Chavez told the students he planned to place bombs at the doors that he'd detonate when police arrived, and he threatened to kill students who didn't want to join him, police wrote.
So much for banning guns.
What does that have to do with the argument regarding guns? Unlicensed ownership of explosives is illegal.
Unfortunately if, as you mentioned, you have no training, then more likely you would have ended up as another of the casualties. That also applies to most casual gun owners in my experience.
The high level of private ownership of weapons in the US really is a double-edged sword (please excuse the unintended pun). The higher probability of encountering armed victims has to be a deterrent against many types of crime, especially the home-invasion variety, and offers a very real measure of personal protection. On the other hand, it obviously makes this kind of act easier to carry out. Sure, he could have acquired those weapons illegally if he really wanted to, but that would required a much higher level of determination and planning than needed just to steal his mother's guns. Lowering barriers to any behavior increases the probability that the behavior will occur, and this kind of access enables such impulsive acts.
So while it's very difficult to maximize the benefits and minimize downside of widespread gun ownership, I agree that improved control over who has access to weapons is a much more realistic goal than banning or heavily restricting private ownership.
The system worked perfectly with regard to denying this killer firearms. The point is that legislation has limits. Proposing more of something that has limits doesn't really offer a new or better solution. He specifically attempt to purchase his own firearms and was denied in part due to a waiting period. He then choose to break the law and murder his own mother to take her legally acquired weapons and use them for illegal purposes.
Proposing more laws for lawbreakers to break doesn't fix anything. It just doesn't. This murderer violated all manner of laws. I suspect when a bigger profile is developed that it will be discovered much like at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora(if we are including non-school shootings) that the firearms laws were the ones actually most closely followed. What won't have been followed will be laws about them speaking strangely and making threats, stalking people, etc. People in our society are allowed to act in a menacing, threatening and harmful manner for an extended period and it is tolerated. We are told their rights end at our nose and that the speech they engage in that should amount to a threat isn't really.
Here in the US, we are still playing out the last throes of the "macho, cowboy, rugged-indivisualism" mentality, which was the traditionalist way of America in the 1700s to 1800s - and now its remnants are butting heads with modern industrial society, where the dubious privilege of dog-eat-style of capitalism (minus the social safety nets that would be required meet basic civilized tenets within such a system) come up against a population awash in deadly weapons. Keeping things the way they are is obviously unacceptable... and just like at some point, a killer (or group) with fully automatic weapons will open fire in some place with many more people in a densely packed environment (such as a large crowded theater or sports stadium), where the potential death toll won't be a couple dozen, but perhaps hundreds, or even thousands.
Every time this happens, we wring our hands and mourn the dead, the media spouts its usual crap - talking around the problem, naive do-gooders on the left yell "more gun control", and those on the right yell back "hands off the 2nd Amendment". And then, in our microsecond attention span society, we forget, until the next massacre or shooting spree the next week. It's as if we are carrying on the same way, expecting things to change.... which is the very definition of insanity.
I'm going to suggest you try to reconnect yourself with some facts. You don't look into the faces of any of these killers and see someone trying to be a rugged individualist or a macho cowboy. You see quite the opposite. You see someone who feels entitled and believes that their intelligence should override the rights and results all around them. When confronted by reality, they choose murder. These people, often young men are the exact opposite of what you claim. Instead of feeling like some big hero who can harm whoever they want, they are often goth type outcasts but they feel like the world doesn't respect their intelligence or most of all their solutions. They often write long journals and throw out detailed manifestos about why they are so smart, why we are all so dumb and why we must die for not listening to them. This isn't John Wayne who thinks book learning should bow down to his fist and machismo. They are honor students and graduate students who think their solutions would be listened to work if they shout loud enough with a gun or just murder the dummies that are in the way.
"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
OK, surely we can all now finally admit that America has a (massive) problem.
Its not about firearms. Banning guns and trashing more of our Constitutional liberties is (a) unworkable, and (b) will never solve the problem, in the same way that the wholesale trashing of our rights, overseas wars, and Big Government® domestic surveillance and security measures in the wake of 9/11 has done NOTHING to reduce terrorism (if anything, it's increased). Other countries such as Canada, Israel and Switzerland have comparably high proportions of gun ownership, but have a far lower proportional rate of firearms related homicides.
No amount of security can prevent these terror type events from happening.... and who (in their rational mind) wants to bring up our kids in militarized penal style institutions, masquerading as "schools" where teachers do more policing and security duties than teaching, in which fear is king, and where paranoia and surveillance rules? What kind of generation will result in that kind of "schooling" environment? (uh, scary, and that trend is ongoing).
Its not about video gaming or the "cheapening of life" via the ongoing spate of blood 'n' guts themed action movies. All nations of Earth watch Hollywood fare (love it or loathe it), and don't have the same regularity of apparently motiveless mass killings, or homicides in general. Its not about the internet, its not about illegal drugs, or pornography, or secularism, or socialists, or Scandinavians, or gays, or blacks, or multiculturalism, or Muslims, or the demise of capital punishment - or any of the usual red herrings cited by US traditionalists when trying to explain this, or societal problems generally.
What is happening, to such a relatively greater extent in the US than elsewhere in the industrialized world, that drives people to kill each other so regularly, as is evident by the horrendous homicide and violence statistics? Dare we look in the mirror, or peel back some of the layers and examine our own society, and acknowledge that there are some fundamental flaws which are resulting in a sense of such utter desperation, hopelessness, self-doubt, and rage, and a sense of no hope for the future - that a tiny proportion of our most unstable (younger) citizens are taking the ultimate step by taking out as many people around them as possible (and killing themselves in the process)? In Gaza and the occupied territories, there is a similar sense of utter hopelessness, in their case brought about by foreign oppression, and a small number of their people don a suicide bomb as the ultimate statement of revenge. The Tibetan people are also under the thumb of a brutal regime (the Chinese authorities) - and small number are doing in in their own unique way - by self-immolation. (Perhaps their Tibetan Buddhist tradition is preventing massacres - but as they get divorced from their spiritual roots by Chinese and materialist influence - that may change). Here in mainstream America, there is not the type of foreign oppression as exists in the examples cited above - but something far more subtle and less tangible - figuratively akin to odorless, tasteless gas, that is triggering these horrific outbursts. It may have something to do with the gradual demise of community and the entrenched attitude that a caring society is a sign of weakness, or intrusive government. We need to get to the bottom of this, if we dare, because this violence is not going to stop on its own, and its not going to stop by the use of force.
Here in the US, we are still playing out the last throes of the "macho, cowboy, rugged-indivisualism" mentality, which was the traditionalist way of America in the 1700s to 1800s - and now its remnants are butting heads with modern industrial society, where the dubious privilege of dog-eat-style of capitalism (minus the social safety nets that would be required meet basic civilized tenets within such a system) come up against a population awash in deadly weapons. Keeping things the way they are is obviously unacceptable... and just like at some point, a killer (or group) with fully automatic weapons will open fire in some place with many more people in a densely packed environment (such as a large crowded theater or sports stadium), where the potential death toll won't be a couple dozen, but perhaps hundreds, or even thousands.
Every time this happens, we wring our hands and mourn the dead, the media spouts its usual crap - talking around the problem, naive do-gooders on the left yell "more gun control", and those on the right yell back "hands off the 2nd Amendment". And then, in our microsecond attention span society, we forget, until the next massacre or shooting spree the next week. It's as if we are carrying on the same way, expecting things to change.... which is the very definition of insanity.
The reason this kind of violence happens in America more than anywhere else is because Americans see on the news people being shot and killed every day. They are used to it being a way of settling differences and your typical tough talking American (see SDW's comment above) only serves to make it even more acceptable.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Unfortunately if, as you mentioned, you have no training, then more likely you would have ended up as another of the casualties. That also applies to most casual gun owners in my experience.
The high level of private ownership of weapons in the US really is a double-edged sword (please excuse the unintended pun). The higher probability of encountering armed victims has to be a deterrent against many types of crime, especially the home-invasion variety, and offers a very real measure of personal protection. On the other hand, it obviously makes this kind of act easier to carry out. Sure, he could have acquired those weapons illegally if he really wanted to, but that would required a much higher level of determination and planning than needed just to steal his mother's guns. Lowering barriers to any behavior increases the probability that the behavior will occur, and this kind of access enables such impulsive acts.
So while it's very difficult to maximize the benefits and minimize downside of widespread gun ownership, I agree that improved control over who has access to weapons is a much more realistic goal than banning or heavily restricting private ownership.
The system worked perfectly with regard to denying this killer firearms. The point is that legislation has limits. Proposing more of something that has limits doesn't really offer a new or better solution. He specifically attempt to purchase his own firearms and was denied in part due to a waiting period. He then choose to break the law and murder his own mother to take her legally acquired weapons and use them for illegal purposes.
Proposing more laws for lawbreakers to break doesn't fix anything. It just doesn't. This murderer violated all manner of laws. I suspect when a bigger profile is developed that it will be discovered much like at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora(if we are including non-school shootings) that the firearms laws were the ones actually most closely followed. What won't have been followed will be laws about them speaking strangely and making threats, stalking people, etc. People in our society are allowed to act in a menacing, threatening and harmful manner for an extended period and it is tolerated. We are told their rights end at our nose and that the speech they engage in that should amount to a threat isn't really.
Pointing out the obvious difficulties of proactively mitigating this particular event does not constitute a good argument for the adequacy of current regulations, in my opinion. Unless you believe that a solution lies in reduced gun control, then either we have got it just right or it could be improved. The system may have worked fine denying this subject legal access to firearms, but he found easy access to other legally owned firearms in his own house. That suggests, for example, a discussion on whether gun owners should be required to secure their weapons.
Unfortunately if, as you mentioned, you have no training, then more likely you would have ended up as another of the casualties.
Obviously. I would want to be trained, clearly.
That also applies to most casual gun owners in my experience.
I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever.
Yes.
Does it?
That's true on the surface. But the questions is whether such a barrier would stop him from committing the act.
Lowering barriers to any behavior increases the probability that the behavior will occur, and this kind of access enables such impulsive acts.
Lowering barriers? I disagree that his mother owning guns is "lowering a barrier." Perhaps not having them secured properly is.
Well, that I agree with. I think we still need better background checks and mental health evaluations/treatment.
Please continue.
Does he need to? The story was about a kid who wanted to kill people by blowing them up. Hello?
I think anyone in possession of lawn fertilizer should face 30 in prison. It's too dangerous and can cause mass casualties. Fertilizing one's lawn is outdated anyway, and not very good for the environment! Human life comes first! We need to get that fertilizer out of the hands of private citizens to prevent accidents. After all, any home that has lawn fertilizer is 100% more likely to suffer a lawn fertilizer-related accident than a non-lawn fertilizer home. Lawn fertilizer should only be used by ChemLawn and various professional sports groundskeepers. When is the time to talk about lawn fertilizer? It should be after the next domestic terrorist attack. Lawn fertilizer kills and has no place in modern society.
See how easy that was?
Obviously. I would want to be trained, clearly.
I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever.
Yes.
Does it?
That's true on the surface. But the questions is whether such a barrier would stop him from committing the act.
Lowering barriers? I disagree that his mother owning guns is "lowering a barrier." Perhaps not having them secured properly is.
Well, that I agree with. I think we still need better background checks and mental health evaluations/treatment.
Does he need to? The story was about a kid who wanted to kill people by blowing them up. Hello?
I think anyone in possession of lawn fertilizer should face 30 in prison. It's too dangerous and can cause mass casualties. Fertilizing one's lawn is outdated anyway, and not very good for the environment! Human life comes first! We need to get that fertilizer out of the hands of private citizens to prevent accidents. After all, any home that has lawn fertilizer is 100% more likely to suffer a lawn fertilizer-related accident than a non-lawn fertilizer home. Lawn fertilizer should only be used by ChemLawn and various professional sports groundskeepers. When is the time to talk about lawn fertilizer? It should be after the next domestic terrorist attack. Lawn fertilizer kills and has no place in modern society.
See how easy that was?
There are very tight laws in place about how much fertiliser people can have. It's rightly, closely monitored.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
And the outpouring of Christian (well, claimed Christian) warmth continues from Westboro: they will picket.
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."
“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.”
Unfortunately if, as you mentioned, you have no training, then more likely you would have ended up as another of the casualties.
Obviously. I would want to be trained, clearly.
That also applies to most casual gun owners in my experience.
I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever.
How on earth would you have any clue what my level of experience is? Other than that I alluded to having some level of experience which you apparently doubt, for no apparent reason that I can see. In any case, your doubt is most definitely misplaced on this one.
How on earth would you have any clue what my level of experience is? Other than that I alluded to having some level of experience which you apparently doubt, for no apparent reason that I can see. In any case, your doubt is most definitely misplaced on this one.
Because if you do have experience it would hurt his argument.
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."
How on earth would you have any clue what my level of experience is? Other than that I alluded to having some level of experience which you apparently doubt, for no apparent reason that I can see. In any case, your doubt is most definitely misplaced on this one.
Because if you do have experience it would hurt his argument.
Except I wasn't even invoking my experience as authority. Although his guess is way off target, I only wrote "in my experience" to forestall the inevitable "prove it" demands that ensue when any statement resembling an assertion of a wider extent of fact is made. So while you are correct that his expression of disbelief is a purely ad hominem argument, he also, apparently, completely missed the point of the comment.
I actually wasn't expecting anyone to argue with the point I was making - that not only would someone, such as SDW, who had never fired a weapon most likely fare very badly against a committed, well-armed and armored opponent, but that so too would most casual gun owners who struggle reliably to hit a target even under controlled conditions and at close range.
A logical discourse. One that will likely be missed.
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."
Maybe some of them had kids at the school opposite? Must be an odd feeling selling a gun to someone who blows away your own kids with them. You can't buy back your kids, they're gone and probably not too happy about it either.
Just across the highway from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in a stately white building with an American flag flying out front, is the headquarters of the United States’ premiere industry association for gun retailers. It’s not the consumer-focused National Rifle Association. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has kept a lower profile over the years, but is likely the second-most-powerful force for firearms use in the country."
~ http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111148/three-miles-tragic-shooting-bastion-gun-rights#
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Are posts just disappearing now?
I'm sure the people in Norway will be happy to know that there were no attacks there and we just imagined them even though they follow the Nordic model that is features many aspects of socialism.
Don't forget that the horrific terrorist attack in Norway - a very rare type of event in any Scandinavian nation - was perpetrated by a hard line right winger (Anders Breivik), who was heavily influenced/inspired by the US pro Israel neoconservative cartel - represented by the likes of David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes etc. - and followed their manifesto somewhat literally: he murdered 69 people (mostly unarmed kids) on that small island, and 8 more with a massive car bomb in the capital Oslo. Predictably, the US corporate weasel-media (and several of our more vocal Arab/Islamophobes haters on this board) instantly blamed Muslims before any facts came out. The dismay at being unable to blame those that we Americans have been taught to unconditionally hate was quite a shock to the comfort zone... and led to a far more muted set of reports on one of the worst terrorist incidents in European history. This maniac murdered a bunch of politically active kids - and this was seen as a "heroic" act by some of the more vocal members of the US hardline rightwing in Washington DC.
So much for the "war on terrorism". Terrorism is just fine if its targeted against those with human, as opposed to corporate and élite, interests. 
What does that have to do with the argument regarding guns? Unlicensed ownership of explosives is illegal.
You guys are priceless. So, as it happens, is murdering people with guns.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
And in the category of Using Ridiculous Outliers to Distract Everyone, the winner is...
And the outpouring of Christian (well, claimed Christian) warmth continues from Westboro: they will picket.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
What does that have to do with the argument regarding guns? Unlicensed ownership of explosives is illegal.
You guys are priceless. So, as it happens, is murdering people with guns.
But unlicensed gun ownership, which would be the logical equivalent of owning explosives, is not.
Priceless? Which guys? Is that really all you have as an argument? That is quite pitiful.
But unlicensed gun ownership, which would be the logical equivalent of owning explosives, is not.
You don't seem to get it: More laws (banning guns or what-not) aren't going to stop these things. The problem here is not not enough laws.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
But unlicensed gun ownership, which would be the logical equivalent of owning explosives, is not.
You don't seem to get it: More laws (banning guns or what-not) aren't going to stop these things. The problem here is not not enough laws.
No, I get it, and I am not in favor of banning gun ownership anyway, as you would have noticed had you bothered to read my earlier post. But nice attempt to change the subject.
No, I get it, and I am not in favor of banning gun ownership anyway, as you would have noticed had you bothered to read my earlier post.
True, I've not read all of your posts. I was responding to your direct response to me in which you said:
Which is in response my my statement: "So much for banning guns." which was in response to a post by Hands about one kid who wanted to (among other things) plant bombs at a school.
The point here is that sufficiently motivated individuals will a) ignore the law, b) obtain the devices, materials and tools they need to do so. So the push to ban or restrict or "license" gun ownership is superficial and short-sighted. As you point out, explosives are restricted and must be licensed and are highly regulated...yet...violent criminals still use them and try to use them or can even formulate their own. Taking a gun into a school is also illegal (or at least restricted...they are "gun free zone.) Murder is also illegal, but people keep doing this.
The point here is that the problem is not the devices...the use of these to kill is a symptom of a deeper problem.
But nice attempt to change the subject.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Oddly... how come nobody at the school, as regards the teaching staff, has heard of Nancy Lanza? Wall St. Journal article here.
A former school board official in Newtown called into question earlier reports that Nancy Lanza had been connected to Sandy Hook Elementary School, possibly as part of the teaching staff.
“No one has heard of her,” said Lillian Bittman, who served on the local school board until 2011. “Teachers don’t know her.”
No it isn't.
Yes it is. You can only buy large amounts of fertilizer if your a farmer or work in the industry. You try going to your local farm supplier and buying a ton of fertilizer and see what happens. You'll be instantly reported to the FBI for investigation.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
What is essential is why was this woman so much into loving guns.Especially semi-automatic weapons.Another puzzling fact is why was these weapons so easily accessible so her mentally ill son get obtain them? A lot of questions are arising from these senseless killings I see now which have to be dealt with asap.
Really? What magic happens when we have those rather than keyed locks? I assume these would be government mandated?
Pointing out the obvious difficulties of proactively mitigating this particular event does not constitute a good argument for the adequacy of current regulations, in my opinion. Unless you believe that a solution lies in reduced gun control, then either we have got it just right or it could be improved. The system may have worked fine denying this subject legal access to firearms, but he found easy access to other legally owned firearms in his own house. That suggests, for example, a discussion on whether gun owners should be required to secure their weapons.
No it suggests that there are limits to what legislation can accomplish. Let's just pass legislation tomorrow making it illegal to die from cancer. Would that fix the problem? Of course not. In almost every one of these cases it is argued that the perpertrator is mentally ill. Honestly I'm going to argue that the attitude in your post is part of the problem. The person who is going to commit the crime should be at the center of all efforts and they should have their rights restricted. Instead, and this is increasingly the norm, you expect everyone on all sides to go to extraordinary lengths just to avoid dealing with the problem head on. People who have the profile ought to be examined and if they are found at an early age to be mentally ill, then steps should be taken.
Instead it will be like when we board a airplane and we have grandma in a wheelchair getting her colostomy bag spilled because she might be a terrorist.
There are very tight laws in place about how much fertiliser people can have. It's rightly, closely monitored.
Tell that to the people who died in Norway.
I don't have to defend my statements. Your replies speak volumes.
How on earth would you have any clue what my level of experience is? Other than that I alluded to having some level of experience which you apparently doubt, for no apparent reason that I can see. In any case, your doubt is most definitely misplaced on this one.
His point is valid. Appeal to Authority isn't some made up fallacy. If you are going to claim authority then support your claim of expertise.
You guys are priceless. So, as it happens, is murdering people with guns.
If we write the word utopia, it has to happen. They just can't see it can they.
Then we can pass a law making it illegal to cut off someone's finger to get access to their guns via biometric trigger locks because someone might kill their own Mom, but they would never cut off her finger and use it to make available her guns. Why it would be against the law!!!
When do we ever actually make the person who is the perp jump through some additional hoops? The gun owners can jump through more hoops. The schools can be locked down some more somehow. Everyone else undergo all manner of additional efforts but the person who murdered everyone, they get off scot-free.
They do in life and in these schools as well. These kids are seen and identified for the most part. In this instance the school had to buzz in everyone who came into the front office. Most schools are similar in this day and age. There isn't a way into the school but through the front office. Everything else is gated and locked. The perp just shot his way through the front office. So what is next, cement barricades in case they try to drive a car through the steel gates? Bullet proof plexiglass for every school window?
When do we actually demand something of the criminal? When do we say people of a certain profile and who have made certain threats and statements need some extra hoops in their lives?
"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
No, I get it, and I am not in favor of banning gun ownership anyway, as you would have noticed had you bothered to read my earlier post.
True, I've not read all of your posts. I was responding to your direct response to me in which you said:
Which is in response my my statement: "So much for banning guns." which was in response to a post by Hands about one kid who wanted to (among other things) plant bombs at a school.
The point here is that sufficiently motivated individuals will a) ignore the law, b) obtain the devices, materials and tools they need to do so. So the push to ban or restrict or "license" gun ownership is superficial and short-sighted. As you point out, explosives are restricted and must be licensed and are highly regulated...yet...violent criminals still use them and try to use them or can even formulate their own. Taking a gun into a school is also illegal (or at least restricted...they are "gun free zone.) Murder is also illegal, but people keep doing this.
The point here is that the problem is not the devices...the use of these to kill is a symptom of a deeper problem.
The contrast between guns and explosives does not strengthen your argument at all; in fact it considerably weakens it. Violent crime involving explosives is virtually non-existent in the US, and for very simple reasons.
Commercial secondary explosives cannot be purchased in the US without an ATF license; military explosives cannot be purchased at all. Both are difficult to obtain illegally since their storage is heavily regulated. Even if they are acquired they are shock insensitive and very difficult to initiate without detonators (a.k.a blasting caps), which are even more tightly controlled.
Secondary explosives can also be improvised, but not easily, and tend either to be almost impossible to initiate without detonators and boosters, such as AN-based formulations (the fertilizer kind), which are almost entirely cap-insensitive, or they are very unstable, hazardous to make, and difficult to implement, such as those used, or attempted to be used, by less well equipped terrorist groups in Europe in the past couple of decades. The movie industry is responsible for a quite remarkable level of public misunderstanding of the availability, behavior and utility of explosives.
So presenting the incident of a student threatening to blow up his school is misleading, because the chances of him obtaining the resources to carry out the threat are negligible. Explosive regulations, combined with the basic difficulties of using explosives, quite effectively prevent him from using that method. Guns, on the other hand, he can likely acquire and use with relative ease. It takes much less skill to load and shoot a gun than to build a viable IED, even if one had the materials.
But nice attempt to change the subject.
The subject that I was addressing was your non sequitur that banning gun ownership was pointless because a student was threatening to use explosives (which would be incorrect even if explosives were readily available), rather than the wealth of other arguments against banning gun ownership that actually make sense that you diverted to when I pointed it out.
Pointing out the obvious difficulties of proactively mitigating this particular event does not constitute a good argument for the adequacy of current regulations, in my opinion. Unless you believe that a solution lies in reduced gun control, then either we have got it just right or it could be improved. The system may have worked fine denying this subject legal access to firearms, but he found easy access to other legally owned firearms in his own house. That suggests, for example, a discussion on whether gun owners should be required to secure their weapons.
No it suggests that there are limits to what legislation can accomplish. Let's just pass legislation tomorrow making it illegal to die from cancer. Would that fix the problem? Of course not. In almost every one of these cases it is argued that the perpertrator is mentally ill. Honestly I'm going to argue that the attitude in your post is part of the problem. The person who is going to commit the crime should be at the center of all efforts and they should have their rights restricted. Instead, and this is increasingly the norm, you expect everyone on all sides to go to extraordinary lengths just to avoid dealing with the problem head on. People who have the profile ought to be examined and if they are found at an early age to be mentally ill, then steps should be taken.
Instead it will be like when we board a airplane and we have grandma in a wheelchair getting her colostomy bag spilled because she might be a terrorist.
None of my arguments are contrary to any of that. I completely agree with your comments here and previously about dealing with the individual issues and changing the culture, but it does not mean that regulatory methods have no place and should not also be optimized.
How on earth would you have any clue what my level of experience is? Other than that I alluded to having some level of experience which you apparently doubt, for no apparent reason that I can see. In any case, your doubt is most definitely misplaced on this one.
His point is valid. Appeal to Authority isn't some made up fallacy. If you are going to claim authority then support your claim of expertise.
His point is not just invalid, it is an ad hominem attack. It does not even address whether my observation was correct, although I assume that he is, rather bizarrely, claiming that it is not. And so you missed both my original point and, apparently, my subsequent discussion of that response. I'm not appealing to authority - I wrote "in my experience" precisely to make clear that it was my opinion based on what I have seen. I claim no authority, because, on an internet discussion forum, without providing my credentials (which even then would likely be dismissed), I, just like everyone else, have no authority.
Gun control is a poor (and dangerous) substitute for self control.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
-Justice (and homophobic asshole) Scalia
“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.”
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
-Justice Scalia
None of which appears to have stopped this terrible tragedy.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
If this country must have guns, I like tonton's idea of biometric trigger locks.
“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.”
A view from the other side of the world:
Bill Bennett thinks we should arm schools.
-----
Pro-gun congress people and NRA won't go on TV interviews:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/david-gregory-pro-gun-rights-senators_n_2311559.html
-----
Texas congress guy thinks more guns will solve the problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/louie-gohmert-guns_n_2311379.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."
Bill Bennett thinks we should arm schools.
And he's probably right. In this particular case and armed security guard at the entrance likely would have ended this thing with only a single casualty: The shooter.
Pro-gun congress people and NRA won't go on TV interviews:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/david-gregory-pro-gun-rights-senators_n_2311559.html
I can't blame them. That's a trap right now. No sense in trying to reason with people who are largely in an emotional and unreasonable state of mind at this time. That's not the best time to have policy discussions. It is appropriate for them to respect the victims and families and mourn with them and leave the anti-gun folks to exploit this tragedy (as they are wont to do) and wait until things have calmed down to continue to make their reasonable and rational points.
Texas congress guy thinks more guns will solve the problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/louie-gohmert-guns_n_2311379.html
Again, he's probably right also.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
And he's probably right. In this particular case and armed security guard at the entrance likely would have ended this thing with only a single casualty: The shooter.
I can't blame them. That's a trap right now. No sense in trying to reason with people who are largely in an emotional and unreasonable state of mind at this time. That's not the best time to have policy discussions. It is appropriate for them to respect the victims and families and mourn with them and leave the anti-gun folks to exploit this tragedy (as they are wont to do) and wait until things have calmed down to continue to make their reasonable and rational points.
Again, he's probably right also.
An armed security guard at the school would in all likelihood have resulted in a dead armed security guard.
It seems funny that the anti-gun control apologists see any action to address the availability off guns as an attempt exploit tragedy. I personally see it as a compassionate people attempting to do something to address a terrible problem.
As for the logic that more guns makes a society safer, say it out loud and see how crazy that logic is.
It's about time that elements within US stopped hanging onto the mindset of 1791 and tried moving into the 21st century. I doubt if those responsible for drafting the Second Amendment to your Constitution would have been able to imagine the firepower of modern weaponry, nor been proud of the level of violence in your society. Nor your sentencing rates. For a country that makes so much of "Liberty" and "Freedom", it is somewhat ironic that you have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world (excepting probably North Korea where the whole population is a prisoner....).
As an aside, it is interesting to note that of 29 perpetrators of mass shootings since Columbine, all have been male and 21 of them (72%) have been white.
