Only 1 shooting this week so far

[Patroklos]

It would be, I keep telling them that avatar was just to be polite to a junior poster who made it for me years ago, I am just to lazy to change it. It's funny watching the assumptions people make from it though.

 

[kochman]

The hell are you talking about? We have cops in schools.

You think we have cops at every school?
You think there was one there, and he just was taking a poop?

I'm talking about using metal detectors, transparent backpacks, barring all the windows and keeping the kidos locked inside during recess. That follows from your statements on the matter, not putting cops in schools, because we already have that.

No, it doesn't follow. I was clear. We don't already have cops in most schools... that's what I said, plain and simple. That could have helped a lot.
I am not talking about the other statements that you are trying to say I am.
There is no need to turn "all schools into fortresses"...

The rest of your post won't be dignified with a response, I just wanted to clear my position in case people actually believe your melodramatic and false characterizations of what I am or think... thank you for the blatant example above.

 

[Birdjaguar]

1) I am not an anti-gun crusader just because I support gun control
2) You didn't adress what I said
3) Ad Hominem
4) Shove your shoehorn
5) I am discussing the issue, or are you butthurt I don't agree with you? If so, remove shoehorn.
6) Be careful, shoehorns are prone to splintering.

I'm sorry, correction, the Fienstiens and Forma's of the world.

More ad hominem, eagleface.

Oh boy, it's getting personal in here!

Moderator Action: If you all can't be more civil and less personal, I will close the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arwon]

Bit of a comment from a dude called Guy Rundle.

The logic that the number of gun deaths in the US is going down, as the number of guns rises, has become part of the argument for “concealed carry” laws, which allow people to carry concealed weapons. In some limited circumstances these reduce crime. But gun murder has also fallen in areas where no such laws exist, as part of a general fall in overall crime.

Indeed a lot of the arguments that “there is nothing to see here” are spurious. It’s argued that the number of massacres hasn’t gone up since the ’20s. But in the ’20s many of these massacres were “rational crime” — they were either large family or clan feuds, gangsterism or the like. Much of this stuff now goes unreported. What passed for a massacre in the 20s, is Saturday night in Philadelphia now.

What has come out of the blue are stranger and semi-stranger massacres, which were almost unknown before World War II. Since Charles Starkweather, the killing of whole classes of people simply because they are co-workers, McDonald’s patrons or school students has gone through the roof. In their rush to defend guns, the gun lobby ignore this important shift.

The public doesn’t. They know that it is not merely the death but the meaning of it that matters, and the terror that goes with it. Newtown is so dominating, so unarguable because not the slightest rationality or purpose attaches to the crime, and hence to the deaths. It is a rip in the fabric of the universe, and most people — Americans included — don’t want to live in a world where that is as expectable as a car crash. The reality of Newtown is that the primary school has ceased to be a safe place in the everyday imagination. One massacre impacts tens of millions. The answer that more people should be armed simply takes society further in the direction of atomised war of all against all, that people are coming to stand up against. The Right don’t get it, because guns are a fantasy object for them. They render everyone less safe and less free, but they give the illusion of a pre-modern free society.

 

[Agent327]

It would be, I keep telling them that avatar was just to be polite to a junior poster who made it for me years ago, I am just to lazy to change it. It's funny watching the assumptions people make from it though.

That is one of your usual assumptions? As you don't seem to take the issue very seriously. Perhaps you think there isn't a problem? That incidents such as these are something Americans should learn to live with?

Once again, the NRA has retained complete silence on the subject. Perhaps there is a connection with the shooter's mom being a gun collector, perhaps not. But at least they show the decency of not mocking those who are concerned.

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, the NRA has retained complete silence on the subject. Perhaps there is a connection with the shooter's mom being a gun collector, perhaps not. But at least they show the decency of not mocking those who are concerned.

I think she owned a few guns. Maybe 5 or so. Does that make her a collector?

 

[MobBoss]

And this is not a suitable replacement for shooting varmints?


yes, I stole the image shamelessly from VR’s thread.

You dont think that is an assault rifle?

No?

How about that same rifle, just 'spiced up' a little bit.



How about now? Looks rather like an assault rifle now doesnt it? Of course it does. It even has an 18 round magazine which it can shoot in just a few seconds, as fast as you can pull the trigger 18 times.

But its the same model rifle.

 

[Agent327]

So?

I think she owned a few guns. Maybe 5 or so. Does that make her a collector?

Since you seem to be missing the point: you can legally collect guns. Shooter's mom did (and yes, she had 5 legally acquired, of which 3 were found near the shooter's body, police reported; so no maybes there).

Does a home become more or less safe with multiple guns? Do you need to have at least 10 to be a collector? And how does that improve safety beyond owning 1 or 2?

 

[Arwon]

Can't collectors just remove the damn firing pins?

 

[Quackers]

Anybody have a sauce for school shootings in america over the past few decades?
Wikipedia has a whole article but includes suicides at school and gang altercations near the school - which is painstaking to comb through and remove.

What I want are the figures for bat-horsehockye insane killer who turns up to school with a semi automatic and murders.

 

[kochman]

Anybody have a sauce for school shootings in america over the past few decades?
Wikipedia has a whole article but includes suicides at school and gang altercations near the school - which is painstaking to comb through and remove.

What I want are the figures for bat-horsehockye insane killer who turns up to school with a semi automatic and murders.

Semi-autos?
This guy (assault rifle), the VA Tech Guy (pistol) and one of the Columbine guys (pistol, the other had a shotgun).

Correction, there are a couple more that weren't nearly as gruesome so the Media didn't care as much...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...hootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc

You'll still have to pick out the school incidents and research what type of weapons were used.
By and large, it is going to be semi-auto pistols. Easiest to conceal, reload, etc.

 

[kochman]

So?

Since you seem to be missing the point: you can legally collect guns. Shooter's mom did (and yes, she had 5 legally acquired, of which 3 were found near the shooter's body, police reported; so no maybes there).

Does a home become more or less safe with multiple guns? Do you need to have at least 10 to be a collector? And how does that improve safety beyond owning 1 or 2?

Not all guns serve the same purpose...
Shotguns are different from pistols which are different from rifles.

You may have a .22 pistol AND rifle for practice shooting (cheapest ammo)...
A .45 pistol or shotgun for home defense...
A smaller pistol for concealed carry...
A couple of hunting rifles...

 

[BSmith1068]

You dont think that is an assault rifle?

No?

How about that same rifle, just 'spiced up' a little bit.



How about now? Looks rather like an assault rifle now doesnt it? Of course it does. It even has an 18 round magazine which it can shoot in just a few seconds, as fast as you can pull the trigger 18 times.

But its the same model rifle.

No. It looks like a rifle with some extra stuff on it. But looks don’t matter. I don’t care how “scary” looking a weapon is. If it can shoot rapidly, hold a large amount of ammunition, and can be reloaded in seconds it should be banned. The biggest issue I see with this rifle is the magazine.

I also don’t care what formally constitutes an “assault rifle”. If it meets the above criteria, it shouldn’t be in the hands of Joe Shmoe Public.

 

[Patroklos]

That is one of your usual assumptions? As you don't seem to take the issue very seriously. Perhaps you think there isn't a problem? That incidents such as these are something Americans should learn to live with?

I can only assume you quoted the wrong post as your response and the quote have no connection to each other.

There are only a couple of people in this thread taking this issue seriously, and anyone discussing assault rifles are not included in this group. No assault rifle was used in this event, nor the other three from this year. Or Columbine.

The issue here is people, what has changed that has made people who have no more access to weapons than those 20 years ago (including the non co utter mentally ill) decide this behavior is acceptable.

That is a hard question to ask and answer because the question and answer are going to make us take a hard look at our modern society. So instead of doing that you have people talking out religious purity and gun bans, neither of which will do jack to stop these events but will let them put the blinders back on for a bit.

Once again, the NRA has retained complete silence on the subject. Perhaps there is a connection with the shooter's mom being a gun collector, perhaps not. But at least they show the decency of not mocking those who are concerned.

I agree, people should stop mocking Huckabee.

 

[kochman]

Here's the thing...

You can take whatever you want away legally, if agreed upon... but laws don't prevent crimes from occurring, 99.9% of the time, because criminals don't obey laws. Rather, we use laws to punish the criminals, taking them off the streets to prevent repeats of their abusive behavior.

Anyhow, there needs to be a very specific criteria...

I agree we probably don't need flamethrowers (yes you can buy these) since they aren't even legal in warfare!
I don't think anyone hunting or defending their house needs fully auto (already illegal mainly) or grenade launcher additions...

However, semi-auto with a magazine... if you get rid of that, you're getting rid of the most common AND efficient tool for self-defense in the entire nation.
Limiting them to 10 rounds is silly anyhow, reloads are accomplished in the blink of an eye (with pre-loaded magazines)...
Semi-auto pistols are used in crimes way more than semi-auto rifles... the ATF showed with it's study that banning AWs was useless. I can provide the source again if needed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are only a couple of people in this thread taking this issue seriously, and anyone disguising assault rifles are not included in this group. No assault rifle was used in this event, nor the other three from this year. Or Columbine.

What does "disguising" an assault rifle mean?

Does anybody really care about the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" besides those who don't "take this issue seriously" at all? They would much rather engage in such disingenuous nonsense than actually even try to discuss the real issues. So no, the "couple of people" you actually think "take tins issue seriously" are doing just the opposite, as they so frequently do in this forum. There was good reason the assault weapon ban was implemented. Less than 1% of Americans own AR-15 variant weapons. It should be zero.

 

[BSmith1068]

That is a hard question to ask and answer because the question and answer are going to make us take a hard lookat our modern society. So I stead of doing that yo have people talking out religious purity and gun bans, neither of which will do jack to stop these events but will let them put the blinders back on for a bit.

Then how do you explain what has happened in the United Kingdom and Australia after they passed strict gun bans after deadly massacres?

We are never going to stop all mass murders. That is a fact. But we can take steps to minimize the chances that the mass murderers will be successful in their actions. Reduce the number of options available to them, and it will be more difficult to perpetrate the kinds of horrors we have seen all too often over the past decade or so.

Is the loss of 20 first graders a fair price for us to pay so that you can play Rambo on the weekends and have a false sense of security? Nancy Lanza collected guns. She was a gun nut, obsessed with her security. How did that work out for her? The very thing she was hell-bent on having to defend herself became the tool of her demise.

For Christ’s sake. These are 6 year olds we are talking about. Innocent, sweet children that had their entire lives ahead of them. Birthdays, boyfriends/girlfriends, weddings, kids of their own. Gone. Not to mention the trauma that this has caused to their brothers and sisters, parents, extended families, surviving classmates and yes, the ENTIRE nation.

School used to be a safe place to go. Now it is one more place that we have to worry about. Be looking over our shoulder to make sure we are safe. That is not freedom. That is slavery. We are slaves to the gun culture that this country has cultivated over the years. We are slaves to the violence that is becoming more and more a part of our daily lives. Violence made more intense, and more frequent, by easy access to firearms that are better suited to the battlefield than the bedroom.

Yet time after time we are talked down from our anger about these senseless acts. It’s too soon to talk about it. The real answer is to have more guns, so we can shoot these bad guys in the act. Losing our guns will make us less free. It’s unconstitutional. You name it, but the excuses are endless.

And we always back down. Then it happens again. And again. And again.

How much is too much? How many people have to die before we take a good hard look at ourselves and realize that perhaps we are not infallible? How many innocent kids have to die? Perhaps we could change? Perhaps that change really won’t manifest itself in all the horrible ways the detractors are imagining?

Perhaps we would ultimately be freer from fear. From paranoia that going to the mall to hang out with your friends could be the last thing you do. That going to class is a dangerous occupation? That dropping my kids off at school could be the last time I see them alive?

What is it going to take for us to wake up and realize the errors of our past and change ourselves for the better? How many more innocent children have to die?

Enough is enough. It is time to make some serious changes to how we live. How we treat mental illness. And how we deal with guns.

 

[Patroklos]

What does "disguising" an assault rifle mean?

That should have been discussing, I fixed it above.

Does anybody really care about the picayune difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" besides those who don't "take this issue seriously" at all? They would much rather engage in such disingenuous nonsense than actually even try to discuss the real issues.

If you were serious about solving this issue via bans you would be talking about the weapons actually used. Instead you are off on an assault rifle tangent.

 

[BSmith1068]

Not sure if that was a cross post, but I am deadly serious. And I have been quite clear about what kinds of weapons I think should not be in private hands, regardless of what the formal name for them is or is not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you were serious about solving this issue via bans you would be talking about the weapons actually used. Instead you are off on an assault rifle tangent.

I certainly am not calling them "assault rifles" instead of "assault weapons". That is just yet another obvious falsehood you continue to post.

But again, it is hardly important much less a "tangent". Assault rifles are already banned unless the person has a special permit which is extremely difficult to acquire. It is just yet another absurd argument over semantics instead of even trying to discuss the real issues.

So as you like to frequently say, it is really "irrelevant".