If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS 42 Birmingham) NewsFlash Gunman enters Alabama hospital, opens fire. Injures three before being killed by police. Begun, the copycat shootings have   (cbs42.com) divider line 835
    More: NewsFlash, St. Vincent, Alabama, UAB, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

18599 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 2:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

835 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 06:48:06 PM  

PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.
 
2012-12-15 06:50:11 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: - Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female


Better we have a civil war with the gun lobby now than ever see another list like this. I want to throw up.
 
2012-12-15 06:51:31 PM  

The Face Of Oblivion: If you have a way to do that, I'd like to hear it.


If I had a way to do it, I wouldn't be FARKing that's for sure.

'Gun control' is a four-letter word, and probably rightly so. What we need is re-recognizing that with our right to bear arms comes the responsibility of bearing arms. Other cultures have figured that part out, we need to start working our way there ourselves.
 
2012-12-15 06:52:00 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.


...There's evidence somewhere that the Connecticut shooter did not have this mental illness? Hallmarks of schizophrenia, talking about 'wanting to make history', just lost his job\a girlfriend?

If so, wow, that is one hell of a rare incident.
 
2012-12-15 06:53:31 PM  

PsiChick: Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.

The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


I've told everyone I know when this subject comes up many times that most gun owners, myself included, have been PUSHING for having mental illness added to the NICS check for a loooong time. VT Massacre? We all brought it up. Aurora? We all brought it up. Loughner? We all brought it up. Even among gunbloggers online, check out The Law Dog Files, A View From The Porch, etc., we are absolutely fine with, and have been encouraging a system to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. Half of the ideas posited even include a national ID/Database system to accomplish it.

It's something that we've been bringing up for a long time but now all of a sudden we're just scrambling for anything to deflect from the gun subject in the eyes of the people that look at these tragedies as a reason to retroactively criminalize 70 million US citizens.
 
2012-12-15 06:54:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.


There's another aspect to that too. The three types of mental illness associated with these kinds of shootings are psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. While I can understand outright banning anyone diagnosed with APD from possessing a gun, the fact is, banning the vast majority of harmless psychotics and depressives from possessing guns 1) adds to the stigma of those mental illnesses, and 2) adds to the overall deterrent which keeps people from seeking mental illness.

So if we go down that road, we're just adding to the long list of reasons to avoid mental health care if at all possible. Not only does that mean more people will suffer longer with mental illness, but it could actually be counterproductive. Eventually, some depressive who could have been stopped by a competent mental health professional will never visit one, and end up going on a shooting rampage instead.
 
2012-12-15 06:54:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Kit Fister: Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?

It wasn't. We're on Day Two of Post-Shooting Media Frenzy. You can expect that any shooting incident in which more than two rounds (total) are expended will be labeled a "mass shooting" by the media, and eagerly trumpeted as such by every breathless news anchor and talking head within earshot.

But remember: The mass media is TOTALLY not responsible for any mass shooting event. It's only a) evil guns or b) evil crazy people. The media has nothing to do with it.


This is why, in addition to certain donations (including to the victim's fund for the kids up in CT), I'm donating to an anti-media-hype fund to try and get laws passed to neuter the mass media hysteria.
 
2012-12-15 06:54:40 PM  

PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


Ok. What's the mental illness type? Let's hear about it.

The 800 POUND FARKING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is that effectively controlling access to guns by those who would use them to harm others requires a surveillance and policing apparatus so broad that it unquestionably violates even the current much-diminished Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. Anyone who opposes the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program (itself directed at CURRENTLY ILLEGAL firearms) should think very, very carefully about the gun controls that they propose.

Let's say a politician settles on background screenings before making legal access to firearms possible as the proposed means of preventing violence - is anyone naive enough to believe that (1) drug/gang-related violence involves registered or otherwise law-abiding gun owners and (2) that background checks will catch most mass murderers?
 
2012-12-15 06:55:29 PM  

Boojum2k:

Were the cops taking cover behind the hospital staff?


The gunman probably missed the officer moving towards him and hit the other people unintentionally or maybe the gunman was aiming for those people
 
2012-12-15 06:57:57 PM  

Tellingthem: You can't. It is impossible for anything to be 100% safe. You can try to make them safer. Even if you ban guns entirely. There will still be gun crime in America. Homicides are the lowest they have been in 20 years Link From 23,760 in 1992 to 14,612 in 2011. The violent crime rate is down dramatically as well. So what we have been doing has been working fantastically. I know these mass shootings get the headlines but statistically we are much safer now than we were even 10 years ago.


All true but I'll qualify 'safer' by saying 'safer in certain situations'. I'm safer going downtown or jaunting through the inner city. I may not be safer if I'm in a classroom or movie theater or some other environment that I can easily be trapped in.
 
2012-12-15 06:58:18 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: What we need is re-recognizing that with our right to bear arms comes the responsibility of bearing arms.


You're preaching to the choir here. The problem is that most gun homicides are not committed in high-profile events by crazies and a vanishingly small number are committed by the NRA-types pictured by the most ardent proponents of gun control legislation when they visualize their enemy.

The US has an excessive population of stupid, violent people and a dysfunctional mental healthcare system. The former produces a vast number of all-method homicides; the latter releases swarms of sick people, some of whom go on to commit high-profile crimes. The latter is addressed by improving mental healthcare; the former, perhaps by confining them all to Detroit.
 
2012-12-15 06:59:13 PM  

Kit Fister: Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?


Dude made it to the 5th floor and hadnt started shooting, and didnt until he saw the police. Dude was in there looking for someone, a specific someone.


To those who are proposing huge increases in ammo cost...think of this. More ammo cost will result in less civilian range time and practice, and reduced skill in those who do carry guns. It will also greatly increase local, state, and federal law enforcement costs, which will likely be compensated for by increased taxes (on everyone) and/or increased govt debt. In the end it is simply the wrong approach, it will not solve the problem at hand, and may well cause more problems in the process. In the end things that exclusively effect responsible gun owners is not addressing the problem(s).
 
2012-12-15 06:59:47 PM  

drewogatory: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.

Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.

Look, I'm not arguing pro or con on confiscation. You are supporting it, I'm asking you how logistically you are going to accomplish your goal, how much is it going to cost, where's the funding coming from, what agencies are going to be tasked with it, what resources you'll need, your timetable, etc. If you haven't got a firm idea of how much it's going to cost or if it is even feasible in the real world, it's easy to just spout "Just take them all".


Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.

Over time, gun ownership for self defense is just going to become as gauche and out of date as owning farm hands is today.

Enjoy your freedom, 2nd Amendment lovers. What we're seeing is that the world is too small and too crowded a place for you to keep enjoying them forever -- and more and more of us don't see a need for you to enjoy them. Only in the USA are they so stridently defended, most countries who are at least as civilized as ours get by on far fewer gun rights.

Give it 20, 30 years, and how many more massacres of innocents by a crazy with a gun. Inalienable right, meet modern-day reality.
 
2012-12-15 06:59:48 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Must be a day ending in Y

/it's tragic that this is happening so often we're becoming numb to it


It is?
 
2012-12-15 07:01:04 PM  

Generation_D: drewogatory: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.

Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.

Look, I'm not arguing pro or con on confiscation. You are supporting it, I'm asking you how logistically you are going to accomplish your goal, how much is it going to cost, where's the funding coming from, what agencies are going to be tasked with it, what resources you'll need, your timetable, etc. If you haven't got a firm idea of how much it's going to cost or if it is even feasible in the real world, it's easy to just spout "Just take them all".

Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.

Over time, gun ownership for self defense is just going to become as gauche and out of date as owning farm hands is today.

Enjoy your freedom, 2nd Amendment lovers. What we're seeing is that the world is too small and too crowded a place for you to keep enjoying them forever -- and more and more of us don't see a need for you to enjoy them. Only in the USA are they so stridently defended, most countries who are at least as civilized as ours get by on far fewer gun rights.

Give it 20, 30 years, and how many more massacres of innocents by a crazy with a gun. Inalienable right, meet modern-day reality.


Umm, dude, people in CANADA can go buy a TAR-21, and I can't.

What are you smoking?
 
2012-12-15 07:02:24 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: Kit Fister: Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?

Dude made it to the 5th floor and hadnt started shooting, and didnt until he saw the police. Dude was in there looking for someone, a specific someone.


To those who are proposing huge increases in ammo cost...think of this. More ammo cost will result in less civilian range time and practice, and reduced skill in those who do carry guns. It will also greatly increase local, state, and federal law enforcement costs, which will likely be compensated for by increased taxes (on everyone) and/or increased govt debt. In the end it is simply the wrong approach, it will not solve the problem at hand, and may well cause more problems in the process. In the end things that exclusively effect responsible gun owners is not addressing the problem(s).


Why would it increase law enforcement costs? Law enforcement types wouldn't pay the tax.

Not that I agree with such a tax...
 
2012-12-15 07:02:27 PM  

iq_in_binary: PsiChick: Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.

The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

I've told everyone I know when this subject comes up many times that most gun owners, myself included, have been PUSHING for having mental illness added to the NICS check for a loooong time. VT Massacre? We all brought it up. Aurora? We all brought it up. Loughner? We all brought it up. Even among gunbloggers online, check out The Law Dog Files, A View From The Porch, etc., we are absolutely fine with, and have been encouraging a system to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. Half of the ideas posited even include a national ID/Database system to accomplish it.

It's something that we've been bringing up for a long time but now all of a sudden we're just scrambling for anything to deflect from the gun subject in the eyes of the people that look at these tragedies as a reason to retroactively criminalize 70 million US citizens.


The problem is, we have too many within our OWN group that sees ANY use of medical information as the enemy still.

Hell, I'm all for yearly screenings for mental illness by law. If that includes the ability to get treatment for issues that may not impact my owning a gun but certainly do impact my daily life, then I'm all farking for it. As it is right now, the psychology field is one giant clusterfark, and I would hope that implementation of a system/standard that helps screen for/identify/treat people with illnesses that may lead to violence and such will help us as a society in general.

Plus, having played a fair number of modern video games, I'm fscking appalled by the brutality and violence that we consider normal in a "Teen" video game. We're not talking about just gunning down enemy guys, we're talking about things like CoD:MW2's level that depicts shooting up innocent civilians in an airport, and other such horrific shiat. ANd people say that doesn't affect people?

How about the latest movies in hollywood where the body count and viciousness of the movies is above the top? I mean, seriously. Human Centipede? SAW 1-687 (I think that's what they're up to now)? "Hostel"? Even the latest zombie craze is farked up.

I dunno, I look at what we have and accept in society as a whole today, and I wonder if we're just indulging our violent streaks a LITTLE too much on average, giving people the wrong idea of what is acceptable behavior...I mean, let's face it, a kid at school gets bullied in the past, a nose gets busted or a fistfight breaks out, and that's about it. Now? Kids go on shooting rampages. You lose your job and you think it's okay to shoot up your employer.

That's some serious sociopathy right there.
 
2012-12-15 07:02:36 PM  

iq_in_binary: PsiChick: Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.

The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

I've told everyone I know when this subject comes up many times that most gun owners, myself included, have been PUSHING for having mental illness added to the NICS check for a loooong time. VT Massacre? We all brought it up. Aurora? We all brought it up. Loughner? We all brought it up. Even among gunbloggers online, check out The Law Dog Files, A View From The Porch, etc., we are absolutely fine with, and have been encouraging a system to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. Half of the ideas posited even include a national ID/Database system to accomplish it.

It's something that we've been bringing up for a long time but now all of a sudden we're just scrambling for anything to deflect from the gun subject in the eyes of the people that look at these tragedies as a reason to retroactively criminalize 70 million US citizens.


And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:07 PM  

iq_in_binary: Generation_D: drewogatory: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.

Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.

Look, I'm not arguing pro or con on confiscation. You are supporting it, I'm asking you how logistically you are going to accomplish your goal, how much is it going to cost, where's the funding coming from, what agencies are going to be tasked with it, what resources you'll need, your timetable, etc. If you haven't got a firm idea of how much it's going to cost or if it is even feasible in the real world, it's easy to just spout "Just take them all".

Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.

Over time, gun ownership for self defense is just going to become as gauche and out of date as owning farm hands is today.

Enjoy your freedom, 2nd Amendment lovers. What we're seeing is that the world is too small and too crowded a place for you to keep enjoying them forever -- and more and more of us don't see a need for you to enjoy them. Only in the USA are they so stridently defended, most countries who are at least as civilized as ours get by on far fewer gun rights.

Give it 20, 30 years, and how many more massacres of innocents by a crazy with a gun. Inalienable right, meet modern-day reality.

Umm, dude, people in CANADA can go buy a TAR-21, and I can't.

What are you smoking?


I know. You can legally own a fair number of "Assault weapons" in canada. You can even own handguns, and there are a fair number of people up there that do and compete in the same kind of competitions we have in the US.

To say that you can't own those things in Canada is ignorant.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:20 PM  

The Face Of Oblivion: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Ok. What's the mental illness type? Let's hear about it.


Psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. See above post.


The 800 POUND FARKING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is that effectively controlling access to guns by those who would use them to harm others requires a surveillance and policing apparatus so broad that it unquestionably violates even the current much-diminished Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. Anyone who opposes the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program (itself directed at CURRENTLY ILLEGAL firearms) should think very, very carefully about the gun controls that they propose.


Yup. These types of proposals are certainly intrusive. And they add to the reasons for people to avoid mental health treatment in the first place, which is counterproductive in a lot of ways.

Let's say a politician settles on background screenings before making legal access to firearms possible as the proposed means of preventing violence - is anyone naive enough to believe that (1) drug/gang-related violence involves registered or otherwise law-abiding gun owners and (2) that background checks will catch most mass murderers?

No, but they will make firearms more difficult to acquire. Not impossible. But more difficult. In economics terms, that means their price will go up. Which in turn will put them out of the hands of more and more consumers. Which means that fewer criminals will have them. Not that no criminals will have them. But fewer.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:26 PM  
A 221 year old document claims that if you own a gun, you prevent tyranny.

The modern day reality is, if you own a gun, you contribute to tyranny.

This is how I and many non gun owners see it.

You gun owners are the outliers worldwide. You might have a majority in America today -- or you might not -- but the matter is by no means closed, and your side keeps serving up tragedy after tragedy, followed by bellicose and angry defense of outdated law.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:53 PM  

Generation_D: Over time, gun ownership for self defense is just going to become as gauche and out of date as owning farm hands is today.


ITT: A self-styled progressive imitates an especially lazy, histrionic version of Abe Lincoln but expects to end up on a coin anyway.
 
2012-12-15 07:09:06 PM  

mittromneysdog: No, but they will make firearms more difficult to acquire. Not impossible. But more difficult.


By what mechanism? The truly crazy will always have alternatives, many of which even now are easier to acquire and less conspicuous to deploy than using a gun. The thug shiathead set will continue to respond to the lure of easy money and reputation as they always have. The only people actually impacted by these proposals - that is, the people who are interested in following the law - are the people who don't commit gun crimes anyway.
 
2012-12-15 07:09:07 PM  

Generation_D: And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.


Because the "rational improvements" being proposed only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to actually affect violence in the US. They look to ban guns that are hardly used in crimes, they look to impose restrictions that criminals won't follow, and they look to penalize and make it harder on the law abiding to exercise a constitutionally protected privilege, while doing little if anything to curb crime.

There are no bans on the street, there are no waiting periods on the street, there are no controls or restrictions on the street. Just limitations based on what you can afford to pay.

Bring something to the table that involves ways of legalizing drugs, improving mental health care and screening, and enforce responsible ownership (I personally have long believed that some basic safety training should be required to obtain a firearm, including safe storage, the importance of same, and so forth), along with massive criminal penalties for those who do not follow the law, and we'll talk.
 
2012-12-15 07:11:14 PM  

mittromneysdog: Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.

There's another aspect to that too. The three types of mental illness associated with these kinds of shootings are psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. While I can understand outright banning anyone diagnosed with APD from possessing a gun, the fact is, banning the vast majority of harmless psychotics and depressives from possessing guns 1) adds to the stigma of those mental illnesses, and 2) adds to the overall deterrent which keeps people from seeking mental illness.

So if we go down that road, we're just adding to the long list of reasons to avoid mental health care if at all possible. Not only does that mean more people will suffer longer with mental illness, but it could actually be counterproductive. Eventually, some depressive who could have been stopped by a competent mental health professional will never visit one, and end up going on a shooting rampage instead.


Actually, the symptom list has very little to do with any of those. That's a media interpretation. The mental illness we're talking about is a form of severe delusion which, according to my psych teacher, is associated with schizophrenia, not depression. That's why you get such a narrow demographic range--schizophrenia has no warning signs, but it's culturally easier for a girl to get help than a guy.

And all you'd have to do is ask 'do you want to be remembered in history? How far are you willing to go?'. No diagnosis required--just make sure the scale of answers correlates roughly with the type of person who does the mass shootings.

/Psychosis, psychopaths, and depression have different reactions to guns. Depression shoots themselves, psychosis shoots the lamppost and screams about UFOs, and psychopaths hold the gun to their kid's head to get their wives to give them a blowjob.
//...Roughly speaking.
 
2012-12-15 07:11:30 PM  

iq_in_binary: It's something that we've been bringing up for a long time but now all of a sudden we're just scrambling for anything to deflect from the gun subject in the eyes of the people that look at these tragedies as a reason to retroactively criminalize 70 million US citizens.


Full stop. Nobody wants to criminalize 70 million US citizens. 'Gun control' is a dead issue because we as a nation are comfortable with having a Second Amendment. What we're having a problem with is tragedies like Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown, thinking how do we prevent further tragedies like that, but we can't talk about guns because we're criminalizing 70 million US citizens.

iq_in_binary: Half of the ideas posited even include a national ID/Database system to accomplish it.


That's a good first step. I'm not sure if it prevents yesterday's tragedy, but it does go a long way to making others harder.

Personally, and I'll leave it at this since I need dinner, I think we as a nation need to come together and ask ourselves some hard questions and start talking.

If violent crime and murder rates are falling, why are we even more scared of home invasions?

Why did two of the biggest runs on guns in modern times come with the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency?

Do we really need every detailed factoid of the shooter's life so we can all play the Dr. George Huang home game?

Why the hell do we need 24 hour news channels if all we're gonna get is the same talking heads over-analyzing the same details about some vile individual we'd sooner dump in a ditch and forget about?

And am I helping the problem or am I just another part of the problem?

... Fark it, I need a beer.
 
2012-12-15 07:13:01 PM  

mittromneysdog: No, but they will make firearms more difficult to acquire. Not impossible. But more difficult. In economics terms, that means their price will go up. Which in turn will put them out of the hands of more and more consumers. Which means that fewer criminals will have them. Not that no criminals will have them. But fewer.


Really? To test a theory, I asked around a bit to a few of my law enforcement friends that work on gun trafficking enforcement. The general consensus was that:
- Three phonecalls would get you a handgun for under $500.
- Five phonecalls and about $1500 would get you a full auto in about three days time that it took to get it here, coming in through some dealers in Mexico or South America.

That's a known status quo in law enforcement (FBI in this case).

When asked what they thought about gun bans, they said that casual crimes might take a hit, but drug dealers and gangs would be able to get whatever they wanted smuggled in anyway (confirming what I stated in a previous post).
 
2012-12-15 07:13:14 PM  

The Face Of Oblivion: By what mechanism? The truly crazy will always have alternatives, many of which even now are easier to acquire and less conspicuous to deploy than using a gun. The thug shiathead set will continue to respond to the lure of easy money and reputation as they always have. The only people actually impacted by these proposals - that is, the people who are interested in following the law - are the people who don't commit gun crimes anyway.


Nope. There's a reason few if any of these shooters have ever used a hand grenade. That's because we have effective grenade control. It's not impossible to get a grenade. Surely someone with enough dedication, sophistication, and resources could get one. But the Wen Ho Lees and Adam Lanzas of the world aren't those. The fact is, we can reduce the availability of contraband materials, and thereby put it out of the reach of some criminals. We can't eliminate it. But we can reduce it.
 
2012-12-15 07:13:27 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Tellingthem: You can't. It is impossible for anything to be 100% safe. You can try to make them safer. Even if you ban guns entirely. There will still be gun crime in America. Homicides are the lowest they have been in 20 years Link From 23,760 in 1992 to 14,612 in 2011. The violent crime rate is down dramatically as well. So what we have been doing has been working fantastically. I know these mass shootings get the headlines but statistically we are much safer now than we were even 10 years ago.

All true but I'll qualify 'safer' by saying 'safer in certain situations'. I'm safer going downtown or jaunting through the inner city. I may not be safer if I'm in a classroom or movie theater or some other environment that I can easily be trapped in.


Ahh i don't worry about it. If a terrorist decides to blow up a building I'm in not much i can do about it. Same as as if some drunk blows a red light and runs me over in a car (way more likely than me getting blown up) That is the thing if we live in fear then what is the point? We can have metal detectors at every entrance to every building and mandatory searches and be safer...but is that really what we want? I'm all for trying to make things safer but within reason. And I have no fear of what one crazy person might do. Hell I could get squished by a comet falling from the sky but I'm not going to live underground. That is my big problem with a lot of this gun control or banning talk. It seems like a lot of it is done out of fear. Rational and reasonable solutions are fine. But I'm always wary when they are done out of fear.
 
2012-12-15 07:13:57 PM  

Generation_D: A 221 year old document claims that if you own a gun, you prevent tyranny.

The modern day reality is, if you own a gun, you contribute to tyranny.

This is how I and many non gun owners see it.

You gun owners are the outliers worldwide. You might have a majority in America today -- or you might not -- but the matter is by no means closed, and your side keeps serving up tragedy after tragedy, followed by bellicose and angry defense of outdated law.



Your crazy rants are not going to convert anyone who owns a gun, you realize that don't you? You come across as a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because you can't get what you want. It amuses some and annoys others.
 
2012-12-15 07:15:00 PM  
Marsha also said, however, that Nancy had purchased guns because she was living alone in a big house. Nancy was originally from New Hampshire, said Marsha, and comfortable with weapons.

The perfect gun owner, home schooler, and poster mom for the NRA right here.
 
2012-12-15 07:15:50 PM  

bulldg4life: thisisarepeat: How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right?

I am very upset when people don't look at health care or student loan issues.

Of course, I also don't advocate the complete removal of gun ownership.

So, you're just shouting at nothingness.


Any amount of gun control is an incremental step toward a total gun ban. That is the ultimate goal of any gun control advocate, and to claim otherwise is just dishonest, smarmy really.

And I just found out I cant buy any more sudafed for the rest of the month! Which makes me feel extra tolerant of you gun grabbing liberty vampires.
 
2012-12-15 07:18:18 PM  

Kit Fister: Generation_D: And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.

Because the "rational improvements" being proposed only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to actually affect violence in the US. They look to ban guns that are hardly used in crimes, they look to impose restrictions that criminals won't follow, and they look to penalize and make it harder on the law abiding to exercise a constitutionally protected privilege, while doing little if anything to curb crime.

There are no bans on the street, there are no waiting periods on the street, there are no controls or restrictions on the street. Just limitations based on what you can afford to pay.

Bring something to the table that involves ways of legalizing drugs, improving mental health care and screening, and enforce responsible ownership (I personally have long believed that some basic safety training should be required to obtain a firearm, including safe storage, the importance of same, and so forth), along with massive criminal penalties for those who do not follow the law, and we'll talk.


We don't actually know what will and won't improve the system, because the gun nut lobby keeps opposing any and everything.

As for your defiant stand your ground "bring something rational to the table," I think humbly that the gun sanity lobby has been doing this for 40 years, only to be shouted and spent and stomped down by the gun nut lobby.

The blood of children in multiple mass shootings was not my idea, gun nuts. My idea was 30, 40 years ago start regulating guns better and more tightly like they do in every other civilized nation but ours.

Instead you people fought tooth and nail, and the Republican party built one of its major planks on riding that wave to election victory.

Well, here you go asswits, here's your reward.

Rational argument is over with, you own the blood of children on your hands.

I don't give a fark how you fight and rationalize it, you're wrong to defend your positions on guns. They are wrong. Rational ownership of assault arsenals at home is wrong. Americas culture of gun ownership is wrong.

The world does it one way, we do it another. We're wrong.
 
2012-12-15 07:19:11 PM  

thisisarepeat: bulldg4life: thisisarepeat: How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right?

I am very upset when people don't look at health care or student loan issues.

Of course, I also don't advocate the complete removal of gun ownership.

So, you're just shouting at nothingness.

Any amount of gun control is an incremental step toward a total gun ban. That is the ultimate goal of any gun control advocate, and to claim otherwise is just dishonest, smarmy really.

And I just found out I cant buy any more sudafed for the rest of the month! Which makes me feel extra tolerant of you gun grabbing liberty vampires.


And any defense of the system we have today is a set up for more innocent massacres. Your call, gun nut.
 
2012-12-15 07:20:44 PM  

PsiChick: Actually, the symptom list has very little to do with any of those. That's a media interpretation. The mental illness we're talking about is a form of severe delusion which, according to my psych teacher, is associated with schizophrenia, not depression.


So... the symptom list has very little to do with psychosis and depression. That must be why you cited psychosis (arising from schizophrenia) and depression as two of the symptoms associated with these shootings.

And yes, psychopathy is associated with it too. Dylan Kliebold, to my knowledge, was neither depressed nor psychotic. But he was evil.

And all you'd have to do is ask 'do you want to be remembered in history? How far are you willing to go?'. No diagnosis required--just make sure the scale of answers correlates roughly with the type of person who does the mass shootings.

This has a lot to do with the narcissism associated with psychopathy. But not all of these shooters are motivated by the prospect of infamy.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:46 PM  
Just stop, FAMILY DISPUTE, they would have found a way to kill with or without a gun.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:49 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Generation_D: A 221 year old document claims that if you own a gun, you prevent tyranny.

The modern day reality is, if you own a gun, you contribute to tyranny.

This is how I and many non gun owners see it.

You gun owners are the outliers worldwide. You might have a majority in America today -- or you might not -- but the matter is by no means closed, and your side keeps serving up tragedy after tragedy, followed by bellicose and angry defense of outdated law.


Your crazy rants are not going to convert anyone who owns a gun, you realize that don't you? You come across as a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because you can't get what you want. It amuses some and annoys others.


Telling the truth is often thought of as crazy at first.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:55 PM  

mittromneysdog: The fact is, we can reduce the availability of contraband materials, and thereby put it out of the reach of some criminals. We can't eliminate it. But we can reduce it.


This is exactly what you said in your previous post, and I see no evidence that ANY of the controls proposed in the last 20 years will reduce the SUPPLY of guns available to the people who commit the most gun violence in this country (or anywhere else). Think about all the cheapo AK variants floating around outside the US and think about the flow of drugs into and money out of the US. Think about the lack of effective border controls. The best bet is demand-side controls: legalize drugs and prostitution and find ways to make gang affiliation and violence even less appealing than it is now.

But the Wen Ho Lees and Adam Lanzas of the world aren't those.

No, but car bombers, arsonists, poisoners - the people who commit murders out of mental illness have plenty of options, many of which are capable of killing more people in a single location/incident than firearms. Hell, people in the Middle East and Central Asia routinely die in numbers greater than 30 from attacks that require neither firearms nor any particular amount of sophistication.
 
2012-12-15 07:23:57 PM  

get real: Just stop, FAMILY DISPUTE, they would have found a way to kill with or without a gun.


Kill mommy maybe.

I doubt very much he finds a way to kill 20 school children unless mommy has an assault arsenal at home not secured and at his disposal.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:00 PM  
Yes, we should ban all guns like China so the kids can suicide themselves while working in factories the government makes them work in.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:05 PM  

get real: Just stop, FAMILY DISPUTE, they would have found a way to kill with or without a gun.


Yeah, maybe one person before he got tackled and the knife wrestled away.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:26 PM  

Generation_D: Kit Fister: Generation_D: And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.

Because the "rational improvements" being proposed only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to actually affect violence in the US. They look to ban guns that are hardly used in crimes, they look to impose restrictions that criminals won't follow, and they look to penalize and make it harder on the law abiding to exercise a constitutionally protected privilege, while doing little if anything to curb crime.

There are no bans on the street, there are no waiting periods on the street, there are no controls or restrictions on the street. Just limitations based on what you can afford to pay.

Bring something to the table that involves ways of legalizing drugs, improving mental health care and screening, and enforce responsible ownership (I personally have long believed that some basic safety training should be required to obtain a firearm, including safe storage, the importance of same, and so forth), along with massive criminal penalties for those who do not follow the law, and we'll talk.

We don't actually know what will and won't improve the system, because the gun nut lobby keeps opposing any and everything.

As for your defiant stand your ground "bring something rational to the table," I think humbly that the gun sanity lobby has been doing this for 40 years, only to be shouted and spent and stomped down by the gun nut lobby.

The blood of children in multiple mass shootings was not my idea, gun nuts. My idea was 30, 40 years ago start regulating guns better and more tightly like they do in every other civilized nation but ours.

Instead you people fought tooth and nail, and the Republican party built one of its major planks on riding that wave to election victory.

Well, here you go asswits, here's your reward.

Rational argument is ...


Sweetheart what century are you living in? Guns should have been regulated 100 years ago.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:35 PM  

The Face Of Oblivion: mittromneysdog: The fact is, we can reduce the availability of contraband materials, and thereby put it out of the reach of some criminals. We can't eliminate it. But we can reduce it.

This is exactly what you said in your previous post, and I see no evidence that ANY of the controls proposed in the last 20 years will reduce the SUPPLY of guns available to the people who commit the most gun violence in this country (or anywhere else). Think about all the cheapo AK variants floating around outside the US and think about the flow of drugs into and money out of the US. Think about the lack of effective border controls. The best bet is demand-side controls: legalize drugs and prostitution and find ways to make gang affiliation and violence even less appealing than it is now.

But the Wen Ho Lees and Adam Lanzas of the world aren't those.

No, but car bombers, arsonists, poisoners - the people who commit murders out of mental illness have plenty of options, many of which are capable of killing more people in a single location/incident than firearms. Hell, people in the Middle East and Central Asia routinely die in numbers greater than 30 from attacks that require neither firearms nor any particular amount of sophistication.


Using weapons stolen from US arms depots and bases, or sold off by contractors on the gray market. Hardly a shining example.

I'd look to Europe deaths over all, and deaths by personal firearm, as the metrics to compare the USA to and see how we do.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:45 PM  

Kit Fister: Really? To test a theory, I asked around a bit to a few of my law enforcement friends that work on gun trafficking enforcement. The general consensus was that:
- Three phonecalls would get you a handgun for under $500.
- Five phonecalls and about $1500 would get you a full auto in about three days time that it took to get it here, coming in through some dealers in Mexico or South America.

That's a known status quo in law enforcement (FBI in this case).


Crazy. It's almost like handguns and even fully automatic weapons are legal in this country. If either were banned, you might have a point.

When asked what they thought about gun bans, they said that casual crimes might take a hit, but drug dealers and gangs would be able to get whatever they wanted smuggled in anyway (confirming what I stated in a previous post).

I actually agree with this to a point. Your typical heat of passion murderer could well be prevented from killing if firearms are unavailable to him. And so might your relatively unsophisticated mass shooter, who might not have the first idea who to call. And even if he did, by calling and asking around, he'd be increasing the likelihood of detection, just as he might under current law if he started calling around asking how to get hand grenades.
 
2012-12-15 07:26:19 PM  

flucto: Waxing_Chewbacca: - Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female

Better we have a civil war with the gun lobby now than ever see another list like this. I want to throw up.


So you are encouraging a civil war between those with guns and those without them...sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through there, sport?

Unless we can magically make all weapons disappear, which I wouldn't mind barring the unfathomable alien attack, no law to control guns will prevent a mentally unbalanced man from stealing weapons and using them to harm others. This monster violated several existing gun laws, and yet 20 kids and 6 educators are dead...the laws didn't make a difference.
 
2012-12-15 07:27:06 PM  

occamswrist: Sultan Of Herf: Kit Fister: Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?

Dude made it to the 5th floor and hadnt started shooting, and didnt until he saw the police. Dude was in there looking for someone, a specific someone.


To those who are proposing huge increases in ammo cost...think of this. More ammo cost will result in less civilian range time and practice, and reduced skill in those who do carry guns. It will also greatly increase local, state, and federal law enforcement costs, which will likely be compensated for by increased taxes (on everyone) and/or increased govt debt. In the end it is simply the wrong approach, it will not solve the problem at hand, and may well cause more problems in the process. In the end things that exclusively effect responsible gun owners is not addressing the problem(s).

Why would it increase law enforcement costs? Law enforcement types wouldn't pay the tax.

Not that I agree with such a tax...


Ok then, I guess scratch that part. The fact of a tax not addressing the problem still stands. Taxing bullets to decrease gun violence would be like taxing gasoline to reduce traffic accidents. Same fr alcohol, and anything else that can cause a problem.

If anything I would think making shooting cheaper would be good. Help to encourage those with guns to spend more time at the range. The more training time the better. I would love to be able to spend more time at the range. Its like any other physical skill, the more practice the better. Many gun owners would say the same.
 
2012-12-15 07:28:36 PM  

Generation_D: get real: Just stop, FAMILY DISPUTE, they would have found a way to kill with or without a gun.

Kill mommy maybe.

I doubt very much he finds a way to kill 20 school children unless mommy has an assault arsenal at home not secured and at his disposal.


I was answering the actual thread. Not the other murders, and really how hard is it to open a gun locker if you live in the home and know the combo?

 
2012-12-15 07:28:42 PM  

MrGMan: the laws didn't make a difference.


i50.tinypic.com

/obligitory
 
2012-12-15 07:28:51 PM  

Generation_D: Kit Fister: Generation_D: And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.

Because the "rational improvements" being proposed only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to actually affect violence in the US. They look to ban guns that are hardly used in crimes, they look to impose restrictions that criminals won't follow, and they look to penalize and make it harder on the law abiding to exercise a constitutionally protected privilege, while doing little if anything to curb crime.

There are no bans on the street, there are no waiting periods on the street, there are no controls or restrictions on the street. Just limitations based on what you can afford to pay.

Bring something to the table that involves ways of legalizing drugs, improving mental health care and screening, and enforce responsible ownership (I personally have long believed that some basic safety training should be required to obtain a firearm, including safe storage, the importance of same, and so forth), along with massive criminal penalties for those who do not follow the law, and we'll talk.

We don't actually know what will and won't improve the system, because the gun nut lobby keeps opposing any and everything.

As for your defiant stand your ground "bring something rational to the table," I think humbly that the gun sanity lobby has been doing this for 40 years, only to be shouted and spent and stomped down by the gun nut lobby.

The blood of children in multiple mass shootings was not my idea, gun nuts. My idea was 30, 40 years ago start regulating guns better and more tightly like they do in every other civilized nation but ours.

Instead you people fought tooth and nail, and the Republican party built one of its major planks on riding that wave to election victory.

Well, here you go asswits, here's your reward.

Rational argument is ...


I respectfully disagree with your position, but I defend your right to have such. I refuse to kowtow to anyone who suggests that the answer to irrational violence is imposition of restrictions on the law abiding, and I refuse to accept any assertion that blames gun owners, and not a host of other factors that have a greater impact on the behavior of people in general, alone for this violence, as if somehow it would somehow magically make everyone get along and never be violent towards one another.

Also, all of these other countries that are "civilized" don't have major issues that we DO:

1. Lack of comprehensive medical care, including mental health care.
2. A massive, raging drug war involving the same type of criminal behavior seen during prohibition in the 20s.


I'm all for being reasonable, to the point oif having repeatedly said, supported, suggested, and stated various ways that would allow some more fine control on guns and gun sales without hindering the rights of the law abiding, but that's not enough for you people. So, instead of opening the discussion with an open mind and discussing compromise, your side is just as unwilling to accept any other opinions as much as we are, and thus no compromise happens.

And, truth be told, the more you brow-beat us with moral outrage directed towards the LAWFUL for the actions of the CRIMINAL, then the less likely we are to be willing to discuss these issues and come up with solutions.

The school shooting was a tragedy. But I bear no blood for the actions of a man who murdered and stole weapons to commit further murders. There's nothing that says the kid couldn't have killed a cop to get ahold of his guns if that was the source he had to use to get them.
 
2012-12-15 07:31:21 PM  

MrGMan: flucto: Waxing_Chewbacca: - Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female

Better we have a civil war with the gun lobby now than ever see another list like this. I want to throw up.

So you are encouraging a civil war between those with guns and those without them...sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through there, sport?

Unless we can magically make all weapons disappear, which I wouldn't mind barring the unfathomable alien attack, no law to control guns will prevent a mentally unbalanced man from stealing weapons and using them to harm others. This monster violated several existing gun laws, and yet 20 kids and 6 educators are dead...the laws didn't make a difference.


Unless we can make all swords disappear we should make no law against murder. Unless we can make all stones and sticks disappear we should just let people do what they want. Hey! What's the point in locking up thieves and kidnappers and child molesters as they will always find a way to do what they will anyway. May as well let them be!

Notice how stupid your argument sounds?
 
Displayed 50 of 835 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report