Shooting in Conn. School

Given who would be fighting against the US Government internally if it came down to it, I will be fighting on the side of the government.

The number of guns owned in the country is on pace to exceed the number of people. However, actual gun ownership has been trending down for ~30 years. The crowd is getting smaller and more "enthusiastic", to put it nicely. Those so called small arsenals are getting larger and larger.

Even as those two trends continue to worsen, along with the increase in high profile negative externality incidents, we're really not anywhere near having the political will to do anything. There is no gun safety lobby controlling both politicians and the dialogue in opposition of the NRA. The Brady campaign and the like simply dont command that kind of power.

Since Congress has lately decided on a very unorthodox way of passing legislation, I present the following off the cliff scenario:

Congress passes a law where both sides of the issue enter a game where one side has to present every case they can find where owning a gun has improved a situation. For every one of those, the opposition has to present one hundred cases where owning a gun made the situation worse. Whichever side loses triggers automatic passing of new laws to the liking of the group that won.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Congress passes a law where both sides of the issue enter a game where one side has to present every case they can find where owning a gun has improved a situation. For every one of those, the opposition has to present one hundred cases where owning a gun made the situation worse. Whichever side loses triggers automatic passing of new laws to the liking of the group that won.[/QUOTE]

So 100 lives lost to guns equals a life saved by guns? So I guess 3 more CTs have to happen to balance out one person being saved somewhere in the States.
 
I, too, think that the Israeli government should go in and take away the firearms of the Palestinians. I mean, the Israeli military is so far advanced, Palestinians have no chance against them anyway.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Stop dodging the question. You yourself said that both business and gov't has an interest in people. Then why is the government scenario the one that frightens you?[/QUOTE]

:lol: Ok, you can't be fucking serious.
 
[quote name='elessar123']So 100 lives lost to guns equals a life saved by guns? So I guess 3 more CTs have to happen to balance out one person being saved somewhere in the States.[/QUOTE]
I think you might possibly be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is statistically no good reason for private gun ownership. I'm saying that the number of situations where private gun ownership has improved a situation (not including hunting and law enforcement) is a statistically anomaly, not significantly different from zero.

Austrailia's last mass shooting was in 1996. After that they passed gun safety measures, including buying back guns. Gun deaths of any sort (homicide, suicide, accidental) are all sharply lower. Non-firearm homicide and suicide are up slightly, but not as much as firearms were down. Prior to 1996, they were having a mass negative externality incident every other year or so going back to the early 80s.

Guns are not like drugs. Guns have to be manufactured, they dont grow in a person's backyard. Prohibition does work, but its going to take a lot of work to clean up the ones already out there, as well as change the culture and making the investments (spending) necessary to improve the quality of life.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I think you might possibly be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is statistically no good reason for private gun ownership. I'm saying that the number of situations where private gun ownership has improved a situation (not including hunting and law enforcement) is a statistically anomaly, not significantly different from zero.

Austrailia's last mass shooting was in 1996. After that they passed gun safety measures, including buying back guns. Gun deaths of any sort (homicide, suicide, accidental) are all sharply lower. Non-firearm homicide and suicide are up slightly, but not as much as firearms were down. Prior to 1996, they were having a mass negative externality incident every other year or so going back to the early 80s.

Guns are not like drugs. Guns have to be manufactured, they dont grow in a person's backyard. Prohibition does work, but its going to take a lot of work to clean up the ones already out there, as well as change the culture and making the investments (spending) necessary to improve the quality of life.[/QUOTE]

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
​
Click to expand...

BTW, this idea that people can't make guns on their own is completely ridiculous. A little machining know-how is all it takes.
 
You're citing the NCPA, a partisan hack group, who cites the Examiner, a user-generated content shitshow of a website.

The internet is over.

Back to your "outpost" theory of policing - Newtown is < 60 square miles, so police are not that far away as long as they're in the town at all. And to do this for every school in every jurisdiction means hiring more officers in almost every jurisdiction. Your whole thought exercise is predicated on do-nothing donut-eating, car-sitting, ain't-got-shit-to-do police officers. Which is pretty far off the mark from what police actually do. Therefore, your idea that saving schools will add zero/little cost is utterly preposterous.
 
Is there any kind of statistic with Police Officers already in schools vs not being and if it has actually changed anything?

The high school I graduated from has been gated up and has a full time police officer on the premises when school is in session. I'm sure other parts of the country aren't like this but I'm sure more urban areas are.
 
I'd like to point out a few things.

1. The guns used in this shooting were legally acquired. Not bought on the black market like it's assumed criminals will just do. He used his mother's guns, which brings me to point 2...

2. This man's mother, whom he also killed, was not a responsible gun owner. I've read where people said she was responsible with them, but then her son used them to kill her and many others, so yeah. So I say to "gun enthusiasts" here or otherwise, lock up your shit. If someone uses your weapon to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for what was done with your weapons.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']
What could we do about our violent culture though? I don't see any clear solutions for that.[/QUOTE]
Take away their guns
You asked the question , and thats my response. (sorry , because I know you hate it)
Think about what your post is actually touching on: In a place like Chicago where thugged out gangsters have gone full retard -
Do those kids need to see a mental healthcare professionalism and prescribed medication?
Or do they just need all their guns taken away.

Heres the thing , Just so you understand me because believe or not, I do get it.

Whenever we go down this path we end up regurgitating the same attack line. I know that when I say "Take away their guns" What the average law abiding responsible gun owner actually hears is: "You're a dumbass". And thats when the conversation falls apart. Thats really what almost every versus convo should teach everyone in the end.

When you have ideological beliefs that are allowed to sort of 'flourish' inside its own vacuum where nothing can touch it , it'll just grow and thrive and become this sacrosanct edict. If you take those same ideological beliefs , remove them to the bubble and then apply them to the actual circumstances / situation - They die. Simply because it could only live in the bubble.
And thats the point I cant let go of.

The circumstances have changed. We're not talkin about a dude and a clocktower or a nut in a book depository anymore. Chicago isnt going to just fix itself , thats for sure.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd like to point out a few things.

1. The guns used in this shooting were legally acquired. Not bought on the black market like it's assumed criminals will just do. He used his mother's guns, which brings me to point 2...

2. This man's mother, whom he also killed, was not a responsible gun owner. I've read where people said she was responsible with them, but then her son used them to kill her and many others, so yeah. So I say to "gun enthusiasts" here or otherwise, lock up your shit. If someone uses your weapon to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for what was done with your weapons.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more.

We should also point out that CT has its own AWB which mirrored the one we had before in this country. And yet, despite this ban, it still happened.

[quote name='EdRyder']Take away their guns
You asked the question , and thats my response. (sorry , because I know you hate it)[/QUOTE]

Except they're still violent, so your "solution" solved absolutely nothing.

[quote name='EdRyder']
Think about what your post is actually touching on: In a place like Chicago where thugged out gangsters have gone full retard -
Do those kids need to see a mental healthcare professionalism and prescribed medication?
Or do they just need all their guns taken away.
[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, sort of like how people addicted to drugs would stop being addicted to them if we just ban drugs! Oh wait...

All you'll succeed in is taking away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Again, look at the restrictive rights in Washington DC, Baltimore and Chicago. Despite this, they still get guns, the murders continue.

[quote name='EdRyder']
Heres the thing , Just so you understand me because believe or not, I do get it.

Whenever we go down this path we end up regurgitating the same attack line. I know that when I say "Take away their guns" What the average law abiding responsible gun owner actually hears is: "You're a dumbass". And thats when the conversation falls apart. Thats really what almost every versus convo should teach everyone in the end.

When you have ideological beliefs that are allowed to sort of 'flourish' inside its own vacuum where nothing can touch it , it'll just grow and thrive and become this sacrosanct edict. If you take those same ideological beliefs , remove them to the bubble and then apply them to the actual circumstances / situation - They die. Simply because it could only live in the bubble.
And thats the point I cant let go of.

The circumstances have changed. We're not talkin about a dude and a clocktower or a nut in a book depository anymore. Chicago isnt going to just fix itself , thats for sure.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I'm just more interested in real solutions. Banning guns is not the solution. More background checks? Better systems? Safety requirements? These types of requirements don't hamper your average law abiding citizen. Full out bans on ownership of things is never a good idea (except slavery of course). Owning something should not be outlawed, because there will always be a demand and those determined will always get them, regardless of the law.

Need an example? Just remember that CT had a ban on the deadly weapons that weren't even used in this crime, and yet, there are calls to ban said weapons? Does. Not. Compute.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']

Ah yes, sort of like how people addicted to drugs would stop being addicted to them if we just ban drugs! Oh wait...
[/QUOTE]

So you do think that when people are determined to do something they'll find a way? So determined people who want to kill kids , they'll find a way. If its not guns it'll be something else.
Just like when I take away the thugged out kid's guns. I didnt take away his violent nature so the murder statistics and death toll would stay exactly the same. Ive solved nothing.
 
[quote name='Clak']If someone uses your weapon to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for what was done with your weapons.[/QUOTE]
ridiculous

next you'll be telling us that if someone steals your car and uses it to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for that too
 
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!

There we have it!! Let's get rid of the video games!!!
 
So the people that are claiming to actually be interested in a solution are suggesting that we need to do something about the fundamental violent nature of human beings , not simply the guns themselves?
 
[quote name='EdRyder']So the people that are claiming to actually be interested in a solution are suggesting that we need to do something about the fundamental violent nature of human beings , not simply the guns themselves?[/QUOTE]
There is no solution either way.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']So the people that are claiming to actually be interested in a solution are suggesting that we need to do something about the fundamental violent nature of human beings , not simply the guns themselves?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Guns are just objects.

guns-killed-bin-laden.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Someone remind me what kind of firearms the 9/11 hijackers used and how many people they killed...[/QUOTE]

Yes, someone needs to put a stop stop this rash of plane hijackings that have happened all over the country since then!
 
[quote name='EdRyder']So the people that are claiming to actually be interested in a solution are suggesting that we need to do something about the fundamental violent nature of human beings , not simply the guns themselves?[/QUOTE]

Please don't call it "nature." If it were "nature," it wouldn't be so high in the United States relative to other nations.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Yes, someone needs to put a stop stop this rash of plane hijackings that have happened all over the country since then![/QUOTE]

Well, duh. That's obviously because we passed legislation banning civilian use of planes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please don't call it "nature." If it were "nature," it wouldn't be so high in the United States relative to other nations.[/QUOTE]

Those other nations... they have similar demographics to the United States?
 
[quote name='TripJack']ridiculous

next you'll be telling us that if someone steals your car and uses it to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for that too[/QUOTE]


That would be a good point if a car were a weapon. Of course it isn't, and you show how ridiculous you actually are.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please don't call it "nature." If it were "nature," it wouldn't be so high in the United States relative to other nations.[/QUOTE]
I just think it's fostered more here than in other places. Things can be in a person's nature, but not on the surface due to how they were raised. If you glorify violence, make it cool, well then you're going to see a different type of society. I mean a lot of things are in a human's nature, but we don't let those things rule us.

Well, at least most of us don't.
 
[quote name='Clak']That would be a good point if a car were a weapon. Of course it isn't, and you show how ridiculous you actually are.[/QUOTE]

I meant to ask you, would such punishments apply to people with safes that were broken into?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Those other nations... they have similar demographics to the United States?[/QUOTE]

Well, they have human beings, yes? Go back and look at the phrase I was responding to - the "fundamental violent nature of human beings."

On another point, demographics shouldn't matter if we're talking about "nature," yes?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, they have human beings, yes? Go back and look at the phrase I was responding to - the "fundamental violent nature of human beings."

On another point, demographics shouldn't matter if we're talking about "nature," yes?[/QUOTE]

I think he meant our nature as Americans, not humans.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:lol: Ok, you can't be fucking serious.[/QUOTE]

....So no reasonable justification of why you fear one over the other? Alright then.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".

It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.[/QUOTE]

It's almost like 2 different people said those things.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']....So no reasonable justification of why you fear one over the other? Alright then.[/QUOTE]

I'm just not sure I should justify such a stupid question with an answer.

Companies don't steal money from me every pay period under threat of force. They don't make laws that make me live a life that they feel is best for me. They can't, under the flag of law, kidnap me, detain me without due process, torture me and kill me with prejudice. For those companies not in bed with said politicians, they're held accountable when they do the wrong thing and at least with companies, I can decide whether or not I want to give them my money.

Like I said, stupid question.

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, that wouldn't be nature.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I didn't say he used it correctly.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It's almost like 2 different people said those things.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that it's bob.
 
Seems like some people want all the benefits of having an orderly, governed society, but without any actual government. You want it, but you don't want to pay for it. Like the dumbasses I hear bitch about the condition of roads, and taxes in the same conversation. You all should buy an island and form your own little nation, would be interesting to watch.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It's almost like 2 different people said those things.[/QUOTE]

...which would explain why I said that "the conversation goes" from one to the other and not "you said this, then that."
 
From CNN's blog:
Peter Lanza was ordered to pay Nancy Lanza alimony this year of $289,800. The order also required Peter Lanza to
pay the cost of both of the couple's two children's four-year college educations and graduate school programs, pay for Adam Lanza's car and maintain a $3 million life insurance policy naming his ex-wife as beneficiary.
Click to expand...

You would think Adam Lanza would have had the best mental health care available for that kind of money. His ex-wife was instead wasting her time and his money preparing for an apocalypse. Seeing as how she's dead now, I guess she didn't prepare enough and got exactly what was coming to her.
 
[quote name='Spokker']From CNN's blog:


You would think Adam Lanza would have had the best mental health care available for that kind of money. His ex-wife was instead wasting her time and his money preparing for an apocalypse. Seeing as how she's dead now, I guess she didn't prepare enough and got exactly what was coming to her.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty harsh. You should try being a better person.
 
I do find it a bit funny that his mother thought teaching him how to shoot would instill a sense of responsibility in him.

Whoops.
 
[quote name='Clak']Seems like some people want all the benefits of having an orderly, governed society, but without any actual government. You want it, but you don't want to pay for it. Like the dumbasses I hear bitch about the condition of roads, and taxes in the same conversation. You all should buy an island and form your own little nation, would be interesting to watch.[/QUOTE]

For a good example just play Bioshock. It's all that with psychic powers thrown in for good measure ;)
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']That's pretty harsh. You should try being a better person.[/QUOTE]
It is entirely reasonable that bad parenting had a lot to do with this. The one place where your crazy son should be is not with his equally crazy mother who is hoarding guns, food and supplies in preparation for the end of the world.

Two things come to mind. She either had the means to get her son the best mental health care in the world but didn't *or* she did get him the best mental health care in the world and it didn't work anyway, so what good would "increasing access to mental health care" do?

Did the court know she was that paranoid? Why would the court put him in her care? Why would she be allowed to collect that much money to fund her crazy "prep" work? I'd say she was right about one thing. The end was coming, but not in the way she expected! This is just amazing stuff that is coming out. TEOTWAWKI!
 
[quote name='Spokker']From CNN's blog:


You would think Adam Lanza would have had the best mental health care available for that kind of money. His ex-wife was instead wasting her time and his money preparing for an apocalypse. Seeing as how she's dead now, I guess she didn't prepare enough and got exactly what was coming to her.[/QUOTE]

The system (as broken as it is) only functions for willing participants
[quote name='Spokker']

Two things come to mind. She either had the means to get her son the best mental health care in the world but didn't *or* she did get him the best mental health care in the world and it didn't work anyway, so what good would "increasing access to mental health care" do?
![/QUOTE]

Yeah I dont know anymore. Certainly more access wouldn't do any harm. The insured and people with money can benefit the most from the system already , but again you have to be actively engaged in your mental health just as you do your physical. You know whos adamant that they arent crazy? The crazy
 
We should definitely ban guns. The founding fathers would have never thought we could have had things that could shoot people so fast back when they lived. I'm gonna go protest the NRA tomorrow. Afterwards I'm going to the local GM dealership to protest their cars, and call for them to be banned. Did you know cars killed like 30,000 people last year? If the founding fathers would have known about that back then, they would have banned cars too. I mean when was the last time a car saved anybody? Also we have car deaths at like 5 times the UK. Somebody do something!
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Absolutely. Guns are just objects.

[/QUOTE]

idiotic. Guns are more than "objects" they are specific, tools made for one purpose- killing and killing efficiently. In the hands of trained people, the risk can be minimized (but never removed- ever hear of friendly fire) but let's not be dense or glib. They are uniquely dangerous. Guns make the actions of stupid people worse- never better. If you saw some nut threatening someone with something other than a gun, would you think "I guess it really wouldn't make a difference if he had a gun because Crazy gonna be crazy"

Also, don't care about Osama getting shot. I care about the 32,000 Americans a year.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/
 
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when he was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.
Click to expand...
 
They only time guns were used to "defend" people from the government was to keep slavery going....not exactly a stellar record.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']We should definitely ban guns. The founding fathers would have never thought we could have had things that could shoot people so fast back when they lived. I'm gonna go protest the NRA tomorrow. Afterwards I'm going to the local GM dealership to protest their cars, and call for them to be banned. Did you know cars killed like 30,000 people last year? If the founding fathers would have known about that back then, they would have banned cars too. I mean when was the last time a car saved anybody? Also we have car deaths at like 5 times the UK. Somebody do something![/QUOTE]

One thing has always bothered me about cars, I know we can't get rid of idiot drivers but why the do cars have the ability to drive past 80 mph.

I don't think banning guns would have much of an impact, criminals would have to think of new ways to hold up a liquor store but at the same time would penalties for possessing a gun be harsh or lenient? If set laws aren't set in place to try and diswade somebody I really don't see a point. As it is the whole prison system is a mess and just a school for career criminals.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']We should definitely ban guns. The founding fathers would have never thought we could have had things that could shoot people so fast back when they lived. I'm gonna go protest the NRA tomorrow. Afterwards I'm going to the local GM dealership to protest their cars, and call for them to be banned. Did you know cars killed like 30,000 people last year? If the founding fathers would have known about that back then, they would have banned cars too. I mean when was the last time a car saved anybody? Also we have car deaths at like 5 times the UK. Somebody do something![/QUOTE]

Please come up with a new argument that hasn't been debunked countless times and a few in this thread already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top