I blame the gun-rights movement.
The reason I say that is this shooting, like all the others, is the direct result of loose gun laws and the resultant gun availability to unfit people. The gun-rights folks, led by the NRA, are responsible for keeping things that way, and in many cases, making them even worse. They spend lots of money and even more time and effort on the internet spreading their false doctrine that more guns means less crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the next days we'll hear countless pro-gun fanatics claim that this wouldn't have happened if the school hadn't been a gun-free zone. They frequently claim that mass shooters calculatingly select gun-free zones for their attacks. This is a double lie.
The truth is, as was probably the case today, spree shooters generally go to the place of their grievance regardless of its gun control status. And, as we saw in Phoenix last year, when the shooting takes place where guns are allowed, concealed carry permit holders are powerless to stop it.
Proper gun control laws would eliminate some of these incidents. Gun availability to the unfit, whether they be dangerous criminals or the mentally ill, could easily be diminished by simply closing the private-sale loophole. Borderline psychotics could in many cases be identified before they act, with improved mental health background checks and basic mental health testing. Gun-rights activists are preventing this from happening. That's why they are to blame.
Hopefully, the Presidents tearful remarks today will augur well for the long-overdue changes we need in our gun laws and our attitudes of accepting these all-too-frequent shootings.
In the Tucson event, the only person legally carrying a gun was too far away to intervene. You keep saying there were others, but you have no evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf we allowed teachers to carry and gave them training, things like this could be stopped much earlier. When the bad guy is the only one armed, everyone else is a potential victim.
Connecticut already has a lot of the laws that you want. The reports at present say that the shooter bought his guns legally. The kind of examination to be able to predict this behavior takes a lot more than we have time and psychologists to offer.
One psychologist on NPR this afternoon said that it's possible to make a profile of the shooter, but there's no way to predict that someone will do a thing like this. The vast majority of people who exhibit the symptoms of a mass shooter never harm anyone.
As always, you're trying to punish good gun owners for the actions of a few. If all you want is to improve the background check system and mental health reporting, I'd be happy to join in. The trouble is that I know that you want much more.
With regard to the President, he'll meet with opposition in Congress if he tries anything like what you want. That's the excellent character of our system of government. We have brakes on knee-jerk reactions. We have protections of basic rights.
The event here is an outrage. Remember that the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of our gun owners, are good people. That's the necessary understanding in a representative democracy.
This may be America's Port Arthur.
DeleteExpect new laws. There may be empty space in your safe by this time next year.
Nothing changed after V-tech. Nothing changed after Giffords. Nothing changed after TDKR shooting. Nothing changed after the temple shooting.
DeleteThis is not going to happen. But keep hoping whatever you want, EN.
Port Arthur? The U.S. is not Australia.. here you would have to have an Article V convention to address negating the second amendment.. but remember folks, the amendment is a limitation on what the Government can do, it is NOT the source of the right to keep and bear arms, which is INHERENT.
DeleteGreg, the Gabby Giffords shooting took place in AZ where anyone can carry a gun concealed without the least requirements or qualifications. You demand evidence for something that is simple common sense, yet you believe there are millions of DGU, 95% of which are the brandishing kind = no evidence.
DeleteIt is possible that someone else on the scene was armed. If so, that person apparently acted correctly, rather than shooting wildly.
DeleteIn the incident in Newtown, teachers heard the gunfire. Had they been armed, they could have locked their doors, got their students behind as much cover as was available, and taken up a position to cover the entrance.
They know the school's faculty and many of the students on sight. A police officer wears a uniform. The chances of teachers shooting one of the good guys are far lower than the chance that they could stop the madman before he does more harm.
It's more than possible and it's more than one. If they calmly decided not to even draw their guns in obedience to the 4 Rules, they proved the point I keep trying to make. Concealed carry guys on the scene rarely can save the day. You guys live in a fantasy world in which you're all Hollywood-type heroes, in your own minds.
DeleteNot at all.
Delete1. Again, you have no evidence that anyone else in the Tucson incident was armed beyond the one man who was distant.
2. We don't say that carrying a gun guarantees that we'll never be harmed and will always be able to save the day. Carrying a gun improves the odds. Training and study improves those odds even more. Why can't you understand that the world isn't entirely black or white?
"I blame the gun-rights movement."
ReplyDeleteI blame the shooter. Funny, the way that is
It's hard to say I told you so, over the dead bodies of 5 year old children.
ReplyDelete"Ensure domestic tranquility"
The founders would surely be revisiting their second amendment in light of our modern murder society.
No knife, ice pick, car, baseball bat, any weapon can kill like a modern gun.
Nut jobs kill, but they kill more with an automatic gun, than they could with any other weapon.
"Nut jobs kill, but they kill more with an automatic gun, than they could with any other weapon."
DeleteAutomatic, you say? Was it semiautomatic or fully automatic?
"Nut jobs kill, but they kill more with an automatic gun, than they could with any other weapon."
DeleteFunny, the worst school killing in history was in 1927 and was an explosive bomb.
What's the difference, a split second
DeleteSteve said... "Nut jobs kill, but they kill more with an automatic gun, than they could with any other weapon."
DeleteNews reports indicate he used two semi-automatic handguns and don't forget the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building where 168 people were killed and nearly 700 wounded, all with fertilizer, diesel and a truck.
Except for the "automatic" part, Steve is exactly right and you guy know it. In light of this terrible tragedy, you guys should drop your usual defensive bullshit.
DeleteSure, there's been the occasional bombing which has racked up a higher death toll for a single incident, but does that compare to the many many mass shootings we have? No, of course not. Shame on you for even mentioning it.
The lethality and availability of guns makes them peerless in the killing game.
How many were killed and injured in Oklahoma City? Compare that number to the total of all the mass shootings from that Mother Jones article.
DeleteAnd your point is what, make it easier still for lunatics and maniacs to get guns? Or should we make that more difficult?
DeleteMy point is that shouting for new laws because of this incident is plain hysteria. These incidents are rare.
DeleteAs I've said to you before, if you have a way of making it more difficult for crazy people to get guns without also making it more difficult for ordinary people to get guns, I'll listen. You don't have anything like that.
This is in defense of what?
ReplyDeleteOutrageous lose gun laws in the 21st century of the most violent country on Earth.
Stop defending the indefensible, and sounding like an idiot.
Do we have to accept dead 5 year old children, so you can have your gun?
How many people die in America every year from gun shot?
Come on, you know the number.
SICK
Loose laws are not the problem, mental health, gangs and suicides are the most common problems. You are trying to demonize all gun owners for the actions of a few people, this is illogical.. You know how many people die annually from gun violence? Approximately 30,000, which includes gang violence, suicides, JUSTIFIED shootings by law enforcement and Citizens. Law abiding gun owners/permit holders are the SAFEST demographic in the U.S., weird eh? Oh, and .0001 percent of guns are used in crime, so how do you justify your hyperbole?
DeleteTo deny guns have no responsibility in this, is laughable, if it were not so deadly.
DeleteRex. Jim? Keep defending guns, as children die.
To deny gun control laws have no responsibility in this is a BOLD FACED LIE! Keep trying to ban guns as victims are gunned down in your "gun free zones". School shootings increased dramatically after 1990 when congress turned all schools into gun free zones. Today adds to the growing number of school shootings that prove that law is an epic FAIL
DeleteThe most violent country on Earth? Mexico is in a state of slow-boil civil war. South Africa and Russia have murder rates much higher than ours. Then there's Somalia. We aren't the most violent by far.
DeleteBut contrary to what you think, my guns didn't kill anyone today. They haven't killed anyone while I've owned them. (I have a few W.W. II surplus rifles, so I can't vouch for their history.) The same is true about the guns of the vast majority of gun owners. When you stop obsessing on something that isn't the cause, then we may have ground to talk.
Total BS
DeleteTotal BS? I quote you facts, and you call it bullshit. Typical.
DeleteFrail Liberty pointed out how bombs are worse than guns. Now Anonymous is telling us the problem is gun-free zones.
DeleteAs I mentioned in the post, this is, I don't know what to call it, astraw-man argument or a red herring or just bullshit. The truth is spree shooters go to the place of their grievance. Cho did it at VA Tech, Loughner did it at the Phoenix political rally and yesterday Adam did it at his mother's school. They don't choose gun-free zones for their target-rich environment, they go to the place of their grievance. If you noticed, Loughner did his thing in a place that allowed guns and since it was in Arizona you can be sure there were armed citizens in the crowd. Sadly, not one of them was able to intervene. So the "gun-free zone" argument is a double lie. First of all, spree shooters don't choose them, per se, and secondly, even non-gun-free zones make no difference in the grisly outcome.
Mike - double wrong:
DeleteFirst - I was only correcting a misstatement that nut jobs kill more with automatic gun than any other type of weapon. That is one thing I try to do here - keep people honest. The biggest mass murders in history were not wrought with firearms at all.
Second - I have agreed with you that many shootings do involve a shooter that takes out his wrath on the place of his grievance. But how incredibly dishonest of you to intentionally leave out the recent shooters who did, in fact, pick some place at random. The Auruoa and Clackamas shooters chose those targets are random. And word now is that the shooter's mother did not work at the school. So we will have to wait and see on this incident as well.
Irresponsible and misleading statements like these are the reason productive dialog cannot be made.
Finally, to say that one incident that occurred where guns were allowed out of the dozens that occur in the GFZ invalidates the argument that a someone carrying concealed can make a positive difference is totally asinine.
DeleteEspecially in the face of the half a dozen or so incidents where a citizen HAS stopped the carnage.
I understand you disagree with many of us. But please please try to at least be honest. You can make you case without distorting reality.
Mikeb,
Delete1. Regarding the Tucson shooting, you're only guessing that there were other armed good citizens nearby. You don't know that.
2. Since you raised the question of evidence about showing a gun counting as a defensive gun use, I'll remind you that the "victim" can file a police report. If said person doesn't talk to the cops, that's an indication that he was up to no good when the armed citizen showed a gun.
3. You are correct to say that in many cases, the shooter targets the persons and area of his grievance. Crazies tend to go after places with lots of people. But a gun-free zone just about guarantees that the good people will be unarmed. That fact you never address, except to moan about how someone might snap. It comes down to the truth that you want victims unarmed.
Mikeb, (CSGV), what "proper gun control laws" do you believe would have stopped this event?
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of a fucking asshole gunsuck is a "rev"?
DeleteIf you are a minister, you fucking gunsuck asshole, you are the kind of piece of crap that Geezus warned us against.
"gunsuck"
DeleteThat's a new one
Rev. Jim, You can click on the link in my post to see what I believe are the proper gun control laws. But your question is a trick. You cannot work backwards from a particular incident and say what would have prevented it. My gun control proposals would certainly prevent many similar incidents.
DeleteMikeb, your proposals could prevent incidents like this one, although you should remember that often, the mass killer bought the guns legally, and these incidents happen in states with strict gun laws as often as in other states.
DeleteBut these incidents are rare. As shocking as they are, they are rare. Your proposals would have little to no effect on the typical ways that criminals use guns. Ban guns even, and criminals will have them smuggled in from other countries along with drugs and illegal aliens.
What your proposals would certainly do is disarm a lot of good citizens. They would make legal gun ownership so difficult that few would bother.
This leaves us with the following question: Why do you want to disarm the good people?
Often the mass shooters who buy guns legally should not be able to. The background check system needs to be fixed especially in regards the mental health reporting plus, if you remember, I recommend a basic psyche eval of some kind. Don't you think some of these nut jobs would be identified that way?
DeleteIf all you wanted to do was improve the background check system, you'd get no argument from me. The problem is that you want so much more.
DeleteOn the question of psychological testing for gun buyers, name a test that would identify a future mass shooter without generating lots of false positives. How long does that test take? What about the tens of millions of people who already have guns?
Your proposals sound comforting to a weak mind until they're confronted by the practical realities.
I am FUCKING TIRED of the pro-massacre gunsucks telling us that massacres are inevitable. They are not. We anti-massacre types need to get active:
ReplyDelete1) End the gun show loophole where pro-massacre gunsucks sell guns to felons, lunatics, and people with protection orders.
2) End the ability of moronic gunsucks to own high-cap easy change magazines.
Stop listening to gunsucks.
I am tired of the LIES told by LIBERALS trying to ban guns. Your gun control laws are responsible for these massacres. You have BLOOD on you hands. Your laws caused this. Your lies aren't working anymore though. Americans have seem through your bullshit and aren't buying it anymore.
DeleteWe are going to see a series of gunsuck control laws. Americans are tired of gunsucks and their pro-massacre policies. We have seen enough dead children and will no longer tolerate gunsucks and their desire to kill children for fun and profit.
DeleteThese guns were legally owned, according to the news reports. In Connecticut, owning a handgun requires a license. I've heard talk about the shooter coming from New Jersey. That state's gun laws are even worse. In other words, the unpredictable happened. The background checks appear to have been done.
DeleteWhen you've got a proposal that would actually work, let us know.
Greg,
DeleteI have made proposals which would have prevented the killer in question from obtaining firearms. Those proposals certainly work in the countries which have enacted them.
Anonymous (the one who coined the term "gunsuck") is absolutely right. Those two simple and obvious changes he mentioned would go a long way in preventing incidents like this one.
DeleteThose two useless suggestions would have done nothing in this case. You'll try a weasel trick by saying "incidents like this one," but the fact is that in this incident, such proposals would have done no good.
DeleteYou don't know that, Greg. Furthermore, my proposals, which offer a comprehensive plan, might very well have. You don't think the mother of this guy is one without any problems at all? In the very least she let her very-disturbed sonny boy have access to her guns.
DeleteThe guns were legally owned--legal in a control freak state. She passed your checks.
DeleteMay I note that Connecticut maintains a (rather strict) assault weapons ban (enacted in 1989 I believe) which severely punishes the possession of an AR-15 which was not registered and grandfathered prior to the ban. The State also requires one to obtain a licence in order to lawfully possess a handgun.
DeleteI would argue for a law mandating the use of a safe, as opposed to expensive and intrusive new restrictions. If the mother used a safe, and killer in question did not know the combination, this may not have ever happened.
Ian
Maybe there should be a law in CT which prohibits allowing your mental case of a son having access to your guns.
Delete["I want to feel sympathy, and empathy, for the poor children, their parents, their schoolmates, and everyone harmed by the bastard who did this thing. I’m glad he’s dead. I wish his evil could be buried with him — and a stake driven through its heart.
ReplyDeleteBut we all know that a greater evil is very much alive — and filled with glee. We all know there’s worse to come. And it’s going to come (as usual) for our freedom.
So how do you even feel what one decent human being should feel toward suffering others — when over the bodies of the dead you can already see the political vultures circling?" * Claire Wolf]
orlin sellers
"Never let a good tragedy go to waste." Asshole Rahm Emmanuel, current shithead mayor of Chicago.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
We are going to control you gunsucks and your endless thirst for dead kindergartners. We are tired of the blood sacrifice of our children to your lust for guns.
DeleteYou've been saying that for decades, Anonymous. The Assault Weapons Ban did nothing, and more and more states are moving our direction. Keep fantasizing.
Delete"We are going to control you gunsucks"
DeleteLet me put this in terms you may understand:
*Ahem*
"Come at me, bro"
Since we eliminated the assault weapons ban, murders with those kind of weapons has risen.
DeleteYou got any evidence for that, Steve? NPR had a segment on mass shootings this afternoon. Their report is that we've had no change in the rate of these things over the last many decades.
DeleteThat's simply not true.
DeleteDo you always lie about facts to make a false point?
Steve,
DeleteYou seem like a good dewd. Greg is a worthy opponent.
It's about as true as anything we can trust today as far as media. These are reported incidents. Police, FBI reports. It's absolutely true.
At issue is whether the AWB was effective or not. Considering that the offenses in question were committed with assault weapons, I would humbly submit that the bans did no go far enough in preventing the sale and acquisition of these extremely dangerous weapons.
Steve, you can't be bothered with the facts, but you accuse me of lying. At least you're an improvement on Democommie's foul mouth.
DeleteThanks, Flying Junior.
What is the interplay between self-fulfilling prophesy and never-say-die political indoctrination as proposed by the NRA and so eagerly lapped up by the intellectually idle gun culture?
ReplyDeleteWhy does something horrible have to happen just because so many millions insist that it remain possible just to preserve their so-called second amendment rights? What is the relationship between the sociopath and his fiercely moral gun-owner counterparts? Why in the name of God would they defend his right to purchase assault weapons? Or even more stupidly, suggest that grade-school teachers carry guns on their person to prevent future tragedies?
I guess the AWB proposed by Bush 41 and enacted under Clinton really didn't have enough time to really make much of a difference. Private gun sales? Maybe we could institute another ban on the manufacture of such weapons and back it up with some teeth. Recall the existing weapons for fair compensation. Make sure that guns are only in the hands of criminals. I mean, who would you trust? At least ordinary robbers and drug dealers value their own lives. Let's start thinking clearly.
Even with the awb it wouldnt of mattered cause he used handguns to do the killings not the rifle he illegally got the weapons from his mother who they found dead are her home
Delete1. So-called assault weapons are functionally identical with many standard hunting rifles. They just have extra parts and a black finish. But they shoot the same rounds, and operate in the same way.
Delete2. Millions of gun owners have semiautomatic rifles and have magazines with a capacity greater than the magic number. They did nothing wrong yesterday. Banning those devices because of the actions of one person punishes good people for one person's bad act. And it wouldn't help. Those rifles and magazines won't disappear. More can be smuggled across the border.
3. You said that such devices should be taken away from law-abiding citizens. You even acknowledged that doing so would leave criminals armed. Then you ask us to think clearly. I am. I trust good citizens far more than robbers and drug dealers. I also trust good citizens more than the government. And I know that many good citizens would continue being good citizens, but would break the law and keep their guns.
Yes, I do insist that they would remain good citizens after doing that. When the government violates the rights of its citizens, it loses the mandate of heaven, so to speak. An unjust law is no law at all. It's only force.
4. There is a fundamental difference between the sociopath and the "fiercely moral gun owner." Note that word, moral. Sociopaths understand right and wrong, but they don't care. Fortunately, the vast majority of human beings live by some measure of morality. Gun laws only affect them. Criminals and sociopaths, people who have rejected or never felt the moral imperative, don't care.
5. The Second Amendment protects a basic belief that government must trust the citizens. It's on the same level with the idea that we're all innocent until proven guilty and the idea that we all have the right to choose the path of our lives.
6. As much as I feel for the victims in Connecticut, I'm not going to give up my guns or my rights any more than I would give up my truck when a drunk driver kills people on the highway. The better solution would be to improve the mental healthcare system in this country and to reduce the stigma (and loss of rights) attached to those who seek out such services. Remember that mass shootings are rare. That doesn't feel right at the moment, but it's true. An intrusive new law that infringes on the rights and property of good citizens isn't warranted.
To Greg (or perhaps someone of greater cognitive ability),
DeleteBanning the possession, use and proliferation of firearms and all other objects intended to be used as a weapon by the common civilian (with exceptions for approved persons who can demonstrate a valid need to keep a weapon) would prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. If the possession of a firearm is appropriately punished (up to the use of capital punishment) there would be a strong deterrent against the formation of an illicit arms market.
I agree with you that the regulation of arms possessed by mere subjects of the State (those subject to the rule of law) is pointless. The common person, with no ties to any law enforcement agency, no employment based armament need, and who conveys no public authority bears no interest in the preservation of domestic tranquility. If the U.S. government continues to allow individual non-State actors to obtain and possess firearms, the United States congress is in gross violation of the peoples right to Civilian Disarmament, as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. You have no reasonable claim of any right to possess weapons, however you (and your ilk) have the right to be disarmed. Congress bears the fundamental duty to fulfill this right.
It is interesting to note that a large percentage of spree killers have a form of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (previously known a "Aspergers Syndrome"). Persons with such a mental inadequacy have little value to society, although as they are human, the State bears the duty to care for them. Such people should be required to report (or more likely delivered by their current caregivers) to a mental heath center, for an evaluation of the danger which they possess. When released into the community, they ought to be kept under regular mandatory supervision, in order to prevent such a tragedy. I would not however advocate that such a policy apply to all autistics, merely those who would be afflicted with Autistic Spectrum Disorder or "Aspergers Syndrome".
E.N.,
Delete1. It's too late for that. With eighty to a hundred million gun owners in this country and 300,000,000+ guns, we're past the point of easy confiscation. What you call for would result in civil war.
2. There is no right to be disarmed. There is no right to be subjugated. Look at the rights that the Constitution protects. They all belong to individuals or to the states. The only time that the Constitution has been used to restrain the people was with Prohibition, and that was a failure. In everything else, the document limits government power or reinforces a right that belongs to each of us.
3. People on the autism spectrum aren't noted for violent tendencies. In contrast, many show talents in engineering and scientific fields. But before you turn on the gas chambers, perhaps you ought to defend your right to live. So far, all I see from you is a pathetic person who yearns to lead and wonders why no one will obey him. What you need is a dominatrix. She'll help you work out your problems.
hey EN,
Deletefeel free to go fuck yourself. Blaming this on kids with Aspergers is rich. you want to stick my kid in a mental institution you grow a pair and come get her yourself. best make sure your affairs are in order first you asswipe
A very hateful and incoherent Anonymous:
Delete"you want to stick my kid in a mental institution you grow a pair and come get her yourself."
First of all it is likely a liar. Only a forth of those afflicted with Autistic Spectrum Disorder ("Aspergers Syndrome") are Female.
Second, I never stated that I didn't wish to see non-dangerous persons institutionalized. If someone is dangerous to themselves or others however, they need to be dealt with in a manner which is beneficial to public safety, as well as helping the afflicted person.
Greg:
1. They will tremble and obey. When under threat of imprisonment, capital punishment, and forfeiture of property, those with anarchist tendencies (such as yourself) will submit to the authority of the collective State.
2. Lean how to read. When you are capable of such, try a document labeled the "Constitution of The United States of America" then proceed to read the preamble. It states the the role of government is to "ensure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense". Gun control is necessary to fulfill such duties so fundamental to a free and civilized society.
3. A large percentage of spree killers or attempted spree killers are afflicted with Autistic Spectrum Disorder ("Aspergers Syndrome"). Yes many of those who are gifted (IQ 130+) are on the autistic spectrum, however these people are (like everyone else) a creation of the State, and ought to be harnessed to further the interest of humanity. Also may I note that people who we all hate, such as Adolph Hitler where likely afflicted with "Aspergers Syndrome". Imagine if people who cannot relate to others where separated before they could do any damage.
Greg:
"What you need is a dominatrix. She'll help you work out your problems."
Are you speaking from experience? Not many other options for a porcine little pervert.
E.N., what are you hoping to accomplish? You come here insulting everyone, denying basic American values, and praising totalitarian states. Are you a troll, or are you so blitheringly stupid that you think someone will agree with you? There's no point arguing with you, since you're a violation of your own principles--someone who denies individual rights, but exercises the right to speak.
DeleteIf you speak again, you're implicitly agreeing that we all have individual rights. Got that? You're not a state actor, and you've shown no official authorization for your comments. Running your mouth only proves my point.
If I where to give you my identity, then I would have to admit that I engaged in a "discussion" with the likes of you.
DeleteStop pestering about it. I am not a "violation of my own principals". You are my entertainment and a release for what I cannot say publicly. That is your purpose in life. Sad.
You made more accurate guesses a few months ago anyway......
You mean that your mother might check your Internet usage and ground you?
DeleteWhy do you consider it stupid to arm grade school teachers? An armed school teacher in this case could have greatly minimized or outright stopped the attack. A teacher with proper training and respect for firearms could have been a game changer here.
ReplyDeleteI do understand that you are suggesting that bans and tight controls are the answer. However, no ban or measure of gun control is 100% guaranteed effective. So having an armed instructor would be able to address a criminal with a gun that slipped through the gun control "cracks"
You must be insane. Guns in the school? Some kid gets the gun, and the massacres begin again.
DeleteYou gunsucks should be heavily sedated.
We trust teachers with the lives and minds of children all the time. It makes good sense to say that we can trust at least some of them to take stronger measures to protect those lives. I say some because I wouldn't make it a requirement. I'd also want special training for armed teachers. But it comes down to a question of whom do we trust: the mass shooter or the teacher?
DeleteGreg is in such denial when it comes to guns he forgets that even teachers and admin personnel have problems and sometimes lose it.
DeleteNo, I haven't forgotten that. You just ducked my question: Which one do you trust more, a teacher or a mass shooter? We trust these teachers to take care of students for many hours a day for ten months. Why can't we trust them to defend the lives of those children?
DeleteI think it is lost on you Greg, but arming civilians is certainly not the solution.
DeleteArming all civilians is certainly not the answer, making the potential spree shooter ponder that his potential victim might shoot back is something to consider...
DeleteIt is very sound reasoning as to why the shooter in Ore. killed himself after only a minute or two the police were responding in just over a minute into his limp dicked power fantasy.....
Armed response ends spree shootings, whether at the hands of another shooter or self inflicted...
I wouldn't trust a teacher with a gun around my kid any more than I would trust you with a gun around my kid.
DeleteBut teachers are welcome to take children on field trips, be alone in a room with them, and teach them all manner of ideas? Mikeb, your hatred of guns is inexplicable.
DeleteWell, I see that teh gunzloonz have trotted out the same tired, oft debunked "facts" which they think buttress their arguments against gun control.
ReplyDeleteBottom line. You people flat out do not give a flying fuck if anybody else is inconvenienced, frightened, maimed or killed--so long as you KIN HAZ ANY FUCKING GUNZ THAT YOU WANT TO HAZ.
Stop the bullshit, just be fucking honest. You know full well that armed or unarmed, trained or not, the average person is not going to be able to make the decision whether to shoot or not in a critical situation or will be so shaken by the event that they are incompetent. You DO know that is the case, you just can't bear to own up to it, because it would make you look like the completely sociopathic gunzloonz that you are.
You just don't give a fuck about anybody but yourselves.
I have Department of Justice data and other studies, the teaching of self-defense experts, and good sense to support my side. What do you have, Democommie? Bad spelling, uncontrolled rage, and Alzheimer's disease.
Delete"Bottom line. You people flat out do not give a flying fuck if anybody else is inconvenienced, frightened, maimed or killed--so long as you KIN HAZ ANY FUCKING GUNZ THAT YOU WANT TO HAZ."
DeleteYour full of so much shit the fly's are vomiting from overindulgence.
I am trying to prevent well intentioned people, who can't see the whole picture and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences, from creating laws and restrictions that will disarm the innocent and the weak costing far far more lives in the end.
I don't question your motives. I question your intelligence, civility, and critical thinking ability. But I understand that you THINK you are doing a good thing. Please don't presume to know the motives behind my actions you putrid pile of waste.
Unrestricted Gun Violence is the only answer in America. The Gun Nuts have won.
ReplyDelete"Put innocent people in a place where the good guys are forbidden to have guns. Make sure escape is made difficult- a bottleneck is good, especially if there are doors that can be locked in a "lock-down" so that no one can get out of harm's way. Propose some new anti-gun "laws". Activate the shooter. Then scream that people who didn't kill or harm anyone must be punished for the acts of a bad guy who broke every law in existence in order to carry out his act.
ReplyDeleteA person who has no compunction about murdering children will NOT obey your newest anti-gun "law". And neither will anyone else who sees that you are handing society over to the murderers a little more with every new anti-liberty "law" you parasites propose, pass, and enforce. It is past time to say "Enough! Not one more inch!" Kent McManigal
orlin sellers
Okay Mr. Anarchist let's follow this too the logical conclusion. Since people know there are laws against Murder and yet they still murder, Laws against Murder do not work and need to be eliminated.
DeleteSince people still drive drunk even though drunk driving laws have increased in severity exponetially drunk driving laws don't work. Therefore we must eliminate drunk driving laws.
Since rapes still occur... Oh wait rapes are the fault of immodestly dressed women! And murdered children are the fault of anti-gun laws..
You consider that the logical conclusion? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Deleteotlin sellers
Murder is an actual harm. Rape is an actual harm. Driving drunk leads often to actual harm, and it's impossible to drive drunk in a responsible manner.
DeleteOwning and carrying guns is not a harm. We have laws against causing harm, but we shouldn't have laws against doing something that you don't like.
Grung....
DeleteThe law about murder, theft, rape, are punishments not prohibitions, the fact that you are incapable of reasoning the difference, well that is your defect..
Orlin you are either ridiculous or dumb. Because you can't reason and don't understand what you wrote.
DeleteThomas you don't know what you're talking about. Lack of reason sits clear inside your brain housing group enjoy!
Gene, the point is valid, and your response to it was only to fling insults. Laws against harm make sense. Laws against things that someone just doesn't like are infringements on the rights of others. I can own and carry a gun without harming anyone.
DeleteLaws against murder, theft, and rape, are common law principals, (much like the "right to keep and bear arms" which is expressed in both the American and English bills of rights) and are intended punish crimes in which an offender has done genuine harm, as opposed to punishing a technical-taboo (Mala Prohibitum) crime which does not cause any actual harm. Civilian gun ownership does not inherently endanger anyone. Until the trigger is pulled (or the gun is exposed and pointed at the clerk), the owner of such a firearm has not manifestly infringed upon the rights of others. I am not arguing that certain restriction on firearm ownership (concerning unlicensed concealed weapons, and NFA items) ought not to be implemented, as they seek to reduce the potential danger they pose in the wrong hands. However, the ownership of firearms is not an inherently nefarious deed.
DeleteIan
Grung-e, you ignorant slut, please keep proving yourself the douche, laws are written to prescribe punishment, your quaint notion that writing more laws to make what that 20yo limp dick looser with power fantasies more illegaler, is so adorable.....
DeleteAnd your strawman "you gun nuts just want to get rid of all the gun laws", is just sad...
Keep up with the indignant foot stomping it is so becoming.....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteGene, you've figured it out. Criminals violate the law. The law rightly punishes harmful acts. Laws that regulate behavior that are not inherently harmful are just an attempt to enforce one person's tastes. When I carry a gun that I own, I harm no innocent person.
DeleteI removed that comment, Gene. I try to put a limit on the nastiness.
DeleteGee, according to the coroner, it was the long rifle (that used to be banned) that was used to do the killings.
ReplyDeleteYour facts (NPR) are wrong. Since you cited them, you prove them, otherwise check official records, not NPR. It's disturbing that you want to pick at statistics (especially when they are wrong) after such a crime. I will not get pulled into a argument of statistics regarding an incident of such carnage.
The second amendment mentions nothing about a right to own a gun for recreational use. Only a right to own a gun to form a militia, for the defense of the new nation.
The "militia of the people" is the Army, Marines, Navy, etc., not a bunch of your gun loving buddies getting together to protect America from ???
"Ensure domestic tranquility" is the authority for gun limitations. As it is for the formation of a police force, that can arrest and detain. You don't seem to agree that these mass killings are a disturbance of domestic tranquility, but rather just the bad effects of a good law. You lack of concern for human life makes me disregard what you defend.
A lesson of American history: We stopped the death and carnage of the "Wild West" by banning the carrying of guns in public.
This nut job used his mother's legally owned guns. The other nut job stole the gun he used. If those guns were not there, these killings would not have happened.
Maybe you should channel Thomas Jefferson, tell him the facts of gun use in 2012 America, and ask him if he would change his second amendment, or put limitations on it.
"The second amendment mentions nothing about a right to own a gun for recreational use. Only a right to own a gun to form a militia, for the defense of the new nation."
DeleteHeller addressed this.
The Constitution was written by Madison, and the Bill of Rights was his addition in an effort to gain support for the document. In addition, if you study the history of the so-called "Wild West," you'll find out that it was, for the most part, nothing like what Hollywood shows.
DeleteBut Steve, look at how often these incidents occur. The answer is not often at all. You are trying to infringe on the rights of tens of millions of gun owners who have done nothing wrong. You want that in response to the actions of a few. You want to ignore the numbers, but facts matter, especially when it comes to making law. Think about how the PATRIOT Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, but in the years since, we've come to understand that it's filled with a lot of bad things in regard to civil liberties.
You seem to think that I don't care about the victims. That's not true. What I know, though, is that I have seen no gun control proposal that would prevent incidents like this or any other the other kinds of gun deaths from happening. You're asking for a huge violation of rights, and at most, you'd move the numbers by a tiny percentage.
You keep talking about the rights of millions. I don't hear you talk about the 10's of thousands of victims.
DeleteI don't hear you talking about the rights of the hundreds of thousands who defend themselves against crime every year.
DeleteFrail Liberty,
DeleteHundreds of thousands? Nice NRA lie. 900 times a day a gun is used to defend an American. Provide a FBI link to prove that? Oh that's right you can't because it's Gun NUt BS.
The problem is Gun Nuts like you believe guns are more precious than human lives.
Do we have to go through this again? I posted links to sources about the number of defensive gun uses in a year. According to the Department of Justice, it's around 1.5 million. The National Crime Victimization Survey put the number at around 100,000, but it used different types of questions.
DeleteIt's not that guns are more valuable than human lives. It's that human life is only worth living when all of us have rights. A controlled life is no life at all.
Is it possible that additional reasonable regulations on the ownership of certain firearms (large caliber handguns) or certain devices (large capacity magazines) may be implemented in conjunction with expanded CCW in States that retain a "may issue" system? I am not advocating a return to the "Assault Weapons Ban" enacted in the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, but simply a comprehensive expansion to the background check system. Have AK-47 take priority over single shot .22s.
DeleteIan
Ian, for those of us who believe in freedom, no compromise is possible with the gun control freaks. There's no common ground. It's all-out war.
DeleteI don't hear you talk about the almost 10,000 deaths per year by gunshot in America.
ReplyDeleteThere's about 240 deaths by gunshot per year in England.
Keep defending your right to kill.
Disregard the constitution, acquire political irrelevance
DeleteAlmost 10,000? No, its way more than that. There are over 30,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. About 55% of those are suicides and about 80% of those are gang related.
DeleteThere, I talked about it. And if you were to implement the 'modest measures' many suggest, you would impact those numbers very little. They would probably rise slightly as criminals would become emboldened.
If, however, you were to somehow ban and confiscate nearly every gun in the US - you would have a very large impact on those numbers. They (meaning the number of gun-deaths) would fall drastically. It would not go to zero, but it fall drastically.
Of course, the overall murder rate would likely climb - perhaps not much - but it would climb. The violent crime rate, however, would skyrocket. You know - just like it did in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
There, I talked about it. Are you happy now? You see, I can admit that guns can (and frequently do) make it easier for bad people to do bad things. The question is, can you admit that they are also frequently used to defend the weak from the powerful?
So, are you admitting that you think women should vote and descendants of slaves are only 3/5ths of a person? OR do we disregard those areas of the Constitution?
DeleteGene, the trend is toward increasing rights. You want to push us backward.
DeleteFail Liberty:
Delete"If, however, you were to somehow ban and confiscate nearly every gun in the US - you would have a very large impact on those numbers. They (meaning the number of gun-deaths) would fall drastically. It would not go to zero, but it fall drastically."
So you admit that you serve a false goal? That your ideology is responsible for so many deaths? Look at the murder rate in some other countries (not the U.K.- they did not eliminate individual gun ownership) and observe that other developed countries such as Japan, the DPRK, Luxembourg(and non-countries such as Formosa) have lower crime rates.
EN, perhaps you incapable of reading well. I said that 'gun-deaths' would certainly drop. However, murder rates would rise - a little and violent crime rates would skyrocket. Please try to pay attention.
DeleteI am so tired of the this county vs that country argument. I tried to explain this to Mike in another thread but I lost him.
Try to compare current crime rates from country to country or state to state is nearly meaningless. I can find you a half a dozen countries where the reverse is true. The problem is that it doesn't account for any cultural or socio-economic variances. It is pointless.
What matters is to see what happens in a particular region after gun-control laws are changed - in either direction. Then you can start to get a true since of cause and effect because the other variables (such as culture, economy, crime, etc) are mostly accounted for.
Think of it like this: You walk into a room and see rotten fruit in a blue bowl and ripe fruit in yellow bowl. Do you then blame the blue bowl for rotting the fruit? But if you put fresh fruit in both bowls and come back after a period of time, then you can say something about the bowl's impact on the decay of the fruit. Do you see yet?
That's why it is so critical to look at what happened in areas like DC. Crime rates are practically a bell curve that spiked up when the gun bans were enacted and are now on the way down since being repealed. UK crime is way up after the gun bans.
It's not too hard to figure out if you just use a little critical thinking skills.
Good points, Grung. I love these guys who quote the Founders and the Constitution all the time.
DeleteE.N., Taiwan is a country, whether you want to admit it or not. But when you praise North Korea (DPRK) as an example of domestic tranquility, you only make a fool of yourself. That must feel familiar.
DeleteMikeb, you've made the right choice to leave America, since you hate our values so much. Now how about leaving us alone? The Constitution wasn't perfect, nor did the Founders follow its principles perfectly or even understand them in their full implications, but it remains an excellent statement of individual liberty. When you can do as much for humanity as the Founders did, let us know.
Frail Liberty, these gun control freaks are incapable of reasoning--whether by choice or by disease, I don't know. The good news is that others are reading what gets discussed here.
What part of Well Regulated don't the Unrestricted Gun Violence Supporters understand?
DeleteGene, it's the part about "well regulated" being in the subordinate clause. The independent part of the sentence that identifies the right as belonging to the people--not to the militia, not to the state, but to the people.
DeleteGrung, Penn & Teller have a message for you:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1GNu7ldL1LM
orlin sellers
"I am trying to prevent well intentioned people, who can't see the whole picture and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences, from creating laws and restrictions that will disarm the innocent and the weak costing far far more lives in the end."
ReplyDeleteNo you're not. You're trying to preserve a perverted interpretation of a 230 year old document. None of you Type 2A's have anything more involved in your heads then, "I have a RIGHT, fuck you, go away (or try to take my RIGHT away, and I'll kill you).". That's it, that's your argument.
You may not be quite as obvious about it as Greggie, but his admonition, repeated often on this blog, is that there is "NO COMPROMISE POSSIBLE--EVER!".
"I don't question your motives. I question your intelligence, civility, and critical thinking ability. But I understand that you THINK you are doing a good thing. Please don't presume to know the motives behind my actions you putrid pile of waste."
You question my civility? Go fuck yourself. I don't presume to know your motives. I KNOW your motives, as explained above. You don't give a flying fuck about anything but your RIGHT to haz teh gunz. Sorry, if you're too blind to see it, but it's that simple.
Nice response. I notice you only defended my questioning of your civility. I guess the issue of your lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills are a settled matter then.
DeleteWhat you don't seem to give a rat's ass about are the hundreds of thousands of people that will suffer difficult to measure but very real harm if you were to manage to disarm the weak and the innocent.
So, to this Mom you would just say "Fuck you!" and your two year old daughter. I'm sure that kidnapper had her best interests at heart:
http://www.news10.net/news/article/207066/2/Mom-fights-off-would-be-kidnapper-with-shotgun
Fuck you to this woman as well who was saved by her son from being beaten to death by her husband. She probably deserved the beating for not making him a sandwinch and bringing home light beer:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/27/florida-teen-fatally-shoots-father-in-desperate-attempt-to-protect-mother/?intcmp=trending
Fuck you, you deserved to be raped. You were probably wearing one of the short skirts like all the other sluts. Oh, and fuck you to the other victims that would have been raped by this innocent man:
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=173611&provider=top
Fuck you to this woman. You let him rape you once, why shouldn't he be able to do it again? I'm sure you enjoyed it the first time:
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=9273275&nav=menu51_2_9
Fuck this cop pig. With all of his training he should have never let this guy get the better of him anyway. Besides, I am sure it was the cops "I haz teh gunz" attitude that prompted the whole thing:
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526
And Fuck you to the other at least 500,000 or so people who defend themselves from evil with a firearm each year.
Oh wait, I forgot. We are only allowed to trust number published by your lord and savior, the holy Federal Gooberment, when they support your worldview. The fact that the CDC study shows 500,000 DGU's in 1994 (you know, when Clinton and the Dem's were seated on the throne of the all mighty gooberment) is just some right-wing nut job lying through his teeth as usual.
If you were to somehow get half a brain, it would probably bump your IQ up into the double digits. But then there would still be that problem with hypocrisy - wouldn't there?