«

»

You can not legislate away evil or crazy.

Everybody is trying to make sense of this tragedy. Too many are so desperate for a reason other than we are dealing with someone that was mentally deranged, just like they want to pretend that evil doesn’t exist, because otherwise we have to admit that our supposed security is just ephemeral, that they are looking for anything to avoid having to grasp that we are never perfectly safe. Even the perp’s own father is searching for answers. I am afraid we will never understand, and too many will simply not accept thathere might be no good reason why this tragedy happened, because the truth is inconvenient.

We now have people that are scrambling to find a reason or motive for this horrible act. They are already trying to lay blame on the mom, a legal gun owner, because of the fact that she was a prepper. Others are saying that the killer was a loner, another troubled kid with school issues. And I am sure we will soon hear a lot more about violent music, video games, or movies are to blame, without pointing out that it is the very same people telling us we need to disarm everyone that are the biggest peddlers of this violent stuff, too. And having the discussion about how too much coverage by the stupid media of these tragedies encourages the fame seekers to copy cat, however? Nah, that we will not hear much about. Just like we will not hear much about the fact that tragedies will happen.

As expected, the two sides are at it. I don’t believe I need to point out that I think that more stupid laws that deprive people of the god given right to make sure they can defend themselves from tyrannical government are not going to stop these sorts of tragedies. Too many people, frightened and desperate to keep their security bubble, forget that in a society where the law disarms the lawful, the only people armed will be criminals and government enforcers. Things like this are not just plain stupid and serve to do nothing but confound the issues. The fact is that the pursuit of security at the cost of liberty results in less of both. Our problem is our inability to accept evil and crazy exist. It’s easier to pretend the problem is guns. You can then ban those and pretend it solves the issue. You can’t ban either evil or crazy.

Despite the fact that this young man was prevented from buying his own guns, just recently, by the existing laws, the cries for more “control” are going out. The tyrannical stupid that want to use the pretense that the problem is an inanimate object, instead of evil or crazy people, to disarm the populous are trying hard to convince everyone that bans are the answer. I do not for a second believe that these people’s main priority is as noble as they pretend it to be. They have been taking advantage of tragedies like this one for a long time to achieve their goal of disarming the populous. I find it despicable that they are capitalizing on so many people’s inability to accept the fact that there is evil and crazy in the world, and that nothing we do can stop it all, to push their agenda to disarm the citizenry.

I find exercises like this one utterly fruitless and a waste of time. Would you take anyone telling you that we should stop winter from coming seriously? What about people that tell you we should prevent all deaths? Why then the desperate need to pretend that banning guns will somehow stop evil and crazy? What magical power do Obama and the other gun grabbers have that will prevent evil or crazy from doing what it does? Are we going to ban knifes yet? Are we going to ban anything that can cause death or be used to kill?

We are going to be doing a lot of soul searching, second guessing, and Monday morning quarterbacking, along with the mourning, but the fact remains that I am afraid that we will not get any answers. That’s because we simply do not want to focus on the real issue, because there is no answer to solving or preventing evil or crazy from doing what it does. It’s much easier to blame guns, and if you are one of the few that subscribes to Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun and making sure that only the government has guns, it is doubly so. Here is the sad fact: people that want to do evil and cause harm will never be dissuaded by any laws. Laws only influence those that are lawful. Of course, accepting this fact undermines our quest for feeling secure.

UPDATE:: Best quote to summarize the problem here:

“After each tragic shooting spree by someone a few cards short of a full deck, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”

123 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    Of course, the anti-gun crowd will conveniently ignore the nutjob in China who went on a slashing spree the same day, or that the Oklahoma City bomber killed many more and caused much more damage without firing shot. The far-lefts’ attempt to politicize every example of insane violence will never stop, even though we have over 10,000 weapons laws on the books. Obviously, the ones directly addressing keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill that aren’t enforced need to be backed up with additional ones aimed at people that aren’t a danger to anyone.

    You can’t stop crazy when it is determined to act because you can’t watch somebody all the time without effectively putting crazy in jail, and even then they manage to harm those around them.

    Hot! Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

      
  2. salinger says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

      
  3. Dave D says:

    The BIGGEST US school massacre to date happened right here in Bath, Michigan near Lansing. A nutjob blew up a school full of kids and then blew up himself and the superintendant with a carbomb. I believe it was in the 1920′s. No guns were involved. Nutjobs will find a way to kill if their inner voice tells them to. This is a mental illness problem, not a gun problem.

    Also, postmodern belief keeps trying to tell us that people are basically good. That, imo, only serves to blind us to the potential for things like these killings.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  4. salinger says:

    Here’s another idea that’s been floated by some of my gun owning friends. Why not require liability insurance on individual firearms and let the market decide their risk cost like automobiles. As a sports car cost more to insure than a station wagon the more lethal a weapon the more it would costs to insure. This would also provide a market response to gun hoarding.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      
  5. repmom says:

    The BIGGEST US school massacre to date happened right here in Bath, Michigan near Lansing. A nutjob blew up a school full of kids and then blew up himself and the superintendant with a carbomb. I believe it was in the 1920′s. No guns were involved. Nutjobs will find a way to kill if their inner voice tells them to. This is a mental illness problem, not a gun problem.

    Doesn’t hurt to make it harder for them. I doubt this guy’s mother had a carbomb sitting in her closet.

    I’m sorry, but I’ve got to agree with Salinger on this one.

    And for the record, my husband is a hunter, so we do have rifles in the house. In a hidden closet.

    Hot! Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

      
  6. repmom says:

    There has to be a point when one looks at the lethality of a weapon. The China slashing spree is a perfect example. 20+ injured – none that I have heard, dead.

    How many kids just injured in this shooting? How many with less than eleven gunshots in their bodies?

    I know you will all say I’m too emotional right now. And I am. But still. Why do we need these assualt weapons?

    Hot! Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      
  7. TxAg94 says:

    I think we should first outlaw killing young children in cold blood. Oh yeah, that IS illegal. If you can’t stop someone from looking at a child and then killing him or her without heistation, well, you simply can’t stop them by taking away one particular means of doing it. Too many people believe that someone who would kill a child will suddenly rethink that because a gun is illegal. Those people should, themselves, never have access to guns because they are mentally ill as well.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

      
  8. salinger says:

    Too many people believe that someone who would kill a child will suddenly rethink that because a gun is illegal.

    Nobody thinks that.

    Hot! Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

      
  9. FPrefect89 says:

    Why not require liability insurance on individual firearms and let the market decide their risk cost like automobiles.

    There is. It is called the law. It kind of keeps us legal types in check. How would mandating insurance on a firearm stopped what happened? All it will do is make legal ownership harder.

    Making it harder on legal gun owners is NOT going to make mass killings go away.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  10. FPrefect89 says:

    Nobody thinks that.

    Really? I know several people who think that. If only “x” was illegal to own “y” would never have happened.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  11. TxAg94 says:

    Let me rephrase, then. NONE of the MANY guns owned by people I know personally have ever killed or even injured a single person. However, a lot of people believe that if we took all of them away that a person sick enough to kill a child using ANY weapon would not find another way to do it. These debates ALWAYS devolve into a discussion of inanimate objects versus the people using them. At most someone will point to the guy who sold the crazy person a gun. It’s pathetic.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  12. salinger says:

    Really? I know several people who think that. If only “x” was illegal to own “y” would never have happened

    This is different to your first assertion.

    You said people believe a psycho would change his mind about committing a crime if he knew the weapon were illegal. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Your revised statement could be interpreted as – If certain weapons were harder to obtain the likelihood of them being used in a crime would be less. This seems to be a logical assumption.

    The two are not the same.

    No thinking person believes that an assault weapon ban will end senseless killing – or that it will even end mass killings using assault type weaponry. But it would make it tougher.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      
  13. Kimpost says:

    Maybe we should define harder on legal gun owners. Or try.

    1. Would it be hard on legal gun owners to demand from them to do the same kinds of background checks, when selling weapons privately, that registered dealers have to do?

    2. If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun from an unlocked closet, would it be hard to hold the owner accountable?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  14. AlexInCT says:

    I do notice how many people still refuse to accept that no matter what you do, you can not prevent either evil or crazy. When your solution is to take away from someone that didn’t do anything wrong because some people are sociopaths – hey, making it harder for them to do bad is a good thing! – then your solution sucks. The problem here isn’t guns it is bad people. Don’t let your need to pretend society can be perfectly safe fuck people like me that know better over, please.

    Would anyone here take anybody that says that since driver education and driver licenses have not stopped car accidents we should take away cars from people that drive responsibly seriously? Decisions made on emotional and irrational basis rarely do anything but produce worse results. The fact is that when you disarm law abiding citizens, the only people with guns will be criminals and abusive agents of a tyrannical state.

    Hot! Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    1. Would it be hard on legal gun owners to demand from them to do the same kinds of background checks, when selling weapons privately, that registered dealers have to do?

    Most states already do this. The only people that sell guns without much care for what the customer is going to do with it usually are criminals selling to other criminals, anyway. Besides, the ONLY purpose a gun registry really serves is to make it easier for the state to confiscate the weapons when it wants to disarm the sheeple.

    2. If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun from an unlocked closet, would it be hard to hold the owner accountable?

    Sure. But if you do this with guns, do it with everything. If someone steals your car, your knives, your chain saw, or even your nose tweezers, and causes harm. Your fault. Otherwise this is just another bullshit veiled attempt to again deny gun owners their rights and prevent people from wanting to own weapons to defend themseves with.

    I own guns. Some I hunt with. Most are there for protection from criminals bent on doing me harm and the totalitarian government I know the left pines for.

    Hot! Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    No thinking person believes that an assault weapon ban will end senseless killing – or that it will even end mass killings using assault type weaponry. But it would make it tougher.

    Carried to its conclusion this thinking gets us bans on soda, fat foods, and any behavior the enlightened feel the serfs should not be engaging in. But let us not lose sight of the fact that we mean well. Even when gun bans have shown to acutally make gun crime go up (look at the link above).

    Hot! Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

      
  17. CM says:

    No thinking person believes that an assault weapon ban will end senseless killing – or that it will even end mass killings using assault type weaponry. But it would make it tougher.

    Exactly. If it’s harder to get hold of these weapons, it’s harder to put the “crazy or evil” into action.

    I do notice how many people still refuse to accept that no matter what you do, you can not prevent either evil or crazy.

    I think perhaps because it’s a straw man.
    You can lessen the impact of “evil or crazy” should (as a society) you choose to. Australia took action directly after Port Arthur. Within weeks. If, as a society you choose not to, that’s fine, but you’ll need to cope with the consequences.

    briggie’s link (from the other thread) is worth reading I think. These rampage killers don’t tend to like to kill from a distance (i.e using bombs), they need the power they get from using guns.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      
  18. Poosh says:

    I doubt this guy’s mother had a carbomb sitting in her closet.

    Well click click click and he knows how to make one. The internet is a wonderful place. – A recent-ish planned shooting at a German school, which was prevented by police, also uncovered lots of lovely explosives.

    This is a mental-health and cultural issue. Why is it the places with the tightest gun control have the biggest kill rates, yet places – not just in America – where citizens are armed to the teeth have not just almost no gun crime but low crime rates in general.

    As far as I can tell in Britain we had the Hungerford massacre in 1987 – 16 dead – which brought about new gun regulations. Then in 1996 Dunblane massacre – 17 dead – the killer was probably a pedophile who was expelled from scouts. This brought about the almost total ban of firearms. In 2010 the Cumbria shootings took place, about 11 killed (there was an additional shooting in maybe 2011 as well, forget the details). Gun crime somewhat increased after the total ban oddly enough but clearly the UK has never had a problem with these mass killings – unlike Germany, for example. But time and time again there were obvious warning signs about the killer.

    The answer and problem is “statism” so to speak. It is up to the state to build the apparatus necessary to locate and deal – and remove – the mentally ill who may pose a threat. I would wager the UK (yes, with the NHS) deals with the mentally ill much better, I suspect anyway. But of course statism changes the mentality of the citizens, often creating a “it’s the state’s problem, they’ll deal with it” mentality – which makes the population less vigilant (though apparently no less vigilant than America).

    The issue of freedom – keep in mind the uk has somehow higher crime rates than the USA (marginally overall, but significantly last time I checked in some areas). It is freedom to be armed, and important: as the best defence against the state is an armed population. But are you free if you are fearful, when you go into a cinema? Or school? That is not freedom. But you are likewise unfree if you are prevented from owning a firearm. Likewise, schools forced to invest in all sorts of security systems are suffering from a blow to their freedom (having to spend cash on something that, perhaps, they need not have).

    People want to avoid the messy investigation into the human mind and would rather blame it on something simple like guns or use skewered stats. When the former pupil turned mass murderer snaps and opens fire on his tormentors (and then everyone) does anyone the next day, when they see someone being bullied, go up to the bully and point their finger, correctly, at the bully? I bet that’s never, ever, happened (not to excuse murder, obviously).

    I’m not a libertarian. And one of the purposes of government should be to monitor, study and act on the psychology of its citizens; because, humans left unfettered are prone to all sorts of violence and insanity, and a government that isn’t constantly vigilant is liable to reap the negative consequences of human nature.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  19. mrblume says:

    Don’t let your need to pretend society can be perfectly safe

    Very true. The fact that bad things will happen needs to be embraced. If you don’t, you end up legislating stupid things that don’t do anyone any good. Of course, that belief affects my position not only on gun rights, but in all kinds of areas, from criminal justice (release many more prisoners – why should we pay those that are no danger just because a few might be), to national security issues (scrap most of it).

    I worry that you are not a true believer in that idea.

    A couple of other thoughts.

    1. Alex doesn’t believe that “these people” really believe in a safer world with fewer guns. And it isn’t even that they are mistakenly believing it. Instead, they must have ulterior motives. It’s a conspiracy!

    2. This whole notion of “some people are just evil” and “criminals are just going to be committing crimes no matter what” is lame, flies in the face of common sense and empirical data, and is basically just an expression of refusal to even debate whether there even is a problem to be addressed.

    3. Some people suggest it’s mental health problem that needs to be dealt with. Possibly. Of course, if you don’t want the government to a) spend any money on it and b) stay the heck away from anything that has to do with the family, you don’t have many options left.

    4. I’m still waiting for a someone to acknowledge that making access to guns harder clearly can help. A kid especially is not as likely to buy a gun on the “black market”, then taking the one from his parents’ room. And even if he tried, that would provide an opportunity for someone to notice something.

    In the end, I don’t know if gun violence can be reduced without getting rid of those things that really are unique about America.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  20. balthazar says:

    For laughs, would one of you guys or gals going on about “assault weapons? please describe what you think one is to me?

    This will be good.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  21. CM says:

    Well click click click and he knows how to make one. The internet is a wonderful place. – A recent-ish planned shooting at a German school, which was prevented by police, also uncovered lots of lovely explosives.

    Again, rampage killers don’t tend to want to kill with explosives, from the distance.

    Why is it the places with the tightest gun control have the biggest kill rates, yet places – not just in America – where citizens are armed to the teeth have not just almost no gun crime but low crime rates in general.

    I’d like to see evidence of this. You suggest the UK is an example of how tighter gun controls have led to increased deaths from guns, but Australia is being put up as an example of the opposite.

    It is freedom to be armed, and important: as the best defence against the state is an armed population. But are you free if you are fearful, when you go into a cinema? Or school? That is not freedom. But you are likewise unfree if you are prevented from owning a firearm. Likewise, schools forced to invest in all sorts of security systems are suffering from a blow to their freedom (having to spend cash on something that, perhaps, they need not have).

    “Prevented from owning a firearm” – where is this? That’s another straw man – pretending that gun-control is about preventing people from owning firearms.
    Personally I’d feel more ‘free’ where there are limits placed on the types of weapons people can own, and where people are required to be registered to own guns (and need to go through procedures to be registered). The likelihood of me needing a gun to ward off a tyrannical state is just so incredibly low (BTW in which countries has gun-control been a pre-cursor to the state coming after the population?).
    Also, public health (including mental health obviously) needs to be properly funded. That’s a no brainer IMO.
    Together, that will lessen the chances that someone will feel the need to go on a rampage, the opportunity to do so, and the amount of damage they can inflict if they do.

    Of course “bad things will happen”. That does mean, as a society, you don’t have choices in terms of trying to reduce those bad things. We choose to maintain public health standards so people don’t get sick all the time from eating bad food. It doesn’t mean the government is soon going to come into your house and and monitor your preparation of the evening meal. There are still outbreaks caused by poor practices, but there would no doubt be more if standards weren’t imposed and monitored.

    I own guns. Some I hunt with. Most are there for protection from criminals bent on doing me harm and the totalitarian government I know the left pines for.

    In this case the guns obtained and kept specifically to “ward off the totalitarian government” were used to kill loads of innocent people.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  22. balthazar says:

    “Prevented from owning a firearm” – where is this? That’s another straw man – pretending that gun-control is about preventing people from owning firearms.

    Its not a straw man at all you clueless tard.

    Actually, thats what the end game is for the gun grabbers. Take a look what they have done for Wash DC, Chicago, LA and Detroit as a prime examples.

    They made it near impossible to OWN a gun. At all, period. Oh, their gun crime rates are the worst in the US btw.

    These are the 3 most liberal cities in the US btw.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  23. CM says:

    For laughs, would one of you guys or gals going on about “assault weapons? please describe what you think one is to me?

    This will be good.

    You’re not setting this up to be a constructive discussion.
    Anyway, I’m not educated sufficiently on the issue to know how to properly classify weapons. I know the assault weapons ban in 1994 was said to be rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence (though it might well have reduced mass shootings).

    This is how the classify weapons in Australia for the purposes of control:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Current_Australian_firearm_laws

    Your thoughts on that system?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  24. AlexInCT says:

    1. Alex doesn’t believe that “these people” really believe in a safer world with fewer guns. And it isn’t even that they are mistakenly believing it. Instead, they must have ulterior motives. It’s a conspiracy!

    Actually moron – it’s you isn’t it moogoo? – I had a good laugh at your assertion that fewer guns makes for a safer world. I bet if most of those people that had fewer guns and where exterminated had a say, they would tell you that you are wrong. Anyway, there are two distinct groups at work here. The first consists of people driven by emotions. Usually an unnatural fear of fire arms which translates into a need to make sure that because they themselves won’t or don’t have one, others shouldn’t have access to them either. These are the people that believe somehow more restrictive laws, because that makes guns harder to get for law abiding citizens or whatever other nonsense, will make things safer, despite the proof that criminals will never be bothered by laws and are far more aggressive when they know they are dealing with a disarmed populace.

    The second group are the cynical and tyrannical bastards, practically always nanny state politicians, that want to take guns away from people, always under the guise of making things safer and protecting some poor innocent, but really because they know an unarmed population is much easier to push around. These are usually the same group of people that have armed guards to protect them, but absofuckiglutely do not want to grant anyone else not part of their clique the same privilege.

    The two work hand in hand, the tyrants using the others – in that old Stalinesque way of the usual idiot -to get their way. If you are comprehension challenged, I point out that the one and primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the people could not be disarmed and then oppressed like was happening all over Europe when our country was born. It had nothing to do with militias, hunting, sports shooting, or anything BUT making sure the people of this nation could kick their government’s ass if it became tyrannical. Kind of what it has become lately.

    The horrible gun grab attempt from our government through their insane and criminal “Fast & Furious” operation might have been buried deep to avoid the embarrassment, and for a while there it looked they got handed their asses, but these people that like to take advantage of any kind of crisis, just found one they are going to milk for all it is worth to do more of the same.

    2. This whole notion of “some people are just evil” and “criminals are just going to be committing crimes no matter what” is lame

    Stupidity like this is precisely why we are as fucked up as we are today and insane things like this sensless shootings keep happening. There is evil in this world, and we refuse to see it, because it doesn’t fit the new enlightened PC movement’s narrative. Of course, leftists do not like the concept of evil, or for that matter that criminals are evil, because most of the leftists are, or are borderline members of one, the other, or both groups.

    flies in the face of common sense and empirical data, and is basically just an expression of refusal to even debate whether there even is a problem to be addressed.

    OK, you are an idiot. What empirical data are you talking about? I linked data in my piece showing EXACTLY what I said happens when you disarm the public. You care to provide me with some of that data you seem to be privy to that proves when law abiding citizens are disarmed the criminals suddenly feel obliged to not just disarm but commit fewer crimes?

    Last I recall, some of the most fucked up places with the highest level of gun violence in this country, places like D.C, LA, NYC, Chicago, or Detroit, all also have the most intrusive anti gun laws possible. Yet you seem to be privy to data that says otherwise.

    3. Some people suggest it’s mental health problem that needs to be dealt with. Possibly. Of course, if you don’t want the government to a) spend any money on it and b) stay the heck away from anything that has to do with the family, you don’t have many options left.

    Why is the only solution with idiots like you always that the government has to do it? Seriously? As inept as government is, you can think of anyone that can do a better job? Fuck, I bet a crack whore would be more qualified and better at anything your average bureaucrat does. BTW, I believe that NOBODY can provide a perfect solution for this problem. What I do know is that government so far has done the worst at it because the only solution it wants is to violate the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens fo some mysterious reason. Well, since you seem readningchallenged let me say that there is no mystery, but that it was sarcasm at work.

    4. I’m still waiting for a someone to acknowledge that making access to guns harder clearly can help.

    So can fast tracked death penalty sentences for people that commit such heinous crimes.

    A kid especially is not as likely to buy a gun on the “black market”, then taking the one from his parents’ room.

    You must be unaware of the concept of gangs and gang members, huh? Or is your point that suburban kids have it harder? I bet you that all they have to do is ask the guy selling them pot where he gets his piece from, and they can get one too.

    And even if he tried, that would provide an opportunity for someone to notice something.

    Yeah, Santa Claus is sure to notice it all.

    As I have already pointed out: the solution that the idiots come up with is to take guns away from everyone other than the people that commit the crimes with them. Pass.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

      
  25. CM says:

    IMO people “driven by emotions” would have to include those who have weapons to protect themselves from the Government.

    These are the people that believe somehow more restrictive laws, because that makes guns harder to get for law abiding citizens or whatever other nonsense, will make things safer, despite the proof that criminals will never be bothered by laws and are far more aggressive when they know they are dealing with a disarmed populace.

    But if guns are harder to obtain, disaffected youths won’t be so easily able to collect a whole pile under their bed, and then go out one day and use them. I believe that’s the argument – not that people like Lanza’s decision-making is affected by gun-laws.

    The second group are the cynical and tyrannical bastards, practically always nanny state politicians, that want to take guns away from people, always under the guise of making things safer and protecting some poor innocent, but really because they know an unarmed population is much easier to push around.

    How does this ‘pushing around’ manifest itself, in a way that wouldn’t happen if certain types of guns were harder to obtain? How has this manifested itself in countries (like Australia) where tighter controls were imposed?

    The two work hand in hand, the tyrants using the others – in that old Stalinesque way of the usual idiot -to get their way. If you are comprehension challenged, I point out that the one and primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the people could not be disarmed and then oppressed like was happening all over Europe when our country was born. It had nothing to do with militias, hunting, sports shooting, or anything BUT making sure the people of this nation could kick their government’s ass if it became tyrannical. Kind of what it has become lately.

    As Salinger pointed out, guns aren’t very effective against drones. So in what situation is the ownership of a certain type of gun going to be the difference?

    Stupidity like this is precisely why we are as fucked up as we are today and insane things like this sensless shootings keep happening. There is evil in this world, and we refuse to see it, because it doesn’t fit the new enlightened PC movement’s narrative. Of course, leftists do not like the concept of evil, or for that matter that criminals are evil, because most of the leftists are, or are borderline members of one, the other, or both groups.

    No, I think it’s more than some people believe that just saying something is “evil” is a cop-out. It’s a way of avoiding going somewhere you don’t want to go. I’d argue that refusing to accept a person or their actions as “evil” is “precisely why we are as fucked up as we are today”. There are clearly many worse things in society than believing “evil” is a cop-out excuse.

    OK, you are an idiot. What empirical data are you talking about? I linked data in my piece showing EXACTLY what I said happens when you disarm the public. You care to provide me with some of that data you seem to be privy to that proves when law abiding citizens are disarmed the criminals suddenly feel obliged to not just disarm but commit fewer crimes?

    Australia and Japan are usually the examples given. I’ve seen the UK given too, although Poosh obviously refutes that. I haven’t personally looked into any of them enough to know whether I agree or not. But again, this whole “suddenly feel obliged to not just disarm but commit fewer crimes” is a straw man.

    As I have already pointed out: the solution that the idiots come up with is to take guns away from everyone other than the people that commit the crimes with the. Pass.

    There are plenty of choices. It’s not a case of either/or. Gun control is a continuum. And there’s no reason why a country can’t set controls on guns but not on your “car, your knives, your chain saw, or even your nose tweezers”.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  26. CM says:

    Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Hal_10000 says:

    There has to be a point when one looks at the lethality of a weapon. The China slashing spree is a perfect example. 20+ injured – none that I have heard, dead.

    This attack, yes. Over the last year however, 21 have been killed and 90 wounded.

    I’ll have a post up on this sometime tomorrow. Today’s been too hectic.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  28. AlexInCT says:

    IMO people “driven by emotions” would have to include those who have weapons to protect themselves from the Government.

    Yeah, because you know, crazy guys with guns have killed more people than governments ever have, huh CM? {Roll eyes}. Man the apologists for the collectivist mass murder movements sure have managed t make most people stupid. My constitution enshrines my right to defend myself from a tyrannical government. Any attempt to limit that ability, especially because of what other people have done or might do, to me is an assault on my freedoms.

    But if guns are harder to obtain, disaffected youths won’t be so easily able to collect a whole pile under their bed, and then go out one day and use them.

    I hear the same argument about drugs and alcohol, but I don’t think it works quite that way. Also, I just read today that contrary to the bullshit that these mass murderers hell bent on committing these sorts of crimes do some serious planning before they do them. If they can not get the guns they can make pipe bombs. All they need is a few supplies in everyone’s kitchen. And as I pointed out: if you want to use the “make it harder to get” argument, be prepared to have it used with other things as well. Most of them things you more likely than not feel disinclined to have restricted.

    Even IF, and it is a big IF, I was to agree with the principle that more restrictive access could work, I am disinclined to go along with it. I am not stupid enough to think that the gun grabbers will stop at anything short of what they did in Europe, where they completely disarmed the people. I oppose any restrictions that reduce access to guns for anyone other than felons or mentally disturbed people – for whom we already have plenty of laws on the books – on the general principle that such reduced access punishes me, infringes on my right to bear arms, and of all reasons due to no fault of my own. Fuck that.

    I believe that’s the argument – not that people like Lanza’s decision-making is affected by gun-laws.

    And I dismiss your argument outright, because without people like Lanza causing tragedies your side woul have their whining fall on deaf ears. You certainly wouldn’t be taken seriously. You are basically trying to capitalize on tragedy and emotion to get panicked people to cock block my rights, and you are arguing that because some people do bad, I should pay the consequences. This assault on my freedom is one of the biggest reasons I dislike any nanny stater: both on the left and right. Punish the people that do bad. Leave the ones doing nothing bad alone. You farking leftists want us to treat WMD armed terrorists like criminals and wait till after they do bad shit to do anything about them, but here you are out Booshing Boosh with your preemption.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  29. Miguelito says:

    I would wager the UK (yes, with the NHS) deals with the mentally ill much better, I suspect anyway.

    Theodore Dalrymple would disagree with you.

    I did read that book, and it’s very interesting with a lot of data and statistics coupled with his own time working within the UK NHS.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    Yeah, because you know, crazy guys with guns have killed more people than governments ever have, huh CM? {Roll eyes}. Man the apologists for the collectivist mass murder movements sure have managed t make most people stupid.

    You’re by far and away the one with the most emotion in this thread.
    I never claimed that “crazy guys with guns have killed more people than governments ever have”, or anything of the sort. That’s a very weak response Alex.

    My constitution enshrines my right to defend myself from a tyrannical government. Any attempt to limit that ability, especially because of what other people have done or might do, to me is an assault on my freedoms.

    Fine, and if sufficient people agree, that’s the choice you’ve made, and you’ll just need to deal with the consequences.
    IMO a few guns, of any type, isn’t going to do much to defend you from a “tyrannical government”. Again, in what sort of circumstance is it going to make any difference? What can the Australian government now do to their citizens because they’ve placed some limits on the types of guns that can be owned, and have a more difficult process in place to become a gun owner?

    I hear the same argument about drugs and alcohol, but I don’t think it works quite that way.

    You’re right, it doesn’t. Pretty hard to go into a school and kill 20 or 30 people with drugs or alcohol. But there are equally choices to be made about drugs and alcohol, and rather than pointlessly attempting to come up with the same choice for everything, societies generally consider each on their merits.

    Also, I just read today that contrary to the bullshit that these mass murderers hell bent on committing these sorts of crimes do some serious planning before they do them.

    That sentence doesn’t make much sense. Contrary to the claim that they do serious planning, what? You’ve read they don’t? Where did you read that?
    Have you read briggie’s link?
    I don’t see how a youth, who owns no guns, is able to carry out such an action without serious planning. Aside from the logistics, they need to get themselves to the right mental state. They need to stockpile, they need to transport. They need to go through the rituals of going about like everything is normal. They need to go through the process of excitement (again read that interesting piece at the link).

    If they can not get the guns they can make pipe bombs.

    That’s assuming the rampage killer is going to get what he’s after with bombs. It sounds like they’re sually after the kind of thing you’re only going to get with guns. They’re wanting to be central to the carnage, not standing on the sidelines.

    All they need is a few supplies in everyone’s kitchen. And as I pointed out: if you want to use the “make it harder to get” argument, be prepared to have it used with other things as well. Most of them things you more likely than not feel disinclined to have restricted.

    So don’t restrict them. There’s no reason why controlling certain types of guns, or setting up a system whereby gun owners have to be registered, means that restrictions need to be placed on everyday ingredients that could be put together to make bombs.

    Even IF, and it is a big IF, I was to agree with the principle that more restrictive access could work, I am disinclined to go along with it. I am not stupid enough to think that the gun grabbers will stop at anything short of what they did in Europe, where they completely disarmed the people.

    Where exactly in Europe?
    They ‘stopped’ in NZ, in Australia. Again, why does it have to be an ‘either’ or ‘situation’. Why pretend there’s only two choices? The world is full of countries that have all made different choices. The evidence is strong that it’s not a matter of “all guns banned” or “all guns legal”.
    Pretending things are that simplistic along calling people idiots like you’re doing) is usually a sign of wanting to shut down any actual discussion, because you’d like to pretend there isn’t one to be had.

    I oppose any restrictions that reduce access to guns for anyone other than felons or mentally disturbed people – for whom we already have plenty of laws on the books – on the general principle that such reduced access punishes me, infringes on my right to bear arms, and of all reasons due to no fault of my own. Fuck that.

    Ok. That’s the choice you’ve made for the society you want. It’s certainly not the one I’d make, but that’s obvously no surprise. I fully recognise and accept that some of societies choices restrict my own personal freedoms (I can’t do certain things, due to no fault of my own). However, on balance, I consider that I get (considerably) more freedom overall from that collection of choices.

    And if you hold that opinion, you have to recognise the consequences of your choice. If you don’t you’re deluding yourself. You’re relying on people being responsible. This guy’s Mom made a choice to keep guns to protect herself from the “tyrannical government”. That choice played a part in her son being able to massacre a whole class of kids.

    And I dismiss your argument outright, because without people like Lanza causing tragedies your side woul have their whining fall on deaf ears.

    Here we go – more simplistic, binary, black-and-white nonsense.
    What exactly is “my side” Alex?
    There are ALWAYS going to be people like Lanza. You’ve as much acknowledged that yourself. Your argument therefore doesn’t get off the ground because you’re pretending something that doesn’t exist. And as you’re strongly against a public health system of any kind, there certainly isn’t going to be any sort of improvement to the mental health of the nation. So you’re providing more opportunity and potential on the two most important aspects of this.

    You certainly wouldn’t be taken seriously.

    What specifically have I said that “wouldn’t be taken seriously”?

    You are basically trying to capitalize on tragedy and emotion to get panicked people to cock block my rights, and you are arguing that because some people do bad, I should pay the consequences.

    Immediately pretending that there is no discussion to be had is also politicising the situation. It’s pretending that society has no choices. Within your very first post on this topic (and only third comment on this topic on this blog):

    What I do know is that the gun grabbers are now going to make it about the guns, and not about the fact this person was so many cards short of a full deck if he is willing to do something this dispicable.

    That’s politicising the situation, right off the bat. You even wanted to get your politicising in before “the other side” could.
    Specifically what have I said that shows I’m attempting to “capitalize on tragedy and emotion” Alex? Come on, that’s a very strong accusation. Back it up please.
    Additionally, what have I said to “panic” people?
    I’m not an American. The issue of gun rights/control is a matter of choices for Americans to make.
    I don’t think the mental health issue assists the argument against gun control. Unfortunately for you, I think it does the opposite. It was also incredible that on the same day the knife attack happened in China, to provide a stark contrast between what can be done with a knife and what can be done with a gun. There’s a good reason you don’t want to defend yourself against people out to get you, and the tyrannical government, with knives.

    This assault on my freedom is one of the biggest reasons I dislike any nanny stater: both on the left and right. Punish the people that do bad. Leave the ones doing nothing bad alone.

    Lanza did nothing until the point that he did something.
    I struggle to see how restricting certain types of weapons, and/or setting up a system whereby gun owners need to go through a registration process, is an “assault on your freedom”. Sure, it’s more hoops to jump through, and it means the variety of weaponry you can own is reduced, but it’s still going to enable you to use guns for the purposes you’ve outlined.

    You farking leftists want us to treat WMD armed terrorists like criminals and wait till after they do bad shit to do anything about them, but here you are out Booshing Boosh with your preemption.

    There’s more of that emotion again.
    And you’ve failed to answer almost all my questions. Mostly because they require specifics, and you just want to talk vaguely and ideologically.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      
  31. HARLEY says:

    So when they ban these evil evil firearms, whats to prevent the Mexican cartels from shipping Full autos north along with the coke and meth, weed.. Ect?? you know the other stuff that has been foolishly banned?

    the genie is already out of the bottle… thinking you can shove it back in is worse than foolish…..

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  32. Mississippi Yankee says:

    No thinking person believes that an assault weapon ban will end senseless killing – or that it will even end mass killings using assault type weaponry. But it would make it tougher.

    First, right off the top let’s ALL agree that the “assault weapon“, in this case a Bushmaster AR-15 was still in his dead mother’s Jeep. Period.

    All of this senseless killing was done with PISTOLS. Not assault weapons.

    And if you’ll allow me this anecdote a very similar scenario happened here in Pearl MS not long after I moved here. The big/huge difference was the body count. It was because the assistant school principal armed himself and diverted a much larger tragedy.

    The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

    Woodham drove his mother’s car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,[1] he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother’s car. Then Myrick demanded “Why did you shoot my kids?” to which Woodham replied, “Life has wronged me, sir.”

    “Why did you shoot my kids?” to which Woodham replied, “Life has wronged me, sir.”

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  33. AlexInCT says:

    You’re by far and away the one with the most emotion in this thread.

    Heh, your joking right? And yes, I am emotional. I abhor senseless violence. Harming kids is something I take a real negative disposition on. And the fact that it is absolutely clear to me that the left is already full steam ahead trying to co-opt this horrible event to grab guns pisses me off to no end. I however have enough of my wits around me to blame the right things, crazy and evil people, and not guns.

    I never claimed that “crazy guys with guns have killed more people than governments ever have”, or anything of the sort. That’s a very weak response Alex.

    Let me quote you:

    CM SAID: IMO people “driven by emotions” would have to include those who have weapons to protect themselves from the Government.

    My point was that if you wanted to be fair, you would at least acknowledge that the people you claim are emotional themselves because they fear government, have great reasons to feel that way. You did no such thing. In fact, your point, veiled as it was, was that people that think a government that has disarmed them can abuse them are nut jobs for believing that, while the people that think taking away all guns will magically stop evil and crazy people from killing, are less emotional.

    Fine, and if sufficient people agree, that’s the choice you’ve made, and you’ll just need to deal with the consequences.

    Finally something we agree on.

    IMO a few guns, of any type, isn’t going to do much to defend you from a “tyrannical government”.

    Damn, we agree again. That’s why I, and many others like me, have far more than a “few” guns, while also remaining dead set against any attempt to reduce the number of guns private citizens have. The American people currently have enough guns to deal with any government on its way to tyranny.

    What can the Australian government now do to their citizens because they’ve placed some limits on the types of guns that can be owned, and have a more difficult process in place to become a gun owner?

    Maybe you need a refresher course on the history of the 20th century so you wouldn’t ask any stupid questions like this one?

    You’re right, it doesn’t. Pretty hard to go into a school and kill 20 or 30 people with drugs or alcohol.

    If I was so inclined I could kill far more people with either drugs or alcohol than I could with an arsenal. And unlike when they see someone with guns, they would come running for the free booze and drugs. Just because we have had too many evil or crazy people so far choose to kill with guns, for the shock factor, when it is much easier to commit mass murder with things other than bombs and guns, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen one of these days. Are we going to ban booze, drugs, toothpaste, or whatever else they might use as a medium to commit murder? Especially since they could kill hundreds if not thousands?

    But there are equally choices to be made about drugs and alcohol, and rather than pointlessly attempting to come up with the same choice for everything, societies generally consider each on their merits.

    Funny how the way that your side seeks to deal with guns always is that they want to take them away, huh? More people die from car accidents, and yet I have never heard someone demand we do away with all cars.

    That sentence doesn’t make much sense. Contrary to the claim that they do serious planning, what? You’ve read they don’t? Where did you read that?
    Have you read briggie’s link?

    No CM. What I was saying is that while the LSM wants to pretend that these evnts are all spontaneous and chaotic, that in practically every case the mass murderer really put some serious planning into their sprees.

    I don’t see how a youth, who owns no guns, is able to carry out such an action without serious planning. Aside from the logistics, they need to get themselves to the right mental state. They need to stockpile, they need to transport. They need to go through the rituals of going about like everything is normal. They need to go through the process of excitement (again read that interesting piece at the link).

    So if we agree that they can plan and do so, do you think determined people will not be able to find guns from the same suppliers that provide them to criminals? What then? Do you double ban guns?

    That’s assuming the rampage killer is going to get what he’s after with bombs. It sounds like they’re sually after the kind of thing you’re only going to get with guns. They’re wanting to be central to the carnage, not standing on the sidelines.

    You must not have ever seen a real bomb in action then CM. My bet is that with a few pipe bombs this kid could have killed far more people. Walls and doors would have provided very little protection.

    So don’t restrict them. There’s no reason why controlling certain types of guns, or setting up a system whereby gun owners have to be registered, means that restrictions need to be placed on everyday ingredients that could be put together to make bombs.

    Great logic there. At least you lve no doubt that the objective you have is to get rid of guns, really.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  34. CM says:

    Its not a straw man at all you clueless tard.

    More emotion there.

    Actually, thats what the end game is for the gun grabbers. Take a look what they have done for Wash DC, Chicago, LA and Detroit as a prime examples.

    They made it near impossible to OWN a gun. At all, period. Oh, their gun crime rates are the worst in the US btw.

    These are the 3 most liberal cities in the US btw.

    I’ll have a look.
    But the claim that ANY discussion to do anything about guns is automatically an attempt to “prevent people from owning firearms” is silly. It’s another (clumsy) attempt to shut down discussion.

    So when they ban these evil evil firearms, whats to prevent the Mexican cartels from shipping Full autos north along with the coke and meth, weed.. Ect?? you know the other stuff that has been foolishly banned?

    the genie is already out of the bottle… thinking you can shove it back in is worse than foolish…..

    The “evil evil” thing suggests you’re also only wanting to discuss extreme positions.

    Cross-border spill-over has been studied.
    https://files.nyu.edu/od9/public/papers/Cross_border_spillover.pdf
    Guns spilled over into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico following the end of the assault weapons ban, but not into California, which retained the pre-existing state-level ban.

    Interesting that the weapon used was marketed along the lines of having “a man card”. Similar to the kind of macho questioning I get from Seattle Outcast here regularly.
    One line from the Bushmaster advertising:
    “Colin F is just unmanly. Colin F avoids eye contact with tough-looking 5th graders. Man card revoked”
    That’s not coming across all that great now.
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushmasters-shockingly-awful-man-card-campaign

    Australia seems to have successfully put the genie back into the bottle. However the ‘genie’ is much larger in the US, no doubt.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  35. repmom says:

    First, right off the top let’s ALL agree that the “assault weapon“, in this case a Bushmaster AR-15 was still in his dead mother’s Jeep. Period.

    All of this senseless killing was done with PISTOLS. Not assault weapons.

    I suggest you recheck your facts on that, MY.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    Heh, your joking right? And yes, I am emotional.

    Which is it then?

    If you’re going to argue the other side are arguing from emotion, might be a good idea to not come across so emotional…..

    I abhor senseless violence.

    I’m sure everyone here does. Who doesn’t?

    Harming kids is something I take a real negative disposition on. And the fact that it is absolutely clear to me that the left is already full steam ahead trying to co-opt this horrible event to grab guns pisses me off to no end. I however have enough of my wits around me to blame the right things, crazy and evil people, and not guns.

    Well, again, you were the one full steam into co-opting and politicising this before anyone else.

    When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”

    Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

    My point was that if you wanted to be fair, you would at least acknowledge that the people you claim are emotional themselves because they fear government, have great reasons to feel that way.

    Well, completely misrepresenting what I said was a terrible way to try and make the point.
    And those who fear there kids will be killed by a gun don’t have any reasons? I would say the chances of someone’s child being killed by a gun are low, but still far far higher than your home being attacked by a “tyrannical government”. If guns are limited, the chances of your kid being killed by a gun is likely to be lower, and the likelihood of you being able to defend your home against a “tyrannical government” is likely to be unchanged. If the “tyrannical government” are coming for you, they’re not exactly going to be doing it in a way whereby a slightly different variety of gun will make any difference.

    You did no such thing. In fact, your point, veiled as it was, was that people that think a government that has disarmed them can abuse them are nut jobs for believing that,

    I’m questioning the logic is all. If the logic doesn’t stand up, the point is made by itself.
    Again, the US can choose to have a different system which doesn’t equate to the population being ‘disarmed’. Australians aren’t disarmed. Neither are New Zealanders. If you think they are, how is the goverment then abusing them? I’ve asked this already and you avoided it last time.

    while the people that think taking away all guns will magically stop evil and crazy people from killing, are less emotional.

    Why are you responding to an argument that hasn’t been made?
    I simply pointed out that you, and now, inevitably, balthazar, are the ones pushing back the hardest against this, and are also clearly the most emotional about it. So it was very strange claim for you to make, given that the evidence here suggests the opposite.

    Damn, we agree again. That’s why I, and many others like me, have far more than a “few” guns, while also remaining dead set against any attempt to reduce the number of guns private citizens have. The American people currently have enough guns to deal with any government on its way to tyranny.

    A few more aren’t going to help either. You can only use one at the time. And none are going to help against a drone. If the govt is coming for you, they’re not exactly going to do it in a way that suits your selection of guns.
    There are choices that don’t have to limit the number you have. There can be limits on the type, and there can be registration processes for gun owners.

    Maybe you need a refresher course on the history of the 20th century so you wouldn’t ask any stupid questions like this one?

    Why not just answer the question? It was specifically phrased. We’re talking about the difference between what the Govt could do to the people before the law changes, and afterwards.

    If I was so inclined I could kill far more people with either drugs or alcohol than I could with an arsenal. And unlike when they see someone with guns, they would come running for the free booze and drugs. Just because we have had too many evil or crazy people so far choose to kill with guns, for the shock factor, when it is much easier to commit mass murder with things other than bombs and guns, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen one of these days. Are we going to ban booze, drugs, toothpaste, or whatever else they might use as a medium to commit murder? Especially since they could kill hundreds if not thousands?

    No, because that’s a nonsensical argument. Just because you place limits on one thing, it doesn’t mean you need to place limits on others. Just as punishments are designed to fit crimes, and specific sentencing is designed to fit the particulars of specific crimes.
    How could you “kill far more people with either drugs or alcohol”? I’m not sure what you mean.

    Funny how the way that your side seeks to deal with guns always is that they want to take them away, huh?

    Non-sequitur. How on earth does that follow my comment that every society has a choice about what sort of rules they make?
    Again, not sure what this whole “my side” is. There’s a serious issue when you engage in that sort of arguing Alex. You seem to want to only argue against an extreme position. So you immediately attempt to paint any opinion that differs from your own as extreme. You do it on all issues, all the time. That way you can try and avoid complexity and doubt.
    I’m inclined to agree that in the US it may be too late to do much of anything. With the Second Amendment and subsequent gun culture (based on the argument of “freedom”, and the power of the NRA, I doubt anything will change.

    More people die from car accidents, and yet I have never heard someone demand we do away with all cars.

    Again, that’s a non-sensical argument. This shooting wasn’t an accident. Cars are designed for transport, the fact that they injure and kill is an unfortunate by-product. But extensive work goes into safety to try and reduce the number of people injured/killed. People need to prove they can safely operate a car before they’re allowed on the road, and vehicles and roads are continually being improved to try and reduce risks. Vehicles are regularly checked to ensure they are safe and don’t pose any additional risks to others.

    No CM. What I was saying is that while the LSM wants to pretend that these evnts are all spontaneous and chaotic, that in practically every case the mass murderer really put some serious planning into their sprees.

    I don’t agree that the LSM does want to ‘pretend’ that. Immediately following an event like this, all media do whatever they can to get as many details as possible to paint a picture of how the shooter’s life led to this point.

    So if we agree that they can plan and do so, do you think determined people will not be able to find guns from the same suppliers that provide them to criminals? What then? Do you double ban guns?

    I doubt this kid (and kids like him) would have had much luck. I doubt people supplying guns to criminals would want anything to do with a random scrawny white kid they’ve never seen before, from an area with a median annual income of $110,000.

    Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/

    You must not have ever seen a real bomb in action then CM.

    Yes, that’s the problem with that logic Alex.
    Sheesh.

    My bet is that with a few pipe bombs this kid could have killed far more people. Walls and doors would have provided very little protection.

    Sure, but he wouldn’t have gotten what he wanted, so it’s redundant. Which is why rampage killers use guns, not bombs. They lose the power with bombs. Again, read that linked piece to better understand this point.
    So people won’t be calling for stricter bomb controls. Because it’s not relevant.

    Great logic there.

    I meant: “so don’t restrict the number of guns people can have”.
    The logic is fine.

    At least you lve no doubt that the objective you have is to get rid of guns, really.

    Then, as usual, you clearly haven’t been following. You’ve been discussing with your own invented version of me. Again, in order to justify your own position, you distort all others. YAWN. Boring.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  37. salinger says:

    First, right off the top let’s ALL agree that the “assault weapon“, in this case a Bushmaster AR-15 was still in his dead mother’s Jeep. Period.

    Where’d you get that?

    On Saturday afternoon, a grim state official, Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner Wayne Carver revealed to the world that the primary weapon used on the Sandy Hook school victims was not a handgun but rather a long gun, a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a formidable killing machine eschewed by most hunters, unwieldy for self-defense, similar to weapons used by our soldiers in Afghanistan and the weapon of choice of the Beltway snipers. The 26 victims inside the school, Carver announced, were dead from three to eleven wounds each.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  38. Mississippi Yankee says:

    IMO a few guns, of any type, isn’t going to do much to defend you from a “tyrannical government”.

    A simple google search or opening a history to the American Revolution chapter will absolutely disprove this folly.

    Guns spilled over into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico following the end of the assault weapons ban, but not into California, which retained the pre-existing state-level ban.

    Again complete bullsh*t. Compton or East LA have always had more assault firepower than a Taliban stronghold.

    And CM, saying that Alex was the most emotional person here REALLY HURT MY FEEEELING!!!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  39. repmom says:

    http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/12/16/news/doc50ce5f5188f95527024652.txt

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Apparently it’s the site’s most popular petition.
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-address-issue-gun-control-through-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  41. CM says:

    A simple google search or opening a history to the American Revolution chapter will absolutely disprove this folly.

    That might work if the US Government could only use weaponry from the American Revolution. Did they have drones back then?
    And again, we’ve not talking about an “all guns” versus “no guns” situation. There are plenty of choices which would enable Alex to still defend his home from criminals and the government, but would reduce the likelihood of rampage killers to obtain weapons, and especially the type that result in dozens of dead.
    I’m not arguing for that to happen, I’m arguing against this fallacy that there isn’t a choice.

    Again complete bullsh*t. Compton or East LA have always had more assault firepower than a Taliban stronghold.

    Ah, another piece of published research ripped thoroughly apart by a one-sentence peer-review from Mississippi Yankee……awesome.

    And CM, saying that Alex was the most emotional person here REALLY HURT MY FEEEELING!!!

    ;-) There’s still time….I’m here all week. Well, couple more days probably.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  42. CM says:

    http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/12/16/news/doc50ce5f5188f95527024652.txt

    Wow, he’s not holding back is he.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  43. CM says:

    BTW

    Everybody is trying to make sense of this tragedy. Too many are so desperate for a reason other than we are dealing with someone that was mentally deranged,

    Where is the evidence that Lanza was mentally deranged? It’s certainly not in your link, which in fact says:

    Police have not yet released details about the motives or mental state of shooter Adam Lanza.

    Alex, when you do this it makes it look like you’ve already decided that it’s whatever fits your narrative.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  44. Mississippi Yankee says:

    repmom and sally”

    Everything I’ve read up until today has indicated that the .223 was not used to kill these kids. And how the MSM could have got that wrong for hours much less days is incredible.

    repmom, I found the descriptive nature of the weapon in the CNN article a bit much:

    Asked Sunday about the lethal nature of the Bushmaster assault semi-automatic weapon used by the killer, Carver said, “It is said that the most lethal thing on the battlefield is a Marine with one of these rifles and momma Marine Corps didn’t raise no fools. I don’t know of many people who hunt with (these weapons) because the bullets are so fast that they break up and spray the (targets) with bits of lead.”

    But sally, Why did your Atlantic reporter put HIS agenda right in his bi-line?

    The National Rifle Association is a mighty thing. But it is still no match for the political power of parents in America.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  45. salinger says:

    Everything I’ve read up until today has indicated that the .223 was not used to kill these kids. And how the MSM could have got that wrong for hours much less days is incredible.

    Please give me a link to one of these articles.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  46. repmom says:

    I suggest more TV, MY.

    The media gave lots of bad (incorrect) info that first day, including the name of the shooter. All in trying to be the first to report, I assume.

    When I did a google search for links to correct MY, I found one article that supported his statement. It was, however, dated Saturday. The medical examiner gave his report Saturday afternoon, including weapon used. That was when I got so emotional, as I mentioned in the other thread.

    repmom, I found the descriptive nature of the weapon in the CNN article a bit much

    So……you disagree with it? What?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  47. TheContrarian says:

    I’d just like to address the point about the second amendment and the right to resist government tyranny. It is a common argument among advocates of tighter gun controls that such a justification for the right to bear arms is deprecated due to advances in military technology. They argue, “What is your rifle going to do against a predator drone? Give up already!”

    This is not a great argument because it is false to assume that superior weapons = automatic victory. We had superior weapons in Vietnam. We’ve had superior weapons in Afghanistan for years. An organized but scattered enemy employing guerilla tactics can make Abrams tanks and F-22′s useless. Such would be the case were the American military actually turned on its own people.

    Could we actually overthrow the government? Probably not, but it would depend on the scenario. Are we talking militias vs military or an actual civil war where one group of states fights another? To what extent do soldiers follow orders rather than side with civilians? It’s an interesting thought experiment. Regardless, you can be certain that the government (and its ideological cheerleaders) have a strong incentive to convince you of the impossibility of resistance.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Mississippi Yankee says:

    repmom, I found the descriptive nature of the weapon in the CNN article a bit much

    So……you disagree with it? What?

    A Medical Examiner, doing his job, should be stating ‘medical’ facts not offering political opinions. And his opinion of MY Marine Corps seems a bit negative. As to his stated hunting facts, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There are so many different types of rounds for that particular weapon that with his generalization one may conclude Mr. ME might have an agenda too. Try googling what hunters use to hunt large deer, long-horned sheep, moose, elk…(30-06, 308 ect,) Every rifle used to hunt these game animals is one shot per trigger pull. The ONLY difference is an AR-15 looks scary and it was developed from a military weapon.

    repmom I get 0% of my news from TV. It’s been that way since Katrina (thank you Shepard Smith). CNN then FOXNEWS are my first stops on the web then I follow links. But I admit to being a bit of a Drudge-a-holic.

    You,and many if not most Americans, are emotionally raw right now because the victims were so innocent. As all of you heal I really hope you begin to see what this administration is attempting to do “in your name”.

    In all sincerity perhaps less TV will allow your wound to scab at least.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  49. Mississippi Yankee says:


    For laughs, would one of you guys or gals going on about “assault weapons? please describe what you think one is to me?

    This will be good.

    Before we go ant further shouldn’t we answer this most important question? I’ll go first.

    Assault weapon = No such object. Tools do not assault they only frighten the uninformed.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  50. repmom says:

    My wound will heal just fine, TV or no, MY.

    Btw – Very big of you to attack the sources offered to prove your facts incorrect, rather than just admitting you were wrong. Period.

    Salinger suggested tighter restrictions on certain guns, or at least a discussion of it. I agreed with that, and questioned the need for individual ownership of assault weapons. (Alex has answered that loudly and clearly. I got it. Not saying I agree, but I got it)

    By my doing so, you have chosen to group me in with ‘all those fooled by this president’. Thanks.

    I have no desire to help this administration take all your guns away.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  51. Kimpost says:

    I’d just like to address the point about the second amendment and the right to resist government tyranny.

    Is it just Alex here or is this “guns for protection from a state gone totalitarian”-meme an actual argument for you guys? Because I think there’s something seriously wrong with that whole line of thinking. Healthy government (or any authority) skepticism is fine, but taking it to that level? In short is this real or is this just the history of the Constitution talking?

    And Europe is hardly unarmed, Alex…

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      
  52. balthazar says:

    Heres one…

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/guns_used_in_sandy_hook_massac.html

    An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting, NBC News reported.

    And Repmom, I have read about 10 diff articles on the shooting and YESTERDAY was the FIRST ONE that confirmed the bushmater was used to kill anyone.

    So the SOURCES were to blame.

    I see none of the gun grabbers actually tried to discribe an assault weapon.

    At least CM said he didnt know enough about it, color me surprised on that. Hell a ton of the overseas articles said it was an AUTOMATIC rifle which is a flat out lie designed to inflame.

    Heres a clue, “assault rifles” mean nothing, this guy could have done just as much damage with a goddamn rimfire 22, and carried more ammo to boot. Its the person, not the gun.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  53. AlexInCT says:

    Where is the evidence that Lanza was mentally deranged? It’s certainly not in your link, which in fact says:

    Well, if Lanza was not mentally deranged, then the only option left is that he was evil. Either way, no law will prevent either evil or insane people from committing a massacre when they set their mind to it. None. And waiting for a police response – the cops showed up 20 minutes into the shooting, again validating the axiom that when police help is needed in seconds they are minutes away – is the height of futility. The problem is that people like you are desperate to avoid calling Lanza evil or crazy because your priority is to use the crisis to confiscate guns. My experience has always been that anyone telling you they want sensible gun laws is hiding behind rhetoric to justify gun banning. that is always the end game.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  54. repmom says:

    And Repmom, I have read about 10 diff articles on the shooting and YESTERDAY was the FIRST ONE that confirmed the bushmater was used to kill anyone.

    Except for this one, dated Sunday, the day before YESTERDAY.

    http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/12/16/news/doc50ce5f5188f95527024652.txt

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. repmom says:

    Here’s another one, also dated Sunday, not YESTERDAY

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-school-shooting-adam-lanza-mother-visited-gun/story?id=17992396

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. balthazar says:

    Hey timestamps are your friend… those came out LATE sunday. Most people probably didnt read them until YESTERDAY.

    Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:16 PM EST

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  57. balthazar says:

    Wow Moderation….WTF

    Anyway, how about looking at the time stamps of those articles, at least one of them came out after 10 PM on sunday, a time when most people are in bed or heading to bed if they have to work in the morning. Hence they did not read them until YESTERDAY.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  58. repmom says:

    Wow Moderation….WTF

    What? You didn’t like the second one? What was the time stamp on it?

    You know – like you say, WTF. Fine. The media’s to blame.

    Whatever.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  59. Poosh says:

    I don’t now how these thicko dumb dumb mimes get spread around. The “your gun won’t take out a drone” thing is so stupid and meaningless it is barely worth responding to, much like the idiotic pro-large state statement “why isn’t Somalia a great place then?” I don’t know why thick people spread this bs around, it really lowers the tone.

    I don’t see what good an automatic weapon would be in a shooting like this anyway, these weapons aren’t like the movies, they run out in a few seconds.

    Because I think there’s something seriously wrong with that whole line of thinking. Healthy government (or any authority) skepticism is fine, but taking it to that level? In short is this real or is this just the history of the Constitution talking?

    It’s a philosophical point manifested into the constitution/etc. It’s origins, I believe, can also be traced to original English law. The entire point IS that armed population will be naturally protected from a government or state which did seek to attack them AND they would not entirely be relying on the military if a foreign power attacked. I always laugh at the notion that “yes but we live in democracies, that would never happen” … as if the WW2 powers did not think any differently, as if they themselves did not think they were the height of civilisation. I think this talk of “neo-nazi” types rising up in Europe is hogwash, but let’s pretend it’s true. What happens if they take power in Greece (democratically or by coup), let’s say. Let’s assume the Greeks are disarmed. Wouldn’t you wish the Greeks were armed?

    I think it’s very short sighted but understandable given we live cozy lives. One could boast that here in the UK we DON’T have mental-detectors or security officers in our schools. And indeed there is something seriously evil with your society if you have to have them there. But look at the UK’s lower classes, and many of them live in fear from thugs and criminals who act with impunity. They are terrorised in their own homes, and have little options. The police cannot stop it. I think that goes for the US as well, it’s fine if you live in a nice middle class (middle class as into the UK’s def which would be $65,000 salary etc. teachers, professionals) area with no crime – but in the less savoury parts of the US, urban in particular, taking away your gun might literally be a death sentence.

    That being said, I do think it’s time the media, and maybe even government, moved to STOP the media from turning these killers into celebrities. It would be good if the media CHOSE to do this.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  60. Poosh says:

    From the wiki of the Aurora shooting:

    One day after the shooting, officials disarmed an explosive device wired to the apartment’s front entrance, allowing a remotely controlled robot to enter and disable other explosives. The apartment held more than 30 homemade grenades, wired to a control box in the kitchen, and 10 gallons of gasoline

    From what I read it isn’t the guns or the number of guns that are problematic, but the stupidity of certain citizens, a lack of intelligent regulations, and a lack of decent enforcement. But then, I believe, New Hampshire has very, very little gun regulations and has very low levels of crime period.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  61. balthazar says:

    What? You didn’t like the second one? What was the time stamp on it?

    You know – like you say, WTF. Fine. The media’s to blame.

    Whatever.

    There wanst a time-stamp on one of your links, and the other, as I mentioned, was well after most people stop reading for the day.

    If you dont like me pointing out where your argument is failing, too fucking bad, deal with it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  62. AlexInCT says:

    Salinger suggested tighter restrictions on certain guns, or at least a discussion of it. I agreed with that, and questioned the need for individual ownership of assault weapons. (Alex has answered that loudly and clearly. I got it. Not saying I agree, but I got it)

    My stance repmom is based simply on the inarguable fact that I am not fooled by the people that say they want “some restrictions”, anymore. The agenda is to ban & confiscate any and all firearms from anyone the government doesn’t want to have the ability to fight back from. Period! And every once in a while, when they think they can get away with it, they will tell you just that. I saw at least 5 or six people in the media say exactly that just this week.

    The facts are simple: the places in the US with the most restrictive firearms laws are also the ones with the highest crime and violence related to firearms. I remember an article pointing out that we lost more people over the weekend in LA, D.C, NYC, Detroit, and Chicago than the entire battle of Fallujah in Iraq. I could not believe that statistic until I looked it up. Those 5 cities have the most incredibly insane and restrictive anti-fire arm laws, and yet, they see the most deaths and crime committed with guns. It may be correlation, but it sure as hell looks like a disarmed citizenry makes it far easier for the criminals, the ones that do not care what the law says, to brutalize the unarmed civilians. And as usual the police is minutes late when seconds count. Maybe some of you are stupid enough to trust the government to protect you, but tragedies like this one make it even clearer to me that they not only can’t but don’t care.

    Besides, why in the hell would I let the same government that is now making excuses and using their political control of the Justice department to suppress any and all investigations into a criminal endeavor that funneled thousands of assault weapons to the most evil and brutal murderers in the various Mexican cartels – an unbelievably insane politically motivated operation that the Mexican government, which was kept in the dark about it, should have interpreted as an act of war – disarm its own citizens? In fact, I, and for that matter many others than have been gobbling up fire arms in the last 4 years at an alarming rate, feel obliged to get even more weapons to protect ourselves from these bastards that arm evil people, so they can kill more people, in an attempt to create a narrative that they then hope will let them disarm their own citizens.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  63. Kimpost says:

    Drones or not, the important thing IMO is that the mindset exists at all. I don’t EVER seriously think about how to fight off the government when they will be coming for me. I don’t know of anyone here thinking like that (Is it common in the UK?). Yet I live in socialist hell hole Sweden, which presumably is decades closer to Stalinism than America is.

    The government is essentially “you and me – us”. Sure there’s waste and incompetence, but evil and tyranny? If by some odd chance the government decides to turn on it citizens, then I say fuck it. Let’s deal with that Hollywood scenario when we get there. It’s about as likely as dealing with a invasion from outer space. Sure we could prepare for that too, but unfortunately there are real life issues to address that seem to deserve priority.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  64. repmom says:

    Honestly, bathazar. You proved your point with one of my links (somewhat), and then you complained about my second one, which didn’t prove your point. You could say it proved my point.

    It was known Sunday what weapon was used to kill those children. Some of us here seemed to know that before Monday morning. Obviously some of you didn’t. If you choose to blame the media for that, then do.

    It’s not worth constant bickering back and forth about.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. AlexInCT says:

    From what I read it isn’t the guns or the number of guns that are problematic, but the stupidity of certain citizens, a lack of intelligent regulations, and a lack of decent enforcement. But then, I believe, New Hampshire has very, very little gun regulations and has very low levels of crime period.

    It is funny that some of the places with the most friendly carry laws also have the least amount of crime, Poosh. Look at Texas. Criminals are far less eager to take a risk when their potential victim might pull out their own gun and drill a few holes center mass, but the gun grabbers don’t give two shits about this – in fact in many places they would like to punish the gun owners for defending themselves – because the agenda is to have us all dependant on and at the mercy of big government. They fear guns, want to deprive those that do not of them to level the field, and trust a government unworthy of any trust.

    The indisputable fact is that if one or more of the people at the Newington school had been armed, this kid would have looked for a different target or been killed before he could have murdered so many. There is a reason these insane and evil fucks, with so few exceptions as to be statistical noise, target “gun free” zones instead of police departments, gun ranges, or military installations: people that can shoot back will do just that.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  66. Poosh says:

    I did note, a lot of the stats of gun deaths in the USA, branded about, actually fail to mention over half are suicides (which in itself was a shocking stat worthy of national debate, it’s not like you’re Japan!).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Kimpost says:

    I’m suppose some people actually do want to take away your guns, Alex, but you don’t have to listen to them, do you? Why not be pro-active, by coming up with suggestions that would allow you to keep your guns, possibly even assault type guns.

    I’m not an expert on ballistics (either), but IF it is possible to register some kind of bullet finger print, would that really be such a bad thing? If it ISN’T possible, let that particular debate fade away.

    You say that most states already do require individuals to do backup checks and submit transfer records when selling them. I assume you agree with that, so why not make that a mandatory federal thing? It wouldn’t hurt you now, would it?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  68. AlexInCT says:

    I’m suppose some people actually do want to take away your guns, Alex, but you don’t have to listen to them, do you? Why not be pro-active, by coming up with suggestions that would allow you to keep your guns, possibly even assault type guns.

    I thought I had done just that when I pointed out that the laws as they exist today are already intrusive and comprehensive enough, such that the attempts at more laws clearly indicate a line I am not willing to cross, Kimpost.

    We already have laws against murder, and as a society view the murder of innocent children as one of the most heinous acts against society possible. If this perp had survived I bet the people that just abolished the death penalty in CT, would be up against the wall for that option now no longer being available. Some of the most draconian laws already are on the books related to schools. In fact, schools are considered “everything free” zones, with guns probably being at the top of the list. Even a toy gun will land your ass in jail for a long time. The weapons this monster used all required background checks, waiting periods, and registration to purchase, and the owner had dutifully fulfilled those obligations. I am even willing to bet that the mother had a gun safe of some kind to store the fire arms in, although I suspect that the LSM will only report this if they think it will advance the gun grabber’s agenda. Responsible gun owners know how problematic it can be if your firearms are stolen, or worse, taken by a burglar and used against you. And keep the fact that when this bastard tried to buy his own firearms the system worked and he was denied the weapon in mind. The law worked. About the ONLY thing that could have stopped this killer was a law that allowed us to lock up anyone we even suspect of being able of such heinous acts. Then again, that would put everyone behind bars, sooner or later.

    The problem with the current reaction to this tragedy is that for too many their false presumption that the world is safe has been shattered. Now they are hell bent on doing whatever it takes to restore that feeling of security, the risks, consequences, or whether their solution will even work, be damned. Some argue that more restrictions, or that the ability for people to get certain types of firearms because they were totally illegal, might have prevented this, but I call bullshit. As already was pointed out, repeatedly, criminals in the places with the most restrictive firearms laws, seem to have no problem arming themselves with illegal weapons. If the gun grabbers succeed in getting a ban on all automatic weapon sales/ownership, like they want, and tomorrow some other evil fucking nut job shoots up people with a hunting rifle, I am under no illusion that the gun grabbers will then not be demanding those be banned too. It’s about restoring the illusion of safety, after all. The next one will use hand guns, and they will ban those as well. That’s the end of the gun grabbers’ goal, after all: nobody but the authorities, with criminals too, as an unintended but blatantly foreseen consequence, has any firearms.

    The whole system of already restrictive laws broke down because the mother simply didn’t want to accept that the kid could snap. He shot her, then took the guns, picked a school where he was certain he was not going to have to worry about someone taking him out before he had racked up a body count, and then proceeded to have his way as the authorities took a full 20 minutes to show up to the massacre, at which point this bastard had the decency to off his evil ass to save us from more casualties and the CT tax payer from the expense of housing him for life. No law in the universe can protect you from evil people intent on causing harm, as this senseless act clearly shows. There are no laws or restrictions that will prevent this kind of tragedy. Some people might be willing to sacrifice their freedoms to regain the illusion of security they now have lost, but I am not willing to do any of that. Especially since what these people want will remove my ability to protect myself, which is what gives me the sense of some security.

    I’m not an expert on ballistics (either), but IF it is possible to register some kind of bullet finger print, would that really be such a bad thing? If it ISN’T possible, let that particular debate fade away.

    Not that I am against your concept of a bullet fingerprint (whatever that may be) at all Kimpost, but could you explain how this, or for the matter any other laws or precautions, would have really prevented a determined evil murderer like this kid from doing it anyway? Practically every law, yes even the ones banning firearms which will disarm the law abiding citizen and leave him at the mercy of criminals and abusive governments, are not going to do much other than help you after the fact. Are you people willing to accept a preemptive doctrine? Most leftists have expressed severe dislike of that concept in the past.

    You say that most states already do require individuals to do backup checks and submit transfer records when selling them. I assume you agree with that, so why not make that a mandatory federal thing? It wouldn’t hurt you now, would it?

    Because I do not believe the federal government should ever be given that ability. That’s what the 2nd amendment was explicitly written for. all registration does is give them a list of whose door to knock on when they are ready to confiscate everyone’s firearms. The states can do what they want within the limits of the 2nd amendment, and those that felt they needed it did. Connecticut, which already has some of the unions most restricitve and insane laws, could still not prevent this tragedy. You really want me to believe that the feds would have done better? Laughable. Besides, what the gun grabbers want is either a ban or a list that will allow them to confiscate the guns when the time comes. I say no to either.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  69. Poosh says:

    or military installations

    Fort Hood. Which was a gun free zone (ironically).

    Kimpost, it’s not what is happening now, or today (though I have to say there are some things that have been done in the UK, as far as I’m concerned, which DID show that the state, judges in this instance, are more than happy to violate what should be human rights (freedom of speech, for example)). The point of having an armed population is the balance of power between the citizens and the state. Having the state (democracy is irrelevant, democracies are more than capable of voting in Hitler into power) have a monopoly of the use of force (which I think we all agree is preferable to the alternatives) is balanced, so it is argued, by an armed population. The state – and the votes of the civilians – have the power of force, but – surely – only so far as it justifies having that power. An armed population is like “insurance”, shall we say.

    I mean how many years have we really been “civilised”? 20 years? maybe 30. It’s a blip on the radar. Do you *really* think it’s a fact that things will only get better?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  70. Kimpost says:

    I just don’t see the balance of power/insurance argument as relevant anymore. In 1789, sure. I also get that Alex A) doesn’t trust the government, and B) doesn’t think any more regulations would do any good. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  71. balthazar says:

    Honestly, bathazar. You proved your point with one of my links (somewhat), and then you complained about my second one, which didn’t prove your point. You could say it proved my point.

    It was known Sunday what weapon was used to kill those children. Some of us here seemed to know that before Monday morning. Obviously some of you didn’t. If you choose to blame the media for that, then do.

    It’s not worth constant bickering back and forth abou
    t.

    Then stop.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  72. balthazar says:

    I just don’t see the balance of power/insurance argument as relevant anymore. In 1789, sure. I also get that Alex A) doesn’t trust the government, and B) doesn’t think any more regulations would do any good. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

    You arnt an American, which is probably the reason why you dont understand.

    There is one thing no one has mentioned, the volunteer aspect of our military is a stop against the “oppressive government” from subjecting the mass populace. I was active duty in the USMC and if some fucktard pres started issuing orders to subjugate whole towns, which is what would have to happen to sieze guns, I feel a large portion of the military would refuse to do it.

    Lawful orders are one thing, something like that would not be a lawful order.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  73. CM says:

    This is not a great argument because it is false to assume that superior weapons = automatic victory. We had superior weapons in Vietnam. We’ve had superior weapons in Afghanistan for years. An organized but scattered enemy employing guerilla tactics can make Abrams tanks and F-22′s useless. Such would be the case were the American military actually turned on its own people.

    I’d be interested in the counter argument to this piece, from ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger.

    Before we go ant further shouldn’t we answer this most important question? I’ll go first.

    Try second. I went first; got no response.

    At least CM said he didnt know enough about it, color me surprised on that.

    It’s not the first time I’ve said it. You must have missed the other times.

    Hell a ton of the overseas articles said it was an AUTOMATIC rifle which is a flat out lie designed to inflame.

    Or misreporting based on misunderstanding.

    Well, if Lanza was not mentally deranged, then the only option left is that he was evil.

    Define ‘evil’. As I said, that always sounds to me like a cop-out.

    Either way, no law will prevent either evil or insane people from committing a massacre when they set their mind to it. None.

    Plenty of laws can stop them inflicting so much damage though. Which is the point I keep making.
    No safety measures will stop people dying in car accidents, but that doesn’t mean we should give up on car safety.

    And waiting for a police response – the cops showed up 20 minutes into the shooting, again validating the axiom that when police help is needed in seconds they are minutes away – is the height of futility.

    No idea what you’re responding to here.

    The problem is that people like you are desperate to avoid calling Lanza evil or crazy because your priority is to use the crisis to confiscate guns.

    Alex, YOU were the one that demonstrated desparation to call him “mentally deranged”, I’ve done nothing to try and suggest he wasn’t. So you got that backwards. I also don’t want to confiscate your guns. I’m continually poining out that your society has choices here. “Confiscate [all] guns” isn’t the only choice. Anyone, like you, who keeps pretending it’s the only choice is doing it for a good reason.

    My experience has always been that anyone telling you they want sensible gun laws is hiding behind rhetoric to justify gun banning. that is always the end game.

    How convenient for you. Yet again, you’ve positioned yourself where you never have to discuss anything with reasonable and rational people. You’re simply screaming from one extremity to the other extremity.

    The facts are simple: the places in the US with the most restrictive firearms laws are also the ones with the highest crime and violence related to firearms.

    The conclusion to this assessment isn’t consistent with your ‘facts’:

    Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

    While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

    What did they get wrong? Where are your ‘facts’ from?

    Drones or not, the important thing IMO is that the mindset exists at all. I don’t EVER seriously think about how to fight off the government when they will be coming for me. I don’t know of anyone here thinking like that (Is it common in the UK?). Yet I live in socialist hell hole Sweden, which presumably is decades closer to Stalinism than America is.

    Yeah I’m still waiting for the examples of where the Governments of countries where “guns have been taken away” have used that to come after the citizens.

    The indisputable fact is that if one or more of the people at the Newington school had been armed, this kid would have looked for a different target or been killed before he could have murdered so many.

    I don’t think that’s a ‘fact’. It’s an argument. I’m not sure how it would work in reality. Any weapons at a school would need to be locked away really well. So someone (the right person) would need to be able to retrieve it, and would need to confront the perp. By then, if the person is even there and they get that far, it’s likely that the whole thing is over.

    I did note, a lot of the stats of gun deaths in the USA, branded about, actually fail to mention over half are suicides (which in itself was a shocking stat worthy of national debate, it’s not like you’re Japan!).

    In Australia gun-related suicides dropped by almost 80% following law changes after Port Arthur.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  74. salinger says:

    The indisputable fact is that if one or more of the people at the Newington school had been armed, this kid would have looked for a different target or been killed before he could have murdered so many.

    Owning guns didn’t work out too well for his first victim.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  75. balthazar says:

    Owning guns didn’t work out too well for his first victim.

    Seeing as how it was his mother and it seems she might have been shot in her sleep, how about you gfy you idiot.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  76. balthazar says:

    Yeah I’m still waiting for the examples of where the Governments of countries where “guns have been taken away” have used that to come after the citizens.

    Pre WW2 Germany

    Post Revolution Stalinist USSR

    Afghanistan when the USSR invaded

    China – Tienanmen Square

    Just to name a few.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  77. balthazar says:

    In Australia gun-related suicides dropped by almost 80% following law changes after Port Arthur.

    Yeah but did the actual rate of attempts go down?

    Gun suicides are normally more final than all others. The actual SUCCESSFUL suicide rate may have also gone down, but the total attempts probably stayed the same or even went up.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  78. CM says:

    Pre WW2 Germany

    Post Revolution Stalinist USSR

    Afghanistan when the USSR invaded

    China – Tienanmen Square

    Just to name a few.

    Thanks. Guess I’ll need to spend hours looking into the gun-taking actions in each case now….

    Not a good start…..

    Hitler did not confiscate guns from ordinary Germans: the Allied armies did that. Ironically, Hitler’s Germany had freer gun laws than any country in Europe today.

    http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  79. salinger says:

    The actual SUCCESSFUL suicide rate may have also gone down, but the total attempts probably stayed the same or even went up.

    I think you just said the lethality of a weapon may make a difference? I agree.

    As for the shooter’s mom – if the guns had been stored properly the kid would never have gotten to them. Good thing she was the only irresponsible gun owner in the United States.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  80. CM says:

    Yeah but did the actual rate of attempts go down?

    Gun suicides are normally more final than all others. The actual SUCCESSFUL suicide rate may have also gone down, but the total attempts probably stayed the same or even went up.

    Sure, no argument there.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  81. CM says:

    Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

    http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  82. AlexInCT says:

    I just don’t see the balance of power/insurance argument as relevant anymore. In 1789, sure. I also get that Alex A) doesn’t trust the government, and B) doesn’t think any more regulations would do any good. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

    Ask the Venezuelans or Syrians how they feel about this stuff. When I have an administration full of people that tell me how they pine to be more like China or that Mao had it right, you will pardon me for basically assuming they mean what they say, and that it has horrible consequences if I am not prepared to or able to fight them when they decide to stop pining and actually do it.

    Owning guns didn’t work out too well for his first victim.

    Did his first victim have the gun on them and ready to use? If not then you are again blowing shit out of your ass.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  83. CM says:

    Ask the Venezuelans or Syrians how they feel about this stuff.

    Ask them what exactly?

    When I have an administration full of people that tell me how they pine to be more like China or that Mao had it right, you will pardon me for basically assuming they mean what they say, and that it has horrible consequences if I am not prepared to or able to fight them when they decide to stop pining and actually do it.

    They don’t pine to be more like China, and they don’t say Mao had it right. That’s ridiculous, and this is exactly the tactic I’m talking about.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  84. CM says:

    Seeing as how it was his mother and it seems she might have been shot in her sleep, how about you gfy you idiot.

    Fact is: those guns didn’t save her life; they caused her death. If she didn’t have them, she might still be alive.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

      
  85. balthazar says:

    http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

    Guess this idiot didnt consider jews to be members of the citizenry in Germany eh?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  86. balthazar says:

    Fact is: those guns didn’t save her life; they caused her death. If she didn’t have them, she might still be alive.

    No they didnt, an unstable son caused her death.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  87. balthazar says:

    OH CM, how about you look up this…

    The 1938 German Weapons Act

    Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

    Go away you idiotic troll.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  88. Tripper says:
    What? You didn’t like the second one? What was the time stamp on it?

    You know – like you say, WTF. Fine. The media’s to blame.

    Whatever.

    There wanst a time-stamp on one of your links, and the other, as I mentioned, was well after most people stop reading for the day.

    If you dont like me pointing out where your argument is failing, too fucking bad, deal with it.

    I don’t get it.
    MY made an incorrect statement that the Bushmaster was not used in the attack, and in fact was not even at the scene. Provides no evidence for this.
    Then, Repmom corrects him, and provides a link explaining it.
    His response was “well everything I’ve read says otherwise” still no links provided by MY
    Then you come along and harass Repmom about the time the articles she linked to were written, as if that somehow changes if the Bushmaster was or was not used?
    Meanwhile, MY continues to ignore that the Bushmaster was in fact the primary weapon used in the attack.
    You (Balt) seem to be running a victory lap like your time stamp rant proves something.

    Are we all agreed that MY’s initial statement was wrong and the Bushmaster was used in the attack? If so, then what is the argument?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  89. Iconoclast says:

    Fact is: those guns didn’t save her life; they caused her death. If she didn’t have them, she might still be alive.

    No, CM, that is not a fact; that is a fallacy. You are simply wrong wrong wrong. A thousand times, wrong.

    This is the classic fallacy, the downright moronic notion that guns kill people. No. PEOPLE kill people. That is the fact. Somehow, the genetically superior intellect of the leftist mind cannot seem to grasp that.

    It’s beyond stupid to state, “those guns…caused her death”. To paraphrase what balthazar pointed out, it was a psychopath that caused her death. Guns were simply a means. If they weren’t around, a knife, or poison or high voltage could have been the means. So I guess we should outlaw knives, poisons and high voltage…

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  90. Kimpost says:

    To paraphrase what balthazar pointed out, it was a psychopath that caused her death. Guns were simply a means. If they weren’t around, a knife, or poison or high voltage could have been the means. So I guess we should outlaw knives, poisons and high voltage…

    Or discuss regulations instead of bans?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  91. CM says:

    Guess this idiot didnt consider jews to be members of the citizenry in Germany eh?

    That says you haven’t read it.

    No they didnt, an unstable son caused her death.

    Again, nobody is disputing that there are people in society that, for whatever reason, want to inflict harm on those who they consider have wronged them. However, society does have a choice in terms of how easy it is for these individuals to put that into action and how much damage they can inflict.
    If she didn’t have those guns, and he still wanted guns, he would have had to look elsewhere. And he may not have been successful. Or, even if he was, he might not have killed her.

    This is the classic fallacy, the downright moronic notion that guns kill people. No. PEOPLE kill people. That is the fact. Somehow, the genetically superior intellect of the leftist mind cannot seem to grasp that.

    Sorry, but the whole “people kill people” is just far too (morinically) simplistic for me. it’s a classic example of attempting to pretend that society doesn’t have choices.

    But here we go, back to personal abuse. Joy oh joy.

    It’s beyond stupid to state, “those guns…caused her death”.

    I would agree, if that was said in isolation. But it wasn’t. Again, attempting to artificially separate everything doesn’t work.

    To paraphrase what balthazar pointed out, it was a psychopath that caused her death.

    Well, we don’t know that he was a psychopath. That hasn’t yet been determined, to my knowledge anyway.

    Guns were simply a means. If they weren’t around, a knife, or poison or high voltage could have been the means. So I guess we should outlaw knives, poisons and high voltage…

    Maybe you should read the whole thread before commenting. I’ve responded to this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  92. Tripper says:
    I would wager the UK (yes, with the NHS) deals with the mentally ill much better, I suspect anyway.

    Theodore Dalrymple would disagree with you.

    I did read that book, and it’s very interesting with a lot of data and statistics coupled with his own time working within the UK NHS.

    No he wouldn’t.
    While TD is hardly full of praise for the NHS or how it treats the mentally ill, I have never seen him disagree with the idea that the mentally ill in society as a whole are treated better in the UK.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  93. CM says:

    OH CM, how about you look up this…

    The 1938 German Weapons Act

    Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

    Go away you idiotic troll.

    So how does that in any way relate to the current situation in the US? Who is calling for a specific group of people to be banned from owning guns? Or for the wider population?
    Again, this is a bit of a straw man.

    Any thoughts on how/why ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger’s assessment of the Second Amendment is wrong?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  94. Iconoclast says:

    Sorry, but the whole “people kill people” is just far too (morinically) simplistic for me…

    Am I supposed to give a tinker’s damn? If a simple fact is “just far too (morinically) (sic) simplistic” for your genetically superior intellect, well, that’s your problem.

    …it’s a classic example of attempting to pretend that society doesn’t have choices.

    Nope, no “attempted pretense” of any kind. Just a simple fact. If you want to read any attempted pretenses into it, well, again, that’s your problem.

    But here we go, back to personal abuse. Joy oh joy.

    Say something monumentally stupid, and I’ll point out how monumentally stupid it is. Again, I don’t give a tinker’s damn if you decide to make a show of getting your feelings hurt.

    Well, we don’t know that he was a psychopath

    He killed his mother in cold blood. He killed a score of children in cold blood. If that doesn’t qualify him as a psychopath, then the term has no meaning.

    Maybe you should read the whole thread before commenting.

    I have to slog through all of your tripe before being allowed to comment? Nonsense.

    I’ve responded to this.

    Good for you, I suppose…

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  95. CM says:

    Am I supposed to give a tinker’s damn? If a simple fact is “just far too (morinically) (sic) simplistic” for your genetically superior intellect, well, that’s your problem.

    Here we go. Same old crap.
    Weak.

    Nope, no “attempted pretense” of any kind. Just a simple fact. If you want to read any attempted pretenses into it, well, again, that’s your problem.

    It’s essentially meaningless as any kind of analysis or conclusion because “people” don’t operate in a vacuum. “People kill people” is designed to stop people talking about all the other issues, guns being the main issue. For added “impact” sometimes people like to add “moronic” and “stupid” too.

    Say something monumentally stupid, and I’ll point out how monumentally stupid it is

    And I’ll say why I don’t agree, and you’ll go with your standard operating procedure of “I don’t care”. And there we are – a ‘discussion’ with Iconoclast in summary.

    He killed his mother in cold blood. He killed a score of children in cold blood. If that doesn’t qualify him as a psychopath, then the term has no meaning.

    It’s likely that he has some mental health issue, but it’s by no means certain that he was a psychopath.
    Anders Behring Breivik is not considered to be a psychopath. He was considered to be sane by the Judge.

    I have to slog through all of your tripe before being allowed to comment? Nonsense.

    Your choice obviously. But don’t expect people to repeat themselves because you can’t be bothered doing the basics.

    Good for you, I suppose…

    Sorry you’re having a shitty day/life.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  96. CM says:

    9 things the media got wrong
    See No. 2

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  97. Iconoclast says:

    It’s essentially meaningless as any kind of analysis or conclusion

    It wasn’t meant to be an “analysis” or a “conclusion”. It was meant to be a simple statement of fact, to correct a bit of misinforming fallacy.

    because “people” don’t operate in a vacuum

    Neither do “guns”.

    “People kill people” is designed to stop people talking about all the other issues, guns being the main issue.

    Like I said before, you are obviously free to read in any nonsense you want, but it was “designed” to be a simple statement of fact, perhaps to derail talk of knee-jerk reactions, like banning certain weapons, or simply demonizing gun ownership in general. You go ahead and insist that “people kill people” is some kind of “distraction”, and I’ll keep reminding you that it’s the diametric opposite.

    And I’ll say why I don’t agree, and you’ll go with your standard operating procedure of “I don’t care”.

    The posts are just a few lines up — people can see for themselves what, precisely, I “don’t care” about, and it isn’t “why you don’t agree” at all. I even block quoted the target of my apathy, but do go ahead and indulge in your misrepresentations.

    And there we are – a ‘discussion’ with Iconoclast in summary.

    Based on your misrepresentation, do recall.

    But don’t expect people to repeat themselves…

    <shrug> I don’t.

    Sorry you’re having a shitty day/life.

    <another shrug> I wasn’t aware that I was, but thanks, I guess…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  98. Iconoclast says:

    Fact is: those guns didn’t save her life; they caused her death. If she didn’t have them, she might still be alive.

    And “she might still be alive” even with all of her guns, if she didn’t have a mentally unstable son. That’s the point of “people kill people”.

    And your “fact” is still a fallacy.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  99. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Tripper

    MY made an incorrect statement that the Bushmaster was not used in the attack, and in fact was not even at the scene. Provides no evidence for this.
    Then, Repmom corrects him, and provides a link explaining it.
    His response was “well everything I’ve read says otherwise” still no links provided by MY

    I didn’t say it wasn’t at the scene but in his mother’s jeep (reading comprehension son)

    As repmom stated she did a simple google search and saw where I had come to my conclusion I assumed guys like you and sally had the internet savvy to do the same (I remember you used to be sharper?)

    My biggest mistake, it appears, is not immediately ADMITTING I was WRONG before heaven and earth. My heart-felt apologies for quoting day old news.
    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

    repmom

    My suggestion to you was sincere about letting a scab form. But on reflection I see how it could seem condescending. That was not my intention. I do apologize.

    To everyone else (except the loquacious linker)

    What IS an assault weapon?

    How does it differ from what you or a loved one already own?

    kimpost

    Thank you for leaving emotions at the door. I, for one, think your questions have been direct and honest. Again, for the record, my thanks are above board.

    The one point where you have agreed to disagree with Alex I believe is exactly how we nourish the “Tree of Liberty”. It’s been my experience that most people out side of our shores don’t understand that concept. I chalk it up to American exceptional ism.

    A bill is being considered in Tennessee to train and arm ‘some’ teachers at all schools in the state. It might rotate and identities will remain secret.

    A member of the Republican-controlled legislature plans during its upcoming session to introduce a bill that would allow the state to pay for secretly armed teachers in classrooms so, the sponsor told TPM, potential shooters don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t.

    Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has said the idea will be part of his discussions about how to prevent a shooting like the one in Newtown from happening in the Volunteer State.

    Here’s the link guys – http://tinyurl.com/d4ro83k

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  100. Mississippi Yankee says:

    To any that are too “busy” to click the link, the bill to arm some teachers is meant to be a deterrent not a defense. The thinking is that these evil bastards have shown themselves to be basic cowards. Choosing buildings and areas where guns are not allowed and for the most part committing suicide after their actions. Knowing that there will resistance but not from whom certainly sound like something that should be on the discussion table imo.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  101. salinger says:

    A bill is being considered in Tennessee to train and arm ‘some’ teachers at all schools in the state. It might rotate and identities will remain secret.

    This makes sense.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  102. CM says:

    It wasn’t meant to be an “analysis” or a “conclusion”. It was meant to be a simple statement of fact, to correct a bit of misinforming fallacy.

    It’s meaningless, whatever you want to call it.
    “I have one arm” is also a fact, but it’s far from the full story. It’s a meaningless fact.
    “Planes don’t fly, people fly” is also equally as meaningless.
    “Nukes don’t kill, people kill” is also meaningless (and should mean that Iran should be free to develop a bomb, because it won’t kill anyone).
    It’s a political slogan put together for a specific reason. Trying to pretend it’s some sort of neutral fact is just silly.

    Neither do “guns”.

    Of course. They require people to fire them. It’s an entire equation. Taking one part of the equation and ignoring the other parts, because that’s what suits you, is artificial and just pushing an agenda.

    Like I said before, you are obviously free to read in any nonsense you want, but it was “designed” to be a simple statement of fact, perhaps to derail talk of knee-jerk reactions, like banning certain weapons, or simply demonizing gun ownership in general.

    Nice try but that doesn’t accurately reflect the thread. You admitted to not having read the comments on this thread, so I’m not sure how you can claim that you’re responding to it.
    As I said repeatedly, society has a wide range of choices should they want to try and deal with these issues. Complaints are made about “knee-jerk reactions” or “demonizing” but there is an equally good complaint about people who want to shut down all debate about the gun and gun ownership.

    It certainly was a simple statement. So simple as to be meaningless. Other than meaning the US shouldn’t be doing anything about guns, so let’s not even discuss it.

    You go ahead and insist that “people kill people” is some kind of “distraction”, and I’ll keep reminding you that it’s the diametric opposite.

    That’s fine. IMO i’s OBVIOUSLY a distraction. It’s another one of those bumper-sticker slogans which attempt to simplify something in a way that suits a particularly ideology.

    The posts are just a few lines up — people can see for themselves what, precisely, I “don’t care” about, and it isn’t “why you don’t agree” at all. I even block quoted the target of my apathy, but do go ahead and indulge in your misrepresentations.

    As I said, standard operating procedure.

    I wasn’t aware that I was, but thanks, I guess…

    Given how pre-emptively shitty you usually are towards me, right off the bat, it’s a natural conclusion to reach.
    (And yeah, I know……you don’t give a tinker’s cuss what I would naturally conclude).

    Honestly, I’m not sure why you bother replying to anything I say if you’re just going to go through the whole “Shrug” and “Don’t give a tinker’s cuss” routine yet again.

    IMO “People kill people” suggests either an “ah well, can’t do anything about it” attitude, or alternatively a desire to put more effort into areas such as mental health, education, and enforcement (the “people” side of the equation). Or is there a third option I’m missing?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  103. Tripper says:
    MY made an incorrect statement that the Bushmaster was not used in the attack, and in fact was not even at the scene. Provides no evidence for this.
    Then, Repmom corrects him, and provides a link explaining it.
    His response was “well everything I’ve read says otherwise” still no links provided by MY

    I didn’t say it wasn’t at the scene but in his mother’s jeep (reading comprehension son)

    True. Although I have seen no reports that his mothers jeep was at the school but rather he drove to school in her civic. Was it your belief at the time that the Bushmaster was in the jeep at the scene or are you just playing word games?

    As repmom stated she did a simple google search and saw where I had come to my conclusion I assumed guys like and sally had the internet savvy to do the same (I remember you used to be sharper?)

    My biggest mistake, it appears, is not immediately ADMITTING I was WRONG before heaven and earth. My heart-felt apologies for quoting day old news.
    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

    You’re over doing it for effect here but you’re right. It’s OK to have the info wrong from a faulty source, the issue was more about how you responded to Repmom after she politely pointed it out. You also have internet savvy and are capable of using the internet to check your facts after that rather than respond the way you did. As for not “immediately” admitting you were wrong, your sentence is just as accurate without the word “immediately” until your last hammed up post.
    A simple “you’re right, my bad” was all that was needed.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  104. salinger says:

    The market is responding.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/18/Stock-Market-Signals-Worries-Ahead-for-Gun-Stocks.aspx#page1

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  105. Mississippi Yankee says:

    A simple “you’re right, my bad” was all that was needed.

    If that’s what YOU require fine, “you’re right, my bad” And the same to you repmom, again my mistake in believing we had settled my error.

    It’s neither the first time I’ve been wrong on this site nor is the first time I’ve admitted it. But this instance appears to have gotten your craw Tripper.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  106. Iconoclast says:

    It’s meaningless, whatever you want to call it.
    “I have one arm” is also a fact, but it’s far from the full story. It’s a meaningless fact.
    “Planes don’t fly, people fly” is also equally as meaningless.
    “Nukes don’t kill, people kill” is also meaningless (and should mean that Iran should be free to develop a bomb, because it won’t kill anyone).
    It’s a political slogan put together for a specific reason. Trying to pretend it’s some sort of neutral fact is just silly.

    Your rant is meaningless. My “people kill people” is a specific claim made in response to “those guns…caused her death”. The point is that “those guns” didn’t “cause” anything. They were used to cause death, but they didn’t do so on their own. All of your misdirection above doesn’t change that. You even tried to pass the nonsensical “those guns…caused her death” assertion as a fact, which it simply isn’t.

    All of your misdirection attempts are indeed sitting in a vacuum, which is why they fail. My statement is made in response to a specific, colossally stupid assertion.

    They require people to fire them. It’s an entire equation. Taking one part of the equation and ignoring the other parts, because that’s what suits you, is artificial and just pushing an agenda.

    So then, you are admitting that “those guns…caused her death” is “taking one part of the equation and ignoring the other parts, because that’s what suits you”? And that you are “just pushing an agenda”?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  107. Mississippi Yankee says:

    And as to why I didn’t produce a link for my early on news report.

    from repmom:

    When I did a google search for links to correct MY, I found one article that supported his statement. It was, however, dated Saturday. The medical examiner gave his report Saturday afternoon, including weapon used.

    She (repmom) was the person that informed me that I was “wrong” and says how my misinformation was in an article she found written before the ME report. Foolishly I thought that, at least partially, absolved my earlier claim. But by salinger then and you, a day or so later, asking me for a link makes me wonder;
    do you doubt my veracity or do you doubt her statement that she has also seen at least one of the incorrect articles I used for my comment?

    Mr. Thrill evidently you have been appointed, or have self-appointed, to the position of Detector of Crimes Against Virtue and Vice. On that note I await any further punishment you deem necessary for my crimes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  108. Iconoclast says:

    Honestly, I’m not sure why you bother replying to anything I say if you’re just going to go through the whole “Shrug” and “Don’t give a tinker’s cuss” routine yet again.

    I responded that I didn’t give a tinker’s damn to the following:

    Sorry, but the whole “people kill people” is just far too (morinically) (sic) simplistic for me…

    But here we go, back to personal abuse. Joy oh joy.

    The following is what I shrugged off:

    But don’t expect people to repeat themselves…

    Sorry you’re having a shitty day/life.

    So, as anyone can see, the things I typically shrug off or simply don’t give a damn about tend to be things that lack substance anyway. Why should I give a tinker’s damn?

    If you don’t like the way I respond to vacuous tripe, you do have the option of posting less of it.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  109. Tripper says:

    MY, I didn’t ask for a link. Just observed that you had not posted one.
    No further punishment is necessary, you’re free to go
    :-)

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  110. CM says:

    So then, you are admitting that “those guns…caused her death” is “taking one part of the equation and ignoring the other parts, because that’s what suits you”? And that you are “just pushing an agenda”?

    If that’s all I’d posted in the thread, you’d be making an excellent point.

    However, I’m happy to amend my comment to the following:

    Those guns didn’t save her life; in fact they played a major part in her death. If she didn’t have them, she might still be alive.

    The second sentence is unchanged, because it doesn’t need changing.

    If you don’t like the way I respond to vacuous tripe, you do have the option of posting less of it.

    I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss.
    Wow, this is easy indeed.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  111. salinger says:

    But by salinger then and you, a day or so later, asking me for a link makes me wonder…

    It’s statements like this that get you questioned MY.

    Number one because the syntax is a bit creative and secondly it doesn’t match facts. I asked you for a link within two hours of you declaring we all need to accept that the rifle was left in his mom’s jeep and then never mentioned it again after repmom stated she found an article backing you written before the ME report.

    I only respond because you mention me by name.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  112. AlexInCT says:

    The market is responding.

    And the people respond to the over reach caused by the gun grabbers exploiting this tragedy. Not to mention that the polls conducted by the Hartford Courant here in CT show a huge number of people saying no more gun grabbing. I guess not everyone is as stupid as you gun grabbers want them to be.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      
  113. AlexInCT says:

    Heh. I got a down vote for slapping Sally silly. Badge of honor, I guess.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  114. repmom says:

    MY – all is good. Thanks.

    Side note – I, like Salinger, am curious about this recent moderation of comments.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  115. Kimpost says:

    I haven’t seen the moderation you are talking about? I saw someone complaining about missing links. Is that it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  116. salinger says:

    I haven’t seen the moderation you are talking about?

    A recent comment I made was not immediately displayed – rather a “comment waiting for moderation” message came up in its place.

    Maybe it is something that is done by the individual OP when adding their post? I’d just never seen that type of blue penciling message before.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  117. repmom says:

    Yes, as Salinger described. It’s not every comment, so far about 4 or so of mine in the past few days. CM has mentioned at least one for him.

    Hmmmmm……….. :)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  118. Kimpost says:

    Ah, that I have seen. I know there’s a filter doing that if you post something with too many links in it. Or if you post too fast to many times. A spam filter.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  119. JimK says:

    Filters are tripped automatically if:

    -You’ve never posted before or you make a new account – first comment must be approved
    -You post too many links at once
    -You post too fast (i.e. too many in too shirt a time)
    -If, after you comment a certain number of times the filters see you always have a new IP, it will stop approving your comments and make me do it.

    The plugins and filters are constantly changing and evolving, I simply upgrade them whenever new versions are ready. The policies of this site have not changed nor have I taken to moderating people.

    If I had changed policies, there’d be a lot less comments and commenters. I’d also make a front page post telling you what I’m doing and how you can suck a fart out of my ass if you don’t like it.

    You may now go back to your usual useless circular arguing and acting like jackasses. Someone call me if the site breaks.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      
  120. Kimpost says:

    Well, Merry Christmas to you too, Scr… eh, Jim! ;)

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  121. Iconoclast says:

    If that’s all I’d posted in the thread, you’d be making an excellent point.

    I made an excellent point regardless; I did indeed do my best to slog through as much of your condescending, sanctimonious nonsense as I could stomach, and nothing I encountered diminishes the point I made about your “Fact is:” ejaculation. When someone says something like “Fact is”, what they’re doing is essentially boiling down their argument, distilling it to it’s basics. And your argument did indeed seem to be saying that, in essence, making gun ownership harder for law abiding citizens would make it harder for criminals to obtain them, which is simply unfounded.

    You seemed to cling to Australia as your little lifesaver to counter the claim that, in the USA (which is not Australia), the localities with the toughest anti-gun legislation coincidentally happen to be the localities with the highest rates of gun-related crime, and your side also gets its rocks off by pointing to the China counterpart, where knives were used and no one died. The implication is clear: You are arrogantly suggesting that we meekly give up our Second Amendment rights. Period. You can bitch and whine to your heart’s content that you are “doing no such thing”, but your selective blindness is irrelevant to how your arrogance comes across. By gleefully pointing to China, you are implicitly favoring the Chinese system of laws and government over ours, which is your prerogative, of course, but do try to contain your bitter disappointment when we cowboy Yanks refuse to agree. By yammering on and on about “choice”, you are arrogantly implying that we Yankees have yet make that choice, but as Hal10000′s cite clearly shows, we Yankees have had the conversation and we’ve made the choice — upholding the Second Amendment and not yielding to the gun grabbers have won the day, whether you like it or not.

    However, I’m happy to amend my comment to the following…

    Well, good, it appears that you have finally learned your lesson, and it only took busting a single two-by-four over your head.

    The second sentence is unchanged, because it doesn’t need changing.

    As long as you recognize that the first sentence did need changing, my work here is done.

    I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss.

    Well, your previous whines rather belie this claim, but regardless, if you don’t care about how I respond to your vacuous tripe, then keep posting it by all means. Don’t complain about the response it receives, though, because then you are proving that you DO give a tinker’s “cuss”.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  122. CM says:

    I made an excellent point regardless

    Any point which immediate loses all meaning when ANY context is applied to it isn’t excellent.

    You seemed to cling to Australia as your little lifesaver

    Not clinging to anything. I didn’t claim Australia was a sole example of anything.
    I don’t require any ‘lifesavers’ here either.

    And your argument did indeed seem to be saying that, in essence, making gun ownership harder for law abiding citizens would make it harder for criminals to obtain them, which is simply unfounded.

    Making certain guns harder to obtain would make those guns harder to use to kill multiple people. My argument is that there are choices. I’m arguing against the idea that there are none.

    the localities with the toughest anti-gun legislation coincidentally happen to be the localities with the highest rates of gun-related crime

    I’ve yet to see proven causation on this. Alex has even provided evidence that sometimes there isn’t even correlation when pressed to back up his examples.

    and your side also gets its rocks off by pointing to the China counterpart, where knives were used and no one died

    Getting my rocks off? Wow, yet more evidence which side is arguing emotionally.

    The implication is clear: You are arrogantly suggesting that we meekly give up our Second Amendment rights. Period.

    Not even remotely. Heller already makes it clear that the Federal Government cannot do this. The whole ‘slippery slope’ argument was killed off by that judgement. It also made it clear that the rights are not absolute, in the same way as free speech isn’t an absolute right.

    By gleefully pointing to China, you are implicitly favoring the Chinese system of laws and government over ours, which is your prerogative, of course, but do try to contain your bitter disappointment when we cowboy Yanks refuse to agree.

    Yeah, I’m saying the US should adopt China’s system of laws and government.
    I can only assume that was an emotionally-driven brain fart, as it doesn’t even remotely resemable anything that anyone said or implied in this thread. Bizarre.

    By yammering on and on about “choice”, you are arrogantly implying that we Yankees have yet make that choice,

    Not even in the slightest. All countries have made a choice. It’s impossible not to. WTF are you talking about? If nothing changes, that’s a choice. And as I said, society has to live with the consequences of their choices. Nothing even remotely controversial about suggesting that.

    but as Hal10000′s cite clearly shows, we Yankees have had the conversation and we’ve made the choice — upholding the Second Amendment and not yielding to the gun grabbers have won the day, whether you like it or not.

    Right, because once you’ve made a choice, that’s it. As a society, you can ever amend that choice. Society never changes, events never happen. Laws never change or evolve. Nothing is ever overturned.

    Well, good, it appears that you have finally learned your lesson, and it only took busting a single two-by-four over your head.

    Because telling people they’ve learned their lesson doesn’t come across as condescending and sanctimonious at all. If you’re going to compain about that, the last thing you should do is the same.

    Well, your previous whines rather belie this claim, but regardless, if you don’t care about how I respond to your vacuous tripe, then keep posting it by all means. Don’t complain about the response it receives, though, because then you are proving that you DO give a tinker’s “cuss”.

    It was meant to be a joke. I guess I should have added a ;-) to make that more obvious. Oh well, I’lve learnt my lesson. Again.
    Oh, right, almost forgot…..;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  123. Iconoclast says:

    Any point which immediate loses all meaning when ANY context is applied to it isn’t excellent.

    Any point which causes someone to revise a stupid assertion so that it’s far less stupid is excellent, but I get that you don’t want to give me credit for making an excellent point at your expense. As I stated earlier, there wasn’t any obvious “context” that would have mitigated said point.

    Not clinging to anything. I didn’t claim Australia was a sole example of anything.
    I don’t require any ‘lifesavers’ here either.

    So you say, but you did mention Australia several times, as if it proved something.

    Making certain guns harder to obtain would make those guns harder to use to kill multiple people

    A point that you keep dodging is that your claim simply is NOT necessarily true in general, even if it could be argued that it may have been true in this particular case. Another point is that there are lots of other variables that you appear to be flagrantly ignoring, such as the possible negligence of the mother, the mental instability of her son, the fact that the weapon used may have already been illegal to possess, etc. After all, Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S., but this tragedy still took place in Connecticut.

    And there is also something else to consider, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is absolutely true. Even if “making certain guns harder to obtain would make those guns harder to use to kill multiple people”, it still wouldn’t necessarily prevent mass shootings from taking place. But it would make life harder for law-abiding citizens who might wish to purchase those particular weapons, and that’s the crux, the silly idea that, by punishing law-abiding citizens, you can go to bed at night thinking you’re “safer”.

    But that’s pretty much the fallacy of so many liberal ideas, the notion that we must “do something”, even if the results ultimately backfire. The simple point you seem adamant to not get is that more gun-control legislation won’t necessarily have any positive effect, but it will grow government and reduce the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

    My argument is that there are choices. I’m arguing against the idea that there are none.

    And who, exactly, is claiming that there are no choices?

    Yeah, I’m saying the US should adopt China’s system of laws and government.

    Where did I ever claim that you suggested anything of the sort? No, I stated that the implication is that you favor China’s laws. No one died, after all, whereas under our “lax” cowboy laws, 20 children died. The fact that China is mentioned multiple times does indeed indicate that there is something there to be valued at some level. And it’s probably true that freedom invites abuse, and that removing freedom lessens the chances of abuse. Rampage killings probably don’t occur very often under police states (unless it’s the government itself going on the rampage, of course).

    Bizarre.

    Your misreading of what I write is indeed.

    And as I said, society has to live with the consequences of their choices. Nothing even remotely controversial about suggesting that.

    Yeah, it’s obvious — individuals as well as societies must live with the consequences of their choices. So what is the point of repeating it over and over, as if it’s some sort of profound mantra?

    Because telling people they’ve learned their lesson doesn’t come across as condescending and sanctimonious at all. If you’re going to complain about that, the last thing you should do is the same.

    Well, some might consider that giving one a taste of one’s own medicine. I’m glad you tacitly admit to its bitterness.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.