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

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 6

post #201 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?  

 

I understand your skepticism, and I may not be able to convince you otherwise, but I can assure you that the required components really are beyond the reach of the vast majority of the population, which is enough to make the scenario very unlikely. Permitted users are licensed and there are strict storage security requirements that are mostly followed. The main reason for the proliferation of IEDs in conflict regions is the ready access to captured and lost military munitions that provides an easy source of those components. That is not the case in the US.

 

The wiki article is mostly accurate, but incomplete. Note that the terrorist groups that have used ANFO and variants already had supplies of commercial or military secondary explosives and detonators. The IRA, for example, was supplied with a large quantity of Semtex and detonators by the Libyans. Their use of ANFO was to permit them to make very large vehicle bombs without depleting their limited supplies of high-performance explosives, using those only for initiation. Even then they had mixed results, due to a lack of technical expertise leading to inadequate boost and/or poor coupling between charges. As I said earlier - even access to those other components does not ensure success without a reasonably detailed knowledge of how to construct the system.

 

I do not know for certain, but I would guess that the main reason that fertilizer is readily available is that it needs to be for its primary purpose, and that controlling the other necessary components, which renders it useless on its own, is regarded as adequate. It has largely worked so far, with one notable exception in which the perpetrator went to extraordinary lengths to succeed.

 

Contrary to the image portrayed in popular fiction, improvised explosives are really a difficult and unsuitable tool for this kind of thing.

post #202 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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.  

 

I don't think you are helping. But I would make the observation to SDW that people in the US are not making bombs out of fertilizer, either.

post #203 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I understand your skepticism, and I may not be able to convince you otherwise, but I can assure you that the required components really are beyond the reach of the vast majority of the population, which is enough to make the scenario very unlikely. Permitted users are licensed and there are strict storage security requirements that are mostly followed. The main reason for the proliferation of IEDs in conflict regions is the ready access to captured and lost military munitions that provides an easy source of those components. That is not the case in the US.

 

 

I don't know about easy, but it has happened, and with devastating results:  

 

At 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, a 7,000-pound truck bomb, constructed of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane racing fuel and packed into 13 plastic barrels, ripped through the heart of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 

 

What I don't know is what protocols have been put in place since that attack.  

 


 

 

 

Quote:
The wiki article is mostly accurate, but incomplete. Note that the terrorist groups that have used ANFO and variants already had supplies of commercial or military secondary explosives and detonators. The IRA, for example, was supplied with a large quantity of Semtex and detonators by the Libyans. Their use of ANFO was to permit them to make very large vehicle bombs without depleting their limited supplies of high-performance explosives, using those only for initiation. Even then they had mixed results, due to a lack of technical expertise leading to inadequate boost and/or poor coupling between charges. As I said earlier - even access to those other components does not ensure success without a reasonably detailed knowledge of how to construct the system.

 

That is a good point.  

 

 

 

Quote:

I do not know for certain, but I would guess that the main reason that fertilizer is readily available is that it needs to be for its primary purpose, and that controlling the other necessary components, which renders it useless on its own, is regarded as adequate. It has largely worked so far, with one notable exception in which the perpetrator went to extraordinary lengths to succeed.

 

Contrary to the image portrayed in popular fiction, improvised explosives are really a difficult and unsuitable tool for this kind of thing.

 

That makes sense.  Again, part of what got us into this was my misinterpreting the comment you made.  It seemed to me that you were saying a device could not be constructed from readily available lawn fertilizer.  Further, you seemed to argue the other components and expertise were impossible to achieve.  Obviously I disagreed with that, but I find your other points to make great sense.  Also, I hope you realize that my initial lawn fertilizer comment came with my tongue at least halfway in my cheek :)  

 

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 #204 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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!!

 

Or...

 

Jan 22, 2013: HOW DEPRESSING!!! I was on the way to kill all those people, and I saw the "This School is a GUN FREE Zone" sign!!! Well, obviously, I can't do my massacre NOW.... I mean COME ON...Guns aren't allowed in the school. So, I turned my car around and went home and started scouting out places that DO allow guns.

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 #205 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I understand your skepticism, and I may not be able to convince you otherwise, but I can assure you that the required components really are beyond the reach of the vast majority of the population, which is enough to make the scenario very unlikely. Permitted users are licensed and there are strict storage security requirements that are mostly followed. The main reason for the proliferation of IEDs in conflict regions is the ready access to captured and lost military munitions that provides an easy source of those components. That is not the case in the US.

 

I don't know about easy, but it has happened, and with devastating results:  

 

At 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, a 7,000-pound truck bomb, constructed of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane racing fuel and packed into 13 plastic barrels, ripped through the heart of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 

 

What I don't know is what protocols have been put in place since that attack.  

 

Quote:
The wiki article is mostly accurate, but incomplete. Note that the terrorist groups that have used ANFO and variants already had supplies of commercial or military secondary explosives and detonators. The IRA, for example, was supplied with a large quantity of Semtex and detonators by the Libyans. Their use of ANFO was to permit them to make very large vehicle bombs without depleting their limited supplies of high-performance explosives, using those only for initiation. Even then they had mixed results, due to a lack of technical expertise leading to inadequate boost and/or poor coupling between charges. As I said earlier - even access to those other components does not ensure success without a reasonably detailed knowledge of how to construct the system.

 

That is a good point.  

 

Quote:

I do not know for certain, but I would guess that the main reason that fertilizer is readily available is that it needs to be for its primary purpose, and that controlling the other necessary components, which renders it useless on its own, is regarded as adequate. It has largely worked so far, with one notable exception in which the perpetrator went to extraordinary lengths to succeed.

 

Contrary to the image portrayed in popular fiction, improvised explosives are really a difficult and unsuitable tool for this kind of thing.

 

That makes sense.  Again, part of what got us into this was my misinterpreting the comment you made.  It seemed to me that you were saying a device could not be constructed from readily available lawn fertilizer.  Further, you seemed to argue the other components and expertise were impossible to achieve.  Obviously I disagreed with that, but I find your other points to make great sense.  Also, I hope you realize that my initial lawn fertilizer comment came with my tongue at least halfway in my cheek :)  

 

The Oklahoma City event was the exception that I referred to. McVeigh planned and conducted that with some knowledge, help, and much determination over a period of nearly a year. He bought the fertilizer and stole the booster and detonator materials from an inadequately secured storage facility at a quarry. He invested thousands of dollars in the project.  The ATF seems to have tightened things up considerably since then. But either way - what he did is more in the class of assisted domestic terrorism than the lone mass murderer.

post #206 of 1058

I think the debate about the specifics of a particular method of creating or obtaining specific explosives misses the point.

 

The real point is that sufficiently motivated and reasonably intelligent attackers (especially those willing to give their own lives) are going to difficult to stop. I mean someone could drive a car filled with gasoline into a crowded playground (or shopping mall). Crap Molotov cocktails aren't that difficult.

 

And that's only considering sudden violent attacks and not considering more subtle approaches including poisons or other slower to act and develop destructive actions.

 

Their goal don't seem to be precise destruction and murder of specific places and people as much as general destruction and murder, perhaps at a target that has some meaning to them. They may also harbor some feelings of establishing some form of infamy and/or martyrdom for themselves. But whatever the motivations, their creativity, desire and willingness to die in the act make them dangerous beyond what most reasonable legislation is going to stop.

 

Frankly, I'd rather have someone coming with something like an AR-15 rifle that's pretty hard to conceal than coming in with 3-4 Glock 20s which could be easily concealed and do just as much damage in the same amount of time, especially in a so-called "gun-free zone." At least the AR-15 might be seen soon enough that a properly trained and armed individual might have a fighting chance to mount a defense sooner.

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

 

The Oklahoma City event was the exception that I referred to. McVeigh planned and conducted that with some knowledge, help, and much determination over a period of nearly a year. He bought the fertilizer and stole the booster and detonator materials from an inadequately secured storage facility at a quarry. He invested thousands of dollars in the project.  The ATF seems to have tightened things up considerably since then. But either way - what he did is more in the class of assisted domestic terrorism than the lone mass murderer.

 

Oh, I agree.  I'm just saying it can be done.  It's probably harder now than it was.  It seems we've reached the end of this little sub-topic.  Suffice it to say I don't think gun control is most of the answer.  It may be some of the answer.  

 

For one thing, I see no reason why we don't have 100% of purchasers background-checked.  There may also be an argument to restrict clip sizes.  But this on its own won't accomplish anything.  Mental health screenings and treatment (and awareness) must improve.  People who have certain disorders should either have to turn in certain types of weapons, or should be very closely monitored (or both).   We're also going to have to do something about the violence we have in our culture.  I don't know exactly what that is.  I do know it's not necessarily about kids playing Call of Duty or watching Rambo.  I think it's about cheapening life and about senseless graphic violence...violence that seems cool.   It's also about at what age parents expose their children to even fantasy violence.  I have 2nd graders who are allowed to play violent video games, for example.  This is probably helped more by a public-service type push than laws restricting content.  Last, I think it's about allowing people to defend themselves.  I think we need to seriously consider doing away with "gun free zones."  I also think we need some sort of armed personnel in schools ([preferably undercover armed security rather than principals or teachers)  It's sad, but the time has come.  We can't protect our kids with locks and hiding under desks anymore.  Maybe we never could.  

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 #208 of 1058

It would be nice if a certain segment of the population wouldn't flip their shit over a nipple.

 

“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 #209 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think the debate about the specifics of a particular method of creating or obtaining specific explosives misses the point.

 

I disagree. The debate was not about obtaining specific explosives - it was about the feasibility of one of the methods that is regularly mentioned as an alternative to guns.

 

Quote:

The real point is that sufficiently motivated and reasonably intelligent attackers (especially those willing to give their own lives) are going to difficult to stop. I mean someone could drive a car filled with gasoline into a crowded playground (or shopping mall). Crap Molotov cocktails aren't that difficult.

 

And that's only considering sudden violent attacks and not considering more subtle approaches including poisons or other slower to act and develop destructive actions.

 

That is the argument that has been made repeatedly, but that is what misses the point. The point is that it is virtually always guns that are used, and it is guns that are readily acquired either by purchase or simply taking those belonging to a family member. If there are so many viable alternatives, then why are they not used in these types of killing spree?

post #210 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is the argument that has been made repeatedly, but that is what misses the point. The point is that it is virtually always guns that are used, and it is guns that are readily acquired either by purchase or simply taking those belonging to a family member. If there are so many viable alternatives, then why are they not used in these types of killing spree?

 

Because the guns are the easiest. So the argument then goes, make it harder to get the guns (and for mentally unstable people, I agree). Fine. We should do that for people who are mentally unstable. But that simply changes the calculus for the person. If the gun is not available (or harder), they simply look for another method. Will some give up? Perhaps. This is hard to know a priori because we don't really know how strong their motivation is. In many of these cases we see a fair amount of planning which suggests some degree of motivation that goes beyond just going out and buying the gun and doing the deed. The point, again, is that someone, sufficiently motivated and willing to sacrifice their life (which most of them seem to be), will find a way. The difficulty in getting the gun will be a speed bump at best.

 

So, should we find some way to prevent mentally unstable people from getting firearms (while respecting the right of other to own and use them for peaceful and/or defensive purposes)? Sure. Let's look into how to achieve that. This doesn't necessarily involve banning the guns. But let's look into solutions for that problem.

 

But, as I said previously, the discussion needs to be much more broad than that. I fear all we will do after this is a) focus on the guns, and b) look for a knee-jerk quick fix that won't actually fix much.

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 #211 of 1058

Handguns should be banned and ammunition for other guns should be tightly regulated.  The most "successful" massacres (Virginia Tech for instance) didn't use assault weapons at all--it was handguns.  

 

“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 #212 of 1058

What about the alternative? To arm and train all adults with handguns? Of course the handguns and ammunition would have to be registered and the training/certification not only involve the shooting but also the handling of the gun, to keep it protected and controlled...

 

That would be a major deterrance for anyone wanting to commit massacre, knowing that all adults are armed and trained, don't you think?

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 #213 of 1058

Why again must we have guns  to protect ourselves. this is not the wild west and we are not the lone ranger.That is why we have the police department to protect us.
 

post #214 of 1058

Are you worried whether or not you have a Man Card?

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/bushmasters_horrible_ad_campaign/

 

Bushmaster is.

 

 

 

The not so subtle approach to what this company must believe is a widespread insecurity complex amongst American men is disturbing.

 

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 #215 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why again must we have guns  to protect ourselves. this is not the wild west and we are not the lone ranger.That is why we have the police department to protect us.
 

 

Because the police can't prevent massacres from happening, they can't be everywhere at the same time. The police also can't prevent a raping of a woman to happen. In these cases they would often come too late. The police is good for capturing criminals after they did their crime.

 

In that role, the police and courts... act as a deterrance against people thinking about doing crimes who have a problem with being caught and convicted. But people that don't care about what would happen with them after they did their crime can't be deterred that way.

 

That's why I suggest to think about arming/training adults so they can act in life-and-death-situations when quick action is of vital importance.


Edited by Nightcrawler - 12/21/12 at 3:27am
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 #216 of 1058
The world has ended. The world is born again. May the Divine bless you in the years post-2012 as we see the last embers of our oil-based civilisation fade, to be replaced by, perhaps, over a century, new energy sources, new mind techniques, computing and singularity, consciousness uploading.

The tragedy about all this stuff is that the mind is the last true frontier of humanity and that is why we see the epidemic of mental illness and psychiatric treatment needed (and often ~not~ provided) to cope with our world post-2012 going into 2100.

Stress, disease, hunger... and I'm talking the poor and crazy of the 1st world! Haven't even thought about the 3rd world yet, nor the 2nd world.

Peace and blessings to all, and Merry Christmas and/or Holiday Season to you all.
post #217 of 1058

Besides arming and training/certifying adults to carry handguns, how about stopping the mass-media-coverage of these massacres. Through the media these lost souls get turned into antiheroes which motivates others to seek fame that way.

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 #218 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

 

Because the police can't prevent massacres from happening, they can't be everywhere at the same time. The police also can't prevent a raping of a woman to happen. In these cases they would often come too late. The police is good for capturing criminals after they did their crime.

 

In that role, the police and courts... act as a deterrance against people thinking about doing crimes who have a problem with being caught and convicted. But people that don't care about what would happen with them after they did their crime can't be deterred that way.

 

That's why I suggest to think about arming/training adults so they can act in life-and-death-situations when quick action is of vital importance.

Pepper spray is also a great rape deterrent that doesn't involve people carrying around death machines, which fling chunks of metal through flesh.  

 

“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 #219 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Pepper spray is also a great rape deterrent that doesn't involve people carrying around death machines, which fling chunks of metal through flesh.  

 

Well, first, I'll wait until we hear from someone who has actually had to deter a rape assault and how great that tools was vs. others.

 

Second, if my wife or daughters were under imminent threat of rape...I don't really give a shit about a chunk of metal tearing through the flesh of the assailant. Same goes for if my family was being attacked by someone with a gun, too far away for pepper spray to be an effective tool.


Edited by MJ1970 - 12/21/12 at 7:36am

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 #220 of 1058

NRA is giving a "major news conference" now.

 

Video games, movies are to blame.  

 

No gun zones.

 

Guns protect so many.

 

We need more guns.

 

The media demonizes gun owners.

 

 

- - - - -

 

This guy is wacko and is not making a good case or presentation for his position, right or wrong.

 

 

BBC and CNN are carrying this live worldwide.  The world is cringing.


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/21/12 at 8:42am

 

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 #221 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why again must we have guns  to protect ourselves. this is not the wild west and we are not the lone ranger.That is why we have the police department to protect us.
 

Once again I'll remind people that the police have no duty to act. Quiet literally a woman can call and report that her estranged husband kidnapped the children and the kids are at risk of being killed and the police can quiet literally say, "Come in and file a report. We open Monday at 8am".

 

Oh and that's not theoretical. It actually happened.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

post #222 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Once again I'll remind people that the police have no duty to act.

 

Not only that, but as we've seen in so many cases like this one: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

 

Frankly it amazes me that anyone today expects or relies on the police to protect them. This must be some combination of naïveté, ignorance, wishful thinking or stupidity.

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 #223 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Pepper spray is also a great rape deterrent that doesn't involve people carrying around death machines, which fling chunks of metal through flesh.  

 

 

Sadly, there are too many crime acts where the victim is attacked by surprise, and it would be very difficult to pull out a gun, flip the safety, aim and shoot.  Especially if the attacker is already sitting on top of you.  The attacker may also be unarmed, but your gun now becomes his or hers.

 

Pepper spray is easy to carry and can be manipulated in tight spaces and thus would likely be more effective in some circumstances.  Also, much lower chance than an innocent bystander gets hurt or killed by someone shooting out of fear.

 

A good compact LED flashlight might even be best.  It can temporarily blind an attacker, can even be used to hit, can help you run away, and can help signal for help when it would not be a good idea to announce your presence by firing off a signal flare or gunshot.  It might even help you see a potential threat before it even becomes one, thus allowing you to avoid a serious situation altogether. It also serves to show drivers that you are there, thus increasing your safety when walking.  In other words, it improves your safety, no training needed.


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/21/12 at 8:47am

 

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 #224 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Sadly, there are too many crime acts where the victim is attacked by surprise, and it would be very difficult to pull out a gun, flip the safety, aim and shoot.  Especially if the attacker is already sitting on top of you.  The attacker may also be unarmed, but your gun now becomes his or hers.

 

So an imperfect solution that doesn't cover every case should be eliminated because it is imperfect. Got it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Pepper spray is easy to carry and can be manipulated in tight spaces and thus would likely be more effective in some circumstances.  Also, much lower chance than an innocent bystander gets hurt or killed by someone shooting out of fear.

 

All quite true. It would be more effective in some cases. and a firearm would be more effective in some cases also.

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 #225 of 1058

We don't hear about these stories very often.

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 #226 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 #227 of 1058

The NRA, in a long, paranoid rant, somewhat inarticulate rant, blamed everyone else, while claiming we need more guns.

 

They ask Congress to place armed guards at every school.

 

 

How do they plan on paying for that (salary, training, insurance)?  It would cost over 10 billion.  Raising taxes?  Taxes on gun sales?  Cutting funding for education?

 

About 100 thousand schools nationwide.  Even at two guards per school, that comes to adding 200,000 people to the public employment ranks.  So, the NRA supports bigger government? 


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/21/12 at 10:25am

 

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 #228 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We don't hear about these stories very often.

Hmm...but if there were no guns in the first place...

 

But, but...BUT WE NEED GUNS TO SAVE US FROM THE DANGER IMPOSED ON US BY PEOPLE WITH GUNS!  

 

“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 #229 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Hmm...but if there were no guns in the first place...

 

I'm sorry...we're dealing with the real world. Those dealing with fantasy...well..why don't you for Congress. They regularly are living in a fantasy world in a number of ways.

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 #230 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

They ask Congress to place armed guards at every school.

 

A good proposal.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How do they plan on paying for that (salary, training, insurance)?  It would cost over 10 billion.  Raising taxes?  Taxes on gun sales?  Cutting funding for education?

 

Well, they could re-allocate the SWAT teams from the FDA that raid raw milk sellers and raw food sellers. Then there's the DEA and the medical marijuana raids. They could stop using drones to kill children in other countries. That could free up some money. Maybe re-allocate some of the security around the President, Congress, etc.

 

I suspect they could find the people and money.

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 #231 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Handguns should be banned and ammunition for other guns should be tightly regulated.  The most "successful" massacres (Virginia Tech for instance) didn't use assault weapons at all--it was handguns.  

 

That is 1) Insane, 2) Completely against the intent of our founders, 3) Not going to be effective.    

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why again must we have guns  to protect ourselves. this is not the wild west and we are not the lone ranger.That is why we have the police department to protect us.
 

 

It's worse than the Wild West in many ways.  The police cannot prevent all crime.  In fact, they really suck at it.  They are excellent at investigating crime...you know, after people have been slaughtered.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

NRA is giving a "major news conference" now.

 

Video games, movies are to blame.  

 

No gun zones.

 

Guns protect so many.

 

We need more guns.

 

The media demonizes gun owners.

 

 

- - - - -

 

This guy is wacko and is not making a good case or presentation for his position, right or wrong.

 

 

BBC and CNN are carrying this live worldwide.  The world is cringing.

 

I read the statement.  It is absolutely spot on.  We need armed security personnel in all schools.  Gun free zones actually result in an incentive to kill.  Go ahead and dispute it, BR.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

A good proposal.

 

 

Well, they could re-allocate the SWAT teams from the FDA that raid raw milk sellers and raw food sellers. Then there's the DEA and the medical marijuana raids. They could stop using drones to kill children in other countries. That could free up some money. Maybe re-allocate some of the security around the President, Congress, etc.

 

I suspect they could find the people and money.

 

We seem to have plenty of officers out there writing dozens if not hundreds of pre-printed traffic violations, too.  The police in many places seem to do an excellent job of harassing citizens about the most trivial things, yet we cannot stop school shootings?   

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 #232 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

A good proposal.

Terrible proposal. You'll end up with some thug of a school guard that thinks it's their job to smack down every "punk" in the school and he has the pistol to prove it. Keep the badge bullies out of the schools.

post #233 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Terrible proposal. You'll end up with some thug of a school guard that thinks it's their job to smack down every "punk" in the school and he has the pistol to prove it. Keep the badge bullies out of the schools.

 

OK. Fair enough. I agree that law enforcement in this country has become increasingly populated by thugs with guns and badges.

 

Instead let's privatize the schools and let each of them determine the most appropriate security measures for themselves.

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 #234 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

OK. Fair enough. I agree that law enforcement in this country has become increasingly populated by thugs with guns and badges.

 

Instead let's privatize the schools and let each of them determine the most appropriate security measures for themselves.

 

Great idea. That way each parent can choose for themselves what's the best option for their own kid. Paranoid skittish parents can send their kids to the SuperMax school.

post #235 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

 

Great idea. That way each parent can choose for themselves what's the best option for their own kid. Paranoid skittish parents can send their kids to the SuperMax school.

 

Exactly. And different schools can experiment with different approaches to see what works best. Which is likely different all over.

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 #236 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I read the statement.  It is absolutely spot on.  We need armed security personnel in all schools.  Gun free zones actually result in an incentive to kill.  Go ahead and dispute it, BR. 

 

If they had had an armed security guard in Newtown, the must likely change in the outcome would have been the death toll including, "One 36 year-old adult male who was employed at the school as an armed guard."

 

The idea that the solution is armed guards at schools is beyond stupid. But the NRA are owned by the gun industry, so what did anyone think they'd say, of course they think the solution is more guns, which to them equals more profits.

post #237 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

If they had had an armed security guard in Newtown, the must likely change in the outcome would have been the death toll including, "One 36 year-old adult male who was employed at the school as an armed guard."

 

Actually that's not the most likely change in outcome. You have nothing to support that claim other than your imagination.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The idea that the solution is armed guards at schools is beyond stupid.

 

Thanks so much for sharing your opinion as uninformed as it may be.

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 #238 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Actually that's not the most likely change in outcome. You have nothing to support that claim other than your imagination.

 

 

 

Thanks so much for sharing your opinion as uninformed as it may be.

 

And you are supporting your position with... what? Your fervent desire that it be true?

 

An armed guard in a school simply becomes the first target. You take him out, and the coast is clear. The idea that an armed guard would have made a difference in Newtown, or particularly at Columbine where you had multiple gunmen is absurd. It's irrational.

 

What are you going to have, 3-5 of them at every entrance so if a gunmen takes out a couple the rest can still get him? Are you going to "battle harden" the schools? Surround them with barbed wire and gun towers? Who's going to pay for all this in schools that can already barely make ends meet already, the gun manufacturers? What's going to happen when one of these "armed guards" accidentally shoots some kid, or himself? Haven't really thought it through that well have you?

 

Let's look at some of the NRA's other brilliant arguments:

 

* Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, gee, how many kids would have died in Newtown if the "assailant" had had to kill them with his bare hands? Probably not so many. Do you think maybe it was the guns that resulted in the high death toll?

 

* If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. They certainly do have a flair for the catchy phrase, don't they? Then again, if we stop the gun manufacturers, who are worse than heroin dealers, from supplying outlaws with guns, then, no, outlaws won't have guns. Sure, they'll stop raking in the millions, but what's more important, a few million for a gun manufacturer or a child's life?

 

 

The NRA's policies kill children. Anyone who supports the NRA's policies is in favor of killing children. Pick a side. It's as simple as that.

post #239 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And you are supporting your position with... what? Your fervent desire that it be true?

 

I'm supporting it with the reasoning that there have been many other cases (though sparsely reported) where individuals have come into a place with firearms to cause harm and damage and have been stopped by alert, armed and trained individuals with a firearm...AND...that a designated security guard would fit into this category...AND...he/she would be specifically tasked with the safety and security of the people and property.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to just be saying there'd be one more dead person. 1hmm.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

An armed guard in a school simply becomes the first target. You take him out, and the coast is clear.

 

Yes. Possibly, But also the first defense. You appear to completely ignore this or discount it to a 0% probability. You assume the armed guard could or would not be able to mount any defense and would be completely taken by surprise. This is possible, even probable in some cases, but not to a 100% probability. I'd argue not even greater than 50%.

 

At this point your "support" for your strident claims is nothing more than ignorant conjecture.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The idea that an armed guard would have made a difference in Newtown, or particularly at Columbine where you had multiple gunmen is absurd. It's irrational.

 

Thanks again so much for sharing your opinion as poorly informed and thought out as it may be.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The NRA's policies kill children. Anyone who supports the NRA's policies is in favor of killing children. Pick a side. It's as simple as that.

 

Thanks for sharing your fallacious thinking as well.

 

It's been real. 1rolleyes.gif

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 #240 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I'm supporting it with the reasoning that there have been many other cases (though sparsely reported) where individuals have come into a place with firearms to cause harm and damage and have been stopped by alert, armed and trained individuals with a firearm...AND...that a designated security guard would fit into this category...AND...he/she would be specifically tasked with the safety and security of the people and property.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to just be saying there'd be one more dead person. 1hmm.gif

 

 

 

Yes. Possibly, But also the first defense. You appear to completely ignore this or discount it to a 0% probability. You assume the armed guard could or would not be able to mount any defense and would be completely taken by surprise. This is possible, even probable in some cases, but not to a 100% probability. I'd argue not even greater than 50%.

 

At this point your "support" for your strident claims is nothing more than ignorant conjecture.

 

 

 

Thanks again so much for sharing your opinion as poorly informed and thought out as it may be.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your fallacious thinking as well.

 

It's been real. 1rolleyes.gif

 

It's pretty clear which side you have chosen.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut