Non-Muslim Kills 12 At Navy Yard in DC, Nobody Seems To Notice

[Bugfatty300]

Oh? I seem to remember you had to surrender your guns on entering a town and then they gave them back to you when you left.

In a few towns like Tombstone, AZ this was done. However, in every case, people simply didn't bother to follow this rule and law enforcement was unable to do anything about it except selective enforcement here and there.

It's why gun crime was so much lower in the Wild West than it was in urban areas at the same time.

Questionable seeing as violence in western frontier areas varied widely and firearm laws were rarely the same in any two places.

 

[Antilogic]

The NRA has proposed a plan to arm the Navy to prevent this from happening again.

OP is idiotic at best.

Indeed, the proper term is Non-Mohammedan instead of Non-Mooslim.

 

[Murky]

I don't think the gun nuts have anything to worry about. If they couldn't pass even modest gun control laws following the Sandy Hook shooting that killed little kids they certainly aren't going to after this one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

.

I missed that the first time. Brilliant

Well played Df.

 

[classical_hero]

I assume this should be offensive but really have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well my point was to say something just as valid as the OP. Since you saw it as stupid, then good for you, since it was meant to be a stupid post.

OP is idiotic at best.

And thus rather than talking about the incident, we are talking more about other things. This is certainly a good effort by Form. Really I believe this thread has little merit based on how it was started and a far better OP would have gotten better discussion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The problem is that the people inclined to start such a thread all knew that, if they did so, it'd very quickly degenerate into yet another discussion of gun control with - and this is the really fun part - claims that gun control has nothing to do with gun-violence, politics has nothing to do with violence against political targets, etc. etc. So, in other words, a discussion about gun-control that's actually an argument about whether or not we should even be discussing gun control.

What none of the thread-starting set has realized is that getting a thread about shooting tragedies is simply a matter of starting a thread about gun control.

Good point.

What I find even more interesting is that many of the people who think they are in some sort of religious war with Muslims because they "hate their freedom" are the very same ones who won't even consider any sort of measures to try to decrease mass killings. That these sorts of incidents become an excuse to promote even more gun violence.

 

[El_Machinae]

People say it was a powerful factor.

Likely

 

[GoodGame]

I think schizophrenia was a powerful factor.

I'm wondering if brain injury or chemical abuse was a factor in possibly inducing a schizophrenic state of mind.

 

[ArneHD]

I'm wondering if brain injury or chemical abuse was a factor in possibly inducing a schizophrenic state of mind.

According to wikipedia, drug use can induce psychosis (what I assume you mean by schizophrenic state of mind), but the disease itself is apparently hereditary.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't think the gun nuts have anything to worry about. If they couldn't pass even modest gun control laws following the Sandy Hook shooting that killed little kids they certainly aren't going to after this one.

Proponents typically can't pass these laws because their legislation always reflects the current gun control movement's inexplicable obsession with performing frantic CPR on a failed and long dead federal law known as the assault weapons ban. Every other gun control proposal takes usually takes a back seat.

The general trend is to treat statistically significant use of revolvers and handguns in tens of thousands of murders as side notes, and instead focus on a few high media profile uses of semi-automatic rifles used in the murders of dozens in a year. This has given the American gun control movement something of a reputation for emotionally exploiting massacres for political points as opposed to truly setting out to find real solutions to violence.

It's not hard to see why they've failed to garner much enthusiasm in the capitol or in the general public for their legislation. Not something that can only be chalked up to the NRA.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or it is just as simple as understanding that we will likely never ban or even limit handguns in the US. But there is no valid reason whatsoever for civilians to own assault weapons and extended capacity magazines.

And 55% of the population support an assault weapon ban, while only 36% oppose it. So much for the the legislators "reflecting" the opinions of the population, instead of "obsessing" by pandering to the NRA and the gun nuts.

 

[Murky]

Preventing new gun laws is more about protecting the profits of the guns and ammo industry than protecting gun owner rights.

The really sad thing is that more shooting tragedies ramp up the debate and this scares gun nuts into buying more guns and ammo which gives the industry more funds to lobby with.

 

[Borachio]

Moderator Action: A reminder that there is a language policy here - "sh*tstorm" isn't OK.

"l @*(&^" is.

Inadvertently circumventing the prohibited word filter are infractable.

Oh right, you've changed the content of this post substantially, Peter.

It featured some Zappa youtube video previously, iirc.

I was just going to say that the language policy on CFC is one of the few several things about the forum that I'm really quite glad of.

It is just words, as Zappa said, but in the end I'd really rather not wade through massive quantities of posts generously interspersed with words that I'm quite familiar with but add nothing to any argument therein. Which is what happens on a great many other internet fora, I think.

Of course, some amusing intensifiers are no longer available to me, without me getting a rap on knuckles. But I think on balance this is a small price to pay.

[I don't think this post qualifies as PDMA, at least not by intent anyway - just observation/endorsement of CFC policy, I think. But I'll soon find out.]

Moderator Action: It is PDMA, actually. In the interests of fairness we don't allow discussion of moderator actions either negative or positive.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bugfatty300]

Preventing new gun laws is more about protecting the profits of the guns and ammo industry than protecting gun owner rights.

Sure...such huge profits worth taking a bullet for.

Taurus, based in Porto Alegre, Brazil, trades at discounts of 35 percent and 41 percent to Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger, respectively. With 270 million legal weapons in circulation in the U.S., the acquisition opportunity would be lucrative, Piagentini said. The U.S. generated 55 percent of Taurus’s net income of 505 million reais ($248 million) in the first nine months of last year.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/gun-ban-no-obstacle-to-taurus-bid-for-freedom-corporate-brazil.html

So...the most profitable firearm manufacturer in the US market rakes in around 300 million a year. Far ahead of it's competition. Compare that to a company like Haliburton or military contractors like Boeing or Lockheed?

Color me unimpressed with grandiose capitol hill corporate conspiracies on behalf of this particular industry...

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm wondering if brain injury or chemical abuse was a factor in possibly inducing a schizophrenic state of mind.

According to wikipedia, drug use can induce psychosis (what I assume you mean by schizophrenic state of mind), but the disease itself is apparently hereditary.

It's incredibly complex. Unsurprisingly, it's not very well researched. Heredity, early environment, drug and mental stress during the early-adult years are all factors.

 

[Borachio]

According to some, there's also cultural factors. Those diagnosed with schizophrenia in one culture might not be considered so in another.

 

[Murky]

Sure...such huge profits worth taking a bullet for.



So...the most profitable firearm manufacturer in the US market rakes in around 300 million a year. Far ahead of it's competition. Compare that to a company like Haliburton or military contractors like Boeing or Lockheed?

Color me unimpressed with grandiose capitol hill corporate conspiracies on behalf of this particular industry...

I'm not that particularly interested in the gun debate. I'm a gun owner myself so it would be somewhat hypocritical to side with more gun control. Although, I don't own any assault weapons and think that limiting clips you can you buy is reasonable.

That said, I do think what happens on capital hill in regard to gun laws has more to do with money and lobbying from the guns and ammo industry than protecting rights. It's not so much a conspiracy as common knowledge. We know how capital hill works and money talks there more loudly than arguing for constitutional rights does. Also, the gun lobby often is closely related to other conservative lobbying efforts so it's not like it's on its own when trying to keep new gun control laws from getting passed. The retail sector also pays to keep the money flowing. I don't know if you're aware of it or not but big chain stores like Wal-Mart sell a lot of guns and ammo.

 

[IglooDame]

Or it is just as simple as understanding that we will likely never ban or even limit handguns in the US. But there is no valid reason whatsoever for civilians to own assault weapons and extended capacity magazines.

And 55% of the population support an assault weapon ban, while only 36% oppose it. So much for the the legislators "reflecting" the opinions of the population, instead of "obsessing" by pandering to the NRA and the gun nuts.

Maybe the population is regarded as misinformed about the assault weapons ban - that's why Obamacare is still around despite public disapproval, right?

But on the gun-control front, this mass murder doesn't play as well as usual for the anti-gun folks, because "common-sense gun laws" aren't supposed to initially include preventing everyone from buying shotguns. This wasn't an assault weapon and didn't involved extended capacity magazines, and Joe Biden told us it was more appropriate for home defense anyway.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe the population is regarded as misinformed about the assault weapons ban - that's why Obamacare is still around despite public disapproval, right?

There is only one aspect of "Obamacare" which has "public disapproval", e.g. more oppose it than support it. And that doesn't even come close to being a majority:

Forty-four percent of respondents call the health-care law a bad idea, while 31 percent believe it's a good idea -- virtually unchanged from July's NBC/WSJ survey.

And that opinion is based largely on ignorance to a great extent:

Still, most Americans say they don't have a good grasp of what the law entails. Thirty-four percent say they don’t understand the law very well, and another 35 percent say they understand it only “some.”

“For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act even if they don’t know it,” he said at an April 2013 news conference. “So all the implementation issues that are coming up are implementation issues related to that small group of people, 10 to 15 percent of Americans … who don’t have health insurance right now, or are on the individual market and are paying exorbitant amounts for coverage that isn’t that great.”

In addition, a majority of the poll’s respondents – 52 percent – believe the law will result in their health-care costs increasing.

“Raises costs for everybody and limits choices,” said a Republican-leaning male from Texas. “It was put together so crudely and nobody knew all the unintended consequences.”

But supporters argue that – over time – the law will bring down health-care costs. “I think that the more people that are insured, the less expensive it will be for everyone,” said a Democratic New York female.

Indeed, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study of 17 states plus the District of Columbia found that rates in the health-care marketplaces – open to enrollment beginning on Oct. 1 – were lower than expected.

Not that it is in the least bit germane to this discussion.

But on the gun-control front, this mass murder doesn't play as well as usual for the anti-gun folks, because "common-sense gun laws" aren't supposed to initially include preventing everyone from buying shotguns. This wasn't an assault weapon and didn't involved extended capacity magazines, and Joe Biden told us it was more appropriate for home defense anyway.

Does this mean you think these "common sense" measures eventually would be expanded to include shotguns, despite the Obama administration making it quite clear they would not?

 

[Bugfatty300]

That said, I do think what happens on capital hill in regard to gun laws has more to do with money and lobbying from the guns and ammo industry than protecting rights. It's not so much a conspiracy as common knowledge. We know how capital hill works and money talks there more loudly than arguing for constitutional rights does. Also, the gun lobby often is closely related to other conservative lobbying efforts so it's not like it's on its own when trying to keep new gun control laws from getting passed. The retail sector also pays to keep the money flowing.

My point was that any given gun and ammo company is far too small to be an effective lobbyist. Lockheed, Boeing, Microsoft. Those types pull real weight. And typical gun control laws don't actually don't hurt the gun industry per se. Often, a gun control law will hurt competitors but other companies whose products aren't affected will profit in their place. A example of this being Sturm Ruger's support of an assault weapons ban (particularly against AR-15s) so that they could corner the semi-auto rifle market with their company's Mini-14s. Lots of examples of this.

The retail sector also pays to keep the money flowing. I don't know if you're aware of it or not but big chain stores like Wal-Mart sell a lot of guns and ammo.

Honestly, that's a pretty far stretch to make. I'd say guns and ammo sales in their stores are a drop in the ocean to the likes of Wal-Mart. No doubt more than it used to be but still a drop.

Otherwise, they'd stock them in every store and staff a lot more people on them than they currently do. As it is, If there is a local hunting/rural market that makes it worthwhile, a specific Wal-Mart stock guns and ammo in sporting goods with maybe one part time FFL employee and an assistant or two.

How many Wal-Mart locations would choose not stock an electronics department or only staff it with one or two part-time sells persons? My guess would be none. Everyone wants a flat screen. Not so many want a gun. Limit market, limited profits, etc.