Political & Elections

busdriver11 · Guru

RE: The murders today.

longprime · Guru

thoughts.

"Guns do not kill people. People kill people"

Tonight science news on CBS, Breathelizer test technology is getting better and cheaper. So, for Alcohol; can we say the same, "Alcohol do not kill people, People kill people." ?? confuse

catahoula · Guru

Not sure I'm following you, razor.

If you're bringing the Supreme Court and constitutional law in, we can drop the seniors, since they're just a greedy lobby subsisting on voting strength and sympathy.

That the abortion lobby can't make any concessions, being barred by the Supremes, seems an odd way of putting it, since they litigate every single attempt to place any limits on what they consider their constitutional rights - one's that were winkled out as a 'right to privacy', I might add, rather than something a good bit plainer. Right to bear arms, I mean.

Razorsharp · Guru

catahoula wrote:
Substitute "abortion" for "gun ownership" and you'll have another, take-no-prisoners, make-no-concessions, group to despise, razor.

I would have to agree with you on that one excpet that possibly you have two extreme groups instead of one. The "no abortion under any circumstances" group is just as extreme as "it's my body and I have the right to chose" group. The difference in these groups and gun and senior group is that abortion groups cannot make any material changes to the law passed by the surpeme court in roe v. wade. The other groups can make changes for the better or worse.

catahoula · Guru

The diference between Auto and Semi-auto isn't one that can be legally whiskered away but that "bump firing" thing was something I've never heard of. Other than giving people who like to make YouTube vids something else to cover it seems pretty useless, least the ones I watched. Firing from the hip, just like they do in the movies, and burning up those horrid high-capacity magazines. Other than getting after a troop of Girl Scouts penned up in a closet, they might as well be shooting up at the ceiling -- better yet, aiming up under their own chin -- because after they get through Ramboing, those Girl Scouts are going to strangle them with their merit sashes.

The NRA is not much different. They are a smaller group of paranoid gun nuts who can't imagine how anyone would want to limit rapid fire weapons or unlimited amo supplies. Even the most reasonable attempt to regulation gun ownership is major constitutional violation in their minds.

Substitute "abortion" for "gun ownership" and you'll have another, take-no-prisoners, make-no-concessions, group to despise, razor.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Razorsharp, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. That all gun owners who are NRA members are gun nuts. You can even say what you said about kids, as distasteful as that is. However, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners in ths country aren't gun nuts. Even those in the NRA. I would be profoundly sad if any child died because of gun violence. No matter if their parents owned a gun or not.

longprime · Guru

I can't wait until Rush becomes a member of the AARP. evileye

Best meal deal is Denny's AARP 20% discount. Locations and times may vary.

Razorsharp · Guru

Intrepid1 wrote:
The only "weapon" that allows you hold the trigger is an "automatic", which by the way is not commercially available to the general public. It is typically reserved for military and/or law enforcement (had you read the initial article I referenced, you would have learned this). However, a semi-automatic requires an individual to "pull a trigger every time he shoots a bullet".

You just stated another myth from the gun nut group. Are you pretending not to know know about bump firing or actually ignorant of it? A semi automatic AR15 can be shot just like any automatice weapon with bump firing.

A reasonable approach to gun ownershp would be to ban rapid fire weapons and to limit the number of round that can be fired without reloading. It won't stop senseless murders but it will give more people a chance to escape.

Razorsharp · Guru

busdriver11 wrote:
Dang, razorsharp, you have some vehement hatred towards members of the NRA. This, " If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit," is pretty vicious.

There are two political groups I truly despise -- the AARP and the NRA. Even the slighest attempt to limit the amount of income redistributed to seniors is met with absolute outrage and condemnation. Seniors have it better than any other group and receive far more government benefits than they have paid for during their lives. They rarely take a reasonable approach to any solving any problem. Just yesterday the dems would not go along with even the slightest adjustment to social security cost of living increases for fear of the AARP.

The NRA is not much different. They are a smaller group of paranoid gun nuts who can't imagine how anyone would want to limit rapid fire weapons or unlimited amo supplies. Even the most reasonable attempt to regulation gun ownership is major constitutional violation in their minds.

I hope no one's children are ever killed like the children in Newtown or at the movie theater or at Va tech. But if there are going to be children who die, I hope it is not the children of people who want to impose reasonable gun restriction and it is the children of member of the NRA. If there are to be consequences of bad government policy let it fall on those who supported the bad government policy, not those who opposed it. It's pretty simple.

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Monday 31st of December 2012 08:08:04 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

700 gangs in the Lis Angeles area. Not including Long Beach, which has it's share, as well. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88098444 It can take hours for the police to respond. Would you have a gun to protect your family, if you lived in East LA? I would.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Back when I first learned to drive, I was taught the etiquette that when you see a driver without their headlights on, to flash your lights at them as a warning to them to help them be safe. Then, the gangs in some parts of town started shooting at the cars that flashed their lights at them. It was an initiation rite into their gang. There are driveway shootings, too. It isn't the NRA members doing this, and my guess is those guns used in these gang crimes aren't registered, or stolen. I live close enough to the site of the LA Riots to know that guns are dangerous. I also know that I feel a lot safer having one in my home if another riot breaks out. I am not an NRA member. I have been to the range once. I don't live guns, not a gun nut. I have a healthy respect for them. If my workplace asked me to go to training to carry on campus, I would in a second. I have had conversations with school staff about "what if" scenarios. Let's just say, in one of those scenarios, I am an easy target for a disgruntled person, and it won't go well for me. Security in most schools is ****ty.

busdriver11 · Guru

Dang, razorsharp, you have some vehement hatred towards members of the NRA. This, " If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit," is pretty vicious.

The gun guys that I know (people that I work with), pretty much have a common theme. That if something happens where a bad guy is trying to take over a ****pit, or invade their home, they don't want to be victims. They refuse to sit back and die, and let the bad guys take over. They intend to protect themselves and others, even if it puts them at more risk. These are people who basically have the same mentality as cops, and though I don't yet have the stomach to join them, I really respect that they are stepping up.

Now I'm fine with banning the type of weapons that allow others to commit mass murder, whatever they are, but yeah, if you read the definition of "assault weapons", you will see how silly the entire argument is. Bayonets, folding stock? Really? There is some serious silliness going on here to try to convince people that something is being done. Maybe we need a little bit of common sense here, not politicking.

And as far as race goes, well, the number of murders commited by paranoid white men pales in comparison to the gang shootings in cities like Chicago or LA. Sad we don't hear a little more discussion about that.

catahoula · Guru

No, the race card in connection to gun control isn't usually pulled out at all, since it's a damned embarrasing one - check out the current murder tallies in Chicago, St. Louis, etc., and it's laughable to think they all occurred in a spree shooting or two. Trading out every semi-auto for a single shot derringer wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference.

If you have ever been to any of the gun shows, what you see is largely male group of paranoid men. I would not surprise me if most of those men were bullied as children and disdained by girls. Now that they have their weapons they can envision themselves as "real men" and no longer the weaklings they are. If you listen to the discussion among them you often hear endless comments about how the government is about to knock their doors down and take their guns and they better buy as many guns and amo as possible to prepare for the government takeover. Their paranoia is a form of mental illness.

Nah, I've been to one or two, and I've seen a more diverse cross-section than what you've heard about, razor. Can't say I managed to evaluate anybody's mental health, even though I was actually there, but I'd be suprised if more than a few of them were there for anything other than picking up a gun for their wives (single guys, anyway) or beating the investment rush.

Clinton was a pretty good buy opportunity, if you weren't sleeping, just as Obama's turning out to be.

Intrepid1 · Veteran Member

Razorsharp wrote:
If a shooter has to pull a trigger every time he shoots a bullet and has to reload frequently, people in an audience can run before he kills them. It's pretty simple. Unfortunately, the gun nuts are so unreasonable and extreme that these type of murders are likely to continue. If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit.

The only "weapon" that allows you hold the trigger is an "automatic", which by the way is not commercially available to the general public. It is typically reserved for military and/or law enforcement (had you read the initial article I referenced, you would have learned this). However, a semi-automatic requires an individual to "pull a trigger every time he shoots a bullet". Furthermore, if you had the opportunity to attend a shooting competition in your area or at a local gun club, you would find that many professionals (and a heck of a lot of amateurs) can reload in a matter of seconds.

What exactly is a "gun nut"? This term seems to have developed into some sort of derisive definition by those people/media/etc. who seek to demonize something and/or someone with which they disagree (politically, morally, etc.) in an effort to minimize their impact and/or acceptance within the confines of what some people believe is the societal norm (in this instance......guns are bad) - kind of Alinsky-like in your approach, eh? Are we to now assume that exercising one's Constitutional rights is now considered an abnormal mental state/condition which requires treatment?

And now you want children to die also? My friend, you need help.

-- Edited by Intrepid1 on Monday 31st of December 2012 05:32:25 AM

Razorsharp · Guru

Intrepid1 wrote:
I am surprised you didn't toss out the "race card" also.

I don't know your race. Is "redneck" a race? If you have ever been to any of the gun shows, what you see is largely male group of paranoid men. I would not surprise me if most of those men were bullied as children and disdained by girls. Now that they have their weapons they can envision themselves as "real men" and no longer the weaklings they are. If you listen to the discussion among them you often hear endless comments about how the government is about to knock their doors down and take their guns and they better buy as many guns and amo as possible to prepare for the government takeover. Their paranoia is a form of mental illness.

Nothing in the second amendment prohibits the government from providing reasonable regulation of weapons. They way gun nuts interpret the second amendment, they should be permitted to own machine guns, Rocket Propelled Grenades and any weapon of their choice regardless of how extreme.

Need is a fundamental consideration for implementing regulation. People who have access to handguns and rifles for personal security from robbers etc. do not need assault weapons to protect themselves. People who have access to handguns and rifles for hunting do not need assault weapons for hunting. The only need for assault weapons is the need of a gunowner to compensate for his small penis, small brain, or some psychological paranoia or inadequacy.

The need to get rid of assault weapons is overwhelming as demonstrated by a Batman movie premier, an assault at a major univeristy, and now at Newtown. We cannot stop the mentally ill from getting weapons and shooting people. What we can do is increase the odds that more of the people who are targets have a chance to runaway and escape. The way to to do this is to limit weapons that have rapid fire features and large amo clips. If a shooter has to pull a trigger every time he shoots a bullet and has to reload frequently, people in an audience can run before he kills them. It's pretty simple. Unfortunately, the gun nuts are so unreasonable and extreme that these type of murders are likely to continue. If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit.

longprime · Guru

Magazines: The holder of bullets, whether in words or bullets; Do you remember Roger Rabbit where the Detective shot a toon gun and ran out of bullets and the bullets he did shoot, went "astray". Very funny.

A person whose intent is killing, will kill, whether there is one bullet or 100 bullets. The shooter will kill at least 1 person because he will have surprise element, regardless of any weapons the victim may carry. The question you need to ask is whether you will be the target of the hour.

Stay away from insurance companies that honored W's declaration of terrorism, because they exercised the terrorism exclusion. evileye

hope · Guru

"That always lurking threat -That the 47 percent will rise up and set things straight if their guns are cut off.. " Love it.

soccerguy315 · Guru

that guy on [MS?]NBC brought his illegal magazine into DC.

immediately all the news people say he shouldn't be punished...

Intrepid1 · Veteran Member

Thanks Razor. I always appreciate it when someone is so concerned about me that they suggest some cardiovascular exercise to improve my health. Rather than address the information in the article I referred to, you chose a different tact. I am surprised you didn't toss out the "race card" also.

The simple fact is that you nor anyone else seems to have a great definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon". And you along with nobody else in this country gets to determine what I or anyone else "needs". But the political class and a large percentage of the sheeple certainly will and in doing so will play to the uneducated fears of the general populace in an effort to sway them.

How about a 6,000 pound pickup truck? Is that an assault weapon? If driven while under the influence at an uncontrollable speed, it certainly could create plenty of havoc, why even death. But then again, it is just an inanimate object functioning at the whim of an out-of-control individual. But we can't blame the driver now can we, it is the large vehicle that inflicted the damage.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-thought-control-and-people.html

"The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli."

You want massive regulation.......it has been done before, bone up on your history.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/assault-weapons-ban/?singlepage=true

"Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).

To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.

That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.

The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” – a term that was created by the law itself – if it had two or more of the following features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine"

The Second Amendment is extremely clear and has been further upheld by the USSC. Again, "need" is not mentioned.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

Why do people need guns? Maybe this short video will easily demonstrate why:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8b_1355643365

catahoula · Guru

Nothing appears to be missing, so I guess not.

How do you feel about magazine capacity, longprime? Are you pro-gun enough, and mindful enough of that always lurking threat - that the 47% will rise up and set things straight if their phones are cut-off, and seniors will do the Rostenkowski dance on all our limos - to come out in favor of 30 rounds being a necessary thing?

longprime · Guru

Had to go to Beach House. Beautiful Sunday, 30 Dec 2012. Clear, windless. Black ice. Got the pellet stove working reliably and installed replacement electric wall heater. Tried out antennas for bedroom TV's.

Did I miss anything? evileye

catahoula · Guru

Correia sums the problem up pretty well, skinning the whole mess down to just a couple of points:

- Looks are irrelevant, other than that some believe they do, in fact, matter. That they can believe so, in spite of facts, leads one to suspect they honestly do believe the gun to be the prime mover, not the twisted murderer that operates it.

- Magazine capacity, an actual functional difference between firearms, matters a little but not to the point it's going to seriously inconvenience the above twisted mind.

busdriver11 · Guru

Well, I suppose it would certainly be handy if we could all go **** ourselves. Just sayin, not getting in the middle of anything.

Razorsharp · Guru

Well Intrepid1, go **** yourself. Oh wait, maybe you won't be able to define that either. Another problem that can't be solved because someone can't find a definition.

busdriver11 · Guru

That's the same thing my son said. What is an assault rifle? Define it. Basically it is all political bs to pretend that congress is doing something. Ie, ban things that sound or look scary. Like bayonnets. Hello, how many people can be killed rapidly with bayonnets?

If we just ban assault rifles, everything will be fixed.

oops.

Intrepid1 · Veteran Member

Razorsharp wrote:
It's time for massive regulation of assault weapons. No one needs an assault weapon. People who think they do are nuts. Permitting assault weapons means when crazy people enter schools to kill, no one has time to escape. Banning assault weapons would not have prevented deaths at Newtown but if the killer at least had to take time to reload, more kids could have escaped.

Need has nothing to do with it. People who make statements like this are nuts.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.” Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

catahoula · Guru

You know, I'm still pissed off at that crazy, McVeigh, for getting things like ammonium nitrate put on the "do-not-sell" list -- googled it, along with "stump removal", today (accelerated decay, not speedy reaction) and figure Homeland Security stored my IP address for a rainy day -- so you won't be surprised I tend to blame the agent in Newtown, rather than what he used.

Exactly how many lawyers do you think are going to be needed to nursemaid whatever the sure to be changing definition of 'assault weapon" is at the political moment, razorsharp?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Assault weapons mean something different, depending upon who you talk to. There is no legal definition for what makes an assault weapon. Semi-automatic is not the same thing as an automatic, but spanything with a magazine and semi automatic can be considered an assault weapon. I doubt if you mean like a 9mm Glock with a 10 cartridge magazine - but technically, some might classify this as one. I woudn't.

Razorsharp · Guru

It's time for massive regulation of assault weapons. No one needs an assault weapon. People who think they do are nuts. Permitting assault weapons means when crazy people enter schools to kill, no one has time to escape. Banning assault weapons would not have prevented deaths at Newtown but if the killer at least had to take time to reload, more kids could have escaped.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I have even less respect for Feinstein today then that day, several months ago, when she refused to lift a finger to assist my son with his Navy ROTC appeal. She is an idiot.

catahoula · Guru

The schools here in my district already have sherrifs deputies on campus. Over the years, as they showed up, I had always assumed it was part of a nationwide trend but...

Feinstein's solution seems to include, along with doing away with the types of guns that enable people to commit these types of crimes, registering every gun out there while fingerprinting all their owners.

Nonsensical.

winchester · Guru

This would work.

Armed Teachers, Guards, Key to Security in Israel

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Oren Shemtov, CEO of Israel’s Academy of Security and Investigation, noted that attacks typically happen in a matter of minutes, and said gun-toting teachers could, at the very least, buy time for kids to escape while police race to the scene.

...

Security consultant Dov Zwerling, an Israeli counter-terror police veteran, believes armed guards are crucial for school security.

“From what I know of almost all of the active shooter events in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene,” Zwerling said. “Why not challenge him earlier?”

...

A collective effort among police, private guards and teachers requires that the civilians involved in armed security receive rigorous training. Private guards undergo at least three weeks of advanced training with a 9mm weapon and guards employed for school protection must pass criminal, mental and physical checks.

“A long course, at a minimum of 40-60 hours, is needed so that the instructor can feel out the student,” said Shemtov, noting that not all teachers or guards are suited for school protection. “Course candidates should be a certain age, emotionally mature, of a certain mentality, physically healthy - and from there move to training.”

...

U.S. soldiers returning from overseas are well suited for school protection, he said, and “instead of returning with nothing to do there’s a sea of work” as school guards.

“They’re the elite of the American people,” Shemtov said. “You have people obligated, morally and ethically to the state, to the flag - this is a soldier. It’s a person who went out to do this. All you have to do is give him the appropriate training to do this in the private sector....This is the best of the American people, like they’re the best of the Israeli people. They’re people who took it upon themselves to help others.”

catahoula · Guru

That is the liberal way: seize on a solution and go for it full speed ahead. Whether or not the solution is based in reality.

A healthy dose of delusion is neccessary to even begin to think there's a solution for this.

Fantasies are just that for millions of young males but for the ones bent enough to move to the planning stage and beyond, restricting ammunition sales (probably the best I've heard) isn't going to be much of a bump to get over.

winchester · Guru

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer's next shot was to kill himself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

longprime · Guru

The issue of pro gun is that somewhere and sometimes, someone will get a weapon and klll someother person and thereby abridge that person's rights. In a preverse way, the arguement works for weapon control. evileye

I wish that my last reason for buying DS's life insurance would not be for some-else's mental stablity. I know that it is bad luck but I see no alternative, and if the unthinkable would happen, I swear that I will make someone pay in retribution to the fullest. I would not be surprised that one of the 26 families will seek the solution.

hope · Guru

Right. It's only those who fall in with the liberal orthodoxy who are not "cavalier." So predictable.

john doe · Guru

I don't know where you live but in Newtown, CT most people are definitely not progun.

john doe · Guru

Perhaps if you knew the people impacted by this you wouldn't be so cavalier in your attitude.

hope · Guru

That is the liberal way: seize on a solution and go for it full speed ahead. Whether or not the solution is based in reality.

Nope. It's personalities vulnerable to our present day culture. Including the culture of our schools. Which are sick unto themselves.

But that's too complicated for liberals. Go for the guns, and put an armed cop in every school.

Yep, makes sense. disbelief

soccerguy315 · Guru

crime stats with firearms, trending down: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm

longprime · Guru

RE: Trillions for foreign terrorism but not one dollar for domestic terrorism

longprime · Guru

The murders today.

longprime · Guru

Don't know the answer(s). I am pro gun/weapon.

Question is at what point, if any, will "control" be implemented.

I just got DS's life insurance notice. It's been nearly ten years since I purchased this insurance. He was a senior in hs and college applications submitted. It was alot of insurance for someone with no income and I had to explain to the insurance co. that DS was going to incur a lot of student loans and is a high proforming student. Other than the usual reasons for LI, the last reason was that some one else would do the unthinkable.which is a really poor reason but becoming more realistic every year.

So on CC-PCafe, there is a thread, Are the elites ignoring the unconventionally brilliant? Do you want to take the chance for your conventional student in a college that has admitted the unconventional brilliant? evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 17th of December 2012 08:04:46 PM

winchester · Guru

There is a time and place for calling for "change," but a speech that is essentially a eulogy is not that time or place. The friends and families of the victims, as well as the nation as a whole, needed comfort, solace.

Instead, Obama trivialized the loss and pain of those poor people by using this tragedy to for his own purposes. It was crass. I feel sorry for the family and friends of the victims. They deserve better.

His speech left me feeling disgusted, dirty, ashamed. Even this crisis was not allowed to go to waste. The man has no shame.

How Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush Dealt With Disaster

Razorsharp · Guru

I can't believe Obama interrupted the football game to tell me the killings were bad. I sort of already knew that.

TutuTaxi · Veteran Member

This is interesting .... sad too -

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

"In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness."

Razorsharp · Guru

I am glad the Conn. shooter killed himself. At least, now he cannot harm anyone else. I hope there is a hell so he can rot in it.

hope · Guru

This is so horrifying on every level. Words are useless.

Oddly enough (for me), I did appreciate President Obama's words yesterday. I was touched by his obviously profound sadness, as I was feeling the exact way. He rose to the occasion on this one...the repercussions of which are going to be around a long. long time.

longprime · Guru

pro gun, here. Oregon.

Don't know.

10+ years ago we had a 15yo kill his teacher parents, then went to his hs and killed some more.

Last week we had a 20something walk into the largest mall in OR and fortunately only was able to kill 2.

Won't have a gun in the house. Have a "touched" BIL living with us. But that does not mean that he couldn't obtain a weapon on his own, if not already. We have already told some close friends that if we are found DOA, that BIL is to be the first suspect.

Odd, that the God of Abraham, allows our first murder(s) to be within family and the ones we care for the most. ashamed

catahoula · Guru

Like the batman killer, another unbalanced young male, but what to do about it?

With the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill (but not so much they can't pass) doesn't seem practical.