or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 5

post #161 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

People who own guns should be sportsmen and the police department and security guards.You do need a gun to protect yourself the police department is capable of doing this with 911 when you call them.More essential is start to look into what is happening with the mental health clinics who are shutting down due to budget cuts and shortages qualified people to work there to help these mentally ill people.To many mentally ill people are out in the streets today and not getting the proper help they need.This is one aspect where to start.
 

 

Wouldn't recent events prove that to be false? A woman out jogging is supposed to call 911 and relax and enjoy her rape waiting for the police to show up? Or maybe right after a hurricane when police response is nil we should all surrender to the looters? Not to mention the fact that the police don't even have to to respond to 911 calls or any other emergency. They have no duty to respond to reports of crime. Go look it up.

post #162 of 1058
Has anyone mentioned the MUM herself was erm... crazy?

"Nancy Lanza portrayed as 'survivalist' who stockpiled food, water and guns
Collection of guns included handguns, assault rifle and two hunting rifles
..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249185/Nancy-Lanza-Did-paranoid-gun-crazed-mother-trigger-Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-killing-spree.html

Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?

She was possibly "paranoid", possible history of mental illness, may not have related to the son well...

Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?

Nobody is saying take all the guns away.

But there is no rational reason for anything more than handguns.

If US citizens don't trust the government to save them during looting and zombie outbreaks, then that is the issue, not letting people accumulate enough weaponry to take out an army base.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/18/12 at 4:34am
post #163 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Has anyone mentioned the MUM herself was erm... crazy?
"Nancy Lanza portrayed as 'survivalist' who stockpiled food, water and guns
Collection of guns included handguns, assault rifle and two hunting rifles

Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?
Nobody is saying take all the guns away.
But there is no rational reason for anything more than handguns.
If US citizens don't trust the government to save them during looting and zombie outbreaks, then that is the issue, not letting people accumulate enough weaponry to take out an army base.

 

I have a friend of mine that I call a "one of everything" gun owner. It's just his hobby. My wife has a huge stockpile of food. It's because she goes to Costco too much. Does it really matter if my friend has a hunting rifle with a 10 round mag' or a AR-15 with a 10 round mag'? People make hay about "assault rifles" but really these rifles just have a gas powered mech' to reload. Hunting rifles use a more traditional system. (Although many hunters are turning to gas powered for hunting too) Does that make all the difference in the world?

 

Basically the country is flooded with weapons and yet these shooting are rare. If we reduce the weapons by half would the number of shooting drop by half? I don't think so. There's more a correlation with mass shooting and the 24 hour news cycle than there is on the availability of firearms.

post #164 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Has anyone mentioned the MUM herself was erm... crazy?
"Nancy Lanza portrayed as 'survivalist' who stockpiled food, water and guns
Collection of guns included handguns, assault rifle and two hunting rifles
..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249185/Nancy-Lanza-Did-paranoid-gun-crazed-mother-trigger-Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-killing-spree.html
Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?
She was possibly "paranoid", possible history of mental illness, may not have related to the son well...
Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?
Nobody is saying take all the guns away.
But there is no rational reason for anything more than handguns.
If US citizens don't trust the government to save them during looting and zombie outbreaks, then that is the issue, not letting people accumulate enough weaponry to take out an army base.

 

The Daily Mail?  Really?  I think they reported that she consorted with aliens too.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220103/Man-photographs-UFO-dead-birds-appear-neighbours-garden.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184586/Roswell-incident-There-TWO-UFO-crashes-Roswell-says-Air-Force-official.html

 

No shit there are two search pages full of articles about UFOs from the Daily Mail in the last 4-5 months alone.

 

"“There was nothing odd and weird about her. She was completely normal and tried to help her kids just like all of us would.’’

...

“She was definitely not a survivalist,” Bergquist said. “Shooting was one of her hobbies. It wasn’t her main hobby. She loved the arts, culture. She loved the finer things in life. She loved to go to Red Sox games, and that’s the Nancy I knew.’’

 

“She took up target shooting a few years ago,’’ Tambascio told NBC News. “She was a single mom raising two boys living alone in a house that’s close to the woods. I don’t see anything odd.’’"

 

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2012/12/17/15968547-friend-nancy-lanza-was-very-devoted-to-her-sons?lite

 

You know what?  If you don't live in the US bugger off and look to your own problems.  

 

There's fewer reasons for handguns but there are plenty of rational reasons for rifles in the US and they don't involve prepping for the inevitable zombie invasion.  The question for us is whether those reasons can be addressed without detachable box magazines.  An internal rotary or box magazine is harder to modify to high capacity than in a rifle designed with a "clip".  Reloading takes more time but for hunting and plinking this isn't much of a factor and you still have multiple rounds.  

 

The downsides with an internal magazine is you have to manually cycle the action to clear the gun unless there's a hinged floorplate which might defeat the purpose (dunno, aint a gunsmith).  This could be more prone to user error.

 

On the other hand, the last time I was an idiot with a gun I cleared in the wrong order (worked slide and then ejected magazine) and left a live round in the chamber.  Fortunately the range officer happened to be standing next to me and didn't make me feel too much like an idiot.  Evidently that happens more often than most guys are willing to admit.

post #165 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No, I was referring to post # 69, where I wrote:

 

 

And it's not that you could not make a device from fertilizer alone, it's that unless you managed to acquire commercial or military detonators and a supply of secondary explosive suitable for use as a booster, you could not make such a device at all. Further, even if you acquired those items, your chances of building a functioning device are small unless you understand how to modify the fertilizer mix.

 

Thanks for clarification, but you're moving the goal posts.  I never claimed it was easy nor safe to make a functioning device.  I said it was easy to acquire the fertilizer component without being tracked.  The fertilizer component is a major one.  While I appreciate the challenges in acquiring and making/using the other components, I think it's quite naive to dismiss it as far fetched.  Certainly the acquisition of a major explosive component should be regulated.   

 

A good comparison is cold medicine with pseudoephedrine, which is a prime component of crystal meth.  Now, I personally don't know the details of making that substance.  I do understand it's quite difficult and requires multiple other compounds and fairly advanced equipment.  The point is that pseudoephedrine is highly regulated now.  One has to present a driver's license and acquire it directly from the pharmacist (no Rx needed).  One cannot buy large quantities without facing serious scrutiny.  How is fertilizer any different?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Yes it matters - it's basically an accusation that I was lying about it. So what was not credible - my conclusion or that I made the observation? If you disagreed with my conclusion then it would be perfectly reasonable to state that. Instead, you asserted that I had never even made the observation, which position you obviously have nothing to support.

 

I didn't accuse you of lying.  I said that you appeared to either use "in my experience" to inflate your own qualifications, or you just used it as a throw away line.  What I specifically took issue with was your extrapolation that your experience and observations (on which you will not elaborate) somehow was representative of "the gun owning population.'   

 

Quote:
It's a consequence of observing how you respond to answers to your requests for such information.

 

Sorry you feel that way.  

 

 

 

Quote:
However, as you asked so nicely and seem to be suggesting that you will accept my answer - I have a pretty large pool to draw from in the casual category. I'll be conservative and restrict it to current knowledge, and put it at greater than 30 and less than 50

 

Thank you.  That is what I was interested in knowing.  

 

 

Quote:
For perspective, almost everyone I know owns at least one firearm. In the casual category it's mostly semi-automatic pistols, and they either never practice or make very occasional visits to the range (< 1/yr). I have actually observed maybe a quarter of them at the range; for the rest it is their description.

 

Again, thanks.  That is the kind of answer I was looking for.   

 

 

Quote:
But since you have already indicated that you don't believe what I say, why don't you have a word with a local civilian firearms instructor and get a verifiable first-hand perspective on the subject. I will be very surprised if you get a different story.

 

I absolutely believe what you say.  I simply don't think it can be extrapolated to the "gun owning population" in general (or rather, such a contention has not been supported).  And for that matter, I don't think you can predict what any given local civilian firearms instructor will say.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Or unless they tell me that they don't practice. So yes - I'm sure about it. The rest is covered above.

 

 

OK.

 

 

Quote:
You've lost me. Why is that unreasonable?

 

1)  Because you are claiming you did statistical extrapolation when, frankly, I don't think you actually did.  I think you may have estimated and drawn conclusions based on your experience, which are not the same thing.   

 

2)  Because I reject the validity of an extrapolation with such a small sample size, the lack of empirical data, etc.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I see - those kind of questions are fine for you to ask, but it's a game when I ask them. And it would not have been unreasonable to ask about my sample size, but you didn't do that. Your one-sentence dismissal in post #45 was: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever". No question appended.

 

 

I asked those questions in an intellectually honest way.  I legitimately wanted to know.  You asked them to make a rhetorical point.   That being said, I agree my comment in the aforementioned in post #45 was harsh and a bit over the top.  Apologies.  

 

 

Quote:
No, you would not have been forced to conclude anything of the sort. 

 

Yes, I would...if you refused to support your assertion.   

 

 

Quote:
Is the problem here that because I don't resemble the typical unquestioning NRA supporter 

 

It's been a while since I've seen someone reject a characterization his opponent hasn't put forth---while at the same time offering one of his own about a third party.  

 

 

 

Quote:
and that you have probably already labeled me as some kind of liberal moocher type,

 

No. 

 

 

Quote:
you are assuming that I must be a gun control apologist who cannot possibly have any actual experience or knowledge of the subject

 

I don't know what a "gun control apologist" is.  I do get the impression you favor much greater restrictions.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  

 

Quote:
even though yours is zero?

 

I don't see what my not having fired a weapon has to do with anything.  

 

Quote:

Even now you are making the assumption that my experience is limited to my "local range".

 

 

I wouldn't say I assumed that, though you didn't really address any beyond it.  Is there other experience upon which you are drawing?  

 

 

Quote:
No - you are the one ridiculing my opinion, on the basis, apparently, of zero personal experience and a half dozen friends with guns. If that isn't a position of ignorance then I can't imagine what you think might be.

 

Not at all.  Let me summarize:  

 

  • I think your use of the phrase "in my experience" raised questions as to what that experience was. 
  • I find your extrapolation of the observational data acquired in that experience to be highly suspect, for reasons already stated.  
  • I found it odd that you seemed to resist elaborating on the nature of your experience.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Is that a laughing clown face? It's very apt.

 

You seem to be suggesting that asking for support of assertions is "incessant whining."  I found that notion quite literally laughable.  I am talking about assertions like "yet this is the experience many gun owners have" and "this represents the gun owning population."    Perhaps its just the verbiage.  If you had said "based on my personal experience (shooting at the range, talking with dozens of gun owners, observing their shooting skills, etc) I think there are a lot of untrained gun owners out there"---I probably would have reacted differently.  

 

 

Quote:
If you actually want a discussion, then try to imagine that you are talking to a person rather than an anonymous virtual opponent.

 

I would say you are both...as am I.  

 

 

Quote:
You might have noticed that when I disagree with a position, I either ask for clarification, present an alternative hypothesis, or I attempt to refute it with accepted fact, empirical observation and reasoning.

 

I have noticed.  The issue is that--in this case--you did not present empirical observation and reasoning, accepted fact, etc.  You presented an extrapolation of anecdotal data.  

 

 


Quote:
I don't accuse the poster of lying, or argue that they are not qualified to make an argument,

 

I did not do either of those.  I took issue with your experience and asked what it was.  

 

 

Quote:
I don't derail the discussion by constantly demanding proof of opinion

 

No, proof of assertions.   I'm sorry you feel that it derailed the discussion.  

 

 

Quote:
 and I don't use stupid emoticons to pretend that I find the argument hilarious.

 

I did find that part hilarious.  I really did. 

 

 

Quote:
You appear to have only two argument techniques: unsupported assertion that your opponent is wrong/ignorant and demanding evidence/proof.

 

1.  Sorry you feel that way.  

 

2.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for proof, evidence and/or just support for certain assertions.  Examples are above.  

 

 

Quote:
 You, on the other hand, never seem to provide any actual evidence for anything.

 

That is demonstrably false.  I often do, even without prompting.  When I cannot, I clearly label my statement as opinion, conclusion, etc.  

 

 

 

Quote:
In this case, since you doubt my opinion that the majority of the gun-owning population is basically untrained, you could reasonably have said that you don't think that is consistent with your experience, however limited, you could ask what I based my conclusion on, you could find some dissenting opinion or evidence to refute, etc.. Or you could take the approach you did: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever", and then continue to wonder why the discussion goes south.

 

Well again, I take responsibility for how I phrased that.  I wasn't (and am not) feeling well, and went too far.  What I should have done is ask you what you meant by that statement ("in my experience") specifically, and why you chose to use it.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #166 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No, I was referring to post # 69, where I wrote:

 

 

And it's not that you could not make a device from fertilizer alone, it's that unless you managed to acquire commercial or military detonators and a supply of secondary explosive suitable for use as a booster, you could not make such a device at all. Further, even if you acquired those items, your chances of building a functioning device are small unless you understand how to modify the fertilizer mix.

 

Thanks for clarification, but you're moving the goal posts.  I never claimed it was easy nor safe to make a functioning device.  I said it was easy to acquire the fertilizer component without being tracked.  The fertilizer component is a major one.  While I appreciate the challenges in acquiring and making/using the other components, I think it's quite naive to dismiss it as far fetched.  Certainly the acquisition of a major explosive component should be regulated.   

 

A good comparison is cold medicine with pseudoephedrine, which is a prime component of crystal meth.  Now, I personally don't know the details of making that substance.  I do understand it's quite difficult and requires multiple other compounds and fairly advanced equipment.  The point is that pseudoephedrine is highly regulated now.  One has to present a driver's license and acquire it directly from the pharmacist (no Rx needed).  One cannot buy large quantities without facing serious scrutiny.  How is fertilizer any different?  

 

No, I did not move the goalposts. I pointed out that you could not make a functioning device, and you responded that you did not believe that was accurate. See below.

 


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Quite likely you could, but you would not be able to make an explosive device with that material.

 

I don't know if that's accurate.  I suspect it's not.  

 

I did not argue that fertilizer is hard to obtain, but it is not naive to point out that obtaining it is trivial, while making a device is very difficult without both knowledge and other hard-to-obtain components. That shows how explosives regulations are successful, and that this actually is the case is supported by the lack of incidents involving such devices.

 

Thanks for addressing the other issues. I hope you feel better soon.

post #167 of 1058

Would mental health screenings prior to a firearm purchase (prescription #1 in the linked article) have stopped any of the recent shootings (all of which appear to have involved legal purchases...except one where someone apparently lied about mental health questions on the application.)?

 

I say probably. Though not in the case of this specific shooting.

 

If we all agree this would be a reasonable step to take and would have an appropriate freedom/right-respect-to-safety ratio. There are still issues to be ironed out and potential problems to be aware of:

 

  1. Who does the screening? What measures can or should be taken to avoid fraud here?
  2. What mental condition(s) would constitute a valid reason to deny gun ownership or purchase or use?
  3. Can #2 be objectively defined well enough to avoid denying gun rights to someone just because we don't like them or they seem a little weird or "out of the mainstream"? In other words, can this be done in way that avoids political/opinion/viewpoint gun ownership blacklisting?

 

Would this be a reasonable and right-respecting step to take?

 

If we combined this with better security measures at certain popular targets (e.g., schools...these are in the control of the government...the other places like malls and theaters should remain the responsibility of their owners to provide proper security.) would these two measures get us 80% of the way there while still respecting people's individual rights?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #168 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #169 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #170 of 1058

This particular case (combined with the other recent ones) point to the complex and multifaceted nature of the problem:

 

  1. Mental health -- Do we need more education and awareness? How? When? Where? From whom? Are there any medications that are actually contributing factors here (e.g., there are claims that boys who start Ritalin and then stop actually become violent after stopping...could this be true with other behavioral/mental/emotional medications or pharmaceutical "cocktails?")
  2. Parental awareness and action as well as (close) community/friend support and assistance -- There seem to be things that come out after the fact (and perhaps it is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing) that suggests that people close to and friends with (or even close family) coming around someone in the situation described above to support and help and encourage could have been a mitigating factor. Instead, it seems, this women might have been left to her own devices. Maybe no one really understood the problem. Maybe no one knew how to help. Maybe we're all so busy "bowling alone" that real community is falling apart. The second part of course is her apparent foolishness in keeping firearms accessible to her (apparently) mentally unstable son. Now this may or may not be true. They may have been locked up or hidden (to her knowledge) and he simply overcame those obstacles, so it's hard to judge there. But if the article above is correct, she knew something was wrong and would have been wise to take measures to keep them away from him. Then maybe things all happened too fast for her. Either way, she paid with her life and, unfortunately, so did many others.
  3. Facility (esp. school) security -- What can schoolls (et al) do to improve security as a preventative measure?
  4. Gun possession and use by mentally unstable people -- See above about possibilities of mental health screenings prior to purchase.

 

If we look at all of these shootings together, it appears that not any one of these things would have helped by itself. I would submit that even the banning of guns would not likely have stopped all of them (or maybe any of them.) There needs to be a conversation alright, but it needs to be a comprehensive conversation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #171 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No, I did not move the goalposts. I pointed out that you could not make a functioning device, and you responded that you did not believe that was accurate. See below.

 

Your comment was and is inaccurate.  One can make an explosive device with that material....just not with that material exclusively.  The point is that material is a major component of a bomb, yet is not regulated or monitored that closely.  

 

 

 

I did not argue that fertilizer is hard to obtain, but it is not naive to point out that obtaining it is trivial, while making a device is very difficult without both knowledge and other hard-to-obtain components. That shows how explosives regulations are successful, and that this actually is the case is supported by the lack of incidents involving such devices.

 

I would disagree that it's trivial, especially with someone who has the knowledge and skill to make a device.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Thanks for addressing the other issues. I hope you feel better soon.

 

 

Thanks.  Little germ mongers finally got me.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #172 of 1058

Matches are a component of setting off TNT.  Matches aren't regulated or monitored closely.

Oxygen is an essential component to fires.  Atmospheric oxygen isn't regulated or monitored closely.

 

Your whole semantics game you are playing with muppetry is absolutely absurd, SDW.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #173 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 

 

You know what?  If you don't live in the US bugger off and look to your own problems.  

 

 

 

 

I was going to post that I had seen rather different reports concerning the mother, including interviews with her neighbors that painted actually a rather normal picture of her.  Her divorce proceedings also didn't suggest anything unusual.  

 

The media is now being asked to leave the town alone.  Though the story is important to get out, there is often too much zeal and haste and thus a lot of mis-information is presented.  Though sometimes changed later, it is possible for somebody who chooses not to follow the story too closely to get lost.  I still have the email from CNN saying the shooter's name was Ryan (the brother).  I also recall that he was supposedly in the school with two handguns, with the rifle in the car.  And on and on.  The media needs to, well, stop being so media-like.  And we need to be careful which media outlets to get our info from and to double check anything wild.

 

Regarding telling people to bugger off if they don't live in the US: I don't agree.  We should be open to opinions to people around the world.  Most of us actually ultimately came from somewhere else.  We also don't have all the answers to our problems, as incidents such as this shooting vividly show the world on an all-too-regular basis.  We have serious, serious problems in our society and I for one am open to discussion  from anywhere on how to fix them.  Perhaps the source was wrong (it was, and that needs to be pointed out), but I don't see a need to tell him to bugger off.  He is trying to engage in the topic.  Many people from around the world travel or study in the US or have friends or family who live there and are deeply interested in its goings on.  The US also jumps into the gojngs-on of other countries (often with military force like Iraq) and many people will want to discuss the US.  As I don't currently live in the US, should I too bugger off and just worry about things where I live?  During the Iraq war's early stages, I was called un-American by some friends because I didn't want to return home  to show my support for out country at a time of war.  Many countries around the world (for example, Iraq or Afghanistan) might wish to say the same bugger--- to the US...


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/18/12 at 4:01pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #174 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Matches are a component of setting off TNT.  Matches aren't regulated or monitored closely.

Oxygen is an essential component to fires.  Atmospheric oxygen isn't regulated or monitored closely.

 

Your whole semantics game you are playing with muppetry is absolutely absurd, SDW.  

 

You are comparing matches to AN fertilizer, and then you're telling me I'm playing an absurd semantics game?  lol.gif  I wasn't even initially addressing muppetry.  Here is what happened:   

 

  • I noted that lawn fertilizer was not heavily regulated or tracked despite it being a major component of ANFO bombs.  This was in response to a comment Hands made.  
  • Muppetry claimed that even though I could buy fairly large quantities untracked, a device could not be made with that material
  • There was some back and forth on his support for that claim.  Part of it resulted from me not seeing his "technical reasons" post.   
  • I agreed that lawn fertilizer could not be used exclusively and that that assembling a device would not be easy (for many of the reasons he noted).   
  • I also noted that pseudoephedrine was a major component of making crystal meth, yet it was far more regulated than lawn fertilizer. 

 

 

In any case, this is getting tiresome.  I'd rather discuss what measures we can take to prevent such mass shootings, from training, to more armed personnel, to increased attention on providing mental health services, to addressing our violent culture and yes, to better gun control.    

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #175 of 1058

Why Bans on So-Called “Assault Weapons” Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings

This has some good information for people that don't know a lot about firearms and "assault weapons".

post #176 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Regarding telling people to bugger off if they don't live in the US: I don't agree.  

...

Perhaps the source was wrong (it was, and that needs to be pointed out), but I don't see a need to tell him to bugger off.  He is trying to engage in the topic.

 

He's not engaging...he's making a value judgement regarding that crazy american woman and her guns based on the crap written in the Daily Mail as well as stating that it is irrational for americans to own anything but handguns...which is an idiotic statement in itself.

 

So seriously, he and other folks who want to judge us can bugger off.

post #177 of 1058

Yea they can bugger off because the daily mail knows two things about firearms. 1) Jack 2) Shit

post #178 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, I did not move the goalposts. I pointed out that you could not make a functioning device, and you responded that you did not believe that was accurate. See below.

 

Your comment was and is inaccurate.  One can make an explosive device with that material....just not with that material exclusively.  The point is that material is a major component of a bomb, yet is not regulated or monitored that closely. 

 

It certainly is a major component, mass wise, but that doesn't matter if you cannot obtain other essential components, so I don't understand why you think that comment was inaccurate. I stand by my statement that you would not be able to construct a functional device because you would not be able to obtain the components necessary to initiate it.

 

Quote:

I did not argue that fertilizer is hard to obtain, but it is not naive to point out that obtaining it is trivial, while making a device is very difficult without both knowledge and other hard-to-obtain components. That shows how explosives regulations are successful, and that this actually is the case is supported by the lack of incidents involving such devices.

 

I would disagree that it's trivial, especially with someone who has the knowledge and skill to make a device.  

 

You may have misunderstood that comment. I'm saying that it is trivially easy to get the fertilizer, but very difficult to construct the device. I know precisely how to make one, but if I did not have access to the other components I would still be stymied. ANFO is just too shock insensitive to improvise an effective initiation train.

 

Quote:
Quote:

Thanks for addressing the other issues. I hope you feel better soon.

 

Thanks.  Little germ mongers finally got me.  

 

I think you have said that you are a teacher. That's a tough life in terms of germ exposure.

post #179 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Why Bans on So-Called “Assault Weapons” Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings

This has some good information for people that don't know a lot about firearms and "assault weapons".

 

Unfortunately this is absolutely correct - the focus on "assault" weapons is pointless. None of the mass incidents that I can recall have involved fully automatic weapons. Close up a handgun is the weapon of choice. The fact that the subject in the latest case used a rifle doesn't change that.

post #180 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This particular case (combined with the other recent ones) point to the complex and multifaceted nature of the problem:

 

  1. Mental health -- Do we need more education and awareness? How? When? Where? From whom? Are there any medications that are actually contributing factors here (e.g., there are claims that boys who start Ritalin and then stop actually become violent after stopping...could this be true with other behavioral/mental/emotional medications or pharmaceutical "cocktails?")
  2. Parental awareness and action as well as (close) community/friend support and assistance -- There seem to be things that come out after the fact (and perhaps it is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing) that suggests that people close to and friends with (or even close family) coming around someone in the situation described above to support and help and encourage could have been a mitigating factor. Instead, it seems, this women might have been left to her own devices. Maybe no one really understood the problem. Maybe no one knew how to help. Maybe we're all so busy "bowling alone" that real community is falling apart. The second part of course is her apparent foolishness in keeping firearms accessible to her (apparently) mentally unstable son. Now this may or may not be true. They may have been locked up or hidden (to her knowledge) and he simply overcame those obstacles, so it's hard to judge there. But if the article above is correct, she knew something was wrong and would have been wise to take measures to keep them away from him. Then maybe things all happened too fast for her. Either way, she paid with her life and, unfortunately, so did many others.
  3. Facility (esp. school) security -- What can schoolls (et al) do to improve security as a preventative measure?
  4. Gun possession and use by mentally unstable people -- See above about possibilities of mental health screenings prior to purchase.

 

If we look at all of these shootings together, it appears that not any one of these things would have helped by itself. I would submit that even the banning of guns would not likely have stopped all of them (or maybe any of them.) There needs to be a conversation alright, but it needs to be a comprehensive conversation.

 

I find myself agreeing with most of your last two posts, which I admit surprises me. If there is a way forwards, I would expect it to address two issues:

 

1. Keeping weapons from being legally acquired by those ill-suited to owning them - firearm owners licenses, background checks, mental health checks?

 

2. Keeping weapons from being illegally acquired by that same group from legal, law-abiding owners - enhanced regulations regarding storage of firearms?

 

I cannot imagine how one might address illegal acquisition of illegal weapons.

post #181 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I find myself agreeing with most of your last two posts, which I admit surprises me. If there is a way forwards, I would expect it to address two issues:

 

1. Keeping weapons from being legally acquired by those ill-suited to owning them - firearm owners licenses, background checks, mental health checks?

 

2. Keeping weapons from being illegally acquired by that same group from legal, law-abiding owners - enhanced regulations regarding storage of firearms?

 

I cannot imagine how one might address illegal acquisition of illegal weapons.

 

Yeah those are both difficult challenges. Clearly the first is easier. Perhaps this idea of mental health screening has some merit, but it would have to be carefully implemented.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #182 of 1058

The media sensationalism eggs these psychos on. Social media and 24 hour news cycle guarantees fame.

post #183 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Why Bans on So-Called “Assault Weapons” Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings

This has some good information for people that don't know a lot about firearms and "assault weapons".

 

Well, sorta.  .223 semi-autos are more lethal than their .22LR counterparts and are lighter, carry more rounds (typically) and generate less recoil than their higher caliber counterparts. The assault rifle design is optimized for combat.  There is a reason that LE uses the AR-15 and it's not (just) because it looks more cool than a hunting rifle.

post #184 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You know what?  If you don't live in the US bugger off and look to your own problems.

Fair enough, there are things I would like to focus on locally. I have a fondness for the US though so it does disturb me that the US is now in decline because of the lack of domestic oil, decimation of the middle class and the economy on the brink of freefall. Coupled with one of the worst health care outcomes in the developed world, particularly high levels of mental illness and mental disability, it is sad to see a fine country after 200 years reach its peak and now faced with slow but steady decline of sorts.

No country is perfect but I treasure the good aspects of the USA that is beneficial for all of humanity.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

On the other hand, the last time I was an idiot with a gun I cleared in the wrong order (worked slide and then ejected magazine) and left a live round in the chamber.  Fortunately the range officer happened to be standing next to me and didn't make me feel too much like an idiot.  Evidently that happens more often than most guys are willing to admit.

When I was at the range (one and only so far) last year, I never understood the "one in the chamber". It's like when you load the magazine you have to slide it to make sure the 1st bullet goes in, then yeah eject magazine then ??

My point remains. If anything better than handguns is allowed for "hunting", "collecting", etc. its wide availability I feel enables more mass shootings by nature of their higher rate of fire, etc.

Given two psychos of equal "psychoness"... Give one a Glock and another an AR-15. Who can do more damage?

Give one a bulletproof vest, body armour, helmet, etc. and another nothing. Who is more likely to do more damage?

Why was the mom in this case not storing the guns properly? Did she just leave them lying about the house? What are the laws about this? USA or not, these are pertinent questions for all of us.

You have a right to defend yourself, fair enough, but accumulating dangerous items surely affects the community.

No rational person is asking for a blanket ban but with the state of mental health globally, leaving a high number of highly dangerous weapons all over the place is, by common sense, asking for lots of trouble.

Let alone easy access over the Internet.

Do you see the common-sense argument here? It doesn't matter if YOU use it for legitimate purpose, because SOMEONE can easily ABUSE it.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/19/12 at 1:20am
post #185 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


Nobody is saying take all the guns away.
But there is no rational reason for anything more than handguns.
If US citizens don't trust the government to save them during looting and zombie outbreaks, then that is the issue, not letting people accumulate enough weaponry to take out an army base.

 

I don't think you get it, the enshrined right to carry weapons in the US-constitution is meant to allow/enable citizens to have the fire-power to stand up against the government should the need arise.

 

So, yes, for that purpose allowing only handguns won't cut it.

 

Besides, most massacres were committed using handguns, so a ban on assault rifles won't stop massacres.


Edited by Nightcrawler - 12/19/12 at 1:27am
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #186 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I don't think you get it, the enshrined right to carry weapons in the US-constitution is meant to allow/enable citizens to have the fire-power to stand up against the government should the need arise.

So, yes, for that purpose allowing only handguns won't cut it.

But there are many things in the constitution that have changed and evolved over two centuries. Any progressive society including the US has not followed every single part of their original constitution/laws to the letter.

I understand the right to defend against the government as well, but in this day and century, surely that must be tempered for a desire for a better community? Which was part of the founding fathers' intents, right? A better society. Not a society as they defined to be better as the fixed model to follow blow-by-blow.

Using the constitution as something "fixed" to argue one point or another gets silly at some stage, as important as it is in establishing one of the best systems of government the world has seen.

Can the US, and the world, take the next step?

Surely the right to carry handguns can be balanced with a restriction on any other weapons, though of course you can shoot those other weapons at a range.

There's this thing called compromise.

Everyone wants the same thing, ie. no needless deaths.
post #187 of 1058

Assault weapons belong in the military and the police force not with ordinary citizens.There is no reason ever to own this type of weapon period.
 

post #188 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Assault weapons belong in the military and the police force not with ordinary citizens.There is no reason ever to own this type of weapon period.
 

Please define "assault weapon".

post #189 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary View Post


Kiss my ass.
This has nothing to do with "Big, Bad America" -- the greatest soveriegnty in human history.
That guy's brain was broken -- plain & simple.
Think of all the millions of guns out there & the amount of times something like this atrocity happens.
Some asshole gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, plows into a schoolbus full of kids & kills them.
You gonna ban booze, too?
Or are you gonna excoriate the dummy who can't handle his alcohol?
Try taking a second to think first before you type, genius.

Because she was a "Doomsday Prepper" kook who thinks the word's gonna end on Friday.
What time Friday, by the way?
0000GMT?
Anyway, again -- it wasn't the gun, it was the KOOK behind it.

 

Such sweet language! 


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/19/12 at 5:25am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #190 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


Fair enough, there are things I would like to focus on locally. I have a fondness for the US though so it does disturb me that the US is now in decline because of the lack of domestic oil, decimation of the middle class and the economy on the brink of freefall. Coupled with one of the worst health care outcomes in the developed world, particularly high levels of mental illness and mental disability, it is sad to see a fine country after 200 years reach its peak and now faced with slow but steady decline of sorts.

 

Our Suez Crisis has not yet happened and the death of Pax Americana is not yet at hand.

 

 

Quote:
No country is perfect but I treasure the good aspects of the USA that is beneficial for all of humanity.
 
When I was at the range (one and only so far) last year, I never understood the "one in the chamber". It's like when you load the magazine you have to slide it to make sure the 1st bullet goes in, then yeah eject magazine then ??

 

Whenever the action as been worked and a bullet actually chambered you have "one in the chamber' and the gun can fire if the safety is disengaged.  Having a round chambered puts you at a higher state of readiness to fire:

 

Condition 0: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety Off, loaded magazine
Condition 1: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety On, loaded magazine
Condition 2: round in chamber, hammer uncocked, loaded magazine
Condition 3: empty chamber, hammer uncocked, loaded magazine
Condition 4: empty chamber, no magazine in weapon

 

Condition dumbass: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety off, no magazine

 

Some folks will eject the magazine, reload 1 round and then reinsert the magazine.  Now the gun is holding as much as it can.

 

Anyone who is going to school me on the nuances of condition 0 and 2, 1911s, Glocks, etc...well cool.

 

 

Quote:
My point remains. If anything better than handguns is allowed for "hunting", "collecting", etc. its wide availability I feel enables more mass shootings by nature of their higher rate of fire, etc.
 

 

The rate of fire with a semi auto pistol is higher than a bolt action hunting rifle and no different than a semi-auto rifle.  A crazy person with multiple pistols, dozens of magazines in a coat or backpack at a mall or school looks like any other person with a coat or backpack.  A crazy person with a rifle at a mall or school "stands out" a bit.

 

The 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting was done with pistols (32 dead).  The 2009 Binghamton shooting was done with pistols (13 dead).  The 2009 Ft Hood shooting was done with pistols (13 dead).

 

Note that the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in the US is the 2007 VT mass shooting.

 

 

Quote:
Given two psychos of equal "psychoness"... Give one a Glock and another an AR-15. Who can do more damage?

 

Given that Cho had a Glock-19 then history states Glock.  

 

The only scenario where the AR-15 is scarier is with a sniper operating over a long period as in the 2002 beltway sniper.  Thank god there haven't been any copycats of that one because that plain sucked.

 

 

Quote:
Give one a bulletproof vest, body armour, helmet, etc. and another nothing. Who is more likely to do more damage?

 

History states the one with nothing did more damage.  

 

VT massacre - 2 pistols, no armor - 32 dead 17 wounded.  

 

Aurora shooting 12 dead 59 wounded, M&P 15, shotgun and Glock, some armor and tactical gear - reportedly less than 30 rnds was fired by the M&P 15 so the majority of the shooting was with his Glock 22.

 

 

Quote:
Why was the mom in this case not storing the guns properly?

 

How do you know this?  A gun safe is only safe from folks who don't know the combo.  It would be reasonable for most adults in a household with guns to know the combo to the family gun safe. Not saying this is the case BUT it is plausible unless the news has reported otherwise.

 

 

Quote:
Do you see the common-sense argument here? It doesn't matter if YOU use it for legitimate purpose, because SOMEONE can easily ABUSE it.

 

I'm for gun control but only if it makes sense.  I can see the Australia model working but typically anything less is just security kabuki theater.  The usual mish-mash of local and federal gun control laws in the US are simply broken and hurt law-abiding citizens more.

 

I would vote for a national referendum like the Australia one (maybe toned down a little) and against pretty much anything else except for required waiting periods, registration and mandatory training.  

 

The latter wont help against mass shootings but perhaps reduce accidental death and injury and increase the chances that a crazy person is correctly identified and kept from legally buying guns.

post #191 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Please define "assault weapon".

 

Any semi-auto or fully auto firearm shooting an intermediate cartridge (7.62x39mm (AKs), 5.56 mm NATO, .223 Remington) with a detachable external magazine.

 

Frankly, just limit the sales of intermediate cartridge ammo to tightly regulated licensed ranges where the ammo has to be used on premises, eliminate production of new weapons and institute a buy back program and that solves much of the problem with "assault weapons" and mass shootings.

 

Just live with the fact that preppers will buy thousands and thousands of rounds ahead of this ammo ban understanding that they are mostly going to keep that ammo safe for when the SHTF.

post #192 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It certainly is a major component, mass wise, but that doesn't matter if you cannot obtain other essential components, so I don't understand why you think that comment was inaccurate

 

Do you really think one can't obtain the essential components?  I'm not saying it's as easy as buying lawn fertilizer.

 

 

Quote:
I stand by my statement that you would not be able to construct a functional device because you would not be able to obtain the components necessary to initiate it.

 

Two things.  First, I don't agree that one "can't" get the components.  Secondly, and to be fair...that is not what you wrote.  You said that I couldn't make a device with that material, which is not entirely true.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You may have misunderstood that comment. I'm saying that it is trivially easy to get the fertilizer, but very difficult to construct the device. I know precisely how to make one, but if I did not have access to the other components I would still be stymied. ANFO is just too shock insensitive to improvise an effective initiation train.

 

I don't think I understood what you meant (I also missed the one post, as I mentioned earlier).  I completely agree it's difficult.  I still say it's quite possible to get the other components.  

 

Take a look at what wiki has to say about malicious use.  There is a long history of abuse of AN, including ANFO bombs and ANNM (nitromethane).   I know for a fact I can buy 20% nitromethane two-cycle engine fuel by at least the gallon if not more.  The only question is the detonation.  Given that the Taliban can make devices, I'm pretty confident any one of us could do so if we wanted to (obviously we would not...just a little shout out to anyone monitoring social media out there!).   My point is simple here:  Lawn fertilizer is a major component of ANFO bombs.  Why is it not more tightly regulated?  

 

Quote:
I think you have said that you are a teacher. That's a tough life in terms of germ exposure

 

It is,  but after 14 years the immune system is pretty strong.  I get a sinus thing about once a year or once every two years, which isn't bad.  It seems to be going around the area like wildfire right now.  My neighbor is a teacher as well...he has the same thing (we were at a party at his house on Saturday...but I doubt it could have incubated that fast).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 1058

Why aren't all-weather matches tightly controlled?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #194 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #195 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #196 of 1058

By sensible and clear thinking do you mean a position that you agree with?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #197 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Why aren't all-weather matches tightly controlled?

 

Are people making bombs out of them?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #198 of 1058

Saw this making the rounds and it hits the nail on the head.

 

Diary of a Psychopath

 

Jan 18, 2013: I cannot take people any more. They are all so evil. I need to slaughter 100's of them. How shall I do it? Well, I could use gasoline, and block entrances to a building. I could concoct some form of poisonous gas and introduce it into a ventilation system. I could create an explosive and collapse a building. No, none of those ways are too good. I think I must use a firearm.

Jan 18, 2013: I purchased my firearm. It looks very scary, and it is black. It is a rifle. Now to purchase hi-capacity magazines.

Jan 19, 2013: Luckily, there was a gun show going on. I purchased 12 high-capacity magazines.

Jan 20, 2013: I went back to the gun show, and bought 2000 rounds of ammunition.

Jan 21, 2013: I've scouted the place I wish to do my massacre. I have a black ski mask, black trousers, a black shirt, and trench coat.

Jan 22, 2013: HOW DEPRESSING!!! I was on the way to kill all those people, and I heard on the radio that Obama and the Congress and Senate just passed a big gun control bill!!! Well, obviously, I can't do my massacre NOW.... I mean COME ON... it's ILLEGAL now. So, I turned my car around, went to the police station, and turned in my rifle, magazines, and ammunition. I WAS SO CLOSE, too!!! Those politicians, man, they are on TOP of things!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #199 of 1058

About carrying in schools. As someone that has a CPL I think all CPL holders should be required to carry nonlethal force if they are carrying lethal force. Also my CPL class was a bit of a joke. There should be training on par with the police force before someone can carry in a school.

post #200 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Are people making bombs out of them?  

They can start fires.  Fires can kill A LOT of people.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut