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.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6302 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 09:31:41 AM

Leeds: EyeballKid: Leeds: We are faced with three options:

1) Change gun laws
2) Change how we deal with mentally unstable people
3) Force kids to live in cages, behind bullet proof glass with metal detectors at every corner.

I choose option 2 because I believe that it is the only option that will help in any way.

I choose option 2 because I believe that it is the easiest way for things to change without my actually doing anything.

/ftfy

Option 1 won't change anything. Even an outright ban on guns would allow a couple percent to be in circulation.

Option 3 might change things but I can't accept that we want to turn the USA into East Germany... On purpose.

Option 2 really is the way to go. When a mentally disturbed person snaps I believe that there are often tell tale signs. If guns were banned he's have filled a pickup with gasoline, rammed the building and torched the kids. If the school had bigger bars on the doors he'd still have smashed his way in (heck, he broke in on Friday).

But if we could get American citizens to keep an eye open for potentially violent mentally deficient people- we might actually be able to avoid this in the future.

 

alltheragefaces.com
 
2012-12-17 09:33:42 AM

please: I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.
Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.


I can't believe that the pro-gun people haven't learned from the example of many other countries. By-and-large, gun control works. It's a proven fact.

Shame on you for obstructing legislation proven to reduce the frequency of gun violence, and being content to accept the massacres of innocents that now occur several times a year.

Our "pet cause" is the desire to take effective action to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. That's not exploitation. In fact, there is no better way to honor the victims than to back up our words of sorrow with action.
 
2012-12-17 09:38:06 AM

manimal2878: LoneWolf343:

Is there really that much difference between 4 out of 100,000 thousand and 10 out of a 100,000? Both are tiny fractions of a percent.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-17 09:39:49 AM
The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.
 
2012-12-17 09:46:01 AM

jso2897: I hope the gun fappers continue in the condescending, superior tone of subby's headline. It's especially important for them to keep informing people that they have no right to an opinion if they don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and an automatic, or a clip and a magazine, or some other such boring, Asperger's inspired bullshiat.
Just keep it up, dumbasses. You'll win this way - really, you will.


Einstein and Newton probably had Asperger's. George Will probably doesn't.

You made a dumb cheap shot, let's see if you have the decency to admit it.
 
2012-12-17 09:48:24 AM

please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Yeah, like the psycho in China Friday who chose a knife. And didn't manage to kill anyone.

Access to guns doesn't create more murderers, psychopaths, or criminals. But it does create a lot more victims.
 
2012-12-17 09:49:01 AM

LoneWolf343: manimal2878: LoneWolf343:

Is there really that much difference between 4 out of 100,000 thousand and 10 out of a 100,000? Both are tiny fractions of a percent.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 814x500]


No I'm serious, in either case you could round to zero. The fact is either way there are just not that many of these incidents in any country.
 
2012-12-17 09:51:30 AM
Hey guess what! I can go to any "easy-buy" state in America and get a gun because I have one of these:

gomotors.net

 
2012-12-17 09:51:36 AM

please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?
 
2012-12-17 09:57:31 AM

rohar: lordjupiter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Impact_on_mortality

Good god, you're serious. Let me laugh a bit harder.



See how easy that was, trollboy? I knew you'd dismiss anything I posted. You replied in less than 2 minutes because you didn't read or research it at all. It's the trite "homework assignment" move. And by dismissing information counter to your claims, you can still make them without submitting your alleged proof.

You're not helping. More children and innocents will die in these sprees, and people like you will have to look in the mirror and deal with your role in sabotaging the discussions toward prevention efforts.
 
2012-12-17 09:59:44 AM

rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?


What about the Crime Control Act in 1990 and the Brady Bill in 1994? Don't those track exactly with your graph? Then in 1997, the background check portion of the Brady Bill was ruled unconstitutional, and the drop show in your graph reversed and began to climb.

You were saying?

Better context would be comparable countries, although the USA is large enough that large numbers of people in more remote areas can dilute the per capita statitstics compared to more densely populated countries (the gun lobby people will never tell you that, especially when looking at urban rates).

"Homicide" also doesn't include crimes RULED suicides or "undetermined". Nor does a yearly graph factor in better response times, the proliferation of 911 USE that became widespread in the late 80s, cell phone use for emergency calls becoming common in the 90s, or the passage of the law in 1986 that required emergency rooms to treat anyone who walked in.


Link

yglesias.thinkprogress.org 

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca


puu.sh 


Look at the percentage of gun use in murders. It really is disingenuous or naive to portray crime and guns in this country in some rosy light based on a general yearly graph that lacks context.

You're a spinmeister, and that's it.
 
2012-12-17 10:04:10 AM

please: I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.
Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.


Personally, I'm being proactive. I just ordered a bunch of 30round magazines for my SAR - 1 before the prices to through the roof.

/Really wanted to get that AR-15 (though I'm not the biggest fan of them) but the budget wouldn't allow Christmas gifts AND the rifle so the rifle lost =(
//Can you bastards wait a few months before you submit, hopefully doomed to fail, legislation so I can get my tax return money back please? You're already driving up the prices
 
2012-12-17 10:06:54 AM

please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.



Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?
 
2012-12-17 10:13:52 AM

Leeds: Tomahawk513: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.

You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?

Have you bought gasoline lately?


This is a great example of a Strawman Fallacy.
Guns/Dynamite is dangerous.
Gasoline is dangerous.
Therefore, Guns/Dynamite must be as dangerous as Gasoline. False.
Fires caused by gasoline do not cause instantaneous death or instantaneous structural damage whereas dynamite does both, both extremely useful if the objective is killing people. Gasoline actually allows quite a few "escape opportunities" wherein one could put out the fire or escape the building.
 
2012-12-17 10:21:20 AM

lordjupiter: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?


How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?
 
2012-12-17 10:22:20 AM

Tomahawk513: Leeds: Tomahawk513: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.

You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?

Have you bought gasoline lately?

This is a great example of a Strawman Fallacy.
Guns/Dynamite is dangerous.
Gasoline is dangerous.
Therefore, Guns/Dynamite must be as dangerous as Gasoline. False.
Fires caused by gasoline do not cause instantaneous death or instantaneous structural damage whereas dynamite does both, both extremely useful if the objective is killing people. Gasoline actually allows quite a few "escape opportunities" wherein one could put out the fire or escape the building.


That's not a strawman fallacy for one.
 
2012-12-17 10:23:42 AM

Leeds: lordjupiter: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?

Strawman argument is made of straw.



You sure about that word?
 
2012-12-17 10:33:45 AM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?

How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?



Why am I not surprised that you totally changed the conditions to be meaningless to the point and suit your prefered scenario? The poster used the old canard about crazy people just finding another method to kill, as if guns are equally deadly compared to all other methods they could use. Your hypothetical doesn't address that.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to keep crazy people from getting guns, thus leaving them to rely on hammers? Please share this method.
 
2012-12-17 10:33:53 AM

Leeds: It's amazing how destructive people can be when they have no sense or desire to exhibit self-preservation in any way.

I'm convinced that that's what the anti-gun people fail to understand.


It's just as easy to kill yourself without a gun as it is with one, if you are so inclined. Other people, on the other hand...
 
2012-12-17 10:34:22 AM

manimal2878: Tomahawk513: Leeds: Tomahawk513: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.

You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?

Have you bought gasoline lately?

This is a great example of a Strawman Fallacy.
Guns/Dynamite is dangerous.
Gasoline is dangerous.
Therefore, Guns/Dynamite must be as dangerous as Gasoline. False.
Fires caused by gasoline do not cause instantaneous death or instantaneous structural damage whereas dynamite does both, both extremely useful if the objective is killing people. Gasoline actually allows quite a few "escape opportunities" wherein one could put out the fire or escape the building.

That's not a strawman fallacy for one.


Really? Here, let me quote wikipedia for you:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context-i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments-thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position.


So, I have position [guns/TNT dangerous, should be regulated].
[You/Leeds] disregard the unique natures in which [guns/TNT are dangerous] via oversimplification and assert that [Gasoline is also dangerous but unregulated].
[You/Leeds] then attack by implying that [since gasoline is also dangerous, it will be used instead of guns/TNT] and [to the same effect] which as I've pointed out, is factually not the case.
 
2012-12-17 10:35:52 AM

Leeds: manimal2878: How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?

What's shockingly absent from Tomahawk513's glib remarks is that the psychopath from last week's spree was intent on killing himself as part of his plan.

It's amazing how destructive people can be when they have no sense or desire to exhibit self-preservation in any way.

I'm convinced that that's what the anti-gun people fail to understand.


a) You don't know what his plans were. Reports so far have said that he killed himself as first responders closed in, so he may have planned on more killing or even escaping.

b) It doesn't matter because the suggestion that self-destructive people would somehow be less of a threat to others WITH guns as opposed to without them is absurd.
 
2012-12-17 10:42:03 AM

lordjupiter: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

What about the Crime Control Act in 1990 and the Brady Bill in 1994? Don't those track exactly with your graph? Then in 1997, the background check portion of the Brady Bill was ruled unconstitutional, and the drop show in your graph reversed and began to climb.

You were saying?

Better context would be comparable countries, although the USA is large enough that large numbers of people in more remote areas can dilute the per capita statitstics compared to more densely populated countries (the gun lobby people will never tell you that, especially when looking at urban rates).

"Homicide" also doesn't include crimes RULED suicides or "undetermined". Nor does a yearly graph factor in better response times, the proliferation of 911 USE that became widespread in the late 80s, cell phone use for emergency calls becoming common in the 90s, or the passage of the law in 1986 that required emergency rooms to treat anyone who walked in.


Link

[yglesias.thinkprogress.org image 360x345] 

[www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca image 510x329]


[puu.sh image 587x441] 


Look at the percentage of gun use in murders. It really is disingenuous or naive to portray crime and guns in this country in some rosy light based on a general yearly graph that lacks context.

You're a spinmeister, and that's it.


The Crime Control act of 1990? Are you suggesting that financial fraud is the key supporting issue to gun violence?

Oh, and the Brady bill came 4 years after the peak in 1990, you'll notice there's no significant variation from the trend after it was passed.

The rest of your graphs are interesting, but raise demographic issues more than anything else. You'll notice, largely, that those demographics in the charts that have lower murder rates also have lower income disparities, better access to public mental health. A functioning social safety net if you will.
 
2012-12-17 10:49:17 AM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?

How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?


Why am I not surprised that you totally changed the conditions to be meaningless to the point and suit your prefered scenario? The poster used the old canard about crazy people just finding another method to kill, as if guns are equally deadly compared to all other methods they could use. Your hypothetical doesn't address that.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to keep crazy people from getting guns, thus leaving them to rely on hammers? Please share this method.

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.


Ok I'll stand in a room with a "psychopath" of your choosing, and he'll have a "tool" in his hand like a hammer or screwdriver. You'll stand in a room with the same psychopath and he'll have a semi-automatic rifle in his hand.

Whoever survives owes the other guy a coke. Deal?

How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?


Why am I not surprised that you totally changed the conditions to be meaningless to the point and suit your prefered scenario? The poster used the old canard about crazy people just finding another method to kill, as if guns are equally deadly compared to all other methods they could use. Your hypothetical doesn't address that.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to keep crazy people from getting guns, thus leaving them to rely on hammers? Please share this method.


I'm suggesting that If you want to defend yourself it's easier to do with a gun.

Lock your guns in a safe so crazy people can't get them.
 
2012-12-17 10:53:48 AM

Leeds: What I don't understand is why people are so against actually addressing this problem.

I know the gun control nuts are happy to interject their personal beliefs into these conversations, but why the hostility towards actually addressing the issue of psychopaths?

This kid was on a downward spiral. There were warning signs of course. His mom recently quit her job so that she could spend more time trying to keep her son from snapping.

And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.

Have you no hearts? Are you simply blind to the issue? Something needs to change, but let's focus on something that will make a difference. Driving up the cost of certain firearms will never stop psychopaths from murdering people. But identifying and treating psychopaths might.




You cannot control or predict episodic "psychopathy", and by definition someone who goes on a spree is considered "unwell" or "crazy". Nor can you expect a clear definition of who can be around guns and when based on vaguery and unknowns surrounding "mental health".

This is not a solution, this is a diversion to an aspect of society that is even less controllable or workable.
 
2012-12-17 10:54:20 AM

Tomahawk513: manimal2878: Tomahawk513: Leeds: Tomahawk513: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.

You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?

Have you bought gasoline lately?

This is a great example of a Strawman Fallacy.
Guns/Dynamite is dangerous.
Gasoline is dangerous.
Therefore, Guns/Dynamite must be as dangerous as Gasoline. False.
Fires caused by gasoline do not cause instantaneous death or instantaneous structural damage whereas dynamite does both, both extremely useful if the objective is killing people. Gasoline actually allows quite a few "escape opportunities" wherein one could put out the fire or escape the building.

That's not a strawman fallacy for one.

Really? Here, let me quote wikipedia for you:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context-i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments-thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this overs ...


Fuel, is used to make bombs all the time. Look up petrol bomb and ireland. The Oklahoma city bombing was done with diesel and fertilizer. Granted it's fuel and not specifically gasoline, but again, I don't think it's a fallacy.
 
2012-12-17 10:56:20 AM

Leeds: And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.


Can you point to a single post where a pro gun person has said we don't need to address mental health. I don't remember seeing any.
 
2012-12-17 10:56:38 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.


Someone from the UK here; you might want to brush up on your recent British history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
 
2012-12-17 10:59:34 AM
manimal2878:I'm suggesting that If you want to defend yourself it's easier to do with a gun.

Lock your guns in a safe so crazy people can't get them.



And if you suggest that, the response is "how can you defend yourself from an intruder when you have to open a safe to get your gun, or if the bullets are separate from the gun?"

Do you see how the cycle of unrealistic defenses goes round and round? 

I'm not repeating the explanation from before regarding the Pscyho Challenge. I would also ask why no army worth a shiat arms itself with baseball bats, knives and other "tools" instead of guns. It is asinine to try and deny the entire evolution of firearms, and their intent, which has ALWAYS been to create more efficient ways to kill people quickly and in greater numbers, because combat requires it.
 
2012-12-17 11:00:51 AM

lordjupiter: Leeds: What I don't understand is why people are so against actually addressing this problem.

I know the gun control nuts are happy to interject their personal beliefs into these conversations, but why the hostility towards actually addressing the issue of psychopaths?

This kid was on a downward spiral. There were warning signs of course. His mom recently quit her job so that she could spend more time trying to keep her son from snapping.

And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.

Have you no hearts? Are you simply blind to the issue? Something needs to change, but let's focus on something that will make a difference. Driving up the cost of certain firearms will never stop psychopaths from murdering people. But identifying and treating psychopaths might.



You cannot control or predict episodic "psychopathy", and by definition someone who goes on a spree is considered "unwell" or "crazy". Nor can you expect a clear definition of who can be around guns and when based on vaguery and unknowns surrounding "mental health".

This is not a solution, this is a diversion to an aspect of society that is even less controllable or workable.


So what is your solution? a 100 percent ban and confiscation?
 
2012-12-17 11:00:56 AM

manimal2878: Tomahawk513: manimal2878: Tomahawk513: Leeds: Tomahawk513: please: The record for a school killing was in 1927, at 45 kids. And it wasn't a mass shooting.

You think removing the mechanism will stop the psychopaths - the psychopaths will just choose another mechanism.

You're absolutely correct, but by limiting the mechanism we can mitigate the amount of damage that can be done. Have you tried buying dynamite recently?

Have you bought gasoline lately?

This is a great example of a Strawman Fallacy.
Guns/Dynamite is dangerous.
Gasoline is dangerous.
Therefore, Guns/Dynamite must be as dangerous as Gasoline. False.
Fires caused by gasoline do not cause instantaneous death or instantaneous structural damage whereas dynamite does both, both extremely useful if the objective is killing people. Gasoline actually allows quite a few "escape opportunities" wherein one could put out the fire or escape the building.

That's not a strawman fallacy for one.

Really? Here, let me quote wikipedia for you:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context-i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments-thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacki ...




Fuel is fuel and guns are guns. Can we power cars with guns? No. Then why pretend they're the same thing.
 
2012-12-17 11:01:52 AM

lordjupiter: manimal2878:I'm suggesting that If you want to defend yourself it's easier to do with a gun.

Lock your guns in a safe so crazy people can't get them.


And if you suggest that, the response is "how can you defend yourself from an intruder when you have to open a safe to get your gun, or if the bullets are separate from the gun?"

Do you see how the cycle of unrealistic defenses goes round and round? 

I'm not repeating the explanation from before regarding the Pscyho Challenge. I would also ask why no army worth a shiat arms itself with baseball bats, knives and other "tools" instead of guns. It is asinine to try and deny the entire evolution of firearms, and their intent, which has ALWAYS been to create more efficient ways to kill people quickly and in greater numbers, because combat requires it.


So the only thing that will make you happy is a one hundred percent ban and confiscation?
 
2012-12-17 11:03:20 AM

lordjupiter: Fuel is fuel and guns are guns. Can we power cars with guns? No. Then why pretend they're the same thing.


Dangerous things are dangerous things. Why pretend there isn't danger everywhere?
 
2012-12-17 11:03:30 AM
Compiling a list of rampage shootings that made the news leads to an inescapable conclusion: The proven effective way to stop these events isn't through "gun free zones" or gun control, but rather the opposite.



The data:



9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor's shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.

8/1/1966 - Charles Joseph Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. He killed 16 people before being shot and killed by police.

7/18/1984 - James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.

10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.

11/15/1995 - Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.

2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.

4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school's armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.

7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.

1/16/2002 - Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

8/27/2003 - Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.

9/24/2003 - John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.

2/25/2005 - David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with an assault rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter's fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

3/21/2005 - Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.

11/8/2005 - Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.

9/29/2006 - Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.

4/16/2007 - Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.

9/3/2008 - Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.

3/29/2009 - Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.

4/3/2009 - Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.

11/5/2009 - Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.

2/12/2010 - Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.

1/8/2011 - Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.

2/27/2012 - T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.

4/22/2012 - Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

7/20/2012 - James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.

8/5/2012 - Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page killed himself.

9/27/2012 - Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.

12/11/2012 - 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli, a CCW carrier. Meli drew but did not fire for fear of hitting a bystander. Roberts' firearm jammed, and he used the first round after having cleared it to kill himself.

12/14/2012 - 20 year old Adam Lanza kills 26 in multiple locations including 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. He killed himself.



Average deaths in events stopped by police or suicide: 14.3

Average deaths in events stopped by unarmed civilians: 2.6

Average deaths in events stopped by armed civilians: 1.8



Rather than spinning our wheels with talk of "outlawing guns" (which is neither feasible nor practical), we should be enacting policies that mitigate the risk and severity of these events, and scrapping policies that exacerbate them. The single most counterproductive of these policies is the "gun- free zone", which literally does nothing but disarm the only people who can possibly end the rampage early and advertise to would-be mass-murderers that the people at that location are defenseless.

It's time to stop looking at CCW carriers as potential threats and start looking at them as a potential answer. These people undergo mandatory screening, training, and (most of them) mandatory demonstrations of proficiency and accuracy before being allowed to walk around armed. These people aren't a threat to anybody, they're responsible, law-abiding citizens.

Allowing these people the right to go about their daily business armed doesn't make anybody less-safe, and at the very least it provides a strong disincentive to the would-be mass- murderer, who can never be sure if there's anyone around with a gun or not.



As for the gun control arguments (which always spring up in the aftermath of these events), it's time to start being pragmatic and adult about this. There is simply no way to make guns disappear legally. It's a foolish pipe-dream; about as realistic as a law that makes everyone rich or a law that abolishes cancer. So any argument that begins with "If he didn't have a gun" is a waste of time.

Laws do not, in and of themselves, create any desired outcome. Just as prohibition didn't end the existence of alcohol, nor drunk driving laws ended drunk driving, gun control will never make guns disappear. What laws do is provide a disincentive to behavior, by establishing a punishment for violating the behavior. The problem there is that they do absolutely nothing to deter those who 1) aren't concerned about getting caught or 2) do not fear the consequence. Laws only ever affect the behavior of those who obey the law.

Accordingly, gun control laws do absolutely nothing other than disarm law-abiding citizens. I would argue that (as has been proven repeatedly) that's the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.
 
2012-12-17 11:04:26 AM
At the moment we know there was an absurd amount of firepower (and some pretty f*cked-up ammo) within easy reach of a person known to be nuts who spent a lot of time playing violent video games and whose own mother warned a babysitter not to turn his back on him for even a second.

There are several problems here, and all of them need to be addressed to prevent this kind of horror from being repeated.
 
2012-12-17 11:04:54 AM

Leeds: manimal2878: Leeds: And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.

Can you point to a single post where a pro gun person has said we don't need to address mental health. I don't remember seeing any.

A pro gun person? I'm going to have to assume that you typed that wrong.

Assuming you mean a pro gun law person, then the answer is simple- Two posts before yours. Someone there said that "You cannot control or predict episodic 'psychopathy'" and he went on to say that such efforts were a "diversion."

The same person has repeatedly said in this this thread that driving up gun costs would be a workable solution.


Sorry, I totally misread your post. I thought you made the opposite statement than you did.
 
2012-12-17 11:08:03 AM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: Leeds: What I don't understand is why people are so against actually addressing this problem.

I know the gun control nuts are happy to interject their personal beliefs into these conversations, but why the hostility towards actually addressing the issue of psychopaths?

This kid was on a downward spiral. There were warning signs of course. His mom recently quit her job so that she could spend more time trying to keep her son from snapping.

And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.

Have you no hearts? Are you simply blind to the issue? Something needs to change, but let's focus on something that will make a difference. Driving up the cost of certain firearms will never stop psychopaths from murdering people. But identifying and treating psychopaths might.



You cannot control or predict episodic "psychopathy", and by definition someone who goes on a spree is considered "unwell" or "crazy". Nor can you expect a clear definition of who can be around guns and when based on vaguery and unknowns surrounding "mental health".

This is not a solution, this is a diversion to an aspect of society that is even less controllable or workable.

So what is your solution? a 100 percent ban and confiscation?


First order of business is letting people talk about it so they can come up with solutions, and that includes getting enough people to support the effort. The people who don't want that to happen sabotage the conversation with bullshiat hypotheticals, talking points and abused statistics.

Personally, I am pro-gun ownership but anti-gun-nut-bullshiat, and believe the 2nd Amendment does provide us with the right to some kind of personal defense, whether or not the "militia" aspect is outdated, but it doesn't mean we can have ANY "arms" or how MANY. What's clear is that semi-auto rifles were not conceived over 200 years ago when muskets were the rule and electricity wasn't even used in homes. Times have changed and people need to be realistic about what the Constitution says as applied to then vs now. 

But I don't need to have the solution ready to cut and paste to know there needs to be action and change. Generally, "what's your plan" is a set up for a nitpick that's just thrown out by people with no interest in change, no further talking points that haven't been debunked, and who really just want the conversations to stop.

So if you're really interested in some plans being constructed, don't go around undermining the discussions. That would be my plan for you, which is probably the most practical thing you can do right now.
 
2012-12-17 11:13:08 AM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Leeds: What I don't understand is why people are so against actually addressing this problem.

I know the gun control nuts are happy to interject their personal beliefs into these conversations, but why the hostility towards actually addressing the issue of psychopaths?

This kid was on a downward spiral. There were warning signs of course. His mom recently quit her job so that she could spend more time trying to keep her son from snapping.

And yet when presented with this terrible tragedy, the anti-gun nuts gloss over doing something that would actually make a difference (vigilance in dealing with psychopaths) and they skip straight to their own agendas.

Have you no hearts? Are you simply blind to the issue? Something needs to change, but let's focus on something that will make a difference. Driving up the cost of certain firearms will never stop psychopaths from murdering people. But identifying and treating psychopaths might.



You cannot control or predict episodic "psychopathy", and by definition someone who goes on a spree is considered "unwell" or "crazy". Nor can you expect a clear definition of who can be around guns and when based on vaguery and unknowns surrounding "mental health".

This is not a solution, this is a diversion to an aspect of society that is even less controllable or workable.

So what is your solution? a 100 percent ban and confiscation?

First order of business is letting people talk about it so they can come up with solutions, and that includes getting enough people to support the effort. The people who don't want that to happen sabotage the conversation with bullshiat hypotheticals, talking points and abused statistics.

Personally, I am pro-gun ownership but anti-gun-nut-bullshiat, and believe the 2nd Amendment does provide us with the right to some kind of personal defense, whether or not the "militia" aspect is outdated, but it doesn't mean we can have ANY "arms" or how MANY. What's clear is th ...


You claim you are pro-gun ownership, but I don't believe you. People ARE talking about why they don't think more restrictions and regulation will work and you shout them down. People talk about how mental health checks would help, but you claim that won't work. Are you sure it's not you who is sabotaging the conversation with your need to argue?
 
2012-12-17 11:20:40 AM

LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: That's awesome, you found some charts. You'll also notice that homicide rates in WA are half of what they are in LA. data. I have an anecdote.

You're like those people thinks that a cold day disproves global warming.

So you can cite any gun regulation in any country on the face of the planet in the past 50 years that had any effect on murder rates?

I can't and I've combed through all of it.

You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

I answered your question. Now answer mine.

Slutter McGee: LoneWolf343:

A check doesn't mean anything if it doesn't have teeth.

So why pull out the fangs of a wolf who is protecting you? Sure they can be dangerous in the right hands, but they can also hold back the prey.

Slutter McGee

Gun fetishists are not wolves. They are yapping purse-riding toy dogs who think that merely having a gun and being able to shoot a herbivore from a couple hundred yards out makes them as big of badasses as Seal Team Six. When it comes between a fight between them and the US Military, it would be merely seconds before the real wolves bite the toy dogs in half.

Face it. Violent resistance to the state has been happened before. Usually just minor stuff like:

[danmillerinpanama.files.wordpress.com image 449x435]

Yeah, that turned out swimmingly for the "true patriots," didn't it? That was a time when the two factions were fairly equally matched when it came to technology. Today? It would be a week bef ...


You know nothing about guns, obviously.
 
2012-12-17 11:30:25 AM

Doc Daneeka: please: I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.
Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.

I can't believe that the pro-gun people haven't learned from the example of many other countries. By-and-large, gun control works. It's a proven fact.

Shame on you for obstructing legislation proven to reduce the frequency of gun violence, and being content to accept the massacres of innocents that now occur several times a year.

Our "pet cause" is the desire to take effective action to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. That's not exploitation. In fact, there is no better way to honor the victims than to back up our words of sorrow with action.


No country on earth that enacted strict gun control had even a tenth of the guns we have in this country. Propose something that is realistic and not masturbatory fantasy. Or read my proposal.
 
2012-12-17 11:37:28 AM

lordjupiter: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

What about the Crime Control Act in 1990 and the Brady Bill in 1994? Don't those track exactly with your graph? Then in 1997, the background check portion of the Brady Bill was ruled unconstitutional, and the drop show in your graph reversed and began to climb.

You were saying?

Better context would be comparable countries, although the USA is large enough that large numbers of people in more remote areas can dilute the per capita statitstics compared to more densely populated countries (the gun lobby people will never tell you that, especially when looking at urban rates).

"Homicide" also doesn't include crimes RULED suicides or "undetermined". Nor does a yearly graph factor in better response times, the proliferation of 911 USE that became widespread in the late 80s, cell phone use for emergency calls becoming common in the 90s, or the passage of the law in 1986 that required emergency rooms to treat anyone who walked in.


Link

[yglesias.thinkprogress.org image 360x345] 

[www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca image 510x329]


[puu.sh image 587x441] 


Look at the percentage of gun use in murders. It really is disingenuous or naive to portray crime and guns in this country in some rosy light based on a general yearly graph that lacks context.

You're a spinmeister, and that's it.


There is only one piece of gun control legislation in this country's history that had the desired effect: the NFA. All others failed. You simply don't have any data to prove otherwise, because you don't have any way to track the guns, their usage in crime, and all other factors. We do know, however, that no NFA weapons have been used in crimes since 1934. That's what makes the NFA the only successful piece of gun control legislation. It worked as intended.

Until you have a way to track them, you have no way to gauge the usefulness of any piece of legislation that is not speculative.
 
2012-12-17 11:52:51 AM

Mikey1969: I'm sorry, the whatever-to-English translation is broken, apparently. What is "indirect" about the aluminum bats causing the balls to travel farther?


We're talking about increased numbers of home runs in the major league, where, as you pointed out, no aluminum bats are used.

Will attributed the increase to changes in the development process of pitchers through systems which allowed aluminum bats.

It's all right in the article I linked.
 
2012-12-17 11:58:36 AM
Well, this thread went weirder than gun threads usually do.

web.donga.ac.kr
 
2012-12-17 12:17:13 PM

ilambiquated: Also I'm sort of doubtful about your claim that lead is inert -- it certainly oxidates easily giving Pb IV and Pb IV also changes to Pb II easily.


When the vast majority of bullets are fired, they end up buried in the earth where any oxygen uptake is diminished from what it would be if it were at the surface. The same is true for underwater environs. All this reduces the oxidation potential of the lead. In addition, pH can have an impact. However, the level of pH required to mobilize lead is pretty low and most soils/waters are nowhere close to these pH levels. For most scientists, ingestion is the most worriesome method of mibilization/bioaccumulation.

The lead that is used in ammunition is metallic lead and is a very inert material that does not dissolve in water and it is not absorbed by plants or animals," Dr. Saba explained. "There is a tremendous toxicity difference between the highly inert metallic lead used in ammunition and the highly toxic lead compounds used in legacy leaded paints."

Lead from spent ammunition and lost fishing tackle is not readily released into aquatic and terrestrial systems. Lead artifacts can be relatively stable and intact for decades to centuries. Nevertheless, under some environmental conditions (e.g., soft acidic water, acidic soil), lead can weather and be mobilized from such artifacts, yielding free dissolved lead, precipitates, and complex species with inorganic and organic matter.

Also don't forget that all of this lead came from the earth. It is just being spread out back into the earth. For a heavy element, it is one of the most abundant in the crust.

static.seekingalpha.com

/many folks still have metallic lead water pipes for their water service connections.
 
2012-12-17 12:21:01 PM

Leeds: But if we could get American citizens to keep an eye open for potentially violent mentally deficient people- we might actually be able to avoid this in the future.


Let me guess. We should make CCW permits easier so they can be our Junior Volunteer Police Force™.
 
2012-12-17 01:31:47 PM
First off, George Will is a tool. I had the honor of him personally being a tool to me when I was a temp, by the way. He lives in the neocon bubble.

Second, why don't we make everyone who wants to have guns part of the army? That's a well regulated militia, as stated in the constitution. Maybe we can have some kind of home guard or something. BUT, you'd have to attend their gatherings or you'd get kicked out of the club and your weapons stay behind. THAT would weed out the nutjobs.
 
2012-12-17 01:44:53 PM

Leeds: whidbey: Leeds: But if we could get American citizens to keep an eye open for potentially violent mentally deficient people- we might actually be able to avoid this in the future.

Let me guess. We should make CCW permits easier so they can be our Junior Volunteer Police Force™.

Why are you hung up on guns?

This is a mental health issue. Keep your gun fantasies to yourself.


To be fair, it's both. And all due respect to Whidbey, but it is a proven mathematical certainty that easing restrictions on CCW permits *reduces* the incidence of violent crime, and that in the specific case of mass shootings, armed bystanders reduce the body count by a factor of 8.
So he can snidely refer to them as a "junior police force", but the fact remains that whatever you call it, it helps.

This isn't a "society" issue. It's not a "mental health" issue or a "guns" issue. It's all of the above and more. Coming up with an *effective* response requires rational and dispassionate thought, which is hard to come by after some nutcase guns down a room full of little kids.
 
2012-12-17 02:16:56 PM

plewis: Second, why don't we make everyone who wants to have guns part of the army?


Because the army and militia are to be seperate. The founders wanted to be able to stand guard against standing armies. If you remember correctly, they had a little bit of trouble with one of these standing armies. And don't forget that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not limit the operative clause.
 
2012-12-17 02:36:29 PM
Late to the party, but the shooter in Scotland used 2 hands guns, not assault rifles.

Link

The Norway shooting that he is refering to kiled 77 people. Part of this attack was a car bomb that killed 8 people. The killer then used one semi automatic weapon (with ammo he illegally obtained) and pistols.
 
2012-12-17 02:48:41 PM

HeadLever: plewis: Second, why don't we make everyone who wants to have guns part of the army?

Because the army and militia are to be seperate. The founders wanted to be able to stand guard against standing armies. If you remember correctly, they had a little bit of trouble with one of these standing armies. And don't forget that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not limit the operative clause.


Maybe we did that wrong:

polyticks.com

You see that first little arrow with a comment about militias? Then the instant rise in murders just after that?

Was that wrong? Should we have not done that?
 
2012-12-17 03:30:59 PM

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years.


Really? How is disarming victims so that they are sitting ducks for any madman who comes along "our way"?
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report