 2012#49

Frank

The US 24 hour news media is being....completely monstrous in this. Reactionary and exploitative.

I was honestly sick to my stomach.

I'm done.

I don't really have anything to add about the events other than it's....unthinkably horrendous.

Dec 14, 2012#50

ThatNickGuy

I don't have kids of my own, but everyone here knows how much I love kids. It's why I wanted to work in elementary schools. And I'm going home for Christmas to see my two nieces, who are 3 and 11. I'm going to hug them extra tight when I see them.

I just think about working in the school I was doing my practicum at and imagining that happening. It's just...Jesus.

I'm following Espy's lead and shutting off the computer for now. Maybe read a book or something.

Dec 14, 2012#51

CrimsonSoul

Frank said:
The US 24 hour news media is being....completely monstrous in this. Reactionary and exploitative.

I was honestly sick to my stomach. Fuck TV.

I'm done.

I'm at work and only have my phone. What are they doing?

Dec 14, 2012#52

Chad Sexington

I don't understand anything.

Dec 14, 2012#53

Dave

CrimsonSoul said:
I'm at work and only have my phone. What are they doing?

Probably the biggest is interviewing the kids at the scene.

Dec 14, 2012#54

Charlie Don't Surf

CrimsonSoul said:
I'm at work and only have my phone. What are they doing?

Business as usual. Making money.

Dec 14, 2012#55

Frank

Bring in media experts to talk about how Facebook and video games are to blame. Putting children from the school on camera immediately to interview them. Etc, etc, etc.

I guess I should have said Fox news, but I can't imagine the other stations are being any less disgusting.

Dec 14, 2012#56

Piotyr

A small bit of good news:

WCBS-TV: Some children found hiding in closets moments ago at Connecticut school in Newtown

Dec 14, 2012#57

Gared

Dave said:
Probably the biggest is interviewing the kids at the scene.

Yeah, that got me too. "So, you heard noises? What did it sound like?" We fuckin' know what gunfire sounds like, we don't need to know what traumatized little kids think gunfire sounded like. If you have to interview someone who was at the scene, interview the teachers - but seriously, if the best question you can come up with is "What did the gunfire sound like?", just keep your trap shut until you have something worthwhile to report. It's not like most kindergartners and elementary students are going to be able to tell you that it sounded like one specific type of gun or another.

Dec 14, 2012#58

CrimsonSoul

Looks like he killed his brother too

Dec 14, 2012#59

Dave

CrimsonSoul said:
Looks like he killed his brother too

His younger brother was the one who drove away. Maybe more than one brother?[DOUBLEPOST=1355517674][/DOUBLEPOST]Fox news is saying his brother, Adam, is the shooter, not Ryan, although Ryan is in custody.

Dec 14, 2012#60

CrimsonSoul

[quote="Dave]

His younger brother was the one who drove away. Maybe more than one brother?[DOUBLEPOST=1355517674][/DOUBLEPOST]Fox news is saying his brother, Adam, is the shooter, not Ryan, although Ryan is in custody.[/quote]
CNN is saying that authorities found his brothers body

Dec 14, 2012#61

Dave

CrimsonSoul said:
CNN is saying that authorities found his brothers body

Translation: They don't know what the fuck is going on.

Dec 14, 2012#62

Gilgamesh

I was under the impression that the shooter was dead?

Dec 14, 2012#63

Dave

Gilgamesh said:
I was under the impression that the shooter was dead?

Hearing different things. Last I heard was that Adam Lanza - the actual shooter - is dead by his own hand. Ryan Lanza, his brother, is in custody and was the one seen fleeing the scene before the shooting. There might be another brother.

Dec 14, 2012#64

GasBandit

You guys realize the more you frantically click around looking for the latest info, the more you're encouraging these news channels to do exactly what they're doing, right?

Do what the others have done. Close this thread and wait 4 hours.

Dec 14, 2012#65

Dave

GasBandit said:
You guys realize the more you frantically click around looking for the latest info, the more you're encouraging these news channels to do exactly what they're doing, right?

Yes. I know I'm guilty as well. I get the irony.[DOUBLEPOST=1355518258][/DOUBLEPOST]It seems Adam was carrying Ryan's ID, which is what has caused the confusion.

Dec 14, 2012#66

CrimsonSoul

GasBandit said:
You guys realize the more you frantically click around looking for the latest info, the more you're encouraging these news channels to do exactly what they're doing, right?

Do what the others have done. Close this thread and wait 4 hours.

Look at GB being the logical one

Dec 14, 2012#67

Zappit

I've been at work all day - in a school - and I literally just learned of all this. I'm sick to my stomach right now, just sick to my core. My little sister works in the schools with the youngest kids.

I'm honestly concerned now. The copycat psychopaths will want to do this, too.

Dec 14, 2012#68

Bowielee

Srsly, you guys just made me like a GB post.

Dec 14, 2012#69

WasabiPoptart

Dei said:
I could swallow him shooting his mom... I mean, I certainly wouldn't condone it and it's still totally fucked up. But why in the fucking hell would you go shoot up her class of 5 year olds?!

I basically said the same thing to my husband a few minutes ago. I would never tell someone to commit murder and do not wish such an end on anyone, but if you want to kill your mom go cut her brake line or something instead of killing babies.

Dec 14, 2012#70

Hailey Knight

Checked to be sure this isn't where my sister does social work--clear. She's going to a vigil since she's not far from there.

There really just aren't words for this. There are dead victims and then many more who will carry this for the rest of their lives. Can't imagine what the next shooter will do to one-up this one, but someone's thinking it out right now, I assure you. It'll happen before the school year ends in 2013.

As for the media madhouse, it's days like this I'm glad I don't have TV.

Dec 14, 2012#71

Zappit

Something has to be done to discourage these mass shooters. Make it illegal to release their names in the media. Bury their worthless carcasses in unmarked graves. Do anything it takes to prevent them from getting any sort of recognition.

And for God's sake, pay the fuck attention to the people in your life. There are always some warning signs.

It's time to extend the background check on gun purchases. Shut down those legal loopholes that allow quick and easy access, like gun shows or online sales. Make any person looking to buy a gun take a fucking course, so the instructors can look for warning signs.

We're fucking this up again and again and again. Now we have a room full of dead toddlers. Fuck the NRA. Fuck the bullshit argument that the founding fathers set up the Second Ammendment to include and all firearms. Fuck the people saying arm teachers. I don't want to carry. I don't want to live in constant fear of an accidental discharge.

This isn't reactionary. We've been here time and again. Pass some God DAMN laws. Make the assault weapons ban permanent. Cut down the number of bullets cartridges can hold. If some fucker skirts the law and somebody gets killed by a gun they sold, they should be charged as an accomplice to murder. It's murder if you participate in a crime where a person is killed even if you didn't do it personally. Why should this be any different?

If politicians had the balls to do any of this, despite the NRA's bitching about any sort of gun control, I'd vote for them. That person would be worth something as a human being.

Dec 14, 2012#72

GasBandit

That post exemplifies why you can't have a gun control debate immediately after a shooting. Emotion trumps everything, and rationality is impossible.

Dec 14, 2012#73

Krisken

Lets be honest, no time is the right time for gun control talks. There will always be reasons to not talk seriously about the subject.

Dec 14, 2012#74

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Lets be honest, no time is the right time for gun control talks. There will always be reasons to not talk seriously about the subject.

The history of this very forum indicates otherwise very strongly. "Day of" is perhaps a skosh quick.

Dec 14, 2012#75

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-own-handheld-device-that-shoots-deadly-me,30742/[DOUBLEPOST=1355528758][/DOUBLEPOST]That's the great thing about America. It's always "too soon" from the last mass gun violence murder spree. So we'll never have a discussion on why guns are legal.

Dec 14, 2012#76

GasBandit

Not gonna do it. You guys want to talk to me about that, I'll see you monday.

Dec 14, 2012#77

Krisken

I disagree. This forum has no power to affect any real change. What we debate (and I use that term very loosely) on a daily basis doesn't have any power.

And "It's too quick" is just as much an appeal to emotion as "Think about the children". Only difference is the point it is supporting.

As for talking to you about it? Nah.

Dec 14, 2012#78

Charlie Don't Surf

It's been months since Aurora. Let's talk about that massacre. Ban all guns. Whew, that was easy.

Dec 14, 2012#79

Krisken

Gabby Giffords, the mosque in Milwaukee, etc. It's not like this shit isn't happening a lot. The reason people naturally turn to the gun control debate when there is gun violence is because it is fresh on their minds.

Dec 14, 2012#80

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I disagree. This forum has no power to affect any real change. What we debate (and I use that term very loosely) on a daily basis doesn't have any power.

... but that's the scope of the discussion. I'm not talking about the rest of the world, I'm talking about how zappit is completely incapable of reason right now. He will brook nothing other than complete submission to his frothing, righteous rage.

And "It's too quick" is just as much an appeal to emotion as "Think about the children". Only difference is the point it is supporting.

No, "it's too soon" is not to spare anyone's feelings, it is because it is impossible to have a civil, rational discussion about this while the bodies are still being cleaned up.

As for talking to you about it? Nah.

You always do. And then you stop, and then you come back. You're my own personal little forum battered wife.

Dec 14, 2012#81

Krisken

Nah, not anymore. You've made it obvious you don't want to play nice.

Dec 14, 2012#82

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Gabby Giffords, the mosque in Milwaukee, etc. It's not like this shit isn't happening a lot. The reason people naturally turn to the gun control debate when there is gun violence is because it is fresh on their minds.

And eventually, after both that AND aurora, we did have discussions about gun control, remember?[DOUBLEPOST=1355529383][/DOUBLEPOST]

Krisken said:
Nah, not anymore. You've made it obvious you don't want to play nice.

"I'll believe it when I believe it." - Yogi Berra

Dec 14, 2012#83

Zappit

GasBandit said:
That post exemplifies why you can't have a gun control debate immediately after a shooting. Emotion trumps everything, and rationality is impossible.

So many are willingly blind to the horrors of these mass murders, claiming there's too much emotion involved. It's been months since Aurora. Over a year since Virginia Tech. It's been years since Columbine. Think time has changed my mind that the suggestions I made seem so necessary? I've believed this for years and years. Every time this happens it just gets worse and worse. Is a roomful of dead kindergartners not enough to get those "Don't be so hasty." folks to wake up to the reality of the world, that these things are happening and we're not doing enough - hell, we're not doing ANYTHING - to prevent these massacres? There are people practically putting out their eyes to remain blind.

This needs to be the absolute last straw. These kids were babies, innocent babies, gunned down by yet another nut who got his hands on firearms.

Time to open your eyes.

I'm frothing? Frothing? I've worked with students at every grade level. I've gone through training for what happened in Connecticut. I've seen those same young innocent faces, the same kind if faces ripped from this world today.

No, I'm not frothing, Gas. I'm sick of it. Sick this can not only happen, but keeps happening, and always wary it will happen in my school.

And I'm sick of people like you, people who make it so much harder to safeguard these innocent lives. Who seek to put off the conversation on this topic indefinitely, while more massacres take place.

Frothing? Incapable of reason? Fuck you, Gas, you self-righteous prick.

Dec 14, 2012#84

GasBandit

And my case is made, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good weekend, see you monday.

Dec 14, 2012#85

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's been months since Aurora. Let's talk about that massacre. Ban all guns. Whew, that was easy.

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren
and all knives/pointy objects? Whew, that was easy too.

Dec 14, 2012#86

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
http://news.ca.msn.com/world/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren
and all knives/pointy objects? Whew, that was easy too.

notice how 22 schoolchildren were hurt in that story instead of killed?

Dec 14, 2012#87

Zappit

GasBandit said:
And my case is made, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good weekend, see you monday.

No real retort? No rebuff of my perfectly reasonable ideas that won't infringe on Second Ammendment rights? Did you just prove my point about people who would rather never have the debate?

Or is it just getting too hard to be so smug when we're talking about twenty dead five year olds?

Dec 14, 2012#88

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
notice how 22 schoolchildren were hurt in that story instead of killed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
It's crazy how those guns were used to take over the planes huh?

Ban all guns huh? Kind of like ban all illegal drugs?
Your war on guns would be as effective and smart as the war on drugs. In fact, all the slayings/murders that have been stopped by personal carrying weapons would sky rocket because the criminals would have no less access to the weapons than they do now.

Oh and for the record, the Conneticut killer didn't even legally own the gun he used to kill the school children with either.

Comments?

Dec 14, 2012#89

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 24 of the 61 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been six mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with 110 people injured and killed.

Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders.

Dec 14, 2012#90

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

I repeat:

Your war on guns would be as effective as the war on drugs currently going on in America and accomplish just as much.

Banning all guns would not get the result you're looking for. People who wanted to do mass killings/murders/homicides would still get the illegal weaponry and commit the same atrocities they do now. Your solution doesn't work anymore than the current government's solution on drugs.

The really funny part is if there was a ban on guns instead of drugs, you'd probably jump on the bandwagon of how it's unconstitutional and is being used by the political jail system to keep minorities in their prisons to keep the numbers up so they could make more revenue. :rolleyes:

Dec 14, 2012#91

Gared

I'm with GB, the emotions are too high on this specific shooting to talk about gun control, or anything else really, rationally at this point. Have fun with the circlejerk, I'll check back with this thread on Monday. If that makes me a self-righteous prick, because I'd rather mourn the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults than go around and around and around over the same topic again and again for the next two days, then I'll quite happily be that prick.

Peace.

Dec 14, 2012#92

ThatNickGuy

It hasn't even been 24 hours since the shootings. Let's focus this energy on sending our prayers to the families who had to go through this horrendous ideal for now. The gun control issue and argument can be discussed another time. Even in its own, separate thread.

Dec 14, 2012#93

Krisken

This is all I will really say on the subject-

This is a horrific thing to happen. I feel for the families and can not imagine this horrific event affecting someone I love.

Dec 14, 2012#94

Zappit

Gilg is right about a total ban on guns being a catastrophic failure. But there are things that can be done reduce the damage guns are capable of:

-Reduce the number of bullets a magazine an hold. Make this a standard in manufacturing. A mass shooter can't fire off as many shots, and having to change magazines at least gives people a chance to get away or tackle the bastard.

-Prevent sales to those with documented mental health issues such as schizophrenia. That's not discriminatory. People suffering from such conditions can pose a risk to themselves and others if they are not being helped, more so than people who do not have such conditions.

-Add a day or two to the waiting period to buy a gun and require more thorough background checks. Close legal loopholes that allow gun shows and online sales to skirt existing waiting period laws.

-Hold unscrupulous sellers responsible for putting deadly weapons in the hands of dangerous people. I know you can't see the future, but I'm talking about people who would seek to circumvent the law to sell. If a person can be convicted for murder if an accomplice kills a victim during a crime, then why should a gun seller who ignored laws and sold a murder weapon to a killer get off scot-free? Make criminal sellers responsible for the crimes their weapons are used in, lock them up, and you've created a deterrent, or at least shut down the ones who do it often.

-Make the assault weapon ban permanent. It makes no sense for a civilian to have a weapon capable of spitting out so many bullets in such a short time. You have every right to defend yourself, but you don't need a machine gun to do it.

-is it so wrong to encourage prospective gun owners to take a course on responsible ownership? We don't let people just start driving without teaching them first, and cars can be mighty dangerous in up untrained hands, too.

Adding more guns to the equation will only compound the problem. That's more to lose, to get stolen, to wind up in the wrong hands. Others have argued that if the teachers and administrators were armed themselves, they could have put that animal down before he did so much damage. Really? How will people react after the first accidental discharge in a classroom? - God forbid it doesn't hit anybody. A teacher's first priority is protecting his/her students and getting them away from danger, not getting into a firefight with a madman. Plus, this man targeted a specific person - his mother - and then turned on the children. What mother would expect that? How can a dead teacher, armed or not, shoot and kill a gunman? Wouldn't preventing this guy from getting the guns do more?

Dec 14, 2012#95

Gilgamesh

I am sorry, and of course you all are right. I sometimes forget that Charlie Don't Surf only posts these kinds of threads so he can get his soap box to stand on, instead of really caring about the people involved. I should have waited until the gun control thread (that he won't create because his own ideals will be used against him) and left this thread as a memorandum to those lost in this and the other school tragedies.

Dec 14, 2012#96

Ravenpoe

Definitely need to let some people cool down first.

Dec 14, 2012#97

Silent Bob

I'm trying Mr. Gandhi. I'm really trying...

Dec 14, 2012#98

Hailey Knight

I got off the forum after my last post, and told my wife how I was impressed that this thread hadn't devolved into stupid shit like it usually does when tragedies happen.

Boy did I speak too fucking soon.

Dec 14, 2012#99

CynicismKills

Hey that's not offensive at all, news producer

Dec 14, 2012#100

Zappit

Quotemander Prime said:
I got off the forum after my last post, and told my wife how I was impressed that this thread hadn't devolved into stupid shit like it usually does when tragedies happen.

Boy did I speak too fucking soon.

I'm sorry for the part I played in that, but this one one stung me really, really deeply.

Dec 14, 2012#101

Hailey Knight

Zappit said:
I'm sorry for the part I played in that, but this one one stung me really, really deeply.

It isn't any one person, and if I had to blame anyone as a catalyst, it'd be Charlie. Even if he hadn't posted at all, I'd blame Charlie.

Dec 14, 2012#102

Sparhawk

Zappit said:
-Make the assault weapon ban permanent. It makes no sense for a civilian to have a weapon capable of spitting out so many bullets in such a short time. You have every right to defend yourself, but you don't need a machine gun to do it.

Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) have been illegal in the states since the 1930's. What is an assault weapon?

Dec 14, 2012#103

Krisken

Zappit said:
I'm sorry for the part I played in that, but this one one stung me really, really deeply.

It's all me, baby. Sometimes I just can't help it, even if I know better.

Dec 14, 2012#104

Zappit

Sparhawk said:
Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) have been illegal in the states since the 1930's. What is an assault weapon?

I meant assault rifles. The ban on them expired a while back, and there hasn't been a serious discussion on renewing it.

Dec 14, 2012#105

Sparhawk

What are Assault Rifles then? The original ban on them was based mostly on looks, not actual capabilities. Like the .223 used in today's murders, it's a fairly low-powered rifle, but because it had a folding stock it was considered an assault weapon.

Dec 15, 2012#106

jwhouk

Krisken said:
Gabby Giffords, the mosque in Milwaukee, etc. It's not like this shit isn't happening a lot. The reason people naturally turn to the gun control debate when there is gun violence is because it is fresh on their minds.

...Murder-suicides in Brookfield, Kansas City...

Dec 15, 2012#107

CrimsonSoul

In Israel in the 1970s they had a mass shooting in response they out armed citizen guard in the school. There only shooting since was 2002 when the citizen guard killed a mass shooter

Dec 15, 2012#108

Hailey Knight

Maybe if we just pray it'll all get better!

A relative suggested on Facebook that if there was still school prayer, this wouldn't have happened.

Dec 15, 2012#109

Cajungal

I saw that from my cousins too. And they're complaining about Obama's remarks. I'm not getting on Facebook for Another few days.

Dec 15, 2012#110

Ravenpoe

Mike Huckabee used this as a platform too, claiming it happened because we've "systematically removed God from schools"

Dec 15, 2012#111

jwhouk

I guess I shouldn't come on here and say, "It could have been worse"?

Dec 15, 2012#112

North_Ranger

...and how about asking those people to shut up out of respect for the victims and their families?

Dec 15, 2012#113

Cajungal

Tried with past tragedies like this. They end up being blocked by everyone besides the other weirdos anyway, I guess. So it's a contained kind of annoyance.

Dec 15, 2012#114

Silent Bob

Dec 15, 2012#115

WasabiPoptart

Quotemander Prime said:
Maybe if we just pray it'll all get better!

A relative suggested on Facebook that if there was still school prayer, this wouldn't have happened.

Same here from several people on my feed. I want to throttle them all.

Dec 15, 2012#116

Krisken

Wish hard enough and all the bad goes away.

Dec 15, 2012#117

Zappit

WasabiPoptart said:
Same here from several people on my feed. I want to throttle them all.

Don't waste your time and effort doing that. It'll only lead to early onset arthritis.

Dec 15, 2012#118

Krisken

I've heard every 'solution' under the sun. Ban guns, allow everyone to carry guns, etc. I don't know the answer which will solve this insane problem our country seems to have. All I know is there are 20 6-7 year olds who will never get to experience a first kiss, feel disappointment, or see another sunrise.

Dec 15, 2012#119

Hailey Knight

Off Tumblr.

Dec 15, 2012#120

Bowielee

Newsy link for this because I never trust tumblr or facebook.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/15/sandy-hook-teacher-victoria-soto

Dec 15, 2012#121

Gilgamesh

Sorry but prayers and giving your kids hugs fix nothing; only having the balls to stand up to our insane selfish gun culture will.

I do not agree that hugging your kids will do nothing, as anything to do with helping them understand this tragedy (if they're old enough to understand) does help. The rest of the quote is highly correct though.

Which sadly is the point some try to make but fail pretty hard in their execution.

Dec 15, 2012#122

Frank

Bowielee said:
Newsy link for this because I never trust tumblr or facebook.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/15/sandy-hook-teacher-victoria-soto

I'm not gonna lie, I'm a terribly jaded person to tragedy. Terribly.

I teared up reading that article.

Dec 15, 2012#123

Zappit

The oldest children murdered was 7. The youngest ones were six. Jesus. And gun nuts are already rushing out self-righteous indignation that their toys of mass destruction aren't at fault. Many others are saying the teachers should own guns. They neglect that one did, and her nutjob bastard ratfuck son used them to massacre a roomful of tiny children. Makes me physically ill.

Congress will probably be as impotent on this as ever.

There will probably be massive absenteeism this coming school week as parents will worry about copycats. I don't blame them. These worthless killers always try to one-up each other.

Dec 15, 2012#124

Dave

And this, I think, is a wonderful blog post from a mother with a mentally ill son. Don't let the title fool you. It's a wonderful piece. (Yes, I found it on Reddit.)

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

Dec 15, 2012#125

Krisken

Thank you, Dave. It's good to have an inside view of someone intimate with a possibly similar situation and what they go through. Hopefully this blog post helps with our own discussion on the issue.

Dec 15, 2012#126

Terrik

Zappit said:
The oldest children murdered was 7. The youngest ones were six. Jesus. And gun nuts are already rushing out self-righteous indignation that their toys of mass destruction aren't at fault. Many others are saying the teachers should own guns. They neglect that one did, and her nutjob bastard ratfuck son used them to massacre a roomful of tiny children. Makes me physically ill.

Congress will probably be as impotent on this as ever.

There will probably be massive absenteeism this coming school week as parents will worry about copycats. I don't blame them. These worthless killers always try to one-up each other.

Maybe you're attacking the wrong thing. As you know, on that same day, 20 kids were stabbed in China. In 2010, over 20 kids were also stabbed and killed in a Chinese kindergarten. This guy in Conn. used a gun, yes---but tell me--what the heck was going through this guy's brain that children were an acceptable target? Is it the "gun" culture? Did the "gun culture" cause him to shoot children? I see this more as treating the symptoms instead of the disease. There is something else wrong in society that is causing us to create these kinds of people. I feel that's what we need to figure out and fix. It's like that Einstein quote that's always flashed around "I don't know how WWIII will be fought, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones." People will always find a way or reason to kill other people. I don't think taking away guns will fix this problem. Something else is wrong.

Dec 15, 2012#127

Frank

Gun deaths are 8 times higher on average in the US than in other countries of similar economic/political bent.

Dec 16, 2012#128

Terrik

Frank said:
Gun deaths are 8 times higher on average in the US than in other countries of similar economic/political bent.

Personally, I'm less concerned with the tool used than the result of the action. I'm not sure parents in China were any more relived their children were killed with a knife instead of a gun.

Dec 16, 2012#129

Frank

Terrik said:
Personally, I'm less concerned with the tool used than the result of the action. I'm not sure parents in China were any more relived their children were killed with a knife instead of a gun.

Except that last event, no one died.

Dec 16, 2012#130

Terrik

Frank said:
Except that last event, no one died.

And in the event before it, over 20 children died. The fact that out of the 20 kids none died doesn't make the point any less relevant than if someone tried to point out all the times someone got shot and didn't die.

Dec 16, 2012#131

North_Ranger

Dave said:
And this, I think, is a wonderful blog post from a mother with a mentally ill son. Don't let the title fool you. It's a wonderful piece. (Yes, I found it on Reddit.)

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

I have to say, thank you for bringing this aspect up. It's easy to get involved with just the guns, and forget the person using said gun.

Dec 16, 2012#132

DarkAudit

I read that, and then I think about how the Limbaughs, Becks, O'Reillys, and so on will make damned sure that nothing of value gets done. And then I just want to cry, and maybe hope that we're right about the Mayans after all.

They may be just drops in an ocean of humanity, but they are overwhelmingly toxic drops.

(I mean the Limbaughs, etc are the toxic ones. Need to make that perfectly clear.)

Dec 16, 2012#133

jwhouk

...I work with some of those kids.

Dec 16, 2012#134

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
And this, I think, is a wonderful blog post from a mother with a mentally ill son. Don't let the title fool you. It's a wonderful piece. (Yes, I found it on Reddit.)

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

From the article:

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

That's a fucking disgusting way to handle this.

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

Now, she brought her son to a psychiatric hospital for in-patient care, not prison, but imagine the mothers in this situation who don't have health insurance. Imagine the mothers in this situation who can't bring themselves to do the right thing.

Dec 16, 2012#135

Silent Bob

GasBandit said:
That post exemplifies why you can't have a gun control debate immediately after a shooting. Emotion trumps everything, and rationality is impossible.

Hey it's been a few days after the shooting. I still feel guns need tighter regulations.

Dec 16, 2012#136

Zappit

Terrik said:
Maybe you're attacking the wrong thing. As you know, on that same day, 20 kids were stabbed in China. In 2010, over 20 kids were also stabbed and killed in a Chinese kindergarten. This guy in Conn. used a gun, yes---but tell me--what the heck was going through this guy's brain that children were an acceptable target? Is it the "gun" culture? Did the "gun culture" cause him to shoot children? I see this more as treating the symptoms instead of the disease. There is something else wrong in society that is causing us to create these kinds of people. I feel that's what we need to figure out and fix. It's like that Einstein quote that's always flashed around "I don't know how WWIII will be fought, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones." People will always find a way or reason to kill other people. I don't think taking away guns will fix this problem. Something else is wrong.

I do think it is part of the problem. While the state of America's mental healthcare system is pathetic, let's look at the facts. His mother owned those guns. They often shot them together at ranges. He was trained to use an assault rifle. A mentally unbalanced man was trained to use assault weapons even though common sense says that's a horrible idea.

But that's the gun culture. It ignores that kind of common sense. It allows situations like this. It plays a role in these mass killings, and its flaws should be addressed too.

Dec 16, 2012#137

Silent Bob

Zappit said:
I do think it is part of the problem. While the state of America's mental healthcare system is pathetic, let's look at the facts. His mother owned those guns. They often shot them together at ranges. He was trained to use an assault rifle. A mentally unbalanced man was trained to use assault weapons even though common sense says that's a horrible idea.

But that's the gun culture. It ignores that kind of common sense. It allows situations like this. It plays a role in these mass killings, and its flaws should be addressed too.

I think gun culture runs deeper than just that. Even now it's being hotly debated on how to prevent a situation like this from occurring again. I have several gun-nut friends on Facebook saying that their wouldn't be a problem if teachers would arm themselves. How stupid is that? Guns are not defensive weapons. They are 100% offensive. The problem is these heroic fantasies associated with guns.

The brave man who defends his family from a night invasion burglary.
The brave woman who shoots a would be rapist in a dark alley.

It just goes on and on, but the reality is you can't possibly know what someone's intentions are until things go down in a very short amount of time. Reducing that propaganda of fear is the first step towards reason. Owning a gun does not empower you, it only means you have given into fear of the unknown and are desperately (and pathetically) trying to control situations that are oftentimes uncontrollable.

I've treated many gunshot victims over the years as a PT, the reality of how fragile life is and how easily someone's life can be broken through gun violence is very much a part of my experience.

Dec 16, 2012#138

Zappit

I'm a teacher. I don't want to be armed. I don't want to live in fear of a possible accidental discharge in a classroom or out at recess. Kids bump into you, you bump into desks and whatnot. It can happen.

Let's say they do that, and a teacher's gun accidentally goes off in a room and a kid gets hurt. I think I can predict the public outcry we'd see.

And what about substitutes? Would they be allowed to carry. A fresh sub isn't known to the system. You can't realistically expect a school district to be able to trust that many people to be responsible with firearms. The odds say there will be a few fools in the mix.

But that's the gun culture mindset. It cannot see the negative consequences. It refuses to see them.

Dec 16, 2012#139

Sparhawk

Zappit, have you really ever been around guns? Serious question. Lots of the stuff you keep saying on here indicate an ignorance of basic gun operation and safety. I'm not trying to insult you with that statement, but I'm reading stuff that just shows no real knowledge of any firearms.

Dec 16, 2012#140

Zappit

Sparhawk said:
Zappit, have you really ever been around guns? Serious question. Lots of the stuff you keep saying on here indicate an ignorance of basic gun operation and safety. I'm not trying to insult you with that statement, but I'm reading stuff that just shows no real knowledge of any firearms.

I live a stone's throw away from the local gun club. I'm friends with the school resource officer and have had conversations on the subject. I've never personally handled a gun, and never had any desire to. But I know the basics - care, safety, usage.

I don't particularly understand what knowledge I'm lacking. Was it how I was describing assault weapons? I'm referring to the class of guns capable of a high rate of fire with a large number of bullets, the kind used on Friday's massacre. The ban on those expired, and they're available again. That's all.

But I do come from a school environment, and have strong feelings on this. I don't think better screening is an infringement on anyone's right to bear arms, nor is it unreasonable to limit those weapons. It's not denying anyone ownership.

Dec 16, 2012#141

Cajungal

Dave said:
And this, I think, is a wonderful blog post from a mother with a mentally ill son. Don't let the title fool you. It's a wonderful piece. (Yes, I found it on Reddit.)

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

Good read, and something I see every day. I teach a kid like this, and when he gets angry I just keep thinking 'this kid is going to hurt someone soon.' I'm so sad for kids like this, and their parents too.

Dec 16, 2012#142

CrimsonSoul

Zappit said:
I live a stone's throw away from the local gun club. I'm friends with the school resource officer and have had conversations on the subject. I've never personally handled a gun, and never had any desire to. But I know the basics - care, safety, usage.

I don't particularly understand what knowledge I'm lacking. Was it how I was describing assault weapons? I'm referring to the class of guns capable of a high rate of fire with a large number of bullets, the kind used on Friday's massacre. The ban on those expired, and they're available again. That's all.

But I do come from a school environment, and have strong feelings on this. I don't think better screening is an infringement on anyone's right to bear arms, nor is it unreasonable to limit those weapons. It's not denying anyone ownership.

The "assault weapons ban" that you bring up wasn't really. They banned weapons based on looks. You can have two guns that are exactly the sane and you're saying you want to one banned because it looks scary and the other is ok because it doesn't look scary. Even so with the ban you want I believe so ewhere in the neighborhood of 99 percent of firearm related crimes are with handguns and not rifles.
Also guns don't go off by being bumped into and they go through various testing to make sure that even if they are dropped on the ground that an accidental discharge won't occur. And if properly holstered and child bumping into it won't discharge a firearm either because the trigger is covered and unacessable unless taken out of a holster.
If the problem is that you think that the child may disarm you they have holsters that you have to move the fitarm a certain way in order to unholster it (ask OC as I'm sure he has this type in the field)

Sorry this is jumbled I'm writing from my phone

Dec 16, 2012#143

Zappit

CrimsonSoul said:
The "assault weapons ban" that you bring up wasn't really. They banned weapons based on looks. You can have two guns that are exactly the sane and you're saying you want to one banned because it looks scary and the other is ok because it doesn't look scary. Even so with the ban you want I believe so ewhere in the neighborhood of 99 percent of firearm related crimes are with handguns and not rifles.
Also guns don't go off by being bumped into and they go through various testing to make sure that even if they are dropped on the ground that an accidental discharge won't occur. And if properly holstered and child bumping into it won't discharge a firearm either because the trigger is covered and unacessable unless taken out of a holster.
If the problem is that you think that the child may disarm you they have holsters that you have to move the fitarm a certain way in order to unholster it (ask OC as I'm sure he has this type in the field)

Sorry this is jumbled I'm writing from my phone

Fair enough. But it still comes down to the people. My district had a bit of a controversy a few years back; I don't want to go into details, but it involved people being very irresponsible with firearms. The more people with guns, the better the odds for accidents.

Dec 16, 2012#144

Ravenpoe

I wouldn't mind a licensing system to be able to purchase a firearm. I often feel that proper education, not outright banning, is the way. You could say I grew up in the 'gun culture'. I fired my first gun when I was 7, and was taught how to use them pretty much all my life. Of course, I wasn't 7 years old toting a gun, it was 7 years old holding a shotgun that my dad was also holding, and only after being taught the importance of safety, care, and be able to recite to him the rules of gun operation (keep pointed towards the ground, finger off the trigger, safety on, etc).

Just like a car, guns can be safe or dangerous depending on how they're operated, and how responsible the person using it is. Living in north Florida, I see plenty of idiots that don't know these things, and usually end up in the hospital after shooting themselves in the leg.

Dec 16, 2012#145

Charlie Don't Surf

This is an interesting article arguing that White Male Privilege is causing these mass shooting events.

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-shooting-white-males-and-mass-murder

What if the main reason these shootings keep occurring is that white men aren't handling equality very well? There aren't, I believe, any easy answers. Even so, we can take this perspective with us, and we can work to think of ways to help young white males grow up in a society where the expectation of privilege is never indoctrinated. We can teach them early in life how to cope with rejection. We can realize that pointing fingers and blaming others might feel good in the short term, but in the long term, only working towards positive solutions will really help. And yes, we can absolutely continue to advocate for better mental healthcare. Finally, I think we need to be brave enough to have conversations like this one. We need to admit the possibility that by perpetuating the lie of white male superiority despite strong societal and scientific pressure to change, we may have created our own monster.

Dec 16, 2012#146

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
This is an interesting article arguing that White Male Privilege is causing these mass shooting events.

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-shooting-white-males-and-mass-murder

That's quite a stretch.

Dec 16, 2012#147

Gilgamesh

Arm the teachers! It's not like an armed teacher didn't have any kind of connection to this mass killings... oh wait....

Dec 16, 2012#148

North_Ranger

Wait... there are people out there who seriously, adult seriously think it would be a good idea to arm teachers? I'm sorry, but what the fuck is wrong with you people?

And before you go into a tirade about a liberal European wussy not knowing anything about firearms, consider this: I have received firearms training on a national level, as part of my basic training in the army. I know how to assemble, disassemble, maintain and operate an assault rifle, and have fired live ammunition during drills. I was a "bronze pin", which means I was about an average marksman. I have not discharged a weapon since I left the army, but I know the basic safety rules, what a firearm is capable of and what it is not. So let's have that completely clear: I am no stranger to firearms.

And the idea that I, as an educator, would be expected or encouraged to take a gun into a school, let alone my class room... it just makes me sick, even thinking about it. Because no matter how you disect the issue, a firearm's most basic function is the same: to cause grievous bodily harm to another living being. Okay, you can shoot at the wall or use it as a tool of intimidation, but you are still talking about a piece of machinery that was made to cause injury or death. And somebody wants teachers to be packing heat? What's next? Should waiters carry handguns while at work? Or how about movie theater ushers? Or the pizza guy? Where do you draw the goddamn limit? Or is everyone supposed to pack heat, so everybody will be constantly scared shitless that the next person you rub the wrong way will draw and give you an extra breathing hole?

What the hell kind of a world do some people want to live in?

Dec 16, 2012#149

Dei

Even more sick now, because all those kids were my daughter's age. (she is in first grade and is turning 7 next month)

Also, even though we are across the country from this, there was an increased police patrol on Friday, which will continue to Christmas break. We already had increased police after that stuff in Westminster.

Dec 16, 2012#150

Cajungal

I know my students are going to want to talk about it tomorrow. I got an email from Scholastic with some helpful links about talking kids through things like this. I might put together a montage of uplifting videos and footage of good people.

Dec 16, 2012#151

WasabiPoptart

Why is Morgan Freeman suddenly the foremost authority on everything? Is it because he played God that people believe every little blurb attributed to him on the internet (which usually he did not say in the first place)?

Dec 16, 2012#152

North_Ranger

WasabiPoptart said:
Why is Morgan Freeman suddenly the foremost authority on everything? Is it because he played God that people believe every little blurb attributed to him on the internet (which usually he did not say in the first place)?

Huh? What does Morgan Freeman have to do with this? He's a cool guy, okay, but... context, please?

Dec 16, 2012#153

Sparhawk

Zappit said:
I live a stone's throw away from the local gun club. I'm friends with the school resource officer and have had conversations on the subject. I've never personally handled a gun, and never had any desire to. But I know the basics - care, safety, usage.

I don't particularly understand what knowledge I'm lacking. Was it how I was describing assault weapons? I'm referring to the class of guns capable of a high rate of fire with a large number of bullets, the kind used on Friday's massacre. The ban on those expired, and they're available again. That's all.

But I do come from a school environment, and have strong feelings on this. I don't think better screening is an infringement on anyone's right to bear arms, nor is it unreasonable to limit those weapons. It's not denying anyone ownership.

It is your seeming belief that everyone walks around with a gun cocked and loaded just primed for accidental discharge. If you have never fired a gun you don't know all the basics though. That's just a simple fact. You've mentioned several times that being "bumped" and having an accidental discharge, and those things don't happen when proper gun safety is being followed.

I understand being emotional about the subject, and I've not said anything about that at all.

Dec 16, 2012#154

AshburnerX

North_Ranger said:
What's next? Should waiters carry handguns while at work? Or how about movie theater ushers? Or the pizza guy?

Pizza guys in my area already work in pairs, with one of them always carrying a gun. They do it because pizza guys kept getting mugged and more than a few were killed when they refused to hand over their money.

So yeah... we're already IN that kind of world. A world where a man gets shot for a hundred bucks and free pizza.

Dec 16, 2012#155

CrimsonSoul

AshburnerX said:
Pizza guys in my area already work in pairs, with one of them always carrying a gun. They do it because pizza guys kept getting mugged and more than a few were killed when they refused to hand over their money.

So yeah... we're already IN that kind of world. A world where a man gets shot for a hundred bucks and free pizza.

Yeah delivery guys have a for real dangerous job because of shit like that

Dec 16, 2012#156

Frank

....Jesus Christ. Man, you all live in that world I guess.

AshburnerX said:
Pizza guys in my area already work in pairs, with one of them always carrying a gun. They do it because pizza guys kept getting mugged and more than a few were killed when they refused to hand over their money.

So yeah... we're already IN that kind of world. A world where a man gets shot for a hundred bucks and free pizza.

Dec 16, 2012#157

North_Ranger

AshburnerX said:
Pizza guys in my area already work in pairs, with one of them always carrying a gun. They do it because pizza guys kept getting mugged and more than a few were killed when they refused to hand over their money.

So yeah... we're already IN that kind of world. A world where a man gets shot for a hundred bucks and free pizza.

...

Fuck my life...

Dec 16, 2012#158

Silent Bob

Sparhawk said:
Zappit, have you really ever been around guns? Serious question. Lots of the stuff you keep saying on here indicate an ignorance of basic gun operation and safety. I'm not trying to insult you with that statement, but I'm reading stuff that just shows no real knowledge of any firearms.

Yeah, it happens...

Dec 16, 2012#159

Charlie Don't Surf

North_Ranger said:
Huh? What does Morgan Freeman have to do with this? He's a cool guy, okay, but... context, please?

There's a facebook meme going around in America with some "wise thoughts on the tragedy" being attributed to him

Dec 16, 2012#160

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
There's a facebook meme going around in America with some "wise thoughts on the tragedy" being attributed to him

He was quoted in telling the media to stop focusing on the shooters' of these events and focus on the victims instead.

He's right. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names. Can you name one victim from Columbine without Google?

Dec 16, 2012#161

CrimsonSoul

Silent Bob said:
He was quoted in telling the media to stop focusing on the shooters' of these events and focus on the victims instead.

He's right. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names. Can you name one victim from Columbine without Google?

I can't even tell you any of the shooters names. Give me a week and I'll forget that idiots name too

Dec 16, 2012#162

strawman

Via Howard Taylor (of Schlock Mercenary Webcomic)

Let me share one piece of wisdom, passed on to me by Sarah Eden, whose nine-year-old said these words to her today: "When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

Dec 16, 2012#163

Charlie Don't Surf

Silent Bob said:
He was quoted in telling the media to stop focusing on the shooters' of these events and focus on the victims instead

No, he wasn't. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Dec 16, 2012#164

Krisken

My advertisement on this page is for Concealed Carry magazine.

Dec 16, 2012#165

WasabiPoptart

North_Ranger said:
Huh? What does Morgan Freeman have to do with this? He's a cool guy, okay, but... context, please?

I have seen this floating around the "tubes" in the last day or so. It's not the first time he has been "quoted" as having some profound insight onto whatever the most recent issue is. And, as in the past, Morgan Freeman has actually said nothing of the sort.

MORGAN FREEMAN ON THE SHOOTINGS YESTERDAY:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem."

Dec 17, 2012#166

Dave

Happy Monday.

We need gun control.

Dec 17, 2012#167

DarkAudit

We also need idiot control. Several brain-deads thought football was more important than last night's memorial service, and said so publicly in extremely vulgar terms. One award winner tweeted himself right off his college football team.

(Not posting a link due to net issues on my end, but see Deadspin or my twitter.)

Dec 17, 2012#168

Dave

Yeah, the dude from the North Alabama tweeted something like, "Get this nigger* off the TV! We want to watch football!"

He was cut from the team within hours.

* CENSORSHIP!!

Dec 17, 2012#169

strawman

AshburnerX said:
So yeah... we're already IN that kind of world.

This is nothing new. Kids have been killing each other for jackets and shoes for decades now. Not always with guns, either. They kill each other for drugs. Adults kill kids for crying. Kids kill adults for not letting them see their girlfriend/boyfriend.

I live about 30 minutes drive from downtown Detroit (technically I'm in Ypsilanti, between Detroit and Ann Arbor), but my pizza drivers don't have these issues. I'd hate to have people living outside the US under the impression that every pizza driver is armed and our children are in significant daily danger. http://www.trulia.com/crime/ is an interesting site to spend some time on, showing crime in a heat map format, so you can find out which areas of a given city have high levels of reported crime, and even drill down to violent or nonviolent crimes (mugging vs shoplifting, for instance). In a country of 300 million people, this isn't so much crime that one need fear for their life.

Death and destruction has always been a part of the human race. The things they fight over, and the tools they use to kill may have evolved, but the basic greed/power/jealousy/pride/anger/etc has not changed.

It's still rare.

It's sensationalized, and it's important to look at what we can do to limit it, but we're hardly living in a dystopia.

Dec 17, 2012#170

Gilgamesh

The counter argument against gun control reform all over the place:

It's my right, I should have a gun for fun if I want to!

It's like I can almost understand it (Cigarettes/Alcohol is my fun and I should have my rights to it regardless of whether some drunk asshole runs over a child or second hand smoke gives a child cancer) etc. It's such a slippery slope.

Dec 17, 2012#171

sixpackshaker

There has been an uptick in crime recently, but that uptick comes on the heels of record lows in crime.

I just wish our media would quit treating serial killers and mass shooters like rock-star, world record holders. While this one guy holds the record for killing college students, this shooter holds the record for killing 1st graders...

Dec 17, 2012#172

Gilgamesh

Personally I keep wondering how far we're from the:

future...

Dec 17, 2012#173

Dave

Gilgamesh said:
Personally I keep wondering how far we're from the:

future...

Hopefully really far. I wouldn't mind being close to the book version, though. The movie version was bullshit.

Fun fact, I met everyone from that movie except Arnold. I was bartending in Fargo when there was a health expo that featured the actors. So Friday night we looped the movie in the bar non-stop as a promotion. Saturday night the actors came and bartended with us while the movie continued to loop. So not only have I seen this movie more times than I care to admit, but trying to bartend with this guy was a huge pain in the ass.

Dec 17, 2012#174

blotsfan

DarkAudit said:
We also need idiot control. Several brain-deads thought football was more important than last night's memorial service, and said so publicly in extremely vulgar terms. One award winner tweeted himself right off his college football team.

(Not posting a link due to net issues on my end, but see Deadspin or my twitter.)

The worst part was that they moved the game to another channel during the speech, so he didn't actually have to miss any of it.

Dec 17, 2012#175

GasBandit

Dave said:
Happy Monday.

We need gun control.

Good morning. You already have it. It doesn't help.

I haven't read the thread since I signed off Friday. But over the weekend, I have of course been slowly mentally preparing my first post here for Monday, because I promised I'd be back to discuss it. So here goes.

What happened in Connecticut was a terrible tragedy, the scope of which words falter to encompass as a monster in human shape took the lives of 26 people including 20 children. There's a lot of people asking, "why?" as if there is a sane, understandable reason to commit this sort of atrocity, and for many of those asking that question there will never be a satisfactory answer because the reasoning process of someone who commits such an act is broken beyond mere derangement.

It's apparent to anyone who takes a subjective inventory of their own recent memory that mass shooting events have been increasing in number. Naturally, there are going to be a lot of people whose first (perhaps even only) impulse will be to blame the tools by which these murders are perpetrated - firearms. But the fact is, access to firearms, indeed firearm ownership is at or near an all time low according to gallup. We've had gun control laws in place longer than most of us have been alive. Yes, the so called "assault weapons ban" expired, but it was based less upon a gun's ability to deal death rapidly and more concerned with how scary they looked - if they had a hole in the stock or one that folded, for example.

But let's get the Charlie argument out of the way right off the bat - you can't ban all guns. Not from a practical, logistical, political or even moral standpoint. Not only is it impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, it would be wrong to try - by definition, making guns illegal means that only those who follow the law will not have guns, and that criminals will still do as they please, perhaps even with less impediment. Furthermore, I know you're getting sick of me saying it, but the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or home defense, it is about making every American able to outfit himself as a soldier - or resistance fighter - at the drop of a hat with similar effectiveness to that of a regular soldier. That's why the "but... but... muskets!" argument is completely invalid. And even if a total ban was possible, consider that the same week as the CT shootings, a man in China murdered 22 children in school at once with a blade.

Furthermore, in all the statistic droppings about tragedies involving guns, nobody's eager to talk about the hundreds of times per day firearms are used to prevent or lessen crime. A few days ago a mall shooting was cut short when the criminal was confronted by someone who was carrying (legally, with permit) a concealed weapon. Switzerland and Israel also have a large number of guns per capita, and have safer records than most countries that do not. The common saying goes, that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Not only that, but the supreme court has actually ruled (by 7-2 in 2005) that, no matter what's painted on the side of the squad car, the police have no duty to defend or protect. The police are not there to guard you from harm, they are there to punish those that harm after the fact. That's cold comfort to the victims and their families, especially when the harmer has taken even that away from them by killing himself at the end.

So what has also been on the rise the past 20, 30 years to coincide with the degradation of society we have witnessed? I put to you that it is the death of personal responsibility. From grade school up through adulthood, we are being told, taught and reinforced that what happens to us is beyond our control, and our worth as an individual is far below the worth of the collective. You're supposed to feel self-esteem without any actual reason behind it. You're supposed to get a participation ribbon even if you lose. Think of how an unbalanced person, growing up hearing that nothing they do really matters in the outcome of what happens to them, feels when they're an adult and haven't achieved the shallow dreams that such teachings of easy self-esteem put in their heads. Why aren't they a rock star? Why aren't they president? Why aren't they an astronaut? It can't possibly be their fault. Everybody knows that when you fail it is because of somebody else, right? It's just a roll of the dice (and the dice are rolled by a faceless somebody-else) that says that Snookie is a famous millionaire and you aren't. It becomes an easy leap from "nothing that happens to me is my fault" to "nothing I do is my fault" because your actions are only reacting to the injustices perpetrated upon you by an injust society and world - it's their fault you're not a supermodel-banging CEO. And so some start thinking about how they can hurt this faceless society most. And the media has been very kind in glorifying and trumpeting the last acts of folks just like this to the world, and made them immortal. We go to "guns" because it's an easy and fast explanation that prevents us from having to deal with the reality of what has become of our society, our selves.

Dec 17, 2012#176

Gilgamesh

Are we Dave ? Maybe if the more extreme GOP get their way we can live like V for Vendetta. Where the government is lead by psycho conservative leaders who finally get the world they think everyone wants/needs.

Dec 17, 2012#177

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm not getting into the gasbandit trap, but no one died in the China mass stabbing

Dec 17, 2012#178

tegid

GasBandit said:
Switzerland and Israel also have a large number of guns per capita, and have safer records than most countries that do not.

Feels wrong to answer to such a small part of such a long post but: do you know what those countries have in common? They have compulsory military service. I think the Swiss keep their rifles from that military service actually, as they do some days out of each year of service after their main one.

Also, "gun culture" isn't represented only in the # of guns.

Dec 17, 2012#179

GasBandit

tegid said:
Feels wrong to answer to such a small part of such a long post but: do you know what those countries have in common? They have compulsory military service. I think the Swiss keep their rifles from that military service actually, as they do some days out of each year of service after their main one.

Also, "gun culture" isn't represented only in the # of guns.

There might be something to that - one of the things they train you in the military is, obviously, gun safety and responsibility. There could be advantages to instituting a course like that.

Dec 17, 2012#180

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
There might be something to that - one of the things they train you in the military is, obviously, gun safety and responsibility. There could be advantages to instituting a course like that.

Like I said, require a licensing program for gun ownership, just like driving a car. I'm sure there are a lot of legal hurdles that would make that difficult, but it still seems like a good idea.

Dec 17, 2012#181

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Like I said, require a licensing program for gun ownership, just like driving a car. I'm sure there are a lot of legal hurdles that would make that difficult, but it still seems like a good idea.

I don't think that's enough. You don't have to own a gun to steal and shoot one. I'm thinking along the lines of making it manditory school curricula. Plus, that avoids the whole "gun registration" pit trap.

Dec 17, 2012#182

Azurephoenix

Is it true that in the USA that most gun show sales and second hand sales of guns do not in fact require a background check of any kind?

Dec 17, 2012#183

GasBandit

Azurephoenix said:
Is it true that in the USA that most gun show sales and second hand sales of guns do not in fact require a background check of any kind?

All private gun sales (those not involving a professional gun dealer) do not require a background check.

Dec 17, 2012#184

Azurephoenix

GasBandit said:
All private gun sales (those not involving a professional gun dealer) do not require a background check.

How do you stop morons from privately selling guns to sociopaths and criminals? (I'm asking this stuff honestly to learn... not to just be a dick).

Up here in Canada we can sell guns privately too but we have to make sure that the buyer has a valid PAL (possession and aquisition license) with the correct type (restricted vs non-restricted) and there's even a dedicated phone number for inquiries to make sure a PAL is valid. That's just for a non-restricted firearm (shotguns, long rifles, etc). Restricted firearms require way more hoops to jumped through just for a private sale. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm

Dec 17, 2012#185

GasBandit

Azurephoenix said:
How do you stop morons from privately selling guns to sociopaths and criminals? (I'm asking this stuff honestly to learn... not to just be a dick).

Up here in Canada we can sell guns privately too but we have to make sure that the buyer has a valid PAL (possession and aquisition license) with the correct type (restricted vs non-restricted) and there's even a dedicated phone number for inquiries to make sure a PAL is valid. That's just for a non-restricted firearm (shotguns, long rifles, etc). Restricted firearms require way more hoops to jumped through just for a private sale. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm

Because guns still have serial numbers, and thus can usually be traced back through owners, or at least to their original point of sale, so it behooves anyone selling a gun to get paperwork on it showing who they sold it to and when, in case it's found to have been used in the commission of a criminal act.

It's a tough constitutional argument down here to put more legal impediments to firearm ownership, since the amendment is pretty cut and dry about "shall not be infringed." That doesn't just mean "shall not be prevented," you can infringe without banning. That's why I was saying mandatory education might be a good idea, as it doesn't actually impact gun ownership or the process of buying one.

Dec 17, 2012#186

Azurephoenix

I don't think anyone would ever argue against gun safety education... well maybe if they're crazy.

So do you have to have any kind of licensing or anything to buy a firearm then? I'm guessing that because of the way it's entrenched in the second amendment you can't require that sort of thing due to it "infringing" (which kind of sucks because needing a license to purchase firearms does create an easy and convenient way to both force people to undergo proper background checks as well as gun safety courses).

Dec 17, 2012#187

Just Me

Gilgamesh said:
Personally I keep wondering how far we're from the:

future...

Welp, there was a german TV production covering this theme in 1970 and some people took it for real...

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

Dec 17, 2012#188

CrimsonSoul

Azurephoenix said:
I don't think anyone would ever argue against gun safety education... well maybe if they're crazy.

So do you have to have any kind of licensing or anything to buy a firearm then? I'm guessing that because of the way it's entrenched in the second amendment you can't require that sort of thing due to it "infringing" (which kind of sucks because needing a license to purchase firearms does create an easy and convenient way to both force people to undergo proper background checks as well as gun safety courses).

That depends on the state. Some states have mandatory classes for ownership. And GB is wrong above. In some states it is mandatory to do a background check on private sales. But it depends on the state

Dec 17, 2012#189

GasBandit

Azurephoenix said:
I don't think anyone would ever argue against gun safety education... well maybe if they're crazy.

So do you have to have any kind of licensing or anything to buy a firearm then? I'm guessing that because of the way it's entrenched in the second amendment you can't require that sort of thing due to it "infringing" (which kind of sucks because needing a license to purchase firearms does create an easy and convenient way to both force people to undergo proper background checks as well as gun safety courses).

Depends on the firearm, depends on the state. Most states require background checks for handguns, along with waiting periods. Some states even ban their sales outright (Illinois), 2nd amendment be damned, though the supreme court takes a dim view of such things when they get around to looking at them. You do have to get a permit to carry a concealed gun, and some states (including Texas, ironically) prohibit the open carrying of firearms.

Dec 17, 2012#190

Bowielee

I'm not getting into any arguments here. I'm just going to plug the book No One Left To Hate by Elliot Aronson again.

Dec 17, 2012#191

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
I'm not getting into any arguments here. I'm just going to plug the book No One Left To Hate by Elliot Aronson again.

*Nobody

Dec 17, 2012#192

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
*Nobody

Really, Gas, do you really need to be a pedantic ass in this thread?

Dec 17, 2012#193

Krisken

Bowielee said:
Really, Gas, do you really need to be a pedantic ass in this thread?

Not about need. All want.

Dec 17, 2012#194

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Really, Gas, do you really need to be a pedantic ass in this thread?

Couldn't help myself. But yes, that'd be a good book to read, that tries to look at underlying causes and solutions beyond simple gun control.

Dec 17, 2012#195

Gared

sixpackshaker said:
I just wish our media would quit treating serial killers and mass shooters like rock-star, world record holders. While this one guy holds the record for killing college students, this shooter holds the record for killing 1st graders...

I agree. We've already had at least two more people arrested for making threats on elementary schools over Facebook since Friday, one of them semi-local to Seattle. In that case it was a 19 year old guy who describes himself as an internet troll who was just posting threats to get a rise out of his readers, but who will hopefully discover that there's a big difference between posting things like "U mad bro??" and posting things like "If gun control laws get stricter because of this shooting, I'm going to take my sawed-off shotgun and shoot up every school in a 100 mile radius." The first is trolling and the second is a felony for making threats over the internet, and while I really hope the prosecutor's office decides to make an example out of this morally-bankrupt douche canoe, I hope the press doesn't jump all over it and give us even more attention starved copy-cats.

Dec 17, 2012#196

Yoshimickster

A damn tragedy. My mom was so broken up over this, all she could talk about the other day.

Dec 17, 2012#197

Zappit

One six year old survivor who thought to play dead. I can't even imagine the trauma that poor kid will suffer having gone through such horror. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...mmy-im-ok-but-all-of-my-friends-are-dead?lite

Jon Stewart once said he'd like us to clone Osama bin Laden so we could kill one every Super Bowl halftime show. This Lanza bastard hits that same note.

There was also a threat called in against a Newtown church on Sunday.

These are the people we can catch and make an example of, and we need to. Those kinds of sick pranks make these living nightmares even worse, create terror and chaos. Somebody is actually getting their jollies off that. That has to be punished.

Even worse, the damn Westboro Baptists want to protest the funerals. Anonymous has already started posting their names and contact information on some of them, and seemed to declare war on those loonies. Good luck to them, really. It's time to declare them a hate group and take away their tax exempt status. Even the freaking KKK thinks they're despicable.

Dec 17, 2012#198

Ravenpoe

Zap, I know you feel really strongly about this, but looking at your posts in this thread, I think you should think about stepping away from this topic for awhile. And I say this as a fellow halforumer that's concerned.

Dec 17, 2012#199

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
Zap, I know you feel really strongly about this, but looking at your posts in this thread, I think you should think about stepping away from this topic for awhile. And I say this as a fellow halforumer that's concerned.

I second this, man. Your passionate defense of children is absolutely admirable, but I think this news and the related stuff might be taking a toll on you.

Dec 17, 2012#200

Charlie Don't Surf

Zappit said:
These are the people we can catch and make an example of, and we need to.

The Death Penalty has been proven ineffective as a deterrent, so no, we don't really need to.

Dec 17, 2012#201

Zappit

bhamv3 said:
I second this, man. Your passionate defense of children is absolutely admirable, but I think this news and the related stuff might be taking a toll on you.

It is. I mean, I work with kids. It makes me sick to my core that shit like this happens, and that it could be prevented. Maybe you guys are right.

Dec 17, 2012#202

Ravenpoe

Zappit said:
It is. I mean, I work with kids. It makes me sick to my core that shit like this happens, and that it could be prevented. Maybe you guys are right.

Turn off the news for awhile, that stuff can poison you.

Dec 17, 2012#203

Cajungal

I've blocked the people on my Facebook who wont stop reporting stuff about it, Zappit. I work with kids too, and it's not easy to keep thinking about all this. We had a meeting today to review safety procedures, and some of us cried in the middle of it. It's too much.

Dec 17, 2012#204

Hailey Knight

Zappit said:
Even worse, the damn Westboro Baptists want to protest the funerals.

I was afraid this was going to happen.

Dec 17, 2012#205

Zappit

Cajungal said:
I've blocked the people on my Facebook who wont stop reporting stuff about it, Zappit. I work with kids too, and it's not easy to keep thinking about all this. We had a meeting today to review safety procedures, and some of us cried in the middle of it. It's too much.

We had that meeting this morning, too. Not easy. My principal was fighting back misty eyes.

I think this kind of a nice article, here, and really expresses where a lot of teachers are coming from:
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.c...ll-teachers-are-in-it-for-the-kids/?hpt=hp_t2

Dec 17, 2012#206

Tress

Apparently my brother managed to piss off much of my extended family with his Facebook rants on this subject. He's a staunch 2nd Amendment guy, and I guess he got into a heated argument with some folks over what should happen to gun laws in the country. I'm just glad I don't have an account, so I don't get dragged into the middle. I worry that my brother is one of those people on Facebook, the ones that inject politics into everything and end up blocked.

Dec 17, 2012#207

GasBandit

Turns out there was a proposed mental health bill in the Connecticut legislature that potentially could have prevented last friday that was shot down in March for being discriminatory and infringing on privacy. It was designed to aid the very situation that anarchistsoccermom describes - "it would have given the state the right to institutionalize a person who is mentally ill for treatment if the state has enough evidence to believe that the person could be a danger to himself or the community."

Dec 17, 2012#208

AshburnerX

The standards for that would have to be VERY strict before I'd ever agree with it. Sure, it would prevent this situation... but it could also get some people put away by corrupt officials. We already have judges that trump up charges on minors to send them to facilities... facilities which pay them a "finders fee" for sending them. Don't really want to give them more ammo.

Dec 17, 2012#209

bhamv3

You know, I recognized so much of myself in that anarchistsoccermom blog entry. I was like that in my teens and pre-teens.

Now I'm scared.

Dec 18, 2012#210

Shakey

I'm ok with stricter gun laws, go for it. I just hope people seriously look at the underlying issues. Whether it's the anti-hero we glorify for killing everyone who slights them, or the lack of support for kids with mental issues. It's a way of life right now, and we need to decide if we're ok with living with it. Or if we are honestly serious about finding out whats wrong. Because it's not just guns. We are a culture that glorifies bloody revenge.

Dec 18, 2012#211

Gilgamesh

But what good is it to go with stricter gun laws? (Using this tragedy as an example)

The guy who got the guns didn't even have them legally. Also this new idea to restrict the ammo magazines to 10 is pretty pointless considering all these mass killings are done with multiple guns.

Dec 18, 2012#212

D

Dubyamn

Gilgamesh said:
But what good is it to go with stricter gun laws? (Using this tragedy as an example)

The guy who got the guns didn't even have them legally. Also this new idea to restrict the ammo magazines to 10 is pretty pointless considering all these mass killings are done with multiple guns.

Jared Loughner was stopped when he had to reload his weapon and the Aurora shooting could have been much worse if he had fired more than 30 rounds from his main weapon before it jammed.

Shooters having to take time to reload or pull out their other weapons is time in which help is on the way and people aren't being killed. It saves lives and all it involves is taking away a gun accessory that has no use outside of shooting at people.

Now using this mass shooting as an example is misleading because there is no way that we will ever stop all mass shootings. But for example the Fort Hood shooter was a well known crazy who should have never been allowed to get his hands on a gun, Jared Loughner is another person who shouldn't have been allowed near a gun and James Holmes was a god damn mental patient who none the less was able to purchase and bring a fucking arsenal into a movie theater.

And of course there is the upside of people in Arizona no longer being able to buy $40,000 worth of assault weaponry and then sell them in the parking lot to a drug kingpin completely legally.

Dec 18, 2012#213

Azurephoenix

Dubyamn said:
Shooters having to take time to reload or pull out their other weapons is time in which help is on the way and people aren't being killed. It saves lives and all it involves is taking away a gun accessory that has no use outside of shooting at people.

Devil's advocate... it isn't that hard to modify low capacity magazines (say 5-10 shots) to hold 20-30 rounds. I've done more complicated work on car engines, body work repair and plastic casting. I'm just saying... it's not something that would actually make a difference.

Otherwise I'm on board with the rest of your post.

Dec 18, 2012#214

Gilgamesh

Dubyamn said:
Jared Loughner was stopped when he had to reload his weapon and the Aurora shooting could have been much worse if he had fired more than 30 rounds from his main weapon before it jammed.

Shooters having to take time to reload or pull out their other weapons is time in which help is on the way and people aren't being killed. It saves lives and all it involves is taking away a gun accessory that has no use outside of shooting at people.

Now using this mass shooting as an example is misleading because there is no way that we will ever stop all mass shootings. But for example the Fort Hood shooter was a well known crazy who should have never been allowed to get his hands on a gun, Jared Loughner is another person who shouldn't have been allowed near a gun and James Holmes was a god damn mental patient who none the less was able to purchase and bring a fucking arsenal into a movie theater.

And of course there is the upside of people in Arizona no longer being able to buy $40,000 worth of assault weaponry and then sell them in the parking lot to a drug kingpin completely legally.

I'll direct you to notice I said multiple guns not multiple clips being the workaround to smaller clip sizes. Pulling out another pistol/handgun isn't going to slow anyone down.

Dec 18, 2012#215

D

Dubyamn

Azurephoenix said:
Devil's advocate... it isn't that hard to modify low capacity magazines (say 5-10 shots) to hold 20-30 rounds. I've done more complicated work on car engines, body work repair and plastic casting. I'm just saying... it's not something that would actually make a difference.

Otherwise I'm on board with the rest of your post.

One of the bedrocks of Law Enforcement was that the only way to stop crime was to catch them in the act. The theory was that if you put cops on 9th and Market the criminals would go to 10th and Market to commit their crimes.

But as it turns out putting cops on 9th and Market didn't cause an increase in crime on 10th and Market. Turns out that criminals who would have committed crimes on 9th and Market just went "fuck this shit" and went home. Criminals by in large aren't dedicated individuals turns out you put a few roadblocks in their way and they generally don't force their way through.

Banning extended magazine won't mean that they are never used but it will mean that significantly fewer of them will be used in mass shootings.

Gilgamesh said:
I'll direct you to notice I said multiple guns not multiple clips being the workaround to smaller clip sizes. Pulling out another pistol/handgun isn't going to slow anyone down.

Slowed down James Holmes. That's a good enough reason for me.

Dec 18, 2012#216

Gilgamesh

Dubyamn said:
Slowed down James Holmes. That's a good enough reason for me.

So as long as he only kills 10-15 instead of 20-25? Sounds like a solid plan.

Dec 18, 2012#217

D

Dubyamn

Gilgamesh said:
So as long as he only kills 10-15 instead of 20-25? Sounds like a solid plan.

Unsure if you are being dismissive about the fact that him having to switch weapons saved numerous lives.

Or that saving 10 lives just isn't enough of a gain for common sense regulations that inconveniences nobody but people who are intending to kill people.

Dec 18, 2012#218

Espy

Hey guys I need to be able to shoot 1000 rounds at once so I can hunt deer. FREEDOM.

Dec 18, 2012#219

GasBandit

Espy said:
Hey guys I need to be able to shoot 1000 rounds at once so I can hunt deer. FREEDOM.

(pushes the macro button) The 2nd amendment does not say "A righteous buck season being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not. About. Hunting.

/blueintheface.

Dec 18, 2012#220

Azurephoenix

Dubyamn said:
Banning extended magazine won't mean that they are never used but it will mean that significantly fewer of them will be used in mass shootings.

Depends, but you are right in that it would very likely stop the lazy ones from using them.

I'm curious about what constitutes and extended magazine though because to me it is something along the lines of a drum or box magazine that can hold something ridiculous like 50 or more rounds. Of course, those things are notoriously prone to jamming.

In Canada for a center fire semi-automatic rifle we can only use a magazine that holds 5 rounds (either a small mag that only holds 5 or a standard magazine that has been pinned to only accept 5).

Dec 18, 2012#221

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
(pushes the macro button) The 2nd amendment does not say "A righteous buck season being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not. About. Hunting.

/blueintheface.

So then would you agree to a 28th constitutional amendment along the lines of "Congress has the right to regulate assault weaponry"

Thus giving congress the right to regulate guns to whatever level you believe will stop these mass shootings. Feel free to rewrite my proposed 28th amendment to be as surgical against weapons that civilians have no reason to have access to.

Dec 18, 2012#222

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
So then would you agree to a 28th constitutional amendment along the lines of "Congress has the right to regulate assault weaponry"

Thus giving congress the right to regulate guns to whatever level you believe will stop these mass shootings. Feel free to rewrite my proposed 28th amendment to be as surgical against weapons that civilians have no reason to have access to.

No. What you call "Assault" weapons, BS scare-tactic term that it is, are explicitly the kind of weapon the 2nd amendment is about making sure is available. If a lone soldier can be expected to carry it, the 2nd amendment protects it. Did you not read my post? There is no level of gun control possible that will "stop these mass shootings."

Dec 18, 2012#223

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
No. Assault weapons are explicitly the kind of weapon the 2nd amendment is about making sure is available. If a lone soldier can be expected to carry it, the 2nd amendment protects it. Did you not read my post? There is no level of gun control possible that will "stop these mass shootings."

Just wanted to make sure that you were opposing the very idea of reasonable gun control and not just clinging to the constitution refusing to debate the idea.

Dec 18, 2012#224

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
Just wanted to make sure that you were opposing the very idea of reasonable gun control and not just clinging to the constitution refusing to debate the idea.

Well, let me amend my argument a little. If the states do ratify your proposed 28th amendment, what you describe would become constitutional. I would not support that ratification, but if 3/4ths of the states disagree with me, I've got nothing because clearly I'd be in a very small minority. However, I will do my utmost to make sure people understand why the underlying reasons behind the 2nd amendment were and are valid, and should not be fiddled with - especially in a manner which will clearly not address the issue at hand.

Dec 18, 2012#225

Espy

GasBandit said:
(pushes the macro button) The 2nd amendment does not say "A righteous buck season being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not. About. Hunting.

/blueintheface.

Oh but it really is. It doesn't matter what you think, thats the real problem here. Even you truly believe the population should be able to be armed in such a way that they can fight the government it doesn't matter.

Because you can't be armed in such a way that you can fight the government. As you have said, interpreting the constitution the way you do, which is merely one way to do it, you still can't buy a nuke or a tank.

That battle is already lost. So maybe it's time to get off that horse and we can find a middle ground here on what kinds of weapons people can own and use for personal defense/hunting. Because everything else is just a pipe dream. I'm not saying you can't keep arguing that or even make a decent case for it. I'm just saying it's not reality so whats the point in it? I mean, if you just want to argue thats cool and I understand that.

Dec 18, 2012#226

strawman

Shakey said:
I just hope people seriously look at the underlying issues.

There are 300+ million people in the US. I don't think a culture change is going to prevent the one in one hundred million chance that someone snaps, decides to commit mass murder, and goes through with it.

The "underlying issues" aren't treatable.

Dec 18, 2012#227

GasBandit

Espy said:
Oh but it really is. It doesn't matter what you think, thats the real problem here. Even you truly believe the population should be able to be armed in such a way that they can fight the government it doesn't matter.

Because you can't be armed in such a way that you can fight the government. As you have said, interpreting the constitution the way you do, which is merely one way to do it, you still can't buy a nuke or a tank.

That battle is already lost. So maybe it's time to get off that horse and we can find a middle ground here on what kinds of weapons people can own and use for personal defense/hunting. Because everything else is just a pipe dream.

If nukes and tanks were ultimate trump cards you say they are, making infantry obsolete, we wouldn't be having near the problems we are in the middle east, would we? It's highly unlikely a nuke would be used against ourselves, even in a full blown civil war or rebellion. You, frankly, could not be more wrong. Ragged peasants with AK47s overthrow governments with tanks and jets pretty often these days. It is much, much harder to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one, and every tyrant and genocidal dictator in modern history has always made gun control one of the first things to clamp down.

Dec 18, 2012#228

Bubble181

Just passing by...
On topic: horrible thing, condolences, all of that.

On the other topic: defenders of guns like to say (as was said several times in this thread alone) that with safe care and basic handling regulations, those things "don't happen". Guns don't just go off by themselves, and guns aren't responsible, and whatever.
All pretty much true, but that's like saying "with proper care and safety measures, cars don't hit kids crossing the street". Yeah, sure - except that despite all law-making and driver's licences and whatever, it still happens. People, as a whole, aren't all responsible enough, trustworthy enough, adult enough. People DO overestimate themselves, underestimate risks, think "it'll never happen to me" and all that.
Guns, ditto. Proper regulations and limitations can help reduce risks (imagine you didn't need a driver's license and there were no age limits - how many more accidents would there be? Imagine there were no speed limits*, or at the least no enforcement?). Dependable, responsible people with proper training who take good care of their guns and always follow all protocol and procedure aren't the problem. People who only know half, who simply aren't trustworthy, who are prone to anger issues, who are mentally not capable of handling the responsibility (for whatever reason),... are (part of) the problem. It's the same reasoning that makes you think you can still drive home after having a bottle of wine at dinner that'll cause you to mishandle a gun, not take a precaution you know you should, etc etc.

Lastly, the problem isn't so much gun culture as fear culture. Guns are just part of it. Mainstream media need to sell, and the best way to do so is to keep us scared, always. Bombings, murder sprees, those filthy arabs stealing your jobs - as long as you're scared, you're listening and buying and worrying and so on.

*Germany has no speed limits on some of their highways - but there's still limits when rain/dark/fog/snow, there're limits at every on- and offramp, there are advisable speeds, and so on...And the Germans are just weird in how orderly and correct and law-abiding they are. They're not like other people

Dec 18, 2012#229

Azurephoenix

stienman said:
There are 300+ million people in the US. I don't think a culture change is going to prevent the one in one hundred million chance that someone snaps, decides to commit mass murder, and goes through with it.

The "underlying issues" aren't treatable.

Consider this. Someone in Canada could legally obtain a Swiss Arms SG 550 rifle and with a few minutes work could modify many 20-30 round pinned magazines to their full capacity. This rifle isn't even on the restricted list in Canada (which goes to show that they always seem to hire morons to classify firearms since this rifle is quite comparable to an AR-15 which IS restricted up here). Accurate, reliable, deadly and able to sustain a large volume of fire. This could cause extreme havoc and end many lives.

Why hasn't someone done it yet?

Underlying issues are far more important than you may think.

Dec 18, 2012#230

Espy

GasBandit I get the position, like I said, but the population armed the way it is, has no chance against the government or military. Thats why all gun talk on both sides is discussed in terms of hunting and defense, even by the right wing. I'm not even saying your interpretation of the amendment is "wrong" just that it's pointless in the discussion because we gave up those rights long ago.

Dec 18, 2012#231

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Well, let me amend my argument a little. If the states do ratify your proposed 28th amendment, what you describe would become constitutional. I would not support that ratification, but if 3/4ths of the states disagree with me, it becomes constitutional. However, I will do my utmost to make sure people understand why the underlying reasons behind the 2nd amendment were and are valid, and should not be fiddled with - especially in a manner which will clearly not address the issue at hand.

Well I would oppose the amendment if that was the way it was written way too broad but I was making the point that the second amendment isn't an immutable fact any more than the 18th is.

And let me amend my argument. I didn't mean stop all mass shootings, earlier on I admitted that we would never be able to stop all the mass shootings but there are regulations that can stop some and make the ones that do happen less deadly.

Regulations like stopping the sale of weapons to disturbed individuals would at least cut out the guys so crazy that they can't even fake sanity and then stopping the mass production of extended magazines would cut down on the number of these shootings as well as the number of dead in these shootings and probably in the 100s of lesser shootings that don't get as widely reported.

Dec 18, 2012#232

Gilgamesh

I said it before and will say it again:

The war on Gun Control is and has been as effective as the War on Drugs. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that those who want to get them won't.

As for someone wanting to do a mass shooting, it doesn't matter if they kill 10 or 20 because of a smaller clip, because the loss of life at all is the real issue. The entire world would have acted just as shocked and awed if the Conneticut shooter had killed 10 Kindergardners instead of 20. The number doesn't matter as much as the reason. Smaller clips won't stop loss of life, it just affects the number. It's already been said numerous times that the shooter was mentally ill, it was known he was mentally ill and a bill recently tried to pass but prevented him from getting the mental help he would have needed to prevent this autracity. A smaller gun clip or harsher gun control wouldn't have.

Dec 18, 2012#233

Espy

You honestly think society shouldn't do things to make it harder to commit mass killings?

Dec 18, 2012#234

Bubble181

Gilgamesh said:
I said it before and will say it again:

The war on Gun Control is and has been as effective as the War on Drugs. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that those who want to get them won't.

As for someone wanting to do a mass shooting, it doesn't matter if they kill 10 or 20 because of a smaller clip, because the loss of life at all is the real issue. The entire world would have acted just as shocked and awed if the Conneticut shooter had killed 10 Kindergardners instead of 20. The number doesn't matter as much as the reason. Smaller clips won't stop loss of life, it just affects the number. It's already been said numerous times that the shooter was mentally ill, it was known he was mentally ill and a bill recently tried to pass but prevented him from getting the mental help he would have needed to prevent this autracity. A smaller gun clip or harsher gun control wouldn't have.

True, just like just increasing the legal age to drink won't suddenly stop teenagers from getting drunk, or making it harder to get a driver's license would decrease fatalities in traffic. Oh, wait - they do.
You're right, of course, that making it harder to get big-clip, easily-operated guns cheaply and easily won't suddenly stop all mass murders. Yes, if necessary, some will kill 20 people with a blade, or sticks and stones if need be. In the meantime, even if it prevents just one death extra, it may be worth looking into. "It'll just reduce the numbers" may be 100% true, it's also besides the point. You'll never reduce fatalities to 0; you can still try to get there, and you have to keep striving.
Mind that I'm not exactly opposed to better healthcare and better facilities to provide care for the mentally ill, of course

Dec 18, 2012#235

tegid

War on drugs is about persecuting their use when they are banned. A good argument against that war is that it's better to allow some drugs under some conditions so you have more control over them, who uses them, and having a legal market out of them (as opposed to the uncontrolled illegal market). Sounds pretty much like 'drug control'.
Do you see why your parallel doesn't really work, Gil?

Dec 18, 2012#236

Charlie Don't Surf

There literally IS NO WAR ON GUN CONTROL. Comparing it to the War on Drugs is ASININE.

Dec 18, 2012#237

D

Dubyamn

Gilgamesh said:
I said it before and will say it again:

The war on Gun Control is and has been as effective as the War on Drugs. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that those who want to get them won't.

As for someone wanting to do a mass shooting, it doesn't matter if they kill 10 or 20 because of a smaller clip, because the loss of life at all is the real issue. The entire world would have acted just as shocked and awed if the Conneticut shooter had killed 10 Kindergardners instead of 20. The number doesn't matter as much as the reason. Smaller clips won't stop loss of life, it just affects the number. It's already been said numerous times that the shooter was mentally ill, it was known he was mentally ill and a bill recently tried to pass but prevented him from getting the mental help he would have needed to prevent this autracity. A smaller gun clip or harsher gun control wouldn't have.

Is there some reason why you are setting up the false dichotomy that we can either have better mental health checks or we can have stricter gun control?

Some reason why we shouldn't have smaller clips for when one crazy person drops through the cracks that will still be there when we revamp the mental health system and opens fire? Once again I'm not saying ban guns cause unless you have some sort of time machine or some law that can unring a bell that ship has left port. However there are reasonable regulations like better checks for gun sales closing of loopholes and yes banning of extended clips that can cut down on the amount of casualties.

I support all measures to reduce gun violence including common sense regulation.

Dec 18, 2012#238

Frank

I was pretty shocked to read how little in the terms of mental health facilities you guys down there have now.

Dec 18, 2012#239

Gilgamesh

Espy said:
You honestly think society shouldn't do things to make it harder to commit mass killings?

I don't recall saying that. I simply said that stricter gun control isn't the solution to Connecticut. Why? Because if someone wants a firearm, they'll go around the legal system to get it. Should we let go of the restrictions we have now? Of course not, I never said that. I'm simply stating that in these situations, the proposed Gun Control tightening would have done nothing.

Bubble181 said:
True, just like just increasing the legal age to drink won't suddenly stop teenagers from getting drunk, or making it harder to get a driver's license would decrease fatalities in traffic. Oh, wait - they do.

Yet it's been shown numerous times that countries with younger legal ages to drink have shown no increase in fatalities connected with traffic fatalities, so yeah, the laws in those aspects mean nothing. Oh and if you think increasing the legal age to prevent drunk teenagers works, you've never been to a college campus or high school party. The legal age means nothing and does nothing to deter the issue.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
There literally IS NO WAR ON GUN CONTROL. Comparing it to the War on Drugs is ASININE.

I'm sure you're smart enough to realize I'm talking about the War that's trying to be waged on Gun Control by people such as yourself. Right? You are aware that's what I'm talking about.

Dubyamn said:
Is there some reason why you are setting up the false dichotomy that we can either have better mental health checks or we can have stricter gun control?

I never said we can't have both. I simply stated that one prevents loss of life, and the other may have a chance at reducing the loss of life from a larger number to a not as larger number if the gunman happens to only be carrying one weapon (which they never do). Also the reloading was not what stopped the Theatre killer from getting more victims, it was the dark theatre, mass panic/running, and his poor marksmanship.

Dec 18, 2012#240

Tress

Frank said:
I was pretty shocked to read how little in the terms of mental health facilities you guys down there have now.

Actually spending money on things like health care and education is for commies, you commie.

Dec 18, 2012#241

D

Dubyamn

Gilgamesh said:
I never said we can't have both. I simply stated that one prevents loss of life, and the other may have a chance at reducing the loss of life from a larger number to a not as larger number if the gunman happens to only be carrying one weapon (which they never do).

And like I said it's still time where the shooter isn't killing people and is vulnerable. Them switching weapons saves lives.

Also the reloading was not what stopped the Theatre killer from getting more victims, it was the dark theatre, mass panic/running, and his poor marksmanship.

It was the fact that his AR-15 jammed on round 30 of 100. That's what stopped him from getting more victims.

Dec 18, 2012#242

Shakey

Gilgamesh said:
I don't recall saying that. I simply said that stricter gun control isn't the solution to Connecticut. Why? Because if someone wants a firearm, they'll go around the legal system to get it. Should we let go of the restrictions we have now? Of course not, I never said that. I'm simply stating that in these situations, the proposed Gun Control tightening would have done nothing.

We know tighter gun control laws won't stop all gun related violence, and maybe it wouldn't have done anything in this situation. That doesn't mean we can't stop and look at our current laws and figure out if something should be changed.

I don't want to ban guns. I like my guns. What I do think we should do is look at gun sales and find a way to close some legal loopholes regarding background checks and not make it near impossible to do private sales. I'm not a fan of an assault weapon ban, because they really are just a look. Clip sizes, I really don't see the need to allow huge capacities.

People will always find a way around any type of laws. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

Dec 18, 2012#243

GasBandit

Espy said:
GasBandit I get the position, like I said, but the population armed the way it is, has no chance against the government or military. Thats why all gun talk on both sides is discussed in terms of hunting and defense, even by the right wing. I'm not even saying your interpretation of the amendment is "wrong" just that it's pointless in the discussion because we gave up those rights long ago.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there, because even if it's not the common argument, it's the right one. And if you truly think the US government would use nuclear weapons to suppress an insurrection within its own borders, I don't know what to tell you, except I hope you don't ever get put in charge of making any important national decisions.

Espy said:
You honestly think society shouldn't do things to make it harder to commit mass killings?

I think society should do things to make it seem less the thing to do. It's been shown time and time again that criminals don't obey gun control laws any more than they do other laws, and that disarming the law abiding populace only exacerbates gun crime. The second amendment isn't about personal/home defense, but guns are still useful for that purpose as well. That's not to say that I think grade school teachers need to carry guns, but say the school principal has one in his car or locked in his office...? That has stopped a shooter. A shooter who, at age 16, intentionally burned his dog to death to see "true beauty." Maybe there are some other warning signs we should be paying more attention to?

Dec 18, 2012#244

Gilgamesh

Dubyamn said:
And like I said it's still time where the shooter isn't killing people and is vulnerable. Them switching weapons saves lives.

A half second to throw one pistol and grab a second from your holster saves no lives.

Dubyamn said:
It was the fact that his AR-15 jammed on round 30 of 100. That's what stopped him from getting more victims.

Correct, also having nothing to do with smaller clips saving lives.

Shakey said:
People will always find a way around any type of laws. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

Gilgamesh said:
Should we let go of the restrictions we have now? Of course not, I never said that. I'm simply stating that in these situations, the proposed Gun Control tightening would have done nothing.

Dec 18, 2012#245

D

Dubyamn

Gilgamesh said:
A half second to throw one pistol and grab a second from your holster saves no lives.

Does when between those 2 pistols you have 30 less bullets.

Correct, also having nothing to do with smaller clips saving lives.

No of course not the fact that he didn't fire over half the round of ammunition he had in the drum has nothing to do with smaller clip sizes.

Dec 18, 2012#246

strawman

Azurephoenix said:
Why hasn't someone done it yet?

Canada has 1/10 the population of the US, so one would expect such crimes to happen significantly less frequently. I thinks there's a good point to be made that access to free health care, including mental health care, would result in fewer incidents as well, but it certainly wouldn't resolve the problem, as Canada proves.

But I honestly don't think it's a cultural issue. I suspect it's a human issue.

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

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

Dec 18, 2012#247

GasBandit

There has been a massive surge in gun sales after the Sandy Point tragedy. If you ask me, it's because of all the knee jerk "ban the guns!" rhetoric being thrown around now.

Dec 18, 2012#248

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
There has been a massive surge in gun sales after the Sandy Point tragedy. If you ask me, it's because of all the knee jerk "ban the guns!" rhetoric being thrown around now.

If you ask me, it's because people are fucking sick and our national culture is a fucking poison

Dec 18, 2012#249

Shakey

Gilgamesh said:
Should we let go of the restrictions we have now? Of course not, I never said that. I'm simply stating that in these situations, the proposed Gun Control tightening would have done nothing.

I'm not talking about current laws. I was talking about new ones.[DOUBLEPOST=1355858727][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
There has been a massive surge in gun sales after the Sandy Point tragedy. If you ask me, it's because of all the knee jerk "ban the guns!" rhetoric being thrown around now.

Why aren't my gun stocks going up????

Of course it is. It happens during every tragedy. People get worried and stock up.

Dec 18, 2012#250

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
No. What you call "Assault" weapons, BS scare-tactic term that it is, are explicitly the kind of weapon the 2nd amendment is about making sure is available. If a lone soldier can be expected to carry it, the 2nd amendment protects it. Did you not read my post? There is no level of gun control possible that will "stop these mass shootings."

See, this is what I never really understood. So weaponry that has been actually used to kill a lot of civilians can't be regulated because of a potential civic uprising?

Dec 18, 2012#251

GasBandit

North_Ranger said:
See, this is what I never really understood. So weaponry that has been actually used to kill a lot of civilians can't be regulated because of a potential civic uprising?

Potential civic uprising is our last trump card against tyranny. And when you have a federal government as huge and powerful as the US Federal government, it becomes more important than ever. Well, technically it's also to provide for defense against invasion but that doesn't seem as likely these days.

Like the old saying goes - where the people fear the government there is tyranny... where the government fears the people, there is liberty. I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall here, but our national experience has shown this sort of thing to be very important.[DOUBLEPOST=1355859473][/DOUBLEPOST]

Shakey said:
Why aren't my gun stocks going up????

I'm no stock wizard, but I might check again after the emotionality calms down a bit and a backlog of orders has built back up, showing the rising demand in a way wall street can document.

Dec 18, 2012#252

Eriol

Azurephoenix said:
Why hasn't someone done it yet?

Dude, not "mass mass" but school shooting? It absolutely has happened already in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting
In 1998. Only 8 days after Columbine according to the article.

And I wish I hadn't read that article. Apparently since he was 15 at the time, he only got a few years for it, is out, and is apparently still crazy.

Dec 18, 2012#253

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Potential civic uprising is our last trump card against tyranny. And when you have a federal government as huge and powerful as the US Federal government, it becomes more important than ever. Well, technically it's also to provide for defense against invasion but that doesn't seem as likely these days.

this is the most crystal clear example of conservatives not realizing that the world today is completely different than it was in 1776

Dec 18, 2012#254

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this is the most crystal clear example of conservatives not realizing that the world today is completely different than it was in 1776

Seems to me that people keep smacking their heads and saying something about those who do not learn from history are something something.

Dec 18, 2012#255

Azurephoenix

stienman said:
Canada has 1/10 the population of the US, so one would expect such crimes to happen significantly less frequently. I thinks there's a good point to be made that access to free health care, including mental health care, would result in fewer incidents as well, but it certainly wouldn't resolve the problem, as Canada proves.

But I honestly don't think it's a cultural issue. I suspect it's a human issue.

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

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

I agree with you that it is a human issue but if it were purely a human issue would we not see similar results adjusted based on population globally? I don't think we are which is why I believe that there is a cultural aspect as well.

Incidentally both of those shooters you listed had (or were strongly thought to have) mental disorders... so yes... human issue there.

Eriol said:
Dude, not "mass mass" but school shooting? It absolutely has happened already in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting
In 1998. Only 8 days after Columbine according to the article.

And I wish I hadn't read that article. Apparently since he was 15 at the time, he only got a few years for it, is out, and is apparently still crazy.

I do remember the Taber shooting... sad case. Thankfully that gym teacher was there. The point I was trying to make though is that the level of violence and preparation in the majority of shootings in Canada seems paltry compared to what has been going on in the USA.

Although that shooting in Norway in 2011 makes all of these pale in comaparison.

I don't even know what the answer is anymore... I'm just losing a lot of faith in people in general.

Dec 18, 2012#256

Zappit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
The Death Penalty has been proven ineffective as a deterrent, so no, we don't really need to.

I never meant that for the asshole pranksters. Jail or tons of community service is fine.

Dec 18, 2012#257

Charlie Don't Surf

Zappit said:
I never meant that for the asshole pranksters. Jail or tons of community service is fine.

The Death Penalty is also ineffective as a deterrant to mass murderers. Not to mention cruel and unusual punishment.

Dec 18, 2012#258

GasBandit

Have you ever looked at all those mass shootings and wondered what would happen if the shooter attempted that in Texas? Wonder no more.

Dec 18, 2012#259

Zappit

GasBandit said:
Have you ever looked at all those mass shootings and wondered what would happen if the shooter attempted that in Texas? Wonder no more.

Shot by an off-duty deputy, not a private citizen with a gun.

Dec 18, 2012#260

GasBandit

Zappit said:
Shot by an off-duty deputy, not a private citizen with a gun.

If this was new york, everybody in the theater would have been dead.

Dec 18, 2012#261

Frank

GasBandit said:
If this was new york, everybody in the theater would have been dead.

Yup, that proves it. Texans are better shots as a whole than New Yorkers.

Dec 18, 2012#262

GasBandit

I smacked myself in the head because I should have remembered this, but Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. The fact of the matter is that gun control is about as effective in america as marijuana prohibition.

Dec 18, 2012#263

Frank

Do you know who has super strict gun laws?

Japan.

Dec 18, 2012#264

GasBandit

Frank said:
Do you know who has super strict gun laws?

Japan.

You know who has sexual assault on trains as a national pastime?

Dec 18, 2012#265

AshburnerX

Frank said:
Do you know who has super strict gun laws?

Japan.

It's much easier for Japan to be restrictive with firearms when they don't produce them domestically and live on an island. Any gun that enters the country is ether...

- a declared import for domestic sale (which has paperwork and it's nearly impossible to get a carry permit)
- a World War 2 relic (most of which were destroyed and sit at the bottom of Tokyo harbor, but some escaped)
- in the hands of a police officer or SDF member
- brought in by the Yakuza, the Triads, or Korean mafia (who are all notorious for keeping the numbers small)

Basically, if a gun is used in a crime in Japan, it's pretty easy to figure out who did it and how they got it. It's also really fucking hard to get a gun and bullets aren't commonly available.

Dec 18, 2012#266

Frank

GasBandit said:
You know who has sexual assault on trains as a national pastime?

If you go by the reported (which is only as accurate as it can be based on reports) sexual assault statistics, the US is way ahead in that area too.

Dec 18, 2012#267

GasBandit

Frank said:
If you go by the reported (which is only as accurate as it can be based on reports) sexual assault statistics, the US is way ahead in that area too.

There's a reason why the first half of your post had to be a disclaimer - Japanese culture stigmatizes the victim in these circumstances so that they don't report the assaults when they happen, and when they do, police and prosecutors drag their feet on the matter, further discouraging victims from coming forward.

But as Ashburner is pointing out, Japan is not America. It's a tiny island nation which never had a frontier to pacify with a miniscule population that has had gun control for hundreds of years in a culture that vehemently emphasizes conformity over individuality. You might as well say gun control works for carpenter ants.

Dec 18, 2012#268

Krisken

I'm ok with handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. Those are fairly obviously used for hunting/defense. Fully and semi automatic weapons are not defensive weapons. Hell, even for sporting or skill shooting they aren't good as they aren't terribly accurate.

Dec 18, 2012#269

Zappit

GasBandit said:
The fact of the matter is that gun control is about as effective in america as marijuana prohibition.

Priorities are different there, I suppose. When was the last time marijuana used to murder 20+ people at a time? There are worse thing for people to worry about, like the topic we're actually discussing.

Dec 18, 2012#270

Sparhawk

Krisken said:
I'm ok with handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. Those are fairly obviously used for hunting/defense. Fully and semi automatic weapons are not defensive weapons. Hell, even for sporting or skill shooting they aren't good as they aren't terribly accurate.

Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, the ban was reinforced in 1986. You cannot buy automatic weapons in the US. Semi-automatic is very much a sporting rifle, I use a .22 for hunting squirrels, a 12 gauge shotgun for duck hunting. Semi-auto just means that the chamber pressure is used to load the next round in the chamber but you still have to pull the trigger for each shot.

Dec 18, 2012#271

Gilgamesh

Yeesh, GasBandit hits a triple homer with some serious stats/links on that one. Well done. (Zero sarcasm intended)

Sparhawk said:
Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, the ban was reinforced in 1986. You cannot buy automatic weapons in the US. Semi-automatic is very much a sporting rifle, I use a .22 for hunting squirrels, a 12 gauge shotgun for duck hunting. Semi-auto just means that the chamber pressure is used to load the next round in the chamber but you still have to pull the trigger for each shot.

But it's perfectly legal to buy an add-on that takes 5 minutes to install and make the Semi-Autos into Fully Autos. el oh el

Dec 18, 2012#272

Krisken

Sparhawk said:
Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, the ban was reinforced in 1986. You cannot buy automatic weapons in the US. Semi-automatic is very much a sporting rifle, I use a .22 for hunting squirrels, a 12 gauge shotgun for duck hunting. Semi-auto just means that the chamber pressure is used to load the next round in the chamber but you still have to pull the trigger for each shot.

Uh huh.

Dec 18, 2012#273

Silent Bob

GasBandit said:
Potential civic uprising is our last trump card against tyranny. And when you have a federal government as huge and powerful as the US Federal government, it becomes more important than ever. Well, technically it's also to provide for defense against invasion but that doesn't seem as likely these days.

Like the old saying goes - where the people fear the government there is tyranny... where the government fears the people, there is liberty. I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall here, but our national experience has shown this sort of thing to be very important.[DOUBLEPOST=1355859473][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm no stock wizard, but I might check again after the emotionality calms down a bit and a backlog of orders has built back up, showing the rising demand in a way wall street can document.

Dec 18, 2012#274

Silent Bob

It's always the goddamn tyrants excuse. Do you realize we almost ousted a president for getting a blow job? There will never be a violent government take over in the United States. That's the great thing about our government, there are three powers that balance each other out. Let's play Devils advocate for a moment... If the president actually did declare himself king of the US, do you honestly believe that the entire legion would obey his whim? Every general order to shoot US citizens? I highly doubt it. And even if that would occur. Do a bunch of dumb fuck, backwoods rednecks with NRA memberships stand a remote chance against the full might of the US Military machine? What are you going to do against an Abrams tank rolling over your house?

If gun nuts are so afraid of a tyrant taking over the country, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and stop supporting so much funding to the Defense Department.

Dec 18, 2012#275

sixpackshaker

Silent Bob said:
Do a bunch of dumb fuck, backwoods rednecks with NRA memberships stand a remote chance against the full might of the US Military machine? What are you going to do against an Abrams tank rolling over your house?
If gun nuts are so afraid of a tyrant taking over the country, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and stop supporting so much funding to the Defense Department.

Ask the Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese....

Dec 18, 2012#276

Silent Bob

sixpackshaker said:
Ask the Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese....

No, ask the people of the United States. Don't make comparisons of our country to unstable, puppet states. Britain is past its colonizing Empire peak, did it devolve into survival of the fittest state of chaos followed by a dictatorship?

Dec 18, 2012#277

Gilgamesh

Silent Bob - I think the Tyranny is not Tyrants but more the Tyranny of Evil Men that would take advantage of the everyday person no longer having access to a firearm for defense against the criminal who still would.

Dec 18, 2012#278

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
Silent Bob - I think the Tyranny is not Tyrants but more the Tyranny of Evil Men that would take advantage of the everyday person no longer having access to a firearm for defense against the criminal who still would.

If it is Gas, no, the tyrant in his mind is the government.

Dec 18, 2012#279

DarkAudit

As opposed to the tyranny of evil men that are squeezing every last cent out of the less fortunate of us already?

We don't line them up against the wall, we make reality shows about them so they can shove their bloodsucking in our faces even more.

Dec 18, 2012#280

TommiR

Silent Bob said:
It's always the goddamn tyrants excuse. Do you realize we almost ousted a president for getting a blow job? There will never be a violent government take over in the United States. That's the great thing about our government, there are three powers that balance each other out.

A violent coup is highly unlikely in any first world country, though the dismantling of civil liberties and subversion of the political process does not require it, if history serves as a guide. But even so, it is quite hard to envision the populace of the United States rising up in an armed struggle in any case.

And even if that would occur. Do a bunch of dumb fuck, backwoods rednecks with NRA memberships stand a remote chance against the full might of the US Military machine?

In terms of taking and holding ground? A snowball's chance in hell. In terms of attrition through asymmetric warfare? Perhaps, though as I said, that situation is hard to envision.

Dec 18, 2012#281

Shakey

Krisken said:
I'm ok with handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. Those are fairly obviously used for hunting/defense. Fully and semi automatic weapons are not defensive weapons. Hell, even for sporting or skill shooting they aren't good as they aren't terribly accurate.

Just about everyone I know uses a semi-auto shotgun...

Dec 18, 2012#282

Krisken

I guess I'm thinking of something more like

being the issue.

Nevermind I specifically excluded shotguns in my statement above.

Dec 18, 2012#283

Ravenpoe

Shakey said:
Just about everyone I know uses a semi-auto shotgun...

Really? I live in a very heavy hunting area, and just about every shotgun is pump action.

Dec 18, 2012#284

Krisken

Ravenpoe said:
Really? I live in a very heavy hunting area, and just about every shotgun is pump action.

That's just too much work.

Dec 18, 2012#285

Shakey

Ravenpoe said:
Really? I live in a very heavy hunting area, and just about every shotgun is pump action.

Could just be regional preferences. We hunt grouse around here in heavy brush. They're really fast, and you're in heavy cover, so you only have a few seconds to shoot. So without a semi-auto you'll rarely get more than one shot off even if you get a group of 2 or 3 up.
Although when we go pheasant hunting most carry just a double barrel single shot shotgun. So, it probably has a lot to do with what and where you hunt.

Dec 18, 2012#286

Ravenpoe

Shakey said:
Could just be regional preferences. We hunt grouse around here in heavy brush. They're really fast, and you're in heavy cover, so you only have a few seconds to shoot. So without a semi-auto you'll rarely get more than one shot off even if you get a group of 2 or 3 up.
Although when we go pheasant hunting most carry just a double barrel single shot shotgun. So, it probably has a lot to do with what and where you hunt.

Ah, could be. Here it's mostly deer hunting.

I don't hunt myself, but I own a pump action because I do live in a rural, wooded area, and there have been bears in my yard, and sometimes wild dogs or boar.

Dec 18, 2012#287

Shakey

Krisken said:
I guess I'm thinking of something more like

being the issue.

Nevermind I specifically excluded shotguns in my statement above.

That you associate those types of guns with all semi-automatic weapons shows how little you know about it. I'm not a fan of those either, and they are not anything close to the majority of semi-auto rifles. They do function basically the same though, which is the problem with assault weapon bans. There's no easy way to define them.

Dec 18, 2012#288

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Have you ever looked at all those mass shootings and wondered what would happen if the shooter attempted that in Texas? Wonder no more.

Gasp you mean having trained security can be a protection against crime? Gosh that is just utterly unexpected.

It is also an utterly feasible solution in all cases.

Dec 18, 2012#289

Krisken

Shakey said:
That you associate those types of guns with all semi-automatic weapons shows how little you know about it. I'm not a fan of those either, and they are not anything close to the majority of semi-auto rifles. They do function basically the same though, which is the problem with assault weapon bans. There's no easy way to define them.

No, I don't. But I like how you're changing the subject.

Dec 18, 2012#290

Shakey

Krisken said:
No, I don't. But I like how you're changing the subject.

How am I changing the subject? What would you like to talk about? How everyone who uses a semi-auto is lazy? :rolleyes:

Dec 18, 2012#291

Krisken

Shakey said:
How am I changing the subject? What would you like to talk about? How everyone who uses a semi-auto is lazy?

That was a joke. Humor, son.

Dec 18, 2012#292

CrimsonSoul

Dubyamn said:
Gasp you mean having trained security can be a protection against crime? Gosh that is just utterly unexpected.

It is also an utterly feasible solution in all cases.

Well, there's that guy in Oregan that stopped a mall shooter
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Or the Principal at Pearl High School in 1997 that stopped a school shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
That's off the top of my head
edit: Or http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112
or http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...L1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx#.UA3BQ5iNMfH.facebook
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting\
or http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out-10236.html

Dec 18, 2012#293

D

Dubyamn

CrimsonSoul said:
Well, there's that guy in Oregan that stopped a mall shooter
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Or the Principal at Pearl High School in 1997 that stopped a school shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
That's off the top of my head

I like those stories. Mostly cause neither one has the person firing a shot.

Dec 19, 2012#294

DarkAudit

Do I have an easy answer? Not on your fargin' life. But I offer this alternative to banning guns or trying to define "assault weapons"...

Regulate the ever living fuck out of the ammunition. Make it as difficult as possible for your average thug to acquire, without making it impossible. Same goes for equipment for self-loaders. Everything you purchase from here on out is already registered with the gov't, and WILL be traced back to you of something bad is done with it.

Now let the hair-splitting on what counts as "ammo" begin.

Dec 19, 2012#295

bhamv3

DarkAudit said:
Do I have an easy answer? Not on your fargin' life. But I offer this alternative to banning guns or trying to define "assault weapons"...

Regulate the ever living fuck out of the ammunition. Make it as difficult as possible for your average thug to acquire, without making it impossible. Same goes for equipment for self-loaders. Everything you purchase from here on out is already registered with the gov't, and WILL be traced back to you of something bad is done with it.

Now let the hair-splitting on what counts as "ammo" begin.

Does this mean ball bearings are going to be really hard to get, because I can fire them from my musket?

Dec 19, 2012#296

T

The_Khan

just wait until 3d printers can print off guns capable of firing more than a couple of shots before turning into gunk. Gun control is only going to be become more and more difficult.

Dec 19, 2012#297

Bubble181

It still strikes me as funny that, for the most part, people defending the 2nd amendment are the same who defend heavy Defense spending.
If fighting the government is why you need guns, stop giving the government bigger guns. It'd make more sense of you had one side of politics saying you need a big army for safety against threats, and one side saying you need to have free gun ownership to protect from that. instead, you have one side saying the government needs bigger guns to protect the people, and the people need bigger guns to protect them from the government. It's ridiculous and only good for the gun manufacturers.

"Gun" used as a general term for weapons. Blegh.

Look, all of the mass stabbings and such aside, a world where guns are rare and only possessed by a small group of heavily-vetted, trained people who are responsible and trustworthy enough would be a safer place for the general population than one where most everyone who wants to can have a fire-arm. Obviously this would not stop crime, nor would it prevent organized/determined criminals from getting a gun. As Europe shows, though, the same type of crimes tend to be less violent, there are less wounded and dead due to crime (not just "violent crime" because those numbers are pretty meaningless to compare), there are less lethal accidents. On the other side, it's impossible to suddenly change the US into a culture like Western Europe - a prohibition or the like would be senseless, since guns are so widespread that, indeed, criminals would still easily have them, which would unbalance the scales.

That doesn't mean that tighter control wouldn't help in cutting down. Most crimes remain crimes of opportunity. Locking your car won't stop car burglary, but it'll seriously reduce risks. Keeping (legal) guns out of the hands of depressed or unstable teenagers, violent criminals, the disgruntled and irresponsible ones, drug abusers and so on would help. Keeping closer tab on those who DO own guns and forcing them to practice safe handling, safe storage, obligatory repeated handling/firing tests,... would mean better control and thus, easier tracking of guns and more responsible ownership.

Dec 19, 2012#298

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
It still strikes me as funny that, for the most part, people defending the 2nd amendment are the same who defend heavy Defense spending.
If fighting the government is why you need guns, stop giving the government bigger guns.

I don't really see a contradiction in their line of thought, as far as I understand their reasoning. A military exists primarily for the purposes of defence against external threats. An armed and vigilant populace is needed as a final check against the power of the armed forces (and paramilitary/law enforcement/any other government controlled agencies) being turned against the citizenry in a power bid by a ruthless leader. The intended purposes of the two are very different, as the military is not meant to fight against it's own citizenry, and an armed populace can't be used effectively in furthering national interests abroad. Hamstringing the military for the benefit of domestic security leaves the country less capable of dealing with outside contingencies. But if one wants the greater external security that a strong military provides, then, or so I understand the thought goes, one should also reinforce the safeguards, just in case.

One wants to watch the watchmen, but a superpower wanting global reach kind of needs the watchmen to be effective, too.

Look, all of the mass stabbings and such aside, a world where guns are rare and only possessed by a small group of heavily-vetted, trained people who are responsible and trustworthy enough would be a safer place for the general population than one where most everyone who wants to can have a fire-arm.

I do kind of agree with the effect. As something of an extreme, living under The Leviathan might have drawbacks according to some schools of thought, but it would very likely be a safer and more stable condition than one where every Tom Dick and Harry had chemical weapons shells for their MBT.

Dec 19, 2012#299

SpecialKO

They should have firearms license tests similar to driving tests...and then offer cash prizes for people who rate in the 95th percentile in their county/state. Purely anecdotal, but the few people I know who own guns are very proud of their marksmanship.

Dec 19, 2012#300

GasBandit

Silent Bob said:
It's always the goddamn tyrants excuse. Do you realize we almost ousted a president for getting a blow job? There will never be a violent government take over in the United States. That's the great thing about our government, there are three powers that balance each other out. Let's play Devils advocate for a moment... If the president actually did declare himself king of the US, do you honestly believe that the entire legion would obey his whim? Every general order to shoot US citizens? I highly doubt it. And even if that would occur. Do a bunch of dumb fuck, backwoods rednecks with NRA memberships stand a remote chance against the full might of the US Military machine? What are you going to do against an Abrams tank rolling over your house?

If gun nuts are so afraid of a tyrant taking over the country, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and stop supporting so much funding to the Defense Department.

We "almost oust" a president for a blow job (we didn't, the political class did amongst themselves), yet we barely even raise our voices above a mutter when another president starts forming a hit list with american citizens on it. Yes, it's entirely feasible that a dictator could come to power in the US given the right economic and political situations under a declared state of emergency, but even that isn't necessary. Even 250 years ago, there was saying that a number of people had about whether or not it was preferable to cast out 1 tyrant 1000 miles away in exchange for 1000 tyrants 1 mile away.

And you can't hold a town if you never get out of your tank, and tanks aren't absolutely impregnable to infantry. As I said earlier - if tanks were such a trump card, we wouldn't be having the trouble we've had in pacifying scruffy herdsmen in Afghanistan and Iraq with Kalashnikovs this last decade, now would we? Why didn't the first Abrams to come along put an end to that?

I'm not saying an uprising would push all the way to washington and topple the capital dome, I'm saying they could make occupation costly and sap the will of the oppressors. Without firearms, there's nothing but blades of grass to be mown down.

Dec 19, 2012#301

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
And you can't hold a town if you never get out of your tank, and tanks aren't absolutely impregnable to infantry. As I said earlier - if tanks were such a trump card, we wouldn't be having the trouble we've had in pacifying scruffy herdsmen in Afghanistan and Iraq with Kalashnikovs this last decade, now would we? Why didn't the first Abrams to come along put an end to that?

In Afghanistan, it's because those "scruffy herdsmen" are armed with RPGs, IEDS, conventional explosives, and military-grade equipment that "happened" to find their way from caches of the warlords we backed when we deposed the Taliban, and are intimately familiar with guerrilla warfare after having done nothing but for the past 30-40 years while being trained at various points in time by us, the Soviets, Iran, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda.

I'm not saying an uprising would push all the way to washington and topple the capital dome, I'm saying they could make occupation costly and sap the will of the oppressors. Without firearms, there's nothing but blades of grass to be mown down.

The presence of firearms doesn't really stop the occupiers from "mowing the grass" if that's really what they want to do. That's why the herdsmen use planted explosives.

Dec 19, 2012#302

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Yes, it's entirely feasible that a dictator could come to power given the right economic and political situations under a declared state of emergency

(Grand Chancellor Sutler from V for Vendetta)

Dec 19, 2012#303

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
In Afghanistan, it's because those "scruffy herdsmen" are armed with RPGs, IEDS, conventional explosives, and military-grade equipment that "happened" to find their way from caches of the warlords we backed when we deposed the Taliban, and are intimately familiar with guerrilla warfare after having done nothing but for the past 30-40 years while being trained at various points in time by us, the Soviets, Iran, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda.

The presence of firearms doesn't really stop the occupiers from "mowing the grass" if that's really what they want to do. That's why the herdsmen use planted explosives.

It would doubtless involve that too, but it'd still be a lot harder to accomplish without being armed conventionally - it'd be a pretty big stretch to argue otherwise, to put it extremely kindly. I'm just glad we can arm ourselves, instead of having to wait for another state to arm us.

Dec 19, 2012#304

Ravenpoe

Let's make things more interesting. Ban all guns, but teach everyone kung fu.

Now the news has something to cover 24/7

Dec 19, 2012#305

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
It would doubtless involve that too, but it'd still be a lot harder to accomplish without being armed conventionally - it'd be a pretty big stretch to argue otherwise, to put it extremely kindly.

It will always be a lot harder to accomplish without any one key thing. You've said nothing to demonstrate that firearms are the reason for our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to the exclusion of explosives, intelligence, experience, and surreptitious support from a local military power with superior logistical lines, but you've continuously contended that firearms, in a modern world against a modern standing army, are the absolute must-have key to defending against the tyranny of the government controlling that army, and that's why we need freely acquirable guns.

And I'm saying that's a nice idea in theory, but it's a grossly outdated one.

I'm just glad we can arm ourselves, instead of having to wait for another state to arm us.

You do realize I'm not Charlie, right? I'm not calling for a ban.

Dec 19, 2012#306

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
It will always be a lot harder to accomplish without any one key thing. You've said nothing to demonstrate that firearms are the reason for our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to the exclusion of explosives, intelligence, experience, and surreptitious support from a local military power with superior logistical lines, but you've continuously contended that firearms, in a modern world against a modern standing army, are the key to defending against the tyranny of the government controlling that army.

And I'm saying that's a nice idea in theory, but it's a grossly outdated one.

You do realize I'm not Charlie, right? I'm not calling for a ban.

Didn't mean to accuse you of it, I was expressing an honest thought.

Obviously it's not firearms alone in the middle east - but that example was to show that tanks are not an instant win condition against a populace without tanks, in response to the "there's no point, you can't beat tanks and nukes" argument that others keep throwing at me. Yes, military grade firearms alone aren't enough, but they are part of what makes it possible, and without them pretty much everything else is elementary. And I'd just like to reiterate, it doesn't have to be enough to guarantee victory (it'd be silly for us to work things so that our civilian population could overpower our military at will), it merely must be enough to give that much more pause to those who might otherwise govern so very far against the will of the governed.

Dec 19, 2012#307

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
it merely must be enough to give that much more pause to those who might otherwise govern so very far against the will of the governed.

That's all very well, but it's predicated on the idea that an actual tyrannical government 1) will act rationally and 2) is genuinely tyrannical. Right now, in this country "tyranny" seems to be defined as "won a democratically-decided election and disagrees with me".

Dec 19, 2012#308

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
That's all very well, but it's predicated on the idea that an actual tyrannical government 1) will act rationally and 2) is genuinely tyrannical. Right now, in this country "tyranny" seems to be defined as "won a democratically-decided election and disagrees with me".

I sure didn't define it that way. The people who do are just as wrong as people who think the second amendment is so they can go hunting.

Dec 19, 2012#309

DarkAudit

SpecialKO said:
That's all very well, but it's predicated on the idea that an actual tyrannical government 1) will act rationally and 2) is genuinely tyrannical. Right now, in this country "tyranny" seems to be defined as "won a democratically-decided election and disagrees with me".

And since GB has flatly refused to take part in the process to try to fix anything, it's "everyone else".

Dec 19, 2012#310

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
And since GB has flatly refused to take part in the process to try to fix anything, it's "everyone else".

I vote my true conscience. That's a more sincere effort than most.

Dec 19, 2012#311

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
I vote my true conscience.

Dec 19, 2012#312

DarkAudit

No surprise that Senator Manchin is already walking back his comments from Monday. Most journalists from WV could see that coming as soon as the story broke Monday. Dude's a puppet of the lobbyists. Guy would piss on the graves of his own family if it would earn points with the big donors.

Dec 19, 2012#313

Bowielee

I'm really glad we took thread about a tragedy and turned it into another political pissing match.

Stay classy, Halforums.

Dec 19, 2012#314

Gilgamesh

Bowielee said:
I'm really glad we took thread about a tragedy and turned it into another political pissing match.

Stay classy, Halforums.

Well, it is in the political forum.

Dec 19, 2012#315

Ravenpoe

I'm glad we can passive aggressively accuse others of classlessness for discussing the obvious issues that arise out of national tragedy.

Dec 19, 2012#316

Bowielee

Gilgamesh said:
Well, it is in the political forum.

It actually wasn't originally, Dave moved it here in anticipation of the shitstorm that followed.

Poe, I like you, man, but really, there should have been two different threads about this.

Dec 19, 2012#317

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
It actually wasn't originally, Dave moved it here in anticipation of the shitstorm that followed.

Poe, I like you, man, but really, there should have been two different threads about this.

Probably, but very near the start it was started what was expected to happen, so we shouldn't be exasperated when that happened.

Dec 19, 2012#318

Bowielee

I can be exasperated by whatever I want

I'm anything if not mercurial.

Dec 19, 2012#319

GasBandit

I'm glad we're glad that we're glad that things we hate happen.

Dec 19, 2012#320

CrimsonSoul

Jesus I went to all the gun stores around here to buy one more pmag for my ar. Everyone is sold out. Now to check Amazon or wait till around Monday so the mom and pop one will hopefully have a shipment

Dec 19, 2012#321

sixpackshaker

The mags have jumped $20 a piece at Cheaper Than Dirt.

Dec 19, 2012#322

CrimsonSoul

Yeah, there is ONE on amazon. They are trying to sell it for $100

Dec 19, 2012#323

sixpackshaker

So much for me buying an AR-15 two years from now...

Dec 19, 2012#324

CrimsonSoul

sixpackshaker said:
So much for me buying an AR-15 two years from now...

Give it a little bit and the omg must buy now that everyone is going through will die down

Dec 19, 2012#325

Sparhawk

CrimsonSoul said:
Give it a little bit and the omg must buy now that everyone is going through will die down

Yeah, the OMG reaction on top of Christmas shopping just put the whammy on supply at this time.

Dec 19, 2012#326

Bowielee

WTF? You can buy ammo on Amazon?

I'm just... fuck man...

Dec 19, 2012#327

Charlie Don't Surf

you could also consider maybe not buying guns or gun accessories

Dec 19, 2012#328

Bowielee

Seriously, though, how the hell is that even legal?

Dec 19, 2012#329

CrimsonSoul

Bowielee said:
WTF? You can buy ammo on Amazon?

I'm just... fuck man...

No, you can't PMags are magazines, not ammunition[DOUBLEPOST=1355961659][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
Seriously, though, how the hell is that even legal?

You can buy ammo online though, just not on amazon.

Dec 19, 2012#330

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
Seriously, though, how the hell is that even legal?

Bullets are safe to transport as long as they don't catch on fire or anything and there is nothing overtly suspicious about buying bullets unless your buying thousands at a time. Remember, a lot of people shoot recreational and some guns need rounds in weird sizes and calibers. It's often easier to just order them directly from the manufacturer.

Dec 19, 2012#331

T

The_Khan

I wouldn't be surprised if the assault weapons ban was based more on manufacturing origin than anything else.

Dec 19, 2012#332

CrimsonSoul

*Must not post link to where you can buy shotgun shells online that shoot fire*

Dec 19, 2012#333

AshburnerX

CrimsonSoul said:
*Must not post link to where you can buy shotgun shells online that shoot fire*

Ahh... Dragon's Breath. When you absolutely, positively must destroy your shotgun barrel.

Dec 19, 2012#334

bhamv3

CrimsonSoul said:
*Must not post link to where you can buy shotgun shells online that shoot fire*

I'm trying to think of a situation where setting something on fire would confer a tactical advantage above simply shooting them with a shotgun. Maybe if you're fighting a scarecrow or something...

Or maybe someone wants to set something on fire, for example if you're pillaging a medieval village, but that's what torches and other arson-related devices were invented for.

Dec 19, 2012#335

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
I'm trying to think of a situation where setting something on fire would confer a tactical advantage above simply shooting them with a shotgun. Maybe if you're fighting a scarecrow or something...

Body armor. You set your target's clothes on-fire and force them to ether burn to death or drop everything to try and put it out. It's also scary as hell and will make some people stop dead in their tracks. It's kind of amazing the lengths weapon designers will go to..

Dec 19, 2012#336

Charlie Don't Surf

I have been lying to myself that "assault weapons ban" is banning all guns since literally every gun is a weapon designed to assault to make myself feel better

Dec 19, 2012#337

bhamv3

AshburnerX said:
Body armor. You set your target's clothes on-fire and force them to ether burn to death or drop everything to try and put it out. It's also scary as hell and will make some people stop dead in their tracks. It's kind of amazing the lengths weapon designers will go to..

Hmm, I guess that makes sense. Wonder why I didn't think of it. My brain must not be wired that way.

Dec 19, 2012#338

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
you could also consider maybe not buying guns or gun accessories

Isn't it awesome how everyone is selling out because the sales are through the roof recently?

Dec 19, 2012#339

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
Isn't it awesome how everyone is selling out because the sales are through the roof recently?

nah!

Dec 19, 2012#340

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
nah!

The sheer volume they're doing is so outside their norm that they're having to buy larger shipments to fill the orders. Gives you a warm feeling inside doesn't it? There's even more ammo/guns out there than previous to this weeks talks of Gun Control!

Dec 19, 2012#341

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
The sheer volume they're doing is so outside their norm that they're having to buy larger shipments to fill the orders. Gives you a warm feeling inside doesn't it? There's even more ammo/guns out there than previous to this weeks talks of Gun Control!

nah all that shit you just said is terrible

Dec 19, 2012#342

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
nah all that shit you just said is terrible

Dec 19, 2012#343

Chippy

Gilgamesh said:
View attachment 9390

No thank you

Dec 19, 2012#344

Charlie Don't Surf

I'll deal with it by voting for, donating to, and supporting in other ways gun control campaigns and politicians. This issue feels like something I'm on the right side of history for, like gay rights, repealing the death penalty, etc etc.

Dec 19, 2012#345

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'll deal with it by voting for, donating to, and supporting in other ways gun control campaigns and politicians. This issue feels like something I'm on the right side of history for, like gay rights, repealing the death penalty, etc etc.

I'm sure

Dec 19, 2012#346

Chippy

being passive because you don't have anything better to say is supposed to be my thing.

Dec 19, 2012#347

Gilgamesh

Chippy said:
being passive because you don't have anything better to say is supposed to be my thing.

I've said my point multiple times. ie: see the early parts of this thread, he dodged every time his point was countered. That's his thing

Dec 19, 2012#348

DarkAudit

Dec 19, 2012#349

Zappit

Coming back to this thread after a break, because Lord knows I needed one. And I'm coming back for a reason - to share a story about something that happened to me this morning.

So I'm walking into the school today, and a parent who had dropped off a kid had driven out the back way near the teachers' parking lot. She saw me, asked if I was a teacher, and when I said I was, she waved me over, handed me an envelope, and told me, "You never saw me."

Yuh-oh.

I went inside, opened it to see who I needed to deliver it to, and it was a Christmas card that contained a twenty dollar bill. It was a random act of kindness inspired by the Sandy Hook tragedy. She had written a truly touching note about spreading love, asking me to pay it forward, and to remember the twenty little angels who went to heaven. Fought back some tears on that one. The school is collecting for the Sandy Hook survivors tomorrow, and that's where that money will be going.

And that's what we really do need to take away from this. That we can reach out to total strangers, just anybody, and do them a kindness. It can do so much good for that person, and inspire them.

I don't know who you are, and I won't try to find out since you want to remain anonymous, but thank you. I had been pretty depressed and angry over the Sandy Hook murders, but that simple, touching gesture served as a reminder of how decent and kind people can be, and I really needed that. Things just seemed a little better today, and even tomorrow seems that way now, too. I will be paying it forward.

Dec 20, 2012#350

SpecialKO

This article is a little intense (actually, it's quite a lot intense), but I think it's very worthwhile.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/on-black-holes-patience-and-what-i-know-to-be-true

Dec 20, 2012#351

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
This article is a little intense (actually, it's quite a lot intense), but I think it's very worthwhile.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/on-black-holes-patience-and-what-i-know-to-be-true

Very nice little slice of life subjective story about how emotionality rules what a lot of people consider OK (or not).

I was very "agree on some things, disagree on others, that's ok" about that article until I got to this point:

"These are hollow-points," he exclaimed. "They're meant for piercing armor."

/facepalm. /headdesk.
That was a quote from a cop. He should know better. Hollowpoints are less effective against armor, more effective against unarmored targets. AP and hollowpoint are exact. opposites.

So, anyway... then from there it just descends into hysterics.

Dec 20, 2012#352

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
Very nice little slice of life subjective story about how emotionality rules what a lot of people consider OK (or not).

That is what is was intended to be.

Dec 20, 2012#353

T

The_Khan

GasBandit said:
/facepalm. /headdesk.
That was a quote from a cop. He should know better. Hollowpoints are less effective against armor, more effective against unarmored targets. AP and hollowpoint are exact. opposites.

So, anyway... then from there it just descends into hysterics.

It was an interesting article, but yeah.

Hollow points are meant for breaking apart in soft targets and making sure what you hit will die from internal bleeding and complicate surgery. While I don't think most firearms should be banned, these should be.

Dec 20, 2012#354

AshburnerX

The_Khan said:
It was an interesting article, but yeah.

Hollow points are meant for breaking apart in soft targets and making sure what you hit will die from internal bleeding and complicate surgery. While I don't think most firearms should be banned, these should be.

... except many cops and hunters use them to make sure their bullets don't pass through the target or pass through walls/doors if they miss. The fragmenting effect does more than just make them more lethal.

Dec 20, 2012#355

GasBandit

The more I reread (and reread aloud to my significant other) that article, the more I am convinced the whole thing is malarky - there's too many mistakes, too many emotional inconsistencies. Glocks do have a "safety" even if it isn't necessarily a button. No cop, ever, would tell you a hollowpoint is for piercing armor. It just smells more and more off each time I reread it. She's making an error-riddled fallacious appeal to emotion that may in fact be part or entirely fiction. She wants me to "push past her" to discount it? Done.

Never change your mind about any subject based on something that tries to get you to feel instead of think.

Dec 21, 2012#356

CrimsonSoul

HTTP://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dec 21, 2012#357

Hailey Knight

Apparently Hells Angels formed a wall of man and motorcycle to keep the WBC away from the funerals and grieving families.

Dec 21, 2012#358

CrimsonSoul

Quotemander Prime said:
Apparently Hells Angels formed a wall of man and motorcycle to keep the WBC away from the funerals and grieving families.

Kinda surprised it want the patriot guard that did it

Dec 21, 2012#359

Krisken

This was on the front page of the Huffington Post tonight-

TO LIVE AND DIE IN AMERICA

3 Shot And Killed In Mich... 18-Year-Old Shot Multiple Times, Dies... Man Kills Wife, Teen, Himself... Man Shoots, Kills Own Son... Cops Shoot Teen Dead...Man Gunned Down In Parking Lot... 5 Dead In Spate Of Shootings... 2 Murdered In Philly... 2 Kansas Cops Shot Dead... Shooter Killed... 4 Die In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Ga. Cop Dies From Gunshot... Argument Leads Teen To Shoot Friend... Man Shot To Death... Teen Dies After Being Tied Up, Shot... Man Shot Dead In Street... Drug Deal Leads To Shooting Death... Mother Of 2 Killed In Road Rage Shooting... Man Shoots, Kills Intruder... 1 Killed In Coney Island...Man Dies From Gunshot Wounds... Cops Investigate Gun Death... Shooting Victim's Body Found On Bike Trail... Man Charged With Shooting Own Brother Dead... Man Dies After Being Shot In Chest... Body Of Shooting Victim Found In Pickup... Teen Arrested For Robbery Shooting Death... Man Carrying 2-Year-Old Son Shot Dead... Man Fatally Shot Near Home... Parolee Dies In Shooting... 1 Killed In Buffalo Shooting... Man Shot Dead In Apartment Complex... Street Gun Battle Kills Grandma Bystander... Man, Woman Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Woman Shot Dead By Intruder... 14-Year-Old Arrested Over Fatal Gun Attack... Man Found Shot Dead In Parking Lot... Woman Shot In Face By Ex-Boyfriend... 1 Woman, 3 Men Shot Dead... 2 Die In Attempted Robbery... Army Reservist Shot To Death In Alley... Man Shot To Death In Bodega... 2 Shot Dead In Burned House... Man Shot During Break-In... Man Fatally Shot... 20-Year-Old Gunned Down... Man Shoots Self During Police Pursuit... 1 Killed In Baltimore Shooting... Cops ID Shooting Victim... 60-Year-Old Man Shot Dead... Shot Man's Body Found In Vacant House.... Woman Shot And Killed Outside Her Home...Shooting Victim Was 'Trying To Turn Life Around'... Slain Shooting Victim Found In Street.... Driving Altercation Leads To Shooting, 1 Dies... 3-Year-Old Dies In Accidental Shooting... Man Turns Self In After Allegedly Shooting Wife... Man Shot Dead Outside Home... 3 Slain In Separate New Orleans Shootings... Cops Investigate Shooting Death... Man Shot Dead In Ohio... Teen Shot To Death... Man Dies After Being Shot Multiple Times... Man Charged Over Son's Shooting Death... Cops Find 2 Men Shot Dead... 1 Dies In Shooting... Man Charged Over Gun Killing... 1 Shot Dead In Confrontation... Man Charged With Murder Over Shooting... Motel-Owner Shot And Killed... Husband Shoots Estranged Wife Dead... Suspect Arrested Over Deputy's Shooting Death... Police Probe Fatal Shooting... Cops Kill 2 Suspects In 3 Shooting Deaths... Man Killed Fighting Back Against Robber... Man Killed In Home Invasion.... Nightclub Shooting Kills 1... Child Brain Dead After Drive By Shooting... Man Charged Over Shooting Of Ex-Wife... Body Found In Vacant House... Teen Fatally Shot...

It does put things into perspective a bit. If this happens on a daily basis and to talk about this epidemic is crass after a shooting, is there ever a good time to talk about it?

Dec 21, 2012#360

Bowielee

WHY? Why do I scroll down to comments sections?

Dec 21, 2012#361

Krisken

Ewww, no comments. Gross.

Dec 24, 2012#362

Tress

Firefighters were shot (two of them killed) after being ambushed by a gunman at a fire deliberately set to "trap" the first responders.

What the fuck is going on lately?

Dec 24, 2012#363

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
Firefighters were shot (two of them killed) after being ambushed by a gunman at a fire deliberately set to "trap" the first responders.

What the fuck is going on lately?

The second amendment in action

Dec 24, 2012#364

blotsfan

Never read the comments.

Dec 24, 2012#365

Ravenpoe

blotsfan said:
Never read the comments.

Dammit...

You realize that's like saying "don't look down," right?

Dec 24, 2012#366

jwhouk

Can't even put it into words.

Dec 24, 2012#367

bhamv3

CrimsonSoul said:
Kinda surprised it want the patriot guard that did it

I would be surprised if there isn't some overlap between the two groups.

Dec 24, 2012#368

DarkAudit

Ambusher had done 17 years in prison.

Should never have had access to weapons. Was anyone ever paying attention to this guy?

LaPierre does make a valid point. Before we start flooding the books with new gun legislation, we should do an inventory of what laws are already enacted, and how many arrests and convictions those laws have resulted in. Then look at what cases resulted as a consequence of not bothering to enforce those laws.

Somebody's gonna have some 'splainin to do.

Dec 26, 2012#369

Calleja

I'm obviously kind of an outsider on this, but I'm no stranger to fear of gun violence, as you all must know.

I don't think guns are the problem. Guns are difficult as FUCK to get here in Mexico for the average citizen (you have to literally buy them from the army, after rigorous background checks) but that means shit, because evil people aren't average. Drug dealers and psychopaths will find a way to get the guns they need/want, period.

The problem is fear. The problem is that news need 24 hours of content now. The problem is human emotions are incredibly easy to manipulate. The problem is capitalism by definition breeds selfishness and self entitlement. The problem is our culture itself. Yes, our, no Mexican is free of US influence, believe me.

We are poisoned at a fundamental level as a society. Guns aren't the problem. People thinking their needs come before everyone else's is. People saying stuff like "I don't want guns banned, I like my guns" is a very good example of this.... they're putting their own likes over society's needs. We all put our own needs over society's. We're literally raised to do so, if you think about it. And when you have millions and millions of people, you're gonna have millions and millions of variables and of course some of those are going to crack and kill little kids. It's sickening, it's appalling... but it needs to be changed at a generational level, no law or amendment or single President will change that. The entire zeitgeist is rotten.

Dec 26, 2012#370

Krisken

Well said.

Dec 27, 2012#371

Bubble181

Tress said:
Firefighters were shot (two of them killed) after being ambushed by a gunman at a fire deliberately set to "trap" the first responders.

What the fuck is going on lately?

People shooting first response teams at a fire, on Christmas Eve? Hey, I guess there *are* other people than child molesters who I'd be willing to give the death penalty after all. -_-

Dec 28, 2012#372

Silent Bob

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

Gun lobbies are bad, mmmkay?

Dec 29, 2012#373

Dave

Ugh. This makes me sick.

http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html

My child is safe! The only survivor of the class that was gunned down. The only appropriate response? Sue the fucking school for $100 million! Fuck you, you greedy pricks. I can guarantee there are 20 other sets of parents who wish they were in your shoes.[DOUBLEPOST=1356795153][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh I read that wrong! It's not even the survivor of the class, merely a 6 year old who heard shooting and screaming over the intercom! 'Merica.

Dec 29, 2012#374

Charlie Don't Surf

It'd be cooler if they were suing the gunmakers.

Dec 29, 2012#375

Krisken

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It'd be cooler if they were suing the gunmakers.

Less likely to win, though.

Dec 29, 2012#376

Charlie Don't Surf

Krisken said:
Less likely to win, though.

True. The NRA has much deeper pockets, though.

Dec 29, 2012#377

jwhouk

Hey, I know! Why don't we call the parents in Newtown and have them all sue YOU, Charlie?

Dec 29, 2012#378

SpecialKO

Wait, should they be suing the gunmakers or the NRA? Despite close associations, they're not the same people.

Dec 29, 2012#379

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
Wait, should they be suing the gunmakers or the NRA? Despite close associations, they're not the same people.

Sorry, I conflated them, they are practically the same people.[DOUBLEPOST=1356823597][/DOUBLEPOST]

jwhouk said:
Hey, I know! Why don't we call the parents in Newtown and have them all sue YOU, Charlie?

I don't get it

Dec 29, 2012#380

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Sorry, I conflated them, they are practically the same people.

Not for the purposes of suing them, they're not.

Dec 29, 2012#381

Krisken

(fucking vevo)

Holy shit, nevermind, it actually put it in.

Jan 13, 2013#382

Gilgamesh

Thought this was appropriate:

Jan 13, 2013#383

Krisken

You can't prosecute what isn't illegal. God dammit I hate the "criminals don't obey laws so lets not have the law" argument.

Jan 13, 2013#384

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
You can't prosecute what isn't illegal. God dammit I hate the "criminals don't obey laws so lets not have the law" argument.

Not sure who you're directing that at, but I agree completely.

Jan 13, 2013#385

Krisken

Just the message of that image, mostly. Sorry, I've been assaulted by some monumentally stupid Facebook images dispensing wit such as banning pencils because people misspell words. I just can't take the mentally defunct messaging anymore.

Jan 13, 2013#386

Gilgamesh

The message is that stronger gun control laws are not the answer.

Jan 13, 2013#387

Bowielee

One of the biggest issues with adding gun control laws is that we aren't even consistantly enforcing the ones we have now.

Jan 13, 2013#388

DarkAudit

Gilgamesh said:
The message is that stronger gun control laws are not the answer.

Not when they don't bother to enforce the ones we already have.

(ninja'd, but whaddaya gonna do?

)

Jan 13, 2013#389

Krisken

It depends on what you mean by "stronger". Some enforcement and requirements are pretty basic on a common sense scale. Extended clips are just toys meant to give gun nuts a hard on. Requiring training for gun permits. Restricting certain diagnosis of the mentally ill from legally owning or purchasing a firearm. It's not as if even the staunchest gun control douche is saying there should be no guns.

That's all we're going to hear, though for the next few months until the debt ceiling crap hits the fan.

Jan 13, 2013#390

blotsfan

Krisken said:
It's not as if even the staunchest gun control douche is saying there should be no guns.

Paging Charlie

Jan 13, 2013#391

Krisken

blotsfan said:
Paging Charlie

If I took anything that guy said at face value, he'd be locked in the same room with Gas

Jan 13, 2013#392

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
If I took anything that guy said at face value, he'd be locked in the same room with Gas

Same thing in reverse.

Jan 13, 2013#393

jwhouk

Gilgamesh said:
The message is that stronger gun control laws are not just the answer.

Fixed that.

Jan 13, 2013#394

CrimsonSoul

As a big gun nut myself, the main things I would be willing to concede is universal background checks (Gunshow/private sells) if it excludes transfers within family and the mental health thing Krisken was saying. Aside from that, I'm not really willing to concede more.

Jan 13, 2013#395

Tress

What's the reasoning for wanting to exclude the mental health aspect of the background check?

Jan 13, 2013#396

Gilgamesh

Tress said:
What's the reasoning for wanting to exclude the mental health aspect of the background check?

No clue, I'm 100% for it.

Jan 13, 2013#397

Krisken

The reasoning being used (not that I necessarily agree with it being the best argument) is that it would be an invasion of privacy.

Jan 14, 2013#398

CrimsonSoul

Err.. I misspoke on the above, I Agree with the inclusion of adding additional mental health problems to the list of people not being able to purchase firearms and universal background checks, but do not agree with background checks when the transfer is between family members.

Jan 14, 2013#399

Tress

I could totally live with all that.

Jan 14, 2013#400

Krisken

And that's what really bothers me about the whole debate... it's not really a debate. Most people agree with these things as being reasonable and minimally intrusive to gun ownership in general. It's the vocal fuckwits to put out the bumper sticker slogans backed by NRA money or the couple loud liberal idiots who push for 'da banning of guns herp derp' that are the ones focused on.

And until we stop letting our congressmen make 'safe districts' and drawing the political map, it will never change. The screaming from both sides makes them all money.

Jan 14, 2013#401

AshburnerX

Apparently an American TV adaption of Battle Royale was canned following these events. This is literally the third time this has happened to Battle Royale

- Translated American release was canned because of school shootings (I wanna say Columbine?)
- The Virgina Tech shootings killed the chance at a Hollywood remake of the movie.

It's really fucking depressing how there's always a shooting to derail this kind of thing... that shootings have become so common that it can destroy an ENTIRE FRANCHISE.

Jan 14, 2013#402

Bowielee

Eh, I don't think I'd want to see an American produced version of Battle Royale anyway.

Jan 14, 2013#403

DarkAudit

Bowielee said:
Eh, I don't think I'd want to see an American produced version of Battle Royale anyway.

It would serve no purpose but to enable an excess of hand wringing amongst the various and sundry cable news scolds.

Jan 14, 2013#404

Bowielee

DarkAudit said:
It would serve no purpose but to enable an excess of hand wringing amongst the various and sundry cable news scolds.

That and it'd suck on toast.

Jan 14, 2013#405

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
Apparently an American TV adaption of Battle Royale was canned following these events. This is literally the third time this has happened to Battle Royale

- Translated American release was canned because of school shootings (I wanna say Columbine?)
- The Virgina Tech shootings killed the chance at a Hollywood remake of the movie.

It's really fucking depressing how there's always a shooting to derail this kind of thing... that shootings have become so common that it can destroy an ENTIRE FRANCHISE.

So stop trying to make an American Battle Royale, and there will be less school shootings. Cause and effect, right? ;-)

Jan 14, 2013#406

T

The_Khan

Bowielee said:
Eh, I don't think I'd want to see an American produced version of Battle Royale anyway.

Isn't this the hunger games

Jan 14, 2013#407

SpecialKO

The_Khan said:
Isn't this the hunger games

They actually already made it. Just without high school students. But with Stone Cold Steve Austin. It was awful.

Jan 14, 2013#408

GasBandit

The DC said:
The same people who crowed about the Alex Jones (Piers Morgan) interview are conspicuously silent about this one. It’s only news when the Constitution is defended by a fat yelly guy from Texas who thinks Bush orchestrated 9/11 with aliens from Dimension X. The calm, soft-spoken Harvard Law School grad with the yarmulke is a lot tougher to demonize.

Bonus -

Morgan recoiled when Shapiro’s pocket copy of the Constitution came out, deriding it as ‘your little book.’ I believe Count Dracula once had a similar conversation with Abraham van Helsing.

Jan 14, 2013#409

Gilgamesh

I find it hilarious when people use the Constitution as a -end all, be all- of an argument. It's nearly irrelevant in today's world and even the most basic ideas of are hard to take as 100% unbreakable truths since it was established.

Seriously, people who think if they have guns they can fight against a -tyrannical government- makes me laugh.

Jan 14, 2013#410

Charlie Don't Surf

I got as far as "breitbart.com" before I stopped / never bothered to watch the video, lol

Jan 14, 2013#411

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
I find it hilarious when people use the Constitution as a -end all, be all- of an argument. It's nearly irrelevant in today's world and even the most basic ideas of are hard to take as 100% unbreakable truths since it was established.

Well, that's where you and I differ, I guess - to me, the constitution is the road map that got us to being hegemon.

Seriously, people who think if they have guns they can fight against a -tyrannical government- makes me laugh.

Yeah, because people with gun are totally not overthrowing tyrannical governments and/or defying the world's only superpower until they lose their stomach and their will evaporates. Certainly that's never happened even once in the last 10 years, definitely not.

Jan 14, 2013#412

Charlie Don't Surf

remind me which superpower with drones and nukes was overthrown by its people

Jan 14, 2013#413

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
remind me which superpower with drones and nukes was overthrown by its people

Remind me which two resistance/terrorist organization outlasted a superpower with drones and nukes until they packed up and went home, ceding the territory back to the eternal darkness of the hardline islamist sharia nightmare?

Jan 14, 2013#414

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Remind me which two resistance/terrorist organization outlasted a superpower with drones and nukes until they packed up and went home, ceding the territory back to the eternal darkness of the hardline islamist sharia nightmare?

these are two incredibly different things and you know it

Jan 14, 2013#415

SpecialKO

They also did it with IEDs, RPGs, cellphones, laptops they used to hack drones, and the kind of training that comes decades of war (at least in Afghanistan) and the support of other foreign powers (including the superpower in question).

A fat guy with an AR-15 is really not the same thing.

Jan 14, 2013#416

ThatGrinningIdiot!

I'm surprised GasBandit is naive enough to think that a armed civilian populace would be enough to ovethrow one of the biggest and heavily armed military of the world.

Jan 14, 2013#417

sixpackshaker

It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.

Jan 14, 2013#418

North_Ranger

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
I'm surprised GasBandit is naive enough to think that a armed civilian populace would be enough to ovethrow one of the biggest and heavily armed military of the world.

I'm not. He's an Ewok. It's a racial pride thing.

Jan 14, 2013#419

Gilgamesh

sixpackshaker said:
It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.

A government that isn't willing to shoot it's unarmed civilians? How Tyrannical! :rofl:

Jan 14, 2013#420

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
They also did it with IEDs, RPGs, cellphones, laptops they used to hack drones, and the kind of training that comes decades of war (at least in Afghanistan) and the support of other foreign powers (including the superpower in question).

A fat guy with an AR-15 is really not the same thing.

But you know what's really REALLY not the same thing? A fat guy with nothing but harsh words.

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
I'm surprised GasBandit is naive enough to think that a armed civilian populace would be enough to ovethrow one of the biggest and heavily armed military of the world.

It doesn't have to overthrow it, it just has to be extremely difficult to oppress.

sixpackshaker said:
It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.

Careful, if you even sound slightly like you're taking my side, the smarm brigade will start peppering you with fallacies untill you're completely phallused.

Jan 14, 2013#421

sixpackshaker

Gilgamesh said:
A government that isn't willing to shoot it's unarmed civilians? How Tyrannical!

It is the citizen soldiers that have the hard time pulling the trigger. Just look at the Chinese, and the break up of the Warsaw Pact. For the Soviets and their satellites the orders were given and the privates told their superiors to fuck the right off.

Jan 14, 2013#422

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
But you know what's really REALLY not the same thing? A fat guy with nothing but harsh words.

Either way, he's a fat guy who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't have the tools to put him even slightly on parity against his oppressors. He's just a fat guy with a Red Dawn fantasy.

Your whole concept of fighting back against a fantasy tyrannical US government is based on a history of actions by a non-tyrannical one.[DOUBLEPOST=1358196375][/DOUBLEPOST]

sixpackshaker said:
It is the citizen soldiers that have the hard time pulling the trigger. Just look at the Chinese, and the break up of the Warsaw Pact. For the Soviets and their satellites the orders were given and the privates told their superiors to fuck the right off.

You mean the Warsaw Pact that was peacefully dissolved by its member states?

Jan 14, 2013#423

Charlie Don't Surf

It's a lot easier to pull the trigger with a drone strike, thanks Obama

Jan 14, 2013#424

sixpackshaker

SpecialKO said:
You mean the Warsaw Pact that was peacefully dissolved by its member states?

They broke up because they had nothing in common any longer.

But the individual countries had the protest, and the tanks, and the threats, and the no shooting (mostly).[DOUBLEPOST=1358196751][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's a lot easier to pull the trigger with a drone strike, thanks Obama

Damn, I missed those previous 8 years where another president was doing it too... that also meant that it was years in development to have the ability for a drone to shoot. Thanks Nixon.

Jan 14, 2013#425

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Either way, he's a fat guy who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't have the tools to put him even slightly on parity against his oppressors. He's just a fat guy with a Red Dawn fantasy.

Your whole concept of fighting back against a fantasy tyrannical US government is based on a history of actions by a non-tyrannical one.

For every fat dude with a red dawn fantasy I can show you an enthusiastic redneck who spends every other weekend at the range. And, on top of all that, it's supposed to be more of a deterrent to oppression than an excuse to rise up as a political option.

The actions are guaranteed non-tyrannical by the concept I'm espousing. If you were able to magically eliminate all private guns tomorrow, would it continue? 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the line, would the world's most powerful government still be pure as the driven snow? Or are there 535 power-drunk jackanapes inside the beltway who think they know what's best for you and will see to it that it is so, whether you like it or not?

Jan 14, 2013#426

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
But the individual countries had the protest, and the tanks, and the threats, and the no shooting (mostly).

Exactly.

Jan 14, 2013#427

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
For every fat dude with a red dawn fantasy I can show you an enthusiastic redneck who spends every other weekend at the range. And, on top of all that, it's supposed to be more of a deterrent to oppression than an excuse to rise up as a political option.

The actions are guaranteed non-tyrannical by the concept I'm espousing. If you were able to magically eliminate all private guns tomorrow, would it continue? 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the line, would the world's most powerful government still be pure as the driven snow? Or are there 535 power-drunk jackanapes inside the beltway who think they know what's best for you and will see to it that it is so, whether you like it or not?

Oh man, I think I almost crapped myself with laughter just there...

Jan 14, 2013#428

sixpackshaker

SpecialKO said:
Exactly.

But the orders were given in nearly every occasion.

But for every Latvia there is a China or Libya and Syria.

Jan 14, 2013#429

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
The actions are guaranteed non-tyrannical by the concept I'm espousing.

I've said it before, you need to make up your mind what you power fantasy is about. Either it's a tyrannical government, behaving as a tyrannical government would, which would be to simply murder/enslave the populace with superior weaponry, or it's a non-tyrannical government that people who disagree with think is tyrannical that can only be defended against because they rely on their behavior to remain non-tyrannical.

If you were able to magically eliminate all private guns tomorrow

For the 8th time, not in favor of banning all private guns. Most of the pro-control people here (besides Charlie) are not in favor of banning all guns. I don't know if this is just another part of your fantasy, but you keep saying stuff like this.

Jan 14, 2013#430

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm sarcastically saying "thanks Obama" above btw

Jan 14, 2013#431

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
But the orders were given in nearly every occasion.

And thank god the actual soldiers didn't do it. Because the civilians would have been slaughtered.

But for every Latvia there is a China or Libya and Syria.

China is still around, Libya went the way it did because we intervened, and in Syria large parts of the army defected to fight the government along with various groups supported by outside nations and Al-Qaeda.

This idea that all you need are some rifles is demonstrably not true today.

Jan 14, 2013#432

sixpackshaker

SpecialKO said:
And thank god the actual soldiers didn't do it. Because the civilians would have been slaughtered.

China is still around, Libya went the way it did because we intervened, and in Syria large parts of the army defected to fight the government along with various groups supported by outside nations and Al-Qaeda.

This idea that all you need are some rifles is demonstrably not true today.

China now and China 20 years ago is damn near night and day different. You'll not see the massacre again, at least not on that large of a scale.

But for Libya and Syria most of the weapons the rebels have, come from storming armories with what ever rifles and higher end weapons they could get their hands on.

Jan 14, 2013#433

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
For the 8th time, not in favor of banning all private guns. Most of the pro-control people here (besides Charlie) are not in favor of banning all guns. I don't know if this is just another part of your fantasy, but you keep saying stuff like this.

It's easier to paint the world in black and white when you discount what people say and just insert whatever you want as their positions when they don't completely agree with you.

Jan 14, 2013#434

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
China now and China 20 years ago is damn near night and day different. You'll not see the massacre again, at least not on that large of a scale.

And the reason for that is more economic than people having or not having weapons. Surprise, surprise, communism doesn't work that well.

But for Libya and Syria most of the weapons the rebels have, come from storming armories with what ever rifles and higher end weapons they could get their hands on.

Or you know, defecting Army units. In fact, if people in the US are really worried about a tyrannical federal government, the best thing they could probably do is make sure that the National guard units don't get the axe.

Jan 14, 2013#435

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
China now and China 20 years ago is damn near night and day different. You'll not see the massacre again, at least not on that large of a scale.

Or rather, it would be the last one they ever did. The Communist Party has maintained it's control by loosening the yoke on some things and tightening it on things no one can stop them from doing. But if they perform a massacre in the day of cellphone cameras? Forget it. They can't pretend it didn't happen like Tienanmen or actively hide the truth anymore.

But for Libya and Syria most of the weapons the rebels have, come from storming armories with what ever rifles and higher end weapons they could get their hands on.

Which would actually be pretty easy to do, considering we National Guard bases everywhere (who would be less inclined to fight than Army or Marines.)

I would honestly say that the existence of the National Guard is a greater deterrent than civilian owned weapons, if it ever came to full on rebellion.

Jan 14, 2013#436

Necronic

WOLVERINES!

Jan 14, 2013#437

SpecialKO

You know, I recently re-watched that movie. I had totally forgotten that the kids made pretty much no difference besides having their families slaughtered in retaliation, and that the country was taken back by the surviving units of the Armed Forces.

I know that's not the point of the movie (and it's still just a movie), but it's funny looking back at it.

Jan 14, 2013#438

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
I've said it before, you need to make up your mind what you power fantasy is about. Either it's a tyrannical government, behaving as a tyrannical government would, which would be to simply murder/enslave the populace with superior weaponry, or it's a non-tyrannical government that people who disagree with think is tyrannical that can only be defended against because they rely on their behavior to remain non-tyrannical.

You guys are dealing in too many absolutes, which I attempted to illustrate. Tyranny is not a binary switch, oppression is not a toggle. There is lots of middle ground between Doctor Doom and George Washington (or Barack Obama, for that matter). DC needs a sword of damocles hanging over it to remind it that ultimately it is not Mount Olympus.

For the 8th time, not in favor of banning all private guns. Most of the pro-control people here (besides Charlie) are not in favor of banning all guns. I don't know if this is just another part of your fantasy, but you keep saying stuff like this.

I wasn't trying to imply you wanted to ban all guns, I was trying to illustrate that in a reality where it is so given as to be trite that power corrupts, every step must be taken to make sure that absolute power is not attained (even if it is split by a fractious 549), and the most effective trump to set that run is the 2nd amendment.

And for the record, I think it should apply to anti armor munitions as well, but I know you guys will think I'm loopy.

Jan 14, 2013#439

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
Or rather, it would be the last one they ever did. The Communist Party has maintained it's control by loosening the yoke on some things and tightening it on things no one can stop them from doing. But if they perform a massacre in the day of cellphone cameras? Forget it. They can't pretend it didn't happen like Tienanmen or actively hide the truth anymore.

This is actually one of the reasons I am actively in favor of repealing local laws against filming law enforcement agents in public places.

Jan 14, 2013#440

Chippy

GasBandit said:
Remind me which two resistance/terrorist organization outlasted a superpower with drones and nukes until they packed up and went home, ceding the territory back to the eternal darkness of the hardline islamist sharia nightmare?

This is going to bug the crap out of me until I find it, but there was a journalist/documentary film maker covering a revolution in Central America. He asked the rebels how a country like the US would go about rebelling, and they asked (paraphrasing) "Do you have mountains? Go in the mountains and shoot at them."

Jan 14, 2013#441

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
You guys are dealing in too many absolutes, which I attempted to illustrate. Tyranny is not a binary switch, oppression is not a toggle. There is lots of middle ground between Doctor Doom and George Washington (or Barack Obama, for that matter). DC needs a sword of damocles hanging over it to remind it that ultimately it is not Mount Olympus.

If 300M firearms in private possession don't scare them, I really don't think it's going to work. They already know people don't vote or exercise real political will.

Jan 14, 2013#442

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
If 300M firearms in private possession don't scare them, I really don't think it's going to work. They already know people don't vote or exercise real political will.

It's all about opposing forces. The government has to be able to fulfill its purpose, but be ultimately held in check by the populace. And I dare say, some people are discovering their political will these days.

Jan 14, 2013#443

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
It's all about opposing forces. The government has to be able to fulfill its purpose, but be ultimately held in check by the populace. And I dare say, some people are discovering their political will these days.

Saying you'll secede if the government raises your taxes while also demanding Medicare/aid isn't really political will.

Or to pick a different example, camping out on the street and peeing into a cup while calling the police fascists isn't really political will, either.

Jan 14, 2013#444

Chippy

Found it. It was Michael Hardt. He was a philosopher, not a journalist.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-words-love-and-revolution/

Jan 14, 2013#445

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Saying you'll secede if the government raises your taxes while also demanding Medicare/aid isn't really political will.

Or to pick a different example, camping out on the street and peeing into a cup while calling the police fascists isn't really political will, either.

I agree, neither of those apply.

Jan 14, 2013#446

T

The_Khan

GasBandit said:
I agree, neither of those apply.

using the internet to ruin peoples political careers because they supported SOPA or PIPA is.

Jan 16, 2013#447

GasBandit

Interesting little editorial piece over at cracked.com today, pinning the cause of American gun violence as the fact that Americans, from even before we were a country, generally have always been a violent people who praise and glorify violence.

We are a nation of warriors, most of us without a war.

Jan 16, 2013#448

Eriol

GasBandit said:
Interesting little editorial piece over at cracked.com today, pinning the cause of American gun violence as the fact that Americans, from even before we were a country, generally have always been a violent people who praise and glorify violence.

We are a nation of warriors, most of us without a war.

I dunno, then there's this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
December 2012, so a month old. USA isn't even in the top 10 for violent crimes per 100k.

Jan 16, 2013#449

CrimsonSoul

Eriol said:
I dunno, then there's this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
December 2012, so a month old. USA isn't even in the top 10 for violent crimes per 100k.

Yeah USA is Nomber 28 in Violent crime, the UK is wayyyy up there though and they banned guns.

Jan 16, 2013#450

strawman

No, no, no. That won't do. We must only compare gun deaths, where the US tops the list, in order to get the sweeping gun regulation Obama wants.

I suppose the nice thing about guns is that in most gun crimes, shots are never fired. Once the victim sees the gun, they allow the robbery to proceed, and neither they nor the assailant are physically harmed. If the assailant is wielding a knife or fists, more people resist, and they would get hurt more.

Jan 16, 2013#451

Krisken

We should give criminals rocket launchers. Then people would really not resist. Like totally.

What I meant to say before my snark took over was I wonder what role population density plays in violent crime numbers when comparing countries.

Jan 17, 2013#452

sixpackshaker

But comparing gun deaths to countries with a fraction of our population and not to mention acreage, makes gun deaths sound like a catastrophe.

Jan 17, 2013#453

Silent Bob

The NRA:

Jan 17, 2013#454

Ravenpoe

Silent Bob said:
The NRA:

That baby should be laying on a giant pile of cash.

Jan 18, 2013#455

Gilgamesh

I am literally sick to my stomach this morning. After a very long time of not listening to any GOP radio, I made the mistake of doing it on my morning commute.

On this show, the hosts of the show literally and in a non-joking manner, claimed that the Sandy Hook Shooting is a Hollywood/Government hoax to begin the push to take guns out of the hands of Americans.

I almost vomited. I've never been so sickened by anything I've heard verbally in my entire life.

Jan 18, 2013#456

AshburnerX

Gilgamesh said:
I am literally sick to my stomach this morning. After a very long time of not listening to any GOP radio, I made the mistake of doing it on my morning commute.

On this show, the hosts of the show literally and in a non-joking manner, claimed that the Sandy Hook Shooting is a Hollywood/Government hoax to begin the push to take guns out of the hands of Americans.

I almost vomited. I've never been so sickened by anything I've heard verbally in my entire life.

They are already trying to link the murder of an FPS Russia producer to this nonsense. Basically, the guy who actually GETS the guns for the Youtube channel (which he could only do because he has a rare and hard to get license from the government) was found dead with a single gunshot wound to the back of his head.

The crazy folks response? This is clearly the work of Obama and his shadowy attempts to murder "gun leaders".

It's much more likely that he was ether involved in something shady (his license essentially let him be a legal arms dealer) or refused to get involved in something shady and was murdered for it.

Jan 18, 2013#457

Gilgamesh

No they were basically saying that the teachers/administration and some parents were all paid off actors/documentary producers and the government is paying secret Hollywood people to create this huge hoax.

I know it's just part of a long line of really stupid conspiracy theories from the GoP for their continued hatred of Obama but to me, personally, this one went too far.

I can't even stomach to watch it. It was posted and has been posted on these GoP radio show hosts Facebook page.

Jan 18, 2013#458

AshburnerX

Gilgamesh said:
No they were basically saying that the teachers/administration and some parents were all paid off actors/documentary producers and the government is paying secret Hollywood people to create this huge hoax.

I know it's just part of a long line of really stupid conspiracy theories from the GoP for their continued hatred of Obama but to me, personally, this one went too far.

I can't even stomach to watch it.

You should hear what they've been doing to the guy who sheltered 6 children and a bus driver while it was all going down. They are threatening him with violence and he's already had more than a few people track him down to scare the shit out of him.

Jan 18, 2013#459

Gilgamesh

AshburnerX said:
You should hear what they've been doing to the guy who sheltered 6 children and a bus driver while it was all going down. They are threatening him with violence and he's already had more than a few people track him down to scare the shit out of him.

Who's threatening him and why?

Also that's bad, but this new wave of -conspiracy- is just too much for me. I have children in Middle School and it hit me like a ton of bricks. To claim this was all a hoax to take these idiots guns is beyond words.

Jan 18, 2013#460

sixpackshaker

They were calling the old man a "Crisis Actor." And the nutjobs are treating him like he is the sole reason that their guns are being taken away.

Jan 18, 2013#461

Ravenpoe

Why the fuck did I watch that?

This seems to centered around the belief that the first news reports of an incident are the most accurate, and that the government has pulled off both the most complicated and most inept (and most pointless) conspiracy in history.

Jan 18, 2013#462

SpecialKO

Ravenpoe said:
that the government has pulled off both the most complicated and most inept (and most pointless) conspiracy in history.

That seems to be the running theme to most of them.

EDIT: I went looking for that South Park clip where GWB "confesses" to planning 9/11 because he doesn't want to admit that the government fucked up. I found it, but then realized that the uploader actually believes the confession and uploaded the clip as a statement of plausibility that GWB actually did it.

Jan 18, 2013#463

Gilgamesh

Ravenpoe said:
Why the fuck did I watch that?

This seems to centered around the belief that the first news reports of an incident are the most accurate, and that the government has pulled off both the most complicated and most inept (and most pointless) conspiracy in history.

Really fucking funny/disgusting thing about that? These are the same people who say that Obama has the media in their pocket. Yet what's their factual source of information this is a cover-up and shit is being hidden? The media is telling the truth on this and the government is covering it up.

Make up your fucking mind. Are they actors or not? Is the media in his pocket or not? Fuck can't even keep your bullshit straight can you?

Jan 18, 2013#464

tegid

Oh, conspiracy theories doesn't work like that. They rely on an impressive amount of confirmation bias: everything that supports my crazy theory is super important, everything against it is handwaved away. These people are crazy.

Jan 18, 2013#465

Gilgamesh

tegid said:
Oh, conspiracy theories doesn't work like that. They rely on an impressive amount of confirmation bias: everything that supports my crazy theory is super important, everything against it is handwaved away. These people are crazy.

I'm used to internet psychos and rednecks being the ones who spread this bullshit. Not National Talk Show hosts. Even the ones that do spread minor conspiracies will back it up with -I'm not saying this is 100% true but some of it sounds suspicious-

This on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame.

Jan 18, 2013#466

GasBandit

Man, I never even heard of any of this stuff before.

Jan 18, 2013#467

Charlie Don't Surf

I saw someone at work watching the Sandy Hook Exposed video, but I was completely on the fence of their character and not sure if they were watching it as a "what the christ" or buying it.

Jan 18, 2013#468

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Man, I never even heard of any of this stuff before.

It's starting to spread through Conservative/GoP radio.

Jan 18, 2013#469

sixpackshaker

Any event that leads to societal change is linked to the Rhiechstag Fire

Jan 20, 2013#470

Zappit

Trying to rationally understand crazy is a sure and short path to insanity, but at least by then it will all make sense.

Jan 20, 2013#471

Terrik

Gilgamesh said:
It's starting to spread through Conservative/GoP radio.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed this, what radio host is claiming this?

Jan 21, 2013#472

GasBandit

Friday was Neal Boortz' last day on the air, which made me a little bummed out as I enjoyed listening to him most mornings on the way to work, and at least half the links in my political thread came from his blog. This morning I turn on that station and find out that instead of picking up Herman Cain who was to replace him at his flagship, they've picked up Glenn Beck. Which was also a bit of a disappointment.

But then I heard Glenn say on wednesday he's going to spend the show debunking the Sandy Point conspiracy theories. So. Thought of you guys.

Jan 21, 2013#473

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
But then I heard Glenn say on wednesday he's going to spend the show debunking the Sandy Point conspiracy theories. So. Thought of you guys.

Yeah, he doesn't like conspiracy theories that he hasn't started. :awesome:

Jan 21, 2013#474

Krisken

My college has instituted a policy where we lock the doors while classes are in session. Strange times.

Jan 21, 2013#475

GasBandit

Krisken said:
My college has instituted a policy where we lock the doors while classes are in session. Strange times.

But that would deny professors the joy of ridiculing latecomers in front of the whole auditorium!

Jan 21, 2013#476

bhamv3

GasBandit said:
But that would deny professors the joy of ridiculing latecomers in front of the whole auditorium!

If anyone wants to come in late, they have to recite a password.

Jan 21, 2013#477

Krisken

People that come late knock on the door and are let in after making sure they didn't hear gunfirefrom a lunatic just moments before. Duh.

And the password is 1

2

3

4

5

Jan 21, 2013#478

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
People that come late knock on the door and are let in after making sure they didn't hear gunfirefrom a lunatic just moments before. Duh.

And the password is 1

2

3

4

5

That's the same combination on my luggage.

Jan 22, 2013#479

Krisken

You owe me for that set-up, sir.

Forums