It's pretty clear which side you have chosen.
Yes, it is. And it's pretty clear which side you have chosen: The side of emotional, knee-jerk, irrational non-solution bandaging.
Oh well. At least you have plenty of company.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Yes, it is. And it's pretty clear which side you have chosen: The side of emotional, knee-jerk, irrational non-solution bandaging.
Oh well. At least you have plenty of company.
Those aren't the choices. Either you follow the NRA down the path of promoting policies that result in children being killed, or you say enough is enough, it's time to end this gun madness. You've chosen to follow the NRA and support the killing of children. It's your choice, you have to live with your conscience. Anyone who supports the NRA, the next time something like this happens, you share the responsibility, the guilt, for it.
Either you follow the NRA down the path of promoting policies that result in children being killed, or you say enough is enough, it's time to end this gun madness.
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait of your non sequitur. Try playing with someone else.
You've chosen to follow the NRA and support the killing of children.
I do not support the killing of children (or anyone else...except in self-defense). That is a despicable charge and you should be ashamed (and possibly banned) for it and you are despicable person for claiming it.
It's your choice, you have to live with your conscience.
My conscience is clear. It's people who've created the sitting duck environments of "gun free zones" who ought to be doing some soul-searching and conscience-examination.
Anyone who supports the NRA, the next time something like this happens, you share the responsibility, the guilt, for it.
I do not share the responsibility (or guilt) for mad men that go shooting.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
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 18, 20?? I tried to purchase a firearm and they don't sell them anymore without a mandatory waiting period, doctors screening, training and even for 1 shot rifles, 2 shot shotguns.
Jan 19, 20?? I tried to make poison gas/bomb/etc and killed myself/got caught/lost interest/etc
Harris and Diebold made pipe and propane bombs most of which failed to go off. Even terrorists have had failures to go bang. It's a lot harder than buying an AR or semi-auto pistol, ammo and going on a spree.
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait of your non sequitur. Try playing with someone else.
I do not support the killing of children (or anyone else...except in self-defense). That is a despicable charge and you should be ashamed (and possibly banned) for it and you are despicable person for claiming it.
My conscience is clear. It's people who've created the sitting duck environments of "gun free zones" who ought to be doing some soul-searching and conscience-examination.
I do not share the responsibility (or guilt) for mad men that go shooting.
Yeah, it's pretty uncomfortable to accept your complicity in these heinous acts, isn't it? But, anyone who supports the NRA is just as guilty as the "mad men" who actually pull the triggers. You put the guns in their hands. You put the ammunition in their guns. You gave them the high capacity magazines. Like it or not, NRA supporters are just as guilty as the "mad men" who commit these acts, because you enable them, you encourage them, to do it.
Actions have consequences. And these are the consequences of the NRAs positions. It's time you man up and accept responsibility for your actions instead of hiding behind your guns and pretending to be a man. The only way your conscience could be clear is if you don't have one.
Armed guards didn't prevent Columbine.
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."
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."
CS Monitor, a conservative paper by all fonts, doesn't quite agree with the wonderful NRA.
America's "mad gunman"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/america-mad-gunman-article-1.1225123
Of course, the wind bag of all wind bags supports the NRA on this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/rush-praises-classy-nra-85428.html
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."
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."
Armed guards didn't prevent Columbine.
This is quite silly.
Second, that hasn't stopped them from using guards at JeffCo schools to this day.
Third, the failure to completely stop them doesn't mean it can't or won't work in other situations.
There is not any ONE thing that will solve this problem. Better security (in one form or another...including, in some cases, armed security) at schools may be a very appropriate part of the solution. Mental health screening before fire arm purchase may be another part (though certainly won't solve the whole problem.) Better overall mental health and threat awareness might be another.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
This is quite silly.
It's hardly silly, it's directly on-point. The NRA's best (and knee-jerk) argument is "more guns" and that's simply not a solution. I agree that there's no single-answer solution, but the NRA suggesting that armed guards are the answer is misguided.
It's hardly silly, it's directly on-point. The NRA's best (and knee-jerk) argument is "more guns" and that's simply not a solution. I agree that there's no single-answer solution, but the NRA suggesting that armed guards are the answer is misguided.
It's beyond misguided, it's psychopathic.
It's hardly silly, it's directly on-point.
No. His response to me was silly.
The NRA's best (and knee-jerk) argument is "more guns" and that's simply not a solution.
Your over-simplification of the position aside, it is a) not knee-jerk (at least any more than banning guns is, and probably less so), and b) it certainly should be part of the solution discussion. Anyone who disagrees is clearly biased in one particular direction.
I agree that there's no single-answer solution, but the NRA suggesting that armed guards are the answer is misguided.
And I agree that it is not the answer, but it may well be part of the answer. An honest and reasoned appraisal of all the facts bears this out.
But some will simply name-call and simply dismiss this by invoking the time-tested argumentum de incredulity fallacy.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
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.
I agree with you that it should not be eliminated, but, to be fair, you and many others have used precisely the argument (that it would not work in every case) against increased regulatory control of firearms.
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.
Do you have any information, links or citations for those events? If so, then they presumably represent evidence in favor of that approach. If not then you are not actually supporting your reasoning at all, which is what you accused anonymouse of doing.
Virginia Tech. Columbine. MJ's argument is invalid.
“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.”
“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.”
The NRA supported Mittens, who said we didn't need more police officers. Now they say we need more armed guards.
They blamed games, movies and music for the violence, ignoring the fact the same things are available in other countries, where people don't shoot each other nor really resort to violence. Most countries don't have nearly as many guns, nor a "gun culture". Saw somewhere half of all guns are in the US? [I admit, it is not just the guns that make this happen; as I said above, though, they make it far easier.]
Some claim we need guns to protect ourselves from tyranny, and the NRA wants to add armed people to the government ranks. No irony there.
The NRA makes it sound so unsafe to be in America that no foreign students should come to study nor should any foreigners come to travel or do business in the US. Great for the travel industry! Or maybe they think we need to arm tour guides and hotel staff.
Out of touch with sanity and reality. NRA = No Reality Accepted
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."
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."
I agree that an armed guard won't stop much, the attacker will only make sure to kill him first and then he has free hand. Imho the best solution is to have as many armed and trained adults as possible. That way the attacker doesn't know who is a threat to him.
The other possible solution would be to completely ban weapons, to close down the weapon-shops, the weapon-producing-companies and to forcibly disarm the population. The consequence would be like in the case of drugs, people who really want a gun will still get one on the black-market but the price will be way higher and that way, through the financial aspect and logistic it might deter those who aren't 100%-willing... and some of those might be spotted by informants or undercover cops.
But the latter "solution" is highly unconstitutional and would leave the US-population with no way to organize a resistance against the federal government.
... But the latter "solution" is highly unconstitutional and would leave the US-population with no way to organize a resistance against the federal government.
There aren't only 2 possible solutions, however, the constitution isn't written in stone, if necessary, it can be amended. So, if the 2nd Amendment (or rather, the Supreme Court's perversion of it) prevents us from keeping our children safe, forces us to accept a culture of mass murder, maybe it's time for it to go.
As far as a, "way to organize a resistance against the federal government," goes, we live in a democracy, we have a way to, "organize a resistance against the federal government," it's called an election.
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."
You don't know that. It's an unprovable assertion.
Go work at an elementary school, and then tell me what would make a difference. We are sitting ducks, as are our children. It doesn't matter what other security measures are in place. We have a real-time ID system checking for criminal backgrounds and child abuse. All doors are locked except the main office. We have key cards to get in. There are cameras. Guess what...Newtown had the same thing. None of it prevented this maniac from shooting his way in. The principal and other staff lunged at him, and they died because they were defenseless. No gun law (whether good or bad) will prevent this. We must have armed personnel of some sort. Period.
Oh, one more thing: Until you work in a school with 500 small children, you can kindly take your opinion on school security and shove it up your ass.
Yeah, it's pretty uncomfortable to accept your complicity in these heinous acts, isn't it? But, anyone who supports the NRA is just as guilty as the "mad men" who actually pull the triggers. You put the guns in their hands. You put the ammunition in their guns. You gave them the high capacity magazines. Like it or not, NRA supporters are just as guilty as the "mad men" who commit these acts, because you enable them, you encourage them, to do it.
Actions have consequences. And these are the consequences of the NRAs positions. It's time you man up and accept responsibility for your actions instead of hiding behind your guns and pretending to be a man. The only way your conscience could be clear is if you don't have one.
Keep it up and you'll be reported. Your accusations are outrageous, egregious and frankly, completely mind-bogglingly stupid.
It's beyond misguided, it's psychopathic.
Yes, why engage in discussion when you can call someone who disagrees with you a psychopath? Do us all a favor and go away. The rest of us are trying to have a discussion on what would actually prevent these kinds of acts. Even BR (with whom I completely disagree and think can go WAY over the line) doesn't sink to the level you have. Pack up your thinks and let the adults talk.
This is a classic case of safety vs liberty.
As some philosophers concluded, you can't have both to a 100%. You either give up liberty for safety or vice-versa. Some philosopher even made the case that a society that chooses safety and gives up its liberty won't have either in the end.
The thing is guns in the hands of citizens is a way to keep up liberty. Of course you can argue that it's not necessary to be paranoid about the federal government, after all they are elected and through other elections they can be removed. But then why did the writers in the constitution were that paranoid?
The writers of the constitution obviously thought that even in a democracy with elections the federal government can become a tyranny and the states need a well regulated militia to keep the federal government's standing army in check.
So those wanting to change the constitution have to make a case where they show that what the writers of the constitution regarding militias and federal government thought is not relevant anymore.
Then the people of the US could decide in a referendum to change the constitution. I don't know where the minimum-participation-rate should be, maybe on 75%?And those in favour of the change, how much should it be at the minimum to allow the change, maybe also 75%, so that in the end above 50% of the US-population would be in favour?
Imho, it would be more honest to discuss the topic in an open and complete way with all of the aspects with the whole population, then what happens now with minorities trying to push their agenda and only talking about a limited aspect, about how to prevent massacres.
... Go work at an elementary school, and then tell me what would make a difference. We are sitting ducks, as are our children. It doesn't matter what other security measures are in place. We have a real-time ID system checking for criminal backgrounds and child abuse. All doors are locked except the main office. We have key cards to get in. There are cameras. Guess what...Newtown had the same thing. None of it prevented this maniac from shooting his way in. The principal and other staff lunged at him, and they died because they were defenseless. No gun law (whether good or bad) will prevent this. We must have armed personnel of some sort. Period. ...
It's amazing the utter insanity of your argument. Put your emotions aside and read it logically, and maybe you'll reach a point of reason.
It's time the NRA and gun fetishists in this country accept responsibility for their actions.
I agree that an armed guard won't stop much, the attacker will only make sure to kill him first and then he has free hand. Imho the best solution is to have as many armed and trained adults as possible. That way the attacker doesn't know who is a threat to him.
I would be a fascinating, but enormously risky sociological experiment to see it that reduced or increased gun crime. But it would also be hideously difficult to administer. The burden and cost of all the assessing, training and licensing would be huge. Would this be like a general auxiliary police force? Then effectively you also make a two-tier society - those who are armed and those who are not. That could be both demeaning and intimidating to those who are not. The logistics look impossible to me, quite apart from the appearance of creating basically a vigilante law enforcement structure.
Are people making bombs out of them?
They can start fires. Fires can kill A LOT of people.
True and thus, per liberal reasoning, they should be heavily regulated, require paper trails, feature gruesome images, and have the packaging contain imagines of people gruesomely hurt by their own actions with them.
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.
The point is and should be that it is possible to construct such devices and it is likely impossible to restrict and control all the materials that would ever be used in construction of them.
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.
Exactly! In all these instances we are talking about the outlier. We are then talking about what rule can apply to the outlier. The real point, that rules don't apply to the outliers seems to be forgotten.
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.
Yet really you are just talking about legislation waiting to catch up to this issue. California has already pass legislation limited the size, weight and content of pepper spray. I'm sure many other states will catch up to them when the right "crisis" arises to take away more rights. Let's see what the countries you admire most do regarding pepper spray.
In Belgium it is classified as a prohibited weapon, and it is illegal for anyone other than police officers and police agents (assistant police officers) to carry a capsicum spray.
In Denmark, possession of pepper spray is illegal for private citizens.
In Finland, it is classified as a device governed by the firearm act, and possession of pepper spray requires a licence. Licences are issued for defensive purposes and to individuals working jobs where such a device is needed such as the private security sector.
In Iceland, possession of pepper spray is illegal for private citizens.
In the Netherlands pepper spray is illegal for civilians to own and carry.
In Norway, pepper spray is illegal for civilians.
In the United Kingdom, "Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" is a Prohibited Weapon, under S.5 of The Firearms Act 1968.
Sounds like you are endorsing a solution that will just be banned a couple years down the line by your own reasoning.
Yes, it is. And it's pretty clear which side you have chosen: The side of emotional, knee-jerk, irrational non-solution bandaging.
Oh well. At least you have plenty of company.
Those aren't the choices. Either you follow the NRA down the path of promoting policies that result in children being killed, or you say enough is enough, it's time to end this gun madness. You've chosen to follow the NRA and support the killing of children. It's your choice, you have to live with your conscience. Anyone who supports the NRA, the next time something like this happens, you share the responsibility, the guilt, for it.
Several logical fallacies. This is an ad-hom and basically trolling.
Or
Jan 18, 20?? I tried to purchase a firearm and they don't sell them anymore without a mandatory waiting period, doctors screening, training and even for 1 shot rifles, 2 shot shotguns.
Jan 19, 20?? I tried to make poison gas/bomb/etc and killed myself/got caught/lost interest/etc
Harris and Diebold made pipe and propane bombs most of which failed to go off. Even terrorists have had failures to go bang. It's a lot harder than buying an AR or semi-auto pistol, ammo and going on a spree.
The weapons used in this and most crimes were not legally purchased by the person who used them. I know this is a hard concept for you to understand but CRIMINALS don't respect the law. They will kill neighbors, their own mom, etc. and take their legally acquired firearms including those that were acquired after a waiting period, doctor screening, training, etc. They will take those one or two shot rifles and modify them to make them multiple shot or automatic. It's almost like they don't care about following the rules/laws or something crazy like that.
Armed guards didn't prevent Columbine.
Neither did legal prosecution, police, national guard, gun laws, counseling, anti-psychotic meds, etc.
I agree with the NRA, it's definitely the fault of video games:
Given the rarity of the events we are discussing, you don't think the chart would look the same or be on an even steeper decline if it were gun related murders and actual number of guns?
... Go work at an elementary school, and then tell me what would make a difference. We are sitting ducks, as are our children. It doesn't matter what other security measures are in place. We have a real-time ID system checking for criminal backgrounds and child abuse. All doors are locked except the main office. We have key cards to get in. There are cameras. Guess what...Newtown had the same thing. None of it prevented this maniac from shooting his way in. The principal and other staff lunged at him, and they died because they were defenseless. No gun law (whether good or bad) will prevent this. We must have armed personnel of some sort. Period. ...
It's amazing the utter insanity of your argument. Put your emotions aside and read it logically, and maybe you'll reach a point of reason.
It's time the NRA and gun fetishists in this country accept responsibility for their actions.
Guilt by association much?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Are people making bombs out of them?
They can start fires. Fires can kill A LOT of people.
True and thus, per liberal reasoning, they should be heavily regulated, require paper trails, feature gruesome images, and have the packaging contain imagines of people gruesomely hurt by their own actions with them.
Unfortunately, even tossing in the splendidly pejorative "liberal reasoning" does not make this argument work. If fires, started by matches, were a method of mass murder that had been shown to be effective and regularly used in the US, then it would be valid. Otherwise it's just obfuscation.
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.
The point is and should be that it is possible to construct such devices and it is likely impossible to restrict and control all the materials that would ever be used in construction of them.
I don't know if you have been following that part of the thread closely or not, but you have absolutely missed the point, which is that it is not possible, with the resources available to all but a small fraction of the population, to construct a useful and functional explosive device. The example of explosives is a terrible defense of the lack of gun control, precisely because explosive devices are a class of weapon that the illegal use of in the US has been successfully suppressed by regulation. Explosives regulations work, and so we do not see people using them for this purpose.
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.
Exactly! In all these instances we are talking about the outlier. We are then talking about what rule can apply to the outlier. The real point, that rules don't apply to the outliers seems to be forgotten.
MJ's example of a gasoline bomb is a good one because it is illustrative of the common misconceptions at large here. Gasoline can be used to make a very destructive device, but that requires other items that are unavailable to the public. Without those items you just have a fire. Hollywood has struck again - vehicles do not explode like that, even when rigged for combustion. You can make a really nice fire, but not a destructive explosion.
But it would also be hideously difficult to administer. The burden and cost of all the assessing, training and licensing would be huge. Would this be like a general auxiliary police force?
Administer what? Are you speaking specifically of a school guard system or just people in general being allowed to carry fire arms as they see fit to protect themselves and (possibly) others?
Then effectively you also make a two-tier society - those who are armed and those who are not.
Well that exactly what the gun-control laws are doing or will do. Only it will be criminal predators and the state (but I repeat myself.)
That could be both demeaning and intimidating to those who are not.
Indeed it would be.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Gasoline can be used to make a very destructive device, but that requires other items that are unavailable to the public. Without those items you just have a fire. Hollywood has struck again - vehicles do not explode like that, even when rigged for combustion. You can make a really nice fire, but not a destructive explosion.
But who says you need an explosion. That's a straw man. Toss a fucking Molotov cocktail into a 1st grade class room (or crowded theater or shopping mall food court) with a bunch of people and see what happens.
The point still stands, suicide attackers are very hard to defend against a priori. There are thing that can limit tools at their disposal (I've even conceded that something like mental health screenings to purchase a firearm might be part of the solution.) Yet all I've heard from our anti-gun friends is that other potential parts of the solution (e.g., armed security or armed individual capable of mounting a defense at potential points of attack) are "crazy" or even "psychopathic." not even worthy of discussion...simply dismissed out of hand. They believe they have the trump card in this debate: Anything to do with guns (other than eliminating them) is simply bad. Therefore anything but their own perspective is wrong, impractical, unworkable.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Gasoline can be used to make a very destructive device, but that requires other items that are unavailable to the public. Without those items you just have a fire. Hollywood has struck again - vehicles do not explode like that, even when rigged for combustion. You can make a really nice fire, but not a destructive explosion.
But who says you need an explosion. That's a straw man.
It's not a straw man - the discussion was entirely about the alleged widespread availability of explosives, and my repeated assertion that it is effectively impossible for most people to make an explosive device. I was unaware that you had conceded that point and moved on to fire-starting.
That certainly could be done, as could simply employing vehicular homicide, just as another example. The point is that it is most uncommon. And it's clearly not just because guns are simply easier since it is uncommon in other countries where guns are not as readily available. In other words - observation of other societies does not support the assertion that these guys will just find another way to kill. To me that suggests that the ready availability of guns is, in itself, an enabler or trigger for this type of behavior, but whether that is true or not is immaterial; what matters is the indication that keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people is likely to reduce the occurrence of these kinds of events.
I don't disagree with your comments on gun control, and I don't disagree that increasing security would be a deterrent wherever it is implemented, but to use your own argument - unless you increase security everywhere then they will just go after softer targets that have less or no security. I will not defend the arguments of those who consider the only solution to be the outright elimination of personal firearms; as I have said before, I don't think that is practical or reasonable in the context of the culture in the US. In my view, effective gun control means a combination of increased screening, perhaps a licensing system, and stricter requirements to secure the weapons - none of which, in my view, is unreasonable, problematic to implement nor significantly infringes on the constitution.
But it would also be hideously difficult to administer. The burden and cost of all the assessing, training and licensing would be huge. Would this be like a general auxiliary police force?
Administer what? Are you speaking specifically of a school guard system or just people in general being allowed to carry fire arms as they see fit to protect themselves and (possibly) others?
I was addressing the suggestion of having a widespread program to train and arm the population. A school guard system would be much more tractable, but still expensive.
I was addressing the suggestion of having a widespread program to train and arm the population.
There needn't be a "program." Let's just let people chose to arm and train themselves.
A school guard system would be much more tractable, but still expensive.
Maybe $10-$20B a year.
Considering how much is spent on things much more stupid and useless, I suspect they could find the money of they wanted to.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I was addressing the suggestion of having a widespread program to train and arm the population.
There needn't be a "program." Let's just let people chose to arm and train themselves.
I'm sure that you are familiar with the current concealed carry laws. How is this any different? The training is time-consuming and the level of participation is below 5% in the states that publish records.
A school guard system would be much more tractable, but still expensive.
Maybe $10-$20B a year.
Considering how much is spent on things much more stupid and useless, I suspect they could find the money of they wanted to.
Agreed. But won't they just target other places instead?
Agreed. But won't they just target other places instead?
Certainly they might. So, again, people need to be prepared to defend themselves. If not, they might become a victim of something like this. But since these situations are outliers most people, probably rightly, don't spend a lot of time preparing for it. Most people are probably making the rational judgement that the likelihood of being involved with an event like this doesn't warrant large expenditures of time and money to prepare for it. However, there are certain places, like schools for example, where it might warrant doing more to be prepared for such events.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Ah, yes, the good old days when the mentally ill were chained, flogged, drenched in cold water and flogged some more. That damn liberalism put an end to those good times, didn't it? Wouldn't it be great if the government could do like the Soviets and just lock away anyone they said was mentally ill. Wow, what a wonderful world we would live in then.
And, do you know why it's not allowed that the "mentally ill" be locked up and why people can't be arrested until they commit a crime? It's that same document you use to justify your unfettered ownership of any and all weapons you see fit to purchase, apparently up to and including tanks and artillery. The hypocrisy of blaming the problems of the mentally ill on "liberalism" is beyond the pale. If you right-wing reactionaries would get out of the way, the mentally ill would be getting all the help they need. Yes, I'm calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. You're calling for the repeal of, among other things, due process -- i.e., the end of a free society.
Sorry, but gun ownership in this country is largely driven by people trying to compensate for inferiority complexes, the very kind of people who are likely to shoot up a theatre or school, or megalomaniacs with a god complex, who think they are mankind's salvation. The NRA is a tool of the gun manufacturers, and its members are dupes, and crazies. People who say things like, "Guns are no more dangerous than any other mechanical device," with a straight face and probably even believe it, despite the fact that it's a patently stupid statement.
There's nothing rational about a civilian wanting to own an assault rifle. The very desire is a sign of mental illness. Of a deep underlying psychopathy. Under your proposal, these people should be locked up and kept off the streets. Sure, that's a way to handle it. I think it would be better to simply not let these mentally ill people satisfy their every desire and purchase weapons of mass destruction.
I'll repeat, it's the policies that the NRA ransoms lawmakers to ram down our throats that led directly to this massacre of innocents. The NRA is directly responsible for what happened. If you support the NRA, you share in that responsibility. Now, like most addicts, gun fetishists (and the liberals would like to get you help) don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. So naturally, you all get a little bristly and claim to be indignant when your share of responsibility in the matter is pointed out, that you are accomplices to child murder. Well, get mad all you want about being called out on your responsibility, but you cannot hide from the fact that you helped create this tragedy.
Unfortunately, even tossing in the splendidly pejorative "liberal reasoning" does not make this argument work. If fires, started by matches, were a method of mass murder that had been shown to be effective and regularly used in the US, then it would be valid. Otherwise it's just obfuscation.
Actually the obfuscation is to call what has happened in Connecticut "regular" at all. They are far from regular and in fact are statistical outliers. Mass murder is not regular at all.
Fires are common. Death by fire is estimated at 11 people per million in 2009. That means about 3,500 people die from it every year. That is certainly a higher number in terms of deaths. Mass murder is a surprisingly low number, four or more deaths. However again, that number can be met by a single drunk driving hitting a single family on a drive home. The point is that while tragic, it isn't able to be avoided just by altering or passing more legislation. This seems to be easily understood in contexts outside of guns. No one expects the number of traffic fatalities to be zero as an example.
I think it very important to note that the number of instances being discussed are so small that no matter the variable being discussed, it is hard to establish a trend. Are you claiming you feel more comfortable saying that Oklahoma City doesn't really count because it is one incident but school shootings are do when they are almost as rare? Is there anything to show a statistical increase in frequency or severity to justify a change in what we are doing? Can we show our prior changes caused a statistically significant change? Why endorse a solution that hasn't proven to be effective and why not reexamine what might be the root cause rather than just noting the tool and making it harder to use?
We certainly have more restrictions on gun purchases than in the past. I'm not seeing any decline in these already rare events. For most people, that would mean re-examining the claimed solution, not just bringing out a bigger hammer.
I don't believe anyone said it had to be a big explosion like in a movie. Gas vapors burn like that. Gasoline itself does not. My dad used to have a favorite trick where he would toss a match into a bowl of gas. It wouldn't ignite because there were no fumes. Really though it isn't hard to create something that sprays the gas at all though.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Unfortunately, even tossing in the splendidly pejorative "liberal reasoning" does not make this argument work. If fires, started by matches, were a method of mass murder that had been shown to be effective and regularly used in the US, then it would be valid. Otherwise it's just obfuscation.
Actually the obfuscation is to call what has happened in Connecticut "regular" at all. They are far from regular and in fact are statistical outliers. Mass murder is not regular at all.
Fires are common. Death by fire is estimated at 11 people per million in 2009. That means about 3,500 people die from it every year. That is certainly a higher number in terms of deaths. Mass murder is a surprisingly low number, four or more deaths. However again, that number can be met by a single drunk driving hitting a single family on a drive home. The point is that while tragic, it isn't able to be avoided just by altering or passing more legislation. This seems to be easily understood in contexts outside of guns. No one expects the number of traffic fatalities to be zero as an example.
This discussion is certainly following the standard progression. You have apparently moved on to the position that mass murder is not very common and no different from accidental death, and so we really don't need to worry about it.
Assuming that you know what the term "statistical outlier" means, you presumably are referring to the observation that if one plots the frequency of events as a function of number of deaths per event, one gets a distribution that exhibits a maximum at 1 and decreases monotonically, but non-linearly, with increasing number leading to a tailed distribution, and that we can state that mass murder events are out on the tail. That is correct. But there have been over 50 mass murder shootings (FBI definition) in the last 30 years, killing around 450 victims, or an average of 15 per year (not the 4 that you quoted), and that only works as an argument if (1) you are comfortable dismissing those events as rare and (2) one restricts the discussion to mass murder. Not that it needs to, but is there a reason why this discussion does not include all gun-related homicides, which, in the US, number around 15,000 per year (excluding suicides) and represent about 2/3 of all homicides?
And what point are you trying to make relating to auto deaths? That provided that guns are not the leading cause of death (even though the are the leading method of homicide) we don't need to worry about them. That we shouldn't try to control gun crime unless we also try to prevent drink-driving? QED.
I think it very important to note that the number of instances being discussed are so small that no matter the variable being discussed, it is hard to establish a trend. Are you claiming you feel more comfortable saying that Oklahoma City doesn't really count because it is one incident but school shootings are do when they are almost as rare? Is there anything to show a statistical increase in frequency or severity to justify a change in what we are doing? Can we show our prior changes caused a statistically significant change? Why endorse a solution that hasn't proven to be effective and why not reexamine what might be the root cause rather than just noting the tool and making it harder to use?
So you have taken the argument one step further; you have arbitrarily defined mass shootings as rare, and now posit that since mass murder using explosives is also rare, they should be regarded as equivalent. In contrast to the 50+ shooting events in the last 30 years, there has been one using explosives, ever, as far as I can tell. The gun homicide rate, as mentioned above, is currently running at ~ 15,000 per year, while the explosives homicide rate is, and has been since 1995, zero. So, yes - I'm relatively unconcerned about a recurrence of the Oklahoma City event.
Could you just clarify what trend you are not seeing here? Would you like to reconsider your statement that they are equally rare?
Consider also, aside from the actual occurrence rates, the prerequisites for the two kinds of event:
Which of those would you expect to be the problem, and which would you direct your efforts at reducing?
Explosives are a red herring, but even worse, you are still trying to use them to disguise a fundamentally flawed premise - that unless we can prove in advance that any particular regulatory mechanism will eliminate these events then we should not even attempt to try to reduce them. And then you top it all with a sanctimonious "we should address the root cause instead". What would that be then, and how might you propose to address it instead?
You haven't seen a decline? How do you know that with increasing population, changing culture and demographics, and more overall crime, that there would not otherwise have been an increase? See - I can do that too. There are many unknowns. One thing that is not unknown is that guns are the tool of choice for the majority of homicides.
I don't believe anyone said it had to be a big explosion like in a movie. Gas vapors burn like that. Gasoline itself does not. My dad used to have a favorite trick where he would toss a match into a bowl of gas. It wouldn't ignite because there were no fumes. Really though it isn't hard to create something that sprays the gas at all though.
The flash point of gasoline is - 45˚F, so it was not a lack of fumes unless you were somewhere really cold, it was a lack of oxygen taking the vapor mixture outside its flammability limits.
Not that hard, you think? Does that mean that you think that you know how to do it? I flat out guarantee you that even if I gave you the necessary components you could not reproducibly generate a useful fuel-air explosion.
As the NRA rightly suggests, the only solution is to hire and arm 100,000 new government employees.
You might have to triple that. If the schools are guarded then they'll go to the shopping mall, and if the shopping mall is guarded then they'll go back to the movie theatre, and if the movie theatre is guarded then they'll go to City Hall, and if City Hall is guarded etc. etc. etc.
The NRA... No Regard for Anyone.
You might have to triple that. If the schools are guarded then they'll go to the shopping mall, and if the shopping mall is guarded then they'll go back to the movie theatre, and if the movie theatre is guarded then they'll go to City Hall, and if City Hall is guarded etc. etc. etc.
First, just because such a measure would protect one space but not others is not a logical reason to not take measures to protect that one space.
Second, some of those spaces (e.g., malls and theaters) are the responsibility of the owners of those facilities to protect their customers if they chose to.
Third, ultimately the responsibility to protect yourself falls to you. So you've just made an argument for individuals to be armed and trained and practiced in the proper use of firearms for defensive purposes. Well done.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
