Author Topic: Guns again  (Read 20150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10504
  • Darwins +189/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #58 on: December 17, 2012, 06:12:29 AM »
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Guns again
« Reply #59 on: December 17, 2012, 07:39:28 AM »
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.

Knowing that one of the definitions of nads is testicles, your post was humorous and still true.  :D
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2012, 07:57:29 AM »
You could only ban guns with an amendment. More than 2/3 of states still support guns.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #61 on: December 17, 2012, 08:11:57 AM »
Emerging information seems to suggest that his mom was a doomsday prepper. 

The xenophobia of preppers is what always startles me.  As someone who has lived through various widespread crises and natural disasters, I am always struck by hour communities come together and help each other. [1]The preppers are the folks who have no intentions of helping anyone but themselves and their close circle, and have all intentions of shooting anyone who wants their "stuff."

What a sad, tragic irony, that this prepper, was shot by her own guns, by her own family member. 

I wonder what we will learn in days to come about this sad, tortured young man.  Did he kill these children in anger?  Or did he, in his twisted mind, believe he was saving these kids by killing them? 
 1. In the aftermath of Sandy here in NYC, folks in unaffected neighborhoods like mine amassed literally tons of supplies, and transported them to devastated communities like the Rockaways.  And donated thousands of work hours in the most impacted communities.  Folks with electricity put out power strips for strangers without electricity to charge phones. Store owners with no electricity contributed perishable foods to community meals, that were prepared on dark streets and shared with strangers.  We saw it after 9/11.  I saw it in the Mexico City earthquake, long ago.  Most people come together to survive. This is the way it should be.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10504
  • Darwins +189/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #62 on: December 17, 2012, 08:44:02 AM »
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.

Knowing that one of the definitions of nads is testicles, your post was humorous and still true.  :D
Shit, I meant "hands"  . Oh, well, works just as well. ;D
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2012, 08:46:27 AM »
You could only ban guns with an amendment. More than 2/3 of states still support guns.

So? Pass an amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment.  Badger your Congressman. Do whatever is necessary to stop this. The alternative is to carry on as usual or pass some half-hearted measure that doesn’t really achieve anything. If people sit on their hands and do nothing you just know there is going to be another school shooting, and another, and another… There have been thirteen mass shootings this year in the US. There is no reason to think they are going to stop unless some drastic measures are taken.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10504
  • Darwins +189/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2012, 08:46:56 AM »
I don't have the stat in front of me but the odds of getting killed if you have a gun in the house was way higher than if you did not.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7301
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Guns again
« Reply #65 on: December 17, 2012, 09:03:20 AM »
I would support it 3sigma.  Sounds like a great way to clamp down on this so that every single person has to go through a bit more hassle.  Sure beats the current setup of multiple gun shows per city, per week, where one can walk out with an ICBM in their trunk.   ;D

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #66 on: December 17, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »
Nobody here seems willing to suggest banning guns. Why not? There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms each year in the US. Here’s my proposal to reduce the carnage.

Ban private ownership of all firearms and airguns unless a person can provide a genuine reason and demonstrate a genuine need to own a gun. Genuine reasons would include pest control, hunting, target shooting or collecting. Self-defence would not be considered a genuine reason.

The approved firearm would be the least powerful weapon required for the task—for example, a single-shot .22 for pest control on farms. Applicants would need to demonstrate a genuine need for a more powerful weapon. Only professional hunters would be allowed semi-automatic weapons. Target shooters would need to compete in a specified minimum number of matches each year to retain their licence. Collectors’ weapons would be rendered permanently inoperable by plugging the barrel and welding the action. Only registered collectors would be allowed to own replica firearms.

All gun owners would be licensed through a rigorous process including a probationary period and each firearm would be individually registered to the owner by serial number. Additional firearms would only be allowed if the owner could demonstrate a genuine need to own more than one firearm. Owners must have secure storage for the firearm.

The currently existing weapons in private hands would be surrendered and destroyed. Fair compensation would be paid and financed with a levy on all taxpayers.

So, what do people think of this proposal? Do you think it is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for this? If not, what are your objections?
personal freedom.
it is pretty simple.
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?
is there something inmate about a gun that makes it dangerous?
people kill themselves in bathtubs accidentally.
should we ban bathtubs or water?
people get drowned.
should we ban any thing that can contain water or should we ban the water?
oh if it is a numbers thing.
more people are killed by guns that drowning... ok
hmm...
lets not worry about the numbers but the individual fatalities unless individual fatalities don't matter...
ok
so what does a murder by drowning and a murder by firearm have in common?
well people's hands and stuff.
well...
lets get rid of the tools used to commit each of the drowning and firearm type deaths...
hmm..
people get strangled.
fuck..
well, lets ban.... um hands.
yeah, well shit... some people get strangled to death because somebody uses their legs...
oh heck lets just ban bodies.
see there is a perfect solution.
ban bodies.
people can no longer have bodies.
nobody gets hurt.. the perfect solution all we have to do is implement a ban...
you pick what it should be... please...

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #67 on: December 17, 2012, 10:20:09 AM »
How about we bundle abortion and guns together. You want free access to guns? Then the gubment is going to pay for abortion for girls any age. If they want them, no parent involved.

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2012, 05:32:25 PM »
personal freedom.

You seem to think people should have the sort of “personal freedom” that allows them to gun down classrooms full of schoolchildren. That’s pretty indefensible, yet you attempt to justify it with nothing more than a pathetic straw man argument.

Quote
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?

The people who use them, of course. What sort of society breeds people who choose to shoot 6-year-old schoolchildren? There are around 300 million people in the US and 6.7 billion in the rest of the world. The US population is roughly one twentieth of the world population, yet the US has three times the number of school shootings than the rest of the world put together. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because of the culture in the US and the attitude toward guns. Until the culture and attitude are changed, the mass shootings will continue.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #69 on: December 17, 2012, 06:16:05 PM »
How about we bundle abortion and guns together. You want free access to guns? Then the gubment is going to pay for abortion for girls any age. If they want them, no parent involved.
hehehehe nice change up.
seems reasonable to me.
How about we bundle atheists and the executive branch of the gov? in it's entirety....

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #70 on: December 17, 2012, 06:43:52 PM »
personal freedom.

You seem to think people should have the sort of “personal freedom” that allows them to gun down classrooms full of schoolchildren. That’s pretty indefensible, yet you attempt to justify it with nothing more than a pathetic straw man argument.
quit projecting.
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.
Quote
Quote
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?

The people who use them, of course. What sort of society breeds people who choose to shoot 6-year-old schoolchildren? There are around 300 million people in the US and 6.7 billion in the rest of the world. The US population is roughly one twentieth of the world population, yet the US has three times the number of school shootings than the rest of the world put together. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because of the culture in the US and the attitude toward guns. Until the culture and attitude are changed, the mass shootings will continue.
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?


3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2012, 07:21:46 PM »
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.

I don't think personal freedom is dangerous, per se, but you used the term “personal freedom” as an objection to banning guns. There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms in the US every year. There have been 13 mass shootings in the US this year. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't go on rampages of violence because I'm not, by nature, a violent person nor have I been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. I take it you don't want to ban guns so how do you propose controlling the behaviour of people who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude?


Quote
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?

I really don't know what you are asking here. Are you demanding that I respond to your straw man argument as though it were reasonable?

Offline shnozzola

Re: Guns again
« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2012, 07:30:14 PM »
Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson
            By Joseph A. Califano Jr, The Washington Post

Quote
Ifever there were a moment for President Obama to learn from history, it is now, in the wake of Friday’s shootings at the elementary school at Newtown, Conn. The timely lesson for Obama, drawn from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson — the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control — is this: Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (just weeks after the fatal shooting of Martin Luther King Jr. and only a few years after President John F. Kennedy was shot), President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation he had sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. LBJ ordered all of us on his staff — and urged allies in Congress — to act swiftly. “We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days,” he said, “before the gun lobby gets organized.” He told Larry O’Brien and me, “We’ve got to beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] into the offices of members of Congress.”

For three years Johnson’s bill had been locked in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a powerful army of gun lobbyists. But LBJ was always poised to grasp any opportunity to achieve his legislative objectives, even in the most horrendous circumstances. He had used the tragedy of King’s assassination in 1968 to “at least get something for our nation” out of it, finally persuading the House to pass the Fair Housing bill he had sent it in 1966. Johnson saw in the tragedy of the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of 1968 a chance to get his gun bill enacted.

Johnson’s bill would ban all mail-order and out-of-state sales of handguns, shotguns and rifles; prohibit the sale of guns to minors; and require national registration of all guns and licensing of all gun owners. There had been little hope of enactment. But the day after Kennedy died from gunshot wounds, LBJ renewed his pressure on the Senate Judiciary Committee to report his bill out and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Maryland Sen. Joseph Tydings, a close friend of Kennedy, and a couple of Democratic colleagues wanted the committee to consider a bill they believed was stronger. LBJ thought the Tydings proposal had no chance of passage and feared that any delay to consider it would give the gun lobby time to kill his legislation.

That’s exactly what happened. The Tydings proposal never got beyond the discussion phase, and LBJ’s comprehensive bill failed by a tie vote in the committee. With relentless pressure, he was able to get a bill by October with a prohibition against mail-order sales (LBJ called it “murder by mail order”), sale of guns to minors and importation of “$10 specials,” or cheap guns that were pouring into the country. But Johnson’s pet proposals to license all gun owners and register all guns were defeated.

When he signed the legislation on Oct. 22, 1968, LBJ vented his anger with the gun lobby for killing licensing and registration:
“The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful gun lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year. .?.?. We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years — too much anguish too forget so quickly. So now we must complete the task which this long needed legislation begins.”

Obama’s pained remarks in the wake of this latest school shooting echo Johnson’s anguish a half-century ago. But Obama has a unique opportunity: a lame-duck session of Congress. If he learns from the lesson of LBJ — two weeks to get action — and takes advantage of the fact that many members can vote their conscience without fear of retribution by the gun lobby because they are not seeking reelection, this nation may “complete the task” of passing comprehensive gun controls. That’s an opportunity that is worth grasping out of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2012, 07:50:37 PM »
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.

I don't think personal freedom is dangerous, per se, but you used the term “personal freedom” as an objection to banning guns. There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms in the US every year. There have been 13 mass shootings in the US this year. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't go on rampages of violence because I'm not, by nature, a violent person nor have I been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. I take it you don't want to ban guns so how do you propose controlling the behaviour of people who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude?
education and therapy.
you know poke em with a sharp stick, right in the eye if you have to....

Quote
Quote
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?

I really don't know what you are asking here. Are you demanding that I respond to your straw man argument as though it were reasonable?
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #74 on: December 17, 2012, 07:51:35 PM »
Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson
            By Joseph A. Califano Jr, The Washington Post

Quote
Ifever there were a moment for President Obama to learn from history, it is now, in the wake of Friday’s shootings at the elementary school at Newtown, Conn. The timely lesson for Obama, drawn from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson — the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control — is this: Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (just weeks after the fatal shooting of Martin Luther King Jr. and only a few years after President John F. Kennedy was shot), President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation he had sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. LBJ ordered all of us on his staff — and urged allies in Congress — to act swiftly. “We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days,” he said, “before the gun lobby gets organized.” He told Larry O’Brien and me, “We’ve got to beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] into the offices of members of Congress.”

For three years Johnson’s bill had been locked in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a powerful army of gun lobbyists. But LBJ was always poised to grasp any opportunity to achieve his legislative objectives, even in the most horrendous circumstances. He had used the tragedy of King’s assassination in 1968 to “at least get something for our nation” out of it, finally persuading the House to pass the Fair Housing bill he had sent it in 1966. Johnson saw in the tragedy of the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of 1968 a chance to get his gun bill enacted.

Johnson’s bill would ban all mail-order and out-of-state sales of handguns, shotguns and rifles; prohibit the sale of guns to minors; and require national registration of all guns and licensing of all gun owners. There had been little hope of enactment. But the day after Kennedy died from gunshot wounds, LBJ renewed his pressure on the Senate Judiciary Committee to report his bill out and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Maryland Sen. Joseph Tydings, a close friend of Kennedy, and a couple of Democratic colleagues wanted the committee to consider a bill they believed was stronger. LBJ thought the Tydings proposal had no chance of passage and feared that any delay to consider it would give the gun lobby time to kill his legislation.

That’s exactly what happened. The Tydings proposal never got beyond the discussion phase, and LBJ’s comprehensive bill failed by a tie vote in the committee. With relentless pressure, he was able to get a bill by October with a prohibition against mail-order sales (LBJ called it “murder by mail order”), sale of guns to minors and importation of “$10 specials,” or cheap guns that were pouring into the country. But Johnson’s pet proposals to license all gun owners and register all guns were defeated.

When he signed the legislation on Oct. 22, 1968, LBJ vented his anger with the gun lobby for killing licensing and registration:
“The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful gun lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year. .?.?. We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years — too much anguish too forget so quickly. So now we must complete the task which this long needed legislation begins.”

Obama’s pained remarks in the wake of this latest school shooting echo Johnson’s anguish a half-century ago. But Obama has a unique opportunity: a lame-duck session of Congress. If he learns from the lesson of LBJ — two weeks to get action — and takes advantage of the fact that many members can vote their conscience without fear of retribution by the gun lobby because they are not seeking reelection, this nation may “complete the task” of passing comprehensive gun controls. That’s an opportunity that is worth grasping out of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn.
yeah great...
a wall of text and no logic.

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #75 on: December 17, 2012, 10:13:04 PM »
education and therapy.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I guess education and therapy have never been tried before. If they have then they haven’t reduced the carnage enough.

Quote
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?

As I said, I’m not a violent person and I haven’t been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. However, there are violent people in the US who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude. How do you propose to find them and educate them or give them therapy before they start shooting? How would you have identified and educated Adam Lanza or Thomas Lane before they began shooting schoolchildren? We’ve seen from past school shootings that it is very difficult to identify these people as threats before they start shooting. Wouldn’t it be wiser then to ensure that it is more difficult for them to gain access to the guns they used without having to identify them first? The easiest way to do that is to make it more difficult for anyone to gain access to guns. It also has the benefit of reducing  the other 30,000 deaths and 75,000 injuries due to firearms each year in the US.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM by 3sigma »

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #76 on: December 17, 2012, 10:29:49 PM »
education and therapy.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I guess education and therapy have never been tried before. If they have then they haven’t reduced the carnage enough.

Quote
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?

As I said, I’m not a violent person and I haven’t been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. However, there are violent people in the US who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude. How do you propose to find them and educate them or give them therapy before they start shooting? How would you have identified and educated Adam Lanza or Thomas Lane before they began shooting schoolchildren? We’ve seen from past school shootings that it is very difficult to identify these people as threats before they start shooting. Wouldn’t it be wiser then to ensure that it is more difficult for them to gain access to the guns they used without having to identify them first? The easiest way to do that is to make it more difficult for anyone to gain access to guns.
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?
and here is the most obvious answer I can think of to answer the the slew of questions you threw at me.

but that is a public school... and heck they are "out of control"...
The easiest way to stop rampage violence is to um... stop rampage violence.
like I said people drown.
people get drowned.
Murder is murder.
If by happen chance people are taught not to murder then murder would cease.
But you want to ban guns.
Lets say guns ceased to exist.
Can you please explain why murder wouldn't exist if guns ceased to exist?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6632
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #78 on: December 17, 2012, 10:54:22 PM »
I assume that the innocent children who died in their classrooms this week did not live in a reality in which they heard gunfire often.  My sweet 6 year old has never heard gunfire.  If I could, I would keep it that way forever and ever. 

This precocious 9 year old boy, Amor “Lilman” Arteaga,  from Flatbush, Brooklyn, lives in a world in which gun violence in common.  Less than a week before the shooting in Connecticut, he heard gunfire outside his home, and dropped to the floor in his living room. 

He knows more about violence than many of us.  And he has a message.  A simple message.  A message that perhaps will become more complex as he matures.  Although the video focuses on various forms of violence, including bullying, domestic violence, and random violence, he asked his father's permission to dedicate his video to the victims of Sandy Hook.   


Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #79 on: December 17, 2012, 11:01:20 PM »
Well, finally someone has an intelligent and reasonable solution to the problem:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+3quarksdaily+%283quarksdaily%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Can't argue with that logic.
I am pretty sure the Catholic church would agree.
Last thing they want is alter boys armed....

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #80 on: December 17, 2012, 11:36:22 PM »
I assume that the innocent children who died in their classrooms this week did not live in a reality in which they heard gunfire often.  My sweet 6 year old has never heard gunfire.  If I could, I would keep it that way forever and ever. 

This precocious 9 year old boy, Amor “Lilman” Arteaga,  from Flatbush, Brooklyn, lives in a world in which gun violence in common.  Less than a week before the shooting in Connecticut, he heard gunfire outside his home, and dropped to the floor in his living room. 

He knows more about violence than many of us.  And he has a message.  A simple message.  A message that perhaps will become more complex as he matures.  Although the video focuses on various forms of violence, including bullying, domestic violence, and random violence, he asked his father's permission to dedicate his video to the victims of Sandy Hook.   

-ttp://youtu.be/kFZlqAvFjyo
Ok, Although the video focuses on various forms of violence... the message is?
...Submit to authority?
Oh come on...  :police:
please.
BTW I hope his message gets more complex he is going to need it, because I am running out of energy.
guns are not the cause of violence, weapons are used in violent situations.
Look at what just happened to the U.S.
We as a nation invaded a country and shot the place up... and are still engaged in that type of behavior.
Lets ban guns.... give me a break...
Why not ban weapons?
Like um this weapon.

Quote
Since his mommy wont let 1 year old son "Benny" talk on the phone to a real person and does not like being tricked that there is someone on the other end he takes the phone and hits her with it.

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #81 on: December 18, 2012, 06:23:13 AM »
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?

I was instilled with ethics and morals by my parents, teachers and wider community and they all have their foundation in the ethic of reciprocity. I was taught never to resort to violence. I was never instilled with the belief that owning guns was a right.


Quote
and here is the most obvious answer I can think of to answer the the slew of questions you threw at me.

I asked you how you are going to identify the people who go on rampage killings and you gave me a picture of a school. Do you think that we can identify them in childhood? How’s that working out? It didn’t help with the rampage killers people described as being normal, friendly people right up to the point where they started shooting people. It doesn’t seem to be preventing 100,000 people being killed and injured each year by firearms.


Quote
Murder is murder.
If by happen chance people are taught not to murder then murder would cease.
But you want to ban guns.
Lets say guns ceased to exist.
Can you please explain why murder wouldn't exist if guns ceased to exist?

Oh, of course, how stupid we’ve been. All we had to do was teach people not to murder. Why didn’t anyone ever think of this before? If only we’d passed laws against murder or taught people in schools or churches that murder was bad. Think of the lives we could have saved.

Of course we’re never going to stop people murdering each other, but if guns were banned and much more difficult to obtain, it would certainly put a dent in the nearly 13,000 gun homicides in the US each year. Guns are range weapons. They can kill people at a distance. Semi-automatic weapons can kill people quickly. The children shot in Sandy Hook were shot between three and eleven times each. Twenty children and six adults were killed in a matter of 15 minutes. Contrast that with the knife rampage in China that kin hell posted earlier. Sadly, 22 children were injured, but none was killed. Note the last sentence in that story, “China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes.

If we reduce the number of guns available then the crimes using guns and the gun deaths decrease. That’s obvious. Those restrictions I posted earlier were very close to the restrictions imposed by the Australian government after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In the 18 years before the restrictions, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 14 years since the restrictions took full effect, there were none. However, you don’t want to ban guns. You’d rather try to identify mass shooters before they start shooting or educate people that murder is bad. Instead of employing a solution that has been shown to be effective, you’d rather try something that has never been effective.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #82 on: December 18, 2012, 07:34:12 AM »
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?

I was instilled with ethics and morals by my parents, teachers and wider community and they all have their foundation in the ethic of reciprocity. I was taught never to resort to violence. I was never instilled with the belief that owning guns was a right.
...[useless bullshit]...
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.

3sigma

  • Guest
Re: Guns again
« Reply #83 on: December 18, 2012, 08:53:44 AM »
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.

This doesn’t even make sense. What do you think—that because I don’t shoot people then education must work? How do you explain the other 100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms each year? Did the people who caused them just not receive the proper education and therapy? If you think we could ever provide enough education and therapy to prevent people killing each other then you are living in a fantasy world. What we can do is prevent them killing so many people by restricting their access to guns.

Quote
...[useless bullshit]...

What a charming person you are. I’ve shown you how restricting access to guns does reduce gun deaths. It is obvious that education and therapy are not reducing gun deaths. It is also obvious that we cannot even reliably identify mass shooters before they start shooting. You dismiss all of that with this cheap denial. I really see no point in continuing this conversation if this is how you are going to behave. Are you going to address the points I’ve raised or just continue to dismiss them out of hand like this?

Do you want to see any restriction on guns at all? Do you acknowledge that restricting access to guns reduces gun deaths? Do you acknowledge that we cannot reliably identify which people are going to become mass shooters? Do you acknowledge that education and therapy have so far failed to reduce gun deaths significantly?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2012, 09:18:53 AM »
You won't get very far with none, 3sigma.  He's a troll.  Reasoned exchanges aren't really possible, there.

That said, you're not quite right about identification pre-rampage.  There is a long way we could go in providing mental health options.

For example, there's the author of this article:
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

It's by the mom of a mentally-ill young teen who's violent and dangerous.  He's exactly the kind of guy who's likely to grow up into one of these mass shooters.  And that fact is painfully obvious right now, at the age of 13.  It's just an example, of course - who knows how prevalent such clear-cut cases are compared to the rest.  But it does highlight a problem with the system we have in place to deal with such kids.  Right now, the solution is to send them to jail.  There've got to be better options made available, because jail's not an attractive one.  And when the one option to prevent a known threat isn't an attractive option, it's not going to be sought out, and we're left with adults who are like that kid in the article.  Unless they kill themselves before then, maybe along with others.

What doesn't make sense is none's insistence that such an approach can't be coupled with gun-control measures.  The kid in the article should under no circumstances gain access to a gun.  Good luck with that in America.  Personal freedom, right?   &)
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #85 on: December 18, 2012, 09:32:15 AM »
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.

This doesn’t even make sense. What do you think—that because I don’t shoot people then education must work? How do you explain the other 100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms each year? Did the people who caused them just not receive the proper education and therapy? If you think we could ever provide enough education and therapy to prevent people killing each other then you are living in a fantasy world. What we can do is prevent them killing so many people by restricting their access to guns.

Quote
...[useless bullshit]...

What a charming person you are. I’ve shown you how restricting access to guns does reduce gun deaths. It is obvious that education and therapy are not reducing gun deaths. It is also obvious that we cannot even reliably identify mass shooters before they start shooting. You dismiss all of that with this cheap denial. I really see no point in continuing this conversation if this is how you are going to behave. Are you going to address the points I’ve raised or just continue to dismiss them out of hand like this?

Do you want to see any restriction on guns at all? Do you acknowledge that restricting access to guns reduces gun deaths? Do you acknowledge that we cannot reliably identify which people are going to become mass shooters? Do you acknowledge that education and therapy have so far failed to reduce gun deaths significantly?
geesh.
I guess if I ask a question followed by a self analysis people get all confused.
look at this again:
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
[confusing shit removed]
is there a problem answering the question?

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Guns again
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2012, 10:08:30 AM »
...
What doesn't make sense is none's insistence that such an approach can't be coupled with gun-control measures.  The kid in the article should under no circumstances gain access to a gun.  Good luck with that in America.  Personal freedom, right?   &)
I can only hope that the persons who intend to send me private messages will engage in the behavior I see in this post.
an inquiry....
yes, it's about personal freedom AND responsibility together.
I never said that personal freedom shouldn't include responsibility.
if personal freedom didn't include responsibility what keeps you from committing rampage violence?
a law on paper?
a suggestion from authority?
consider the scenario that personal freedom doesn't include personal responsibility, would that mean everything is meaningless including the person?
and if there is more to personal freedom than personal freedom what is it?