Connecticut School shooting!

[lopri]

It isn't fatalism, though I can understand why you think of it that way. It's that the changes required to substantially reduce the likelihood of these kinds of events would either 1) not work, or 2) might work but are unacceptable for other reasons.

It's too late for gun control in this country. There are hundreds of millions of guns out there among citizens. What would you have us do? The ATF goes out and collects all of them? How many deaths do you think would result from that process alone, which BTW wouldn't succeed in getting but a fraction of them?

The same applies with other "solutions." Perhaps if we censor all violence out of TV, movies and video games, that would have some effect in reducing it. It isn't, however, acceptable for reasons too numerous to bother articulating here.

We have more violence here than some other first world countries for cultural reasons. If you doubt it's cultural, you should think about Canada where they really aren't that much more restrictive than we are here but gun violence is way lower there.

We aren't going to change the culture here without heavy handed social engineering which goes against the grain of everything this country stands for. Maybe the culture will change for better or worse over the long haul, but it isn't something we can force in the short term in any way that is either practical or acceptable.

What a refreshing post. Thank you, woolfe9999. Guns are simply ingrained in our history and culture - starting with the massacre of native Indians, the image of western cowboys, the civil war, to James bond and modern day Hollywood. No wonder people get confused it is some sacred right that was bestowed upon them by the founders. The High court's "finding" of such a right after some 200+ years certainly doesn't help. Scapegoating psychiatrists or mentally unstable is likewise misguided. People will not accept that doctors are the guardians of gun "rights." (let alone there will be a serious equal protection problem)

One way that we could address this issue at this time is starting at the level of local communities, IMO. Maybe at the level of city/township. Sit down with your neighbors.. wait, no need for that in 2012. There is the Internet. Speak to your neighbors, find a common ground, try to persuade. Then write your (your town's) own gun ordinance. If you guys want to have guns, or decide that guns are necessary for whatever reason (e.g. there is a genuine need for self-defense, recreational hunting, or maybe most of them simply believe having guns are for the greater good), then let it be. If you can come up with alternatives, try to build a consensus by persuasion. (that's what freedom of speech is for) If that doesn't work, you may well consider leaving the town.

In other words, make your own rules for where you live. By way of democracy. I know that's easier said than done, but for once I'll pretend to be optimistic.

 

[schneiderguy]

What a refreshing post. Thank you, woolfe9999. Guns are simply ingrained in our history and culture - starting with the massacre of native Indians, the image of western cowboys, the civil war, to James bond and modern day Hollywood. No wonder people get confused it is some sacred right that was bestowed upon them by the founders. The High court's "finding" of such a right after some 200+ years certainly doesn't help. Scapegoating psychiatrists or mentally unstable is likewise misguided. People will not accept that doctors are the guardians of gun "rights." (let alone there will be a serious equal protection problem)

One way that we could address this issue at this time is starting at the level of local communities, IMO. Maybe at the level of city/township. Sit down with your neighbors.. wait, no need for that in 2012. There is the Internet. Speak to your neighbors, find a common ground, try to persuade. Then write your (your town's) own gun ordinance. If you guys want to have guns, or decide that guns are necessary for whatever reason (e.g. there is a genuine need for self-defense, recreational hunting, or maybe most of them simply believe having guns are for the greater good), then let it be. If you can come up with alternatives, try to build a consensus by persuasion. (that's what freedom of speech is for) If that doesn't work, you may well consider leaving the town.

In other words, make your own rules for where you live. By way of democracy. I know that's easier said than done, but for once I'll pretend to be optimistic.

Civil rights can't be subject to the whims of the majority.

If one doesn't like that the United States recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, they are free to leave to another country.

 

[dmens]

Instead of talking 1934, why don't you look at year 2012 and a simple fact. How does a mentally unstable person like Adam Lanza get his hand on a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle to kill 26 people in 10 minute? Do I have to remind you the age of those victim and how they were shot beyond recognition and cops could only show the victims parents picture for id?

What's your point? Seung-Hui Cho used a Walther P22, the most underpowered pistol you can possibly buy, and he killed even more people.

Gotta love how you just casually ignore any rebuttal to your posts and rant on like a little smartass. No facts, evidence or historical context from you, just emotional baiting, childish insults and statist bullshit.

The fact is that if there were effective gun control against those high powered weapon, against large among of ammo, the damage could have been kept to minimal. This one same crazy person just went on a rampage in China with a knife a couple of days ago, hurting 22 kids, guess how many fatalities? zip, nada. It is plain for everyone to see that without easy access to those weapon, Adam Lanza won't be able to kill 20+ people so quickly, he might have not been able to broke through the secured gate. You gun people just choose to ignore the fact and how some measure to reduce access to high powered weapon could have made these tragedies less likely.

Somehow I think that Adam Lanza, a fully grown adult, wouldn't have too much difficulty stabbing a 6 year old child to death.

But that's not really the point, is it? It's just that you, who obviously knows nothing about firearms at all, in your infinite wisdom has decided that semi-automatic centerfire rifles are just too deadly for the peasants, and must be kept out of civilian hands for society's sake.

Never mind Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole the guns, and last time I checked, there are laws against murder and theft.

You gun owners deserve every insult for holding your own selfish need above other's safety, for refusing to have any discussion any consideration for any measure to protect public safety.

No, your exploitation of a tragedy to pursue a vendetta against gun owners, despite all evidence that gun control does absolutely nothing to curb violence, is what's despicable. If you hate our guns so much, don't call for some government goon squad, come get them yourself.

 

[rchiu]

What a refreshing post. Thank you, woolfe9999. Guns are simply ingrained in our history and culture - starting with the massacre of native Indians, the image of western cowboys, the civil war, to James bond and modern day Hollywood. No wonder people get confused it is some sacred right that was bestowed upon them by the founders. The High court's "finding" of such a right after some 200+ years certainly doesn't help. Scapegoating psychiatrists or mentally unstable is likewise misguided. People will not accept that doctors are the guardians of gun "rights." (let alone there will be a serious equal protection problem)

One way that we could address this issue at this time is starting at the level of local communities, IMO. Maybe at the level of city/township. Sit down with your neighbors.. wait, no need for that in 2012. There is the Internet. Speak to your neighbors, find a common ground, try to persuade. Then write your (your town's) own gun ordinance. If you guys want to have guns, or decide that guns are necessary for whatever reason (e.g. there is a genuine need for self-defense, recreational hunting, or maybe most of them simply believe having guns are for the greater good), then let it be. If you can come up with alternatives, try to build a consensus by persuasion. (that's what freedom of speech is for) If that doesn't work, you may well consider leaving the town.

In other words, make your own rules for where you live. By way of democracy. I know that's easier said than done, but for once I'll pretend to be optimistic.

You know, I get gun enthusiast's wish to have the freedom to do what they love. I don't want restriction to build umber computer or nice audio system too. But if my hobby is found to be used as the direct tool to kill children, 20+ at a time, I would be perfectly fine to discuss how to make it less likely for people to get their hands on my beloved gadgets, or make those gadgets less powerful.

I am not going to make up bullshit freedom speech that's even cornier than Hollywood scripts to justify how I deserve unlimited access to my gadget and hobby.

I think your idea to discuss and communicate is a great idea, but until the gun enthusiast in this country get the fact that their hobby is deadly tools and some check and balance have to be in place, there is really no point talking to bunch of stubborn, selfish and paranoid people.

 

[dmens]

You know, I get gun enthusiast's wish to have the freedom to do what they love. I don't want restriction to build umber computer or nice audio system too. But if my hobby is found to be used as the direct tool to kill children, 20+ at a time, I would be perfectly fine to discuss how to make it less likely for people to get their hands on my beloved gadgets, or make those gadgets less powerful.

Hey, IBM card-punching computers helped organize the Holocaust. The internet helped organize the 9/11 attacks. Computers drive the Pentagon war machine. You better log off and throw yours out the window.

 

[lopri]

Civil rights can't be subject to the whims of the majority.

If one doesn't like that the United States recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, they are free to leave to another country.

Totally agree with the first sentence. But the right to keep and bear arms is NOT recognized by the United States, rofl. The United States are barred from infringing on the state's (people's) rights to keep and bear arms, for that right was necessary to militia service. See, this is what I meant in my post how people think of the 2nd amendment. (i.e. not based on reason, evidence, or history but influenced by culture)

What an attitude you've got there. I am talking about discussing right to keep and bear arms at the local level. What is your definition of "right to keep and bear arms"?

Edit: Oh, forget it. Don't bother answering.
Edit 2: Changed wording for clarity

 

[jackstar7]

From the locked moron's thread:

IF you think it would be harder for criminals to get a gun you are fucking nuts.

anyone that thinks banning guns would help in the slightest are insane. take a good look at the war on drugs. it won't be any diffrent except more innocent people will be hurt because they had to turn in the one thing they had that made them even with teh criminals.

I'd like to hear more about this opinion.

Though I'd also love to see human gun-mules.

 

[schneiderguy]

Totally agree with the first sentence. But the right to keep and bear arms is NOT recognized by the United States, rofl. The United States are barred from infringing on the state's (people's) rights to keep and bear arms, for that right was necessary to militia service. See, this is what I meant in my post how people think of the 2nd amendment. (i.e. not based on reason, evidence, or history but influenced by culture)

It doesn't matter why the 2nd Amendment was written. It exists, and the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right that the government can't infringe upon.

What an attitude you've got there. I am talking about discussing right to keep and bear arms at the local level. What is your definition of "right to keep and bear arms"?

You're talking about trampling upon the civil rights of United States citizens at the local level.

 

[jackstar7]

Hey, IBM card-punching computers helped organize the Holocaust. The internet helped organize the 9/11 attacks. Computers drive the Pentagon war machine. You better log off and throw yours out the window.

You might want to re-check what he said. He said he'd be willing to look at what might be needed to prevent his hobbies from hurting people.

Is it possible for people to have this discussion without straw-manning to a gun ban at every turn?

 

[jackstar7]

It doesn't matter why the 2nd Amendment was written.

Sig worthy.

 

[dmens]

You might want to re-check what he said. He said he'd be willing to look at what might be needed to prevent his hobbies from hurting people.

Is it possible for people to have this discussion without straw-manning to a gun ban at every turn?

I read what he said. He'd be the kind of jackass to support government backdoors into operating systems and the banning of encrypted communications. It's the exact same "reasonable measures" crap with computers that people advocate for "public safety" but in reality all it does is let the government fuck people over even more easily.

 

[dmens]

Though I'd also love to see human gun-mules.

Go read about Operation Fast and Furious, i.e. Obama's under-the-radar attempt to smear the 2A community by forcing US gun stores to illegally sell guns to drug cartel gun mules. Then the DEA would magically discover the guns at Mexican crime scenes, and there you have it, a PR coup for gun control.

 

[Firebot]

Instead of talking 1934, why don't you look at year 2012 and a simple fact. How does a mentally unstable person like Adam Lanza get his hand on a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle to kill 26 people in 10 minute? Do I have to remind you the age of those victim and how they were shot beyond recognition and cops could only show the victims parents picture for id?

The fact is that if there were effective gun control against those high powered weapon, against large among of ammo, the damage could have been kept to minimal. This one same crazy person just went on a rampage in China with a knife a couple of days ago, hurting 22 kids, guess how many fatalities? zip, nada. It is plain for everyone to see that without easy access to those weapon, Adam Lanza won't be able to kill 20+ people so quickly, he might have not been able to broke through the secured gate. You gun people just choose to ignore the fact and how some measure to reduce access to high powered weapon could have made these tragedies less likely.

You gun owners deserve every insult for holding your own selfish need above other's safety, for refusing to have any discussion any consideration for any measure to protect public safety.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Here's a great article with tons of data about the mass killings that happened in the US in the past 30 years. The biggest surprise (or lack of surprise) was just how many guns were purchased legally, so easily by people who had history of mental illness

Weapons: Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza wielded two handguns and a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

It's truly incredible how some think there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and the amount of deadly mass killings and shootings that the US has versus other cultured countries. Now obviously strict gun control is not a cure all for violence, as criminals will still get the guns illegally and massacres can still happen, it does significantly drop the crazed possession. The China mass stabbing is a perfect example. How much damage would he have done had he been able to walk into a local gun store and purchase guns and ammo?

 

[Farmer]

It's truly incredible how some think there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and the amount of deadly mass killings and shootings that the US has versus other cultured countries. Now obviously strict gun control is not a cure all for violence, as criminals will still get the guns illegally and massacres can still happen, it does significantly drop the crazed possession. The China mass stabbing is a perfect example. How much damage would he have done had he been able to walk into a local gun store and purchase guns and ammo?

So you are arguing the existence of the 2nd amendment (and hence legal ownership of arms) is the primary cause of mass killings?

Do you see any benefit to the existence of the 2nd amendment?

 

[lopri]

It's truly incredible how some think there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and the amount of deadly mass killings and shootings that the US has versus other cultured countries. Now obviously strict gun control is not a cure all for violence, as criminals will still get the guns illegally and massacres can still happen, it does significantly drop the crazed possession. The China mass stabbing is a perfect example. How much damage would he have done had he been able to walk into a local gun store and purchase guns and ammo?

China is a poor choice to advance your agument. (not exactly a stunning example of democracy) Japan or Korea (south!) might be a better one for you if you want to talk about guns on the policy ground.

My position is different from either side (woot?! I am attacked by wingnuts and commies at the same time?), but figured I'd give you a friendly advice.

Disclosure: I have guns.

 

[dmens]

It's truly incredible how some think there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and the amount of deadly mass killings and shootings that the US has versus other cultured countries. Now obviously strict gun control is not a cure all for violence, as criminals will still get the guns illegally and massacres can still happen, it does significantly drop the crazed possession. The China mass stabbing is a perfect example. How much damage would he have done had he been able to walk into a local gun store and purchase guns and ammo?

What makes you think the knife attacker in China wouldn't have been able to obtain a gun if China didn't ban civilian firearms ownership? Anders Behring Breivik bought all his firearms legally in Norway through a very rigorous licensing process. And that guy is completely batshit crazy.

 

[Jaskalas]

We aren't going to change the culture here without heavy handed social engineering which goes against the grain of everything this country stands for.

Patriot Act 2.0, keeping up the good fight, protecting us from ourselves.

Heavy handed social engineering isn't what the founders stood for, but we've been pissing on their graves for a very long time. Since we killed our own brothers to ensure Union dominance over independent liberty, over free will. We're more like North Korea than you think, and both Dems and Reps will work together to prove this to be true.

The media will Shepard the flock, and the politicians will shear away our Constitution. For we are a land of "do"ers and the "doing" right now is to protect ourselves. That's why we sexually abuse our airline passengers cause some comrade in Afghanistan hired a few thugs with box cutters. That's why we raid homes, kill animals and folks trying to protect their family in the dead of night. That's why we torture people, why Gitmo is still open, why drones kill children in Pakistan. Cause we're doing things.

Social engineering? !@#$ man, why do you think so many of us are on social services? You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We've been prepared for this our whole lives. We are the sheep to be tended to as our benevolent Lords decide for us. Guns will be dealt with, for we are a nation struggling to become Korean. Just ask our prison population. They have a front row seat to our social engineering.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Our politicians have no limit to the delusions they wish to hoist onto us. Why do you think the debt is unstoppable? What you say we aren't is the very thing are already are - down to our very bones. Social engineering? Hell.. I call that America.

 

[Firebot]

So you are arguing the existence of the 2nd amendment (and hence legal ownership of arms) is the primary cause of mass killings?

Do you see any benefit to the existence of the 2nd amendment?

Deterrence against the British from invasion is a benefit. Quite frankly though I fail to see the modern relevance of such an ancient amendment created in an era when slavery was the norm, and witch hunts and tar and feathering were still happening. Deterrence might seem like a benefit, but it provides a false sense of safety. How many parents of those children at the school had guns in their homes legally? Guns do not prevent these types of shootings from happening, they merely make it easier for these types of incidents to happen due to the ease of anyone being able to purchase a gun.

 

[Farmer]

Guns do not prevent these types of shootings from happening, they merely make it easier for these types of incidents to happen due to the ease of anyone being able to purchase a gun.

That sounds like a really good argument for stricter gun control.

Are you aware of the steps necessary, under current CT law, to legally purchase a firearm? Do you consider it too easy? Are you aware that in the situation currently considered, the firearms were stolen after the perpetrator murdered the owner?

The elementary school in questions was a "gun free zone," that is to say, even legally owned firearms could not be present unless someone willfully broke that regulation. Does this influence your opinion that "guns do not prevent these types of shootings from happening?"

And finally, if you do not believe lawful private ownership of guns is beneficial, but accept the reality that guns do exist, who do you believe should be allowed possession of firearms?

 

[dmens]

Deterrence against the British from invasion is a benefit. Quite frankly though I fail to see the modern relevance of such an ancient amendment created in an era when slavery was the norm, and witch hunts and tar and feathering were still happening. Deterrence might seem like a benefit, but it provides a false sense of safety. How many parents of those children at the school had guns in their homes legally? Guns do not prevent these types of shootings from happening, they merely make it easier for these types of incidents to happen due to the ease of anyone being able to purchase a gun.

I fail to see how the ancient 1st Amendment is relevant today when it was crafted in an era without the internet and television, on which any crazy person can spew whatever venom they want.

And how does guaranteeing the means to resist the state have an expiration date? Is the modern Total State so benevolent that no person would even think of resisting?

 

[rchiu]

I read what he said. He'd be the kind of jackass to support government backdoors into operating systems and the banning of encrypted communications. It's the exact same "reasonable measures" crap with computers that people advocate for "public safety" but in reality all it does is let the government fuck people over even more easily.

you think the America government is fvcking you over? Try live in China for a change. I don't call you gun nutz paranoid for no reason.

 

[dmens]

you think the America government is fvcking you over? Try live in China for a change. I don't call you gun nutz paranoid for no reason.

Yeah, about that... I grew up in China.

I know your type. Everything in Chinese culture revolves around obedience and toeing the line. Dissidents are marginalized, insulted and attacked. It's totally revolting. I figure people who leave that hellhole would smarten up. But talking to you, apparently that's not the case.

But hey, China strong, right?

 

[rchiu]

Yeah, about that... I grew up in China.

I know your type. Everything in Chinese culture revolves around obedience and toeing the line. Dissidents are marginalized, insulted and attacked. It's totally revolting. I figure people who leave that hellhole would smarten up. But talking to you, apparently that's not the case.

But hey, China strong, right?

Fvck off, if there is anyone toeing their party line, diehard NRA fanboys are the classic example of those who cannot think for themselves. Even after this real world tragedy where 20 six and seven years old got killed, you people are still incapable of thinking just how give up some of your right could help make these type of tragedy less likely.

Fine, be on your paranoid, rebelling way thinking amassing those deadly weapon is gonna help you any. I am sure Nancy Lanza was real happy how this whole thing turned out.

 

[dmens]

Fvck off, if there is anyone toeing their party line, diehard NRA fanboys are the classic example of those who cannot think for themselves. Even after this real world tragedy where 20 six and seven years old got killed, you people are still incapable of thinking just how give up some of your right could help make these type of tragedy less likely.

Fine, be on your paranoid, rebelling way thinking amassing those deadly weapon is gonna help you any. I am sure Nancy Lanza was real happy how this whole thing turned out.

LOL, you think I'm following the NRA's lead? The same NRA that has sold out gun owners to the state time and again? Do you even have any idea what's going on? Keep chanting about how gun controls will prevent these tragedies, it's a claim that has no basis in reality.

I'm glad you finally added "rebelling" to your insults against "paranoid" people, as I suspected you were really going after dissidents. I'm sure Mother China is proud of you. Tell me, were you a Young Pioneer back in the Motherland?

 

[rchiu]

LOL, you think I'm following the NRA's lead? The same NRA that has sold out gun owners to the state time and again? Do you even have any idea what's going on? Keep chanting about how gun controls will prevent these tragedies, it's a claim that has no basis in reality.

I'm glad you finally added "rebelling" to your insults against "paranoid" people, as I suspected you were really going after dissidents. I'm sure Mother China is proud of you. Tell me, were you a Young Pioneer back in the Motherland?

lol, you think all chinese are from China? keep dreaming. If anything you gun lovers reminds me how those communists brain washed their little red soldiers during cultural revolution to go after the establishment and their enemies without questioning. The fear and paranoia and how they think anarchy and "rebellion" was cool. Go continue your worship of deadly force without regard for public safety and the tragedies that is happening is America over and over, each time your beloved gadget as the means to take away innocent life.