Newtown School Shootings

[Fragony]

My condolances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/dec/14/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting-live

Beyond horrible

[rvg]

A veritable tragedy.

[Fisherking]

It is horrible!

Now, bet on whether the Perp was on anti-depressants?

Gone off his meds without telling anyone…

[Greyblades]

Jesus.

It is horrible!

Now, bet on whether the Perp was on anti-depressants?

Gone off his meds without telling anyone…

If it was a single suicide maybe, but this? Going off anti depressants would make someone less likely to do this.

[Fisherking]

Jesus.


If it was a single suicide maybe, but this? Going off anti depressants would make someone less likely to do this.


It seem like every time this stuff happens the shooter is on some serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

If it was only most of them it could be another tragic coincidence but so far as I know every one of these incidences have these drugs.

[Greyblades]

It seem like every time this stuff happens the shooter is on some serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

If it was only most of them it could be another tragic coincidence but so far as I know every one of these incidences have these drugs.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation, in school shootings you could say the same for the prominence of male shooters over females and the fact that they are all considered nutjobs.

[quadalpha]

Cue handwringing and lots of not thinking about gun control.

[Fisherking]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation, in school shootings you could say the same for the prominence of male shooters over females and the fact that they are all considered nutjobs.

Women do kill people coming off these drugs. Phil Hartman was killed by his wife, she just didn’t go to a school and kill lots of others.

We don’t actually know much yet, however. Let’s just wait and see.


We might also think twice about giving this stuff to people who like to play with guns…


edit: German news reported the shooter was a parent of a child at the school.!?

Anyone else hear more?

[Greyblades]

Women do kill people coming off these drugs. Phil Hartman was killed by his wife, she just didn’t go to a school and kill lots of others.
And there are thousands of homicides related to psychotic breaks not involving these drugs. Heck school shootings occured in the USA before such drugs were even developed. Again, Correlation does not imply causation, whether or not they are widespread.


We don’t actually know much yet, however. Let’s just wait and see.


We might also think twice about giving this stuff to people who like to play with guns…

I'm starting to think you are determined to find a link between antidepressants and homicides.


German news reported the shooter was a parent of a child at the school.!?

Anyone else hear more? WIki and BBC says 20 year old man who had access to school. His body was found after committing suicide.

[Montmorency]

Every one? Are you sure?

Even if it were many, the reason seems self-evident: those who go on to commit shootings are likeliest to be on antidepressants in the first place.

Cutting off psychiatric treatment would probably only hasten the lapse into violence.

[Fisherking]

Not all antidepressants. Just SSRIs. They feature in all the school shootings and many others.

No one wants to stop someone who is depressed from getting help but this class of drug needs to be more closely examined.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cue handwringing and lots of not thinking about gun control.

That didn't take long to appear in this thread.

The problem isn't with guns, the US is atrocious in recognizing the prevalence of mental disorders and we do not do enough to help those with problems.

[Montmorency]

Simple - are individuals on SSRIs more likely to commit battery or assault? Be public nuisances or disturb the peace?

There is no drug that 'makes you shoot people'. SSRIs are just generalized drugs for keeping serotonin in the synapse. This has many effects, some unknown or poorly understood, but 'begin to seriously plan out a spree shooting that would not otherwise have been conceived of' can not one of them.

Sure, the efficacy of the drug in treating depression may be questioned, but its complicity in shootings is one bizarre red herring.

[Greyblades]

Not all antidepressants. Just SSRIs. They feature in all the school shootings and many others.

No one wants to stop someone who is depressed from getting help but this class of drug needs to be more closely examined.

Nowhere near all of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting). School shootings have been going on long before SSRI's and will go on long after, the idea that SSRIs cause school shootings is no more a valid idea than the idea that the sort of people who go on school shootings exhibit symptoms that are prescribed SSRI's by medical authorities. Maybe grounds for saying SSRI's don't work and maybe we should use what makes doctors prescribe SSRI's to find ways of identifying warning signs of psychotic breaks but hardly grounds for saying it is a cause.

[quadalpha]

That didn't take long to appear in this thread.

The problem isn't with guns, the US is atrocious in recognizing the prevalence of mental disorders and we do not do enough to help those with problems.

It didn't take long for a very good reason, since it's the obvious question to ask and the most obvious solution. If you let 50 mentally ill people loose in a school without firearms, they won't be able to kill anything like the number of people killed today.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=101s


It didn't take long for a very good reason, since it's the obvious question to ask and the most obvious solution. If you let 50 mentally ill people loose in a school without firearms, they won't be able to kill anything like the number of people killed today.

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

[quadalpha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=101s



http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

Wait, let's read that article. Or just the headline should be enough:

'Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China'

'Injuries.' Not 'kills.' Now imagine the same man with a semi-automatic weapon.

You simply can't seriously try to make the argument that guns are not the prime cause of the deadliness of these attacks.

All the talk about mental health in this thread. Yes, it is an issue. Can anyone make the case that it's the most relevant issue?

And all this, for what? For the second amendment, that holy of holies? Is it worth the price? The second amendment is just a bone tossed to convince the people who are used to being told what to do by a piece of paper.

[rvg]

And all this, for what? For the second amendment, that holy of holies? Is it worth the price?

Absolutely worth it.

[Fisherking]

Nowhere near all of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting). School shootings have been going on long before SSRI's and will go on long after, the idea that SSRIs cause school shootings is no more a valid idea than the idea that the sort of people who go on school shootings exhibit symptoms that are prescribed SSRI's by medical authorities. Maybe grounds for saying SSRI's don't work and maybe we should use what makes doctors prescribe SSRI's to find ways of identifying warning signs of psychotic breaks but hardly grounds for saying it is a cause.

No, Indians attacking a school or an old may shooting the kids on the playground with rock salt, or the shootings at Kent State are not the same as the utterly senseless shooting we have seen starting with the University of Texas Massacre.

It is the crazy mass killing for no reason other than to kill people. Postal shooting, school shootings, Mc Donald’s shootings. Perhaps all these are just random nut cases who need the meds and shouldn’t have been at large anyway. Who knows? I am sure it is only a coincidence that they all were on SSRIs.



The news I am hearing say the 24 year old from New Jersey, went to his mothers apartment and killed her. Then went to the school and killed many of her students in her kindergarten class.

Death toll; 27, 20 children, 6 adults, and shot himself.

[quadalpha]

Absolutely worth it.

And this is going to be because you need the guns to fight off the federal government when it becomes evil, right?

[rvg]

And this is going to be because you need the guns to fight off the federal government when it becomes evil, right?

You said it, not I.

[quadalpha]

You said it, not I.

This is why the reaction to those Texas secession petitions has been, 'Yes, please just go!'

[rvg]

This is why the reaction to those Texas secession petitions has been, 'Yes, please just go!'

What do Texas secessionists have to do with this tragedy?

[Hooahguy]

Wait, let's read that article. Or just the headline should be enough:

'Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China'

'Injuries.' Not 'kills.' Now imagine the same man with a semi-automatic weapon.

You simply can't seriously try to make the argument that guns are not the prime cause of the deadliness of these attacks.

All the talk about mental health in this thread. Yes, it is an issue. Can anyone make the case that it's the most relevant issue?

And all this, for what? For the second amendment, that holy of holies? Is it worth the price? The second amendment is just a bone tossed to convince the people who are used to being told what to do by a piece of paper.

You obviously forget that theres a huge illegal gun market here. The criminals will get their guns, leaving the law-abiding without them.

[quadalpha]

What do Texas secessionists have to do with this tragedy?

So the rest of the country can start moving toward gun control laws.

Anyway, I think I remember you from other threads. This will probably not be a productive conversation.

[rvg]

Anyway, I think I remember you from other threads. This will probably not be a productive conversation.

:shrug: Suit yourself.

[quadalpha]

You obviously forget that theres a huge illegal gun market here. The criminals will get their guns, leaving the law-abiding without them.

Have a ban on anything except bolt action rifles, start a buy-back program for the newly illegal weapons, give it ten years and see if it's still as easy to get guns. Oh, they can also levy a 'gun buy-back' tax to finance the program.

[Hooahguy]

So the rest of the country can start moving toward gun control laws.

Anyway, I think I remember you from other threads. This will probably not be a productive conversation.

You think Texas is the only pro-gun state? Clearly you have never been to any of the southern states.

[Papewaio]

You are a class A idiot if you think guns are not more deadly then knives.

For starters the military would just buy k bars, swords, shields and sandals if that was true.

Also the Indians would have bet off the early settlers. As he case was a gun beats an old form tomahawk.

The second amendment would have been the right to bear blades.

=][=

Look at the Chinese attacker using a knife. Two dozen wounded children. The American, kills his parents and then two dozen children.

=][=

Now to some this latest tragedy is the price for freedom. Remarkably this tastes mighty like a fetid zombie feast, twenty plus children dead for a taste of freedom.

Now it's your country, your lifestyle, your laws, your outcomes. With actions come responsibility.

So those advocating this lifestyle are also collectively responsible for the outcome. If you want to crow for every Olympic gold, or your local sports team win, or whatever other part of the nation, you will also have to cop it on the chin when your laws enable such a tragedy.

Strangely enough the rest of the free world is capable of dealing with gun ownership in a much more coherent manner and yet the US ranks below a lot of these countries in measures of freedom, wealth and health.

[Hooahguy]

Whatever it is, I think we can all agree that this wont change anything. People are going to whine about more or less gun control, the media will be on a 24/7 news cycle about this for the next few days until something else more interesting pops up, and nothing will happen, until this happens again and the cycle will repeat itself.

Its a shame too.

[Ronin]

Wait, let's read that article. Or just the headline should be enough:

'Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China'

'Injuries.' Not 'kills.' Now imagine the same man with a semi-automatic weapon.


you can´t expect the chinese knock-off to be the exact same as the real deal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are a class A idiot if you think guns are not more deadly then knives.

For starters the military would just buy k bars, swords, shields and sandals if that was true.

Also the Indians would have bet off the early settlers. As he case was a gun beats an old form tomahawk.

The second amendment would have been the right to bear blades.

=][=

Look at the Chinese attacker using a knife. Two dozen wounded children. The American, kills his parents and then two dozen children.

=][=

Now to some this latest tragedy is the price for freedom. Remarkably this tastes mighty like a fetid zombie feast, twenty plus children dead for a taste of freedom.

Now it's your country, your lifestyle, your laws, your outcomes. With actions come responsibility.

So those advocating this lifestyle are also collectively responsible for the outcome. If you want to crow for every Olympic gold, or your local sports team win, or whatever other part of the nation, you will also have to cop it on the chin when your laws enable such a tragedy.

Strangely enough the rest of the free world is capable of dealing with gun ownership in a much more coherent manner and yet the US ranks below a lot of these countries in measures of freedom, wealth and health.

Step off your high horse for one second so that you may see what it is you are arguing.

What you want is to remove the ability of mentally ill people to harm others. But what you don't realize is that guns are simply the most deadly and convenient way of going about killing someone. The point of Sasaki's article is not to make the point that a knife is just as deadly as a gun. The point is that whatever gets into the mind of someone as deranged as the shooter, there will be possible deaths and at least some injuries and you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to treat the root of the problem.

You can look down on Americans all you want by making the proud decision of wrapping everyone in bubble wrap to protect us from each other, but you are committing a more egregious atrocity by acting as if you have done anything more than cure a symptom of a much more serious problem. There is never a single case of a sane human snapping and becoming a mass murderer within a day, there are signs and there are means to help but we as a society refuse to recognize those signs and we refuse to promote such help to those who need it.

Your and other people's willingness to turn this into a blame the gun conversation yet again, just shows that you don't really understand where the americans are coming from and you speak from a place of ignorance. American society refuses to ban guns because we view situations like this under the context of an individual who has made choices, the questions we strive to answer are why did he make these choices and how we can prevent it again. That is the real core issue.

All you want to do is talk about how he made those choices. And it's the most unproductive conversation to be having time and time again when these tragedies happen.

[Papewaio]

Step off your high horse for one second so that you may see what it is you are arguing.

What you want is to remove the ability of mentally ill people to harm others. But what you don't realize is that guns are simply the most deadly and convenient way of going about killing someone. The point of Sasaki's article is not to make the point that a knife is just as deadly as a gun. The point is that whatever gets into the mind of someone as deranged as the shooter, there will be possible deaths and at least some injuries and you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to treat the root of the problem.

You can look down on Americans all you want by making the proud decision of wrapping everyone in bubble wrap to protect us from each other, but you are committing a more egregious atrocity by acting as if you have done anything more than cure a symptom of a much more serious problem. There is never a single case of a sane human snapping and becoming a mass murderer, there are signs and there are means to help but we as a society refuse to recognize those signs and we refuse to promote such help to those who need it.

Your and other people's willingness to turn this into a blame the gun conversation yet again, just shows that you don't really understand where the americans are coming from and you speak from a place of ignorance. American society refuses to ban guns because we view situations like this under the context of an individual who has made choices, the questions we strive to answer are why did he make these choices and how we can prevent it again.

All you want to do is talk about how he made those choices. And it's the most unproductive conversation to be having time and time again when these tragedies happen.

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of freedom? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling such a slaughter without the proper infrastructure to minimize its occurence.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law that carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have that ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

[Greyblades]

No, Indians attacking a school or an old may shooting the kids on the playground with rock salt, or the shootings at Kent State are not the same as the utterly senseless shooting we have seen starting with the University of Texas Massacre.

It is the crazy mass killing for no reason other than to kill people. Postal shooting, school shootings, Mc Donald’s shootings. Perhaps all these are just random nut cases who need the meds and shouldn’t have been at large anyway. Who knows? I am sure it is only a coincidence that they all were on SSRIs.



The news I am hearing say the 24 year old from New Jersey, went to his mothers apartment and killed her. Then went to the school and killed many of her students in her kindergarten class.

Death toll; 27, 20 children, 6 adults, and shot himself.


May 18, 1927: Bath, Michigan School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his Ford car, then set off a truck bomb, killing himself and four others. Only one shot was fired in order to detonate dynamite in the car. This was deadliest act of mass murder at a school in the United States.
40+ dead, no reason, 50 or so years before these drugs you blame it on. Biggest killing on school premise. A worse thing happened long before the drug in question even existed and the cause you try to put on it's recent increased frequency as flimsy as the ideas that it only happened because of the access to the internet, the increased stress caused by modern life, the urge for psychos to copy the crimes is worsened by now being able to get on the CNN website, or the fact that people are now aware mobile phones smaller than fanny packs exist.

Coincidence is not cause. 1st lesson of How to Argue: Critical Reasoning Logic and Rhetoric's Uni course.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of children? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling it.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law hat carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have hat ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

Asserting that a gun was used in the killings is a fact of as much relevance as stating the fact that the sky was blue on the day of the shooting. You are living in a world of red herrings!

It is the collective responsibility of Americans to ensure that the mentally ill receive that the treatment they require. This was the failure of the community. The methods of attack are inconsequential, only the festering of instability which provoked an attack in the first place.

This is a healthcare problem not a gun problem. Stop treating it as one.

Shut up about liberty and freedom and the second amendment, because you only serve to deride the conversation away from what needs to be said and you only embolden American pride and compound the problems.

The fact you try to present an ultimatum of either banning guns or having our children die only reveals that you are not here for anything but stomping your obnoxious and ignorant "empathy" into everyone's face.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Step off your high horse for one second so that you may see what it is you are arguing.

What you want is to remove the ability of mentally ill people to harm others. But what you don't realize is that guns are simply the most deadly and convenient way of going about killing someone. The point of Sasaki's article is not to make the point that a knife is just as deadly as a gun. The point is that whatever gets into the mind of someone as deranged as the shooter, there will be possible deaths and at least some injuries and you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to treat the root of the problem.

Well I doubt that: Pape's point was specifically that guns are a most excellent tool of murder, that is all they do and all they are intended for, far better than most alternatives -- therefore to equate it with a knife (which is a generically useful utensil and not nearly as good for actual killing) means you've got some sanity checking to do on your viewpoints.

If you want to have another healthcare debate that's fine and definitely should be looked at as well, but the gun control debate is a valid point to bring up again. Allowing people to own guns, there's nothing wrong or perhaps even strange about it. Not insisting on basic checks (admittedly varies from state to state), registration etc. ? That's not merely a matter of opinion, that is collectively sticking your heads in the sand/putting your fingers in the ears and going lalala.

And you know it. That is why you insist precisely on that when it comes to cars -- which like guns are an excellent implement of death as well, even if only by accident.

Speaking of tackling the root issue: guns to protect yourself, your loved ones? You make this too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel... ~;)

[Greyblades]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

[Hooahguy]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

Fair point, but if you miss those first two shots you are screwed.

[Greyblades]

Fair point, but if you miss those first two shots you are screwed.

True, but the noise will attract others who will likely arrive on the scene with their own derringers. Add to that the derringer's bullets are hard to actually get a killing shot with, it gives those on the receiving end a chance to survive long enough to receive aid.

...Unless the attacker is a criminal able to get a better weapon than a derringer, though really when you are dealing with a guy who is able to get black market weapons you are kinda screwed anyway, even with the current civilian portable weaponry.

Edit: Hrm... a knife would pose a problem too, though really a knife attacker wouldnt really show itself as a threat until its too close for a firearm to be readied in time anyway...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

I'd disagree there. As far as I am concerned the problem with gun ownership is not with whether or not you can have guns but on the assumption that gun ownership is just like garden shears ownership, or worse somehow "necessary" to defend yourself. I've made the comparison before, but what it says to me is the USA is like Somalia: no functioning state to keep its citizens safe and maintain the rule of law. Sort of "If you don't have guns to defend yourself, why then, you might end up killed/robbed/whatever. This is not hypothetical fantasy out of the realm of implausible coincidence land, no it's apparently actually a likely scenario."

Stand your ground, my foot. Fix your country, how's that for a root cause?

Which is not to detract from the ACIN's point about the healthcare situation. With or without guns, a psychotic individual cannot simply be left to stew in his own misery.

[Papewaio]

Guns are more deadly then knives. No argument. It's up there with drink and drive and you are a bloody idiot.

=][=

Strip the American public of firearms is definitely one option. Another is actually not doing a half arsed job and actually enact constitutional rights. For the security of the state, a well regulated militia.

Well regulated. A reasonable person would assume that we'll regulated would mean not giving firearms to felons and the mentally ill. That it would be regulated much like a car license. You get access to a class of weapon based on your abilities including eyesight and mental health. You also have to pass various tests to show your ability in handling a firearm.

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.

Now it doesn't require removal of the second amendment. It just requires following it through.

Until then it is your collective responsibilty for the outcome of poorly thought out and enforced laws.

[quadalpha]

You think Texas is the only pro-gun state? Clearly you have never been to any of the southern states.

The idea being all the people who want guns will then move to Texas.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to have another healthcare debate that's fine and definitely should be looked at as well, but the gun control debate is a valid point to bring up again. Allowing people to own guns, there's nothing wrong or perhaps even strange about it. Not insisting on basic checks (admittedly varies from state to state), registration etc. ? That's not merely a matter of opinion, that is collectively sticking your heads in the sand/putting your fingers in the ears and going lalala.

And you know it. That is why you insist precisely on that when it comes to cars -- which like guns are an excellent implement of death as well, even if only by accident.

Basic checks are meant to throw out those with criminal records and those with a record history of mental illness. But this comes directly back to the healthcare problem, how are mentally ill people getting guns? It is not because the gun laws are too lax, it is because no one knew they had these issues. No one picked up on their problems or maybe they had no one to even notice them. We don't live in a society where it is encouraged that if you feel like you have problems seek help immediately, there are social stigmas associated with these things. How is a student who wants help going to get it? Sure, the counselors office (if there is one) is right there. And as you walk up the steps in view of everyone, you are announcing to the whole school "hey, I have a mental and/or emotional problem!". Then we wonder why the Columbine kids never got the help they needed.

So how can you begin talking about the gun laws when they depend on the ability of our healthcare system to locate and note who the mentally ill are in the first place?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of freedom? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling such a slaughter without the proper infrastructure to minimize its occurence.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law that carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have that ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

Well you're certainly doing a fine job of destroying those strawmen, Pape.

We live in a country of over 310,000,000 people. In 2009 about 2,500,000 people died. The last statistic I saw was ~11,000 people per year were killed by other people who used firearms.

This is not an epidemic; it is, honestly statistically insignificant to the overall death rates. That doesn't mean it's not a tragedy - but it means there is no basis for arguing that we should make changes to our gun laws.

In fact, making reactionary, knee-jerk changes based on highly emotional, widely publicized, but incredibly rare events, is the recipe for bad and useless laws.

Yes, freedom means some people will abuse that freedom for bad purposes. Just like some criminals get away because of constitutional protections, guns are easier to obtain than some countries - and they can be used for good or evil. Guns don't necessarily increase freedom - but merely being able to acquire guns is freedom in and of itself.

The proper reaction in this case, when it's a very rare event, is not a knee-jerk restriction of freedoms.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.


Yes, because Americans don't accept that guns are deadly tools and that some people are a danger to themselves and others. Here is me, the american, talking about those who are a danger to themselves and others but I guess I must not know anything because I support gun rights. :/

I mean, these are american children that were just murdered, and you want to take this moment to give Americans a good lecture?

[quadalpha]

Asserting that a gun was used in the killings is a fact of as much relevance as stating the fact that the sky was blue on the day of the shooting. You are living in a world of red herrings!

It is the collective responsibility of Americans to ensure that the mentally ill receive that the treatment they require. This was the failure of the community. The methods of attack are inconsequential, only the festering of instability which provoked an attack in the first place.

This is a healthcare problem not a gun problem. Stop treating it as one.

Shut up about liberty and freedom and the second amendment, because you only serve to deride the conversation away from what needs to be said and you only embolden American pride and compound the problems.

The fact you try to present an ultimatum of either banning guns or having our children die only reveals that you are not here for anything but stomping your obnoxious and ignorant "empathy" into everyone's face.

Take a step back. You just called guns a 'red herring' in a conversation about a shooting rampage. If you'd like to make the case that the blueness of the sky kills people ...

I don't think anyone denies that there is also a healthcare problem, but denying that guns are a problem is quite unrealistic.

I just really don't understand what people's stake in having guns is. I mean, there's the 'well-ordered militia' argument, but is that it? Is it just because 'we have a right and we want to keep having a right'?

I guess I never understood the 'federal government might go evil' argument either. You elect the federal government. To say people need guns for insurrection is presuming a complete lack of faith in the political system. I mean, I know the Americans have previous here, but the revolution was also a movement that did not represent a large majority of the wishes of the people, led by the wealthy who waved ideals around in pursuit of fewer taxes and less oversight. Hm, a trend.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well regulated. A reasonable person would assume that we'll regulated would mean not giving firearms to felons and the mentally ill. That it would be regulated much like a car license. You get access to a class of weapon based on your abilities including eyesight and mental health. You also have to pass various tests to show your ability in handling a firearm.

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.

Now it doesn't require removal of the second amendment. It just requires following it through.


You know what they say about assumptions. You do not know what you are talking about if you think that's the intent of the second amendment.

CR

[rvg]

The idea being all the people who want guns will then move to Texas.

Who gave you that idea?

[Papewaio]

Well you're certainly doing a fine job of destroying those strawmen, Pape.

We live in a country of over 310,000,000 people. In 2009 about 2,500,000 people died. The last statistic I saw was ~11,000 people per year were killed by other people who used firearms.

This is not an epidemic; it is, honestly statistically insignificant to the overall death rates. That doesn't mean it's not a tragedy - but it means there is no basis for arguing that we should make changes to our gun laws.

In fact, making reactionary, knee-jerk changes based on highly emotional, widely publicized, but incredibly rare events, is the recipe for bad and useless laws.

Yes, freedom means some people will abuse that freedom for bad purposes. Just like some criminals get away because of constitutional protections, guns are easier to obtain than some countries - and they can be used for good or evil. Guns don't necessarily increase freedom - but merely being able to acquire guns is freedom in and of itself.

The proper reaction in this case, when it's a very rare event, is not a knee-jerk restriction of freedoms.

CR

Strawman? Every four months more people die in the US then in the two towers.

Two countries invaded, trillions of dollars spent, torture, airport screening etc over something that in the last 11 years killed 3000 people. But gun deaths in eleven years are thirty times that number.

So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?

[Hooahguy]

True, but the noise will attract others who will likely arrive on the scene with their own derringers. Add to that the derringer's bullets are hard to actually get a killing shot with, it gives those on the receiving end a chance to survive long enough to receive aid.

...Unless the attacker is a criminal able to get a better weapon than a derringer, though really when you are dealing with a guy who is able to get black market weapons you are kinda screwed anyway, even with the current civilian portable weaponry.
Thats assuming that people around you have them, unless you made everyone carry one. And thats also assuming there are people around you to hear the gunshot. And with the whole black market thing, there are definitely civilian carry weapons that can evenly match black market weapons. Lets assume though that they arent carrying black market assault rifles (which data shows they wouldnt be).



I'd disagree there. As far as I am concerned the problem is not with whether or not you can have guns but on the assumption that gun ownership is just like garden shears ownership, or worse somehow "necessary" to defend yourself. I've made the comparison before, but what it says to me is the USA is like Somalia: no functioning state to keep its citizens safe and maintain the rule of law. If you don't have guns to defend yourself, why then, you might end up killed/robbed/whatever. This is not hypothetical fantasy out of the realm of implausible coincidence land, no it's apparently actually a likely scenario.

Stand your ground, my foot. Fix your country, how's that for a root cause?

The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.

Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.

Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.

[a completely inoffensive name]

T
I just really don't understand what people's stake in having guns is.
And this really sums it all up doesn't it? You don't understand, but continue to comment and make judgement anyway?



led by the wealthy who waved ideals around in pursuit of fewer taxes and less oversight. Hm, a trend.

I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

[rvg]

Strawman? Every four months more people die in the US then in the two towers.

Two countries invaded, trillions of dollars spent, torture, airport screening etc over something that in the last 11 years killed 3000 people. But gun deaths in eleven years are thirty times that number.

So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?

If they spaced those 3000 deaths out over the course of 10 years, we probably wouldn't have invaded. But attacking our city with our planes and killing our people in the thousands kinda pisses us off.

[Papewaio]

If they spaced those 3000 deaths out over the course of 10 years, we probably wouldn't have invaded. But attacking our city with our planes and killing our people in the thousands kinda pisses us off.

It pissed off the rest of the world too. As does massacres of children does too.

[Papewaio]

The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.

Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.

Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.

Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?

[rvg]

It pissed off the rest of the world too. As does massacres of children does too.
If we could bomb or invade someone over this massacre, the bombers would already be on their way.



Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?
Not in the way America is. At least not yet.

[Hooahguy]

Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?

As RVG said, not in the way the US is. Just look at the percentages.

[Montmorency]

1. Mental illness (cf. ACIN).
2. Most guns used in such crimes are illegally acquired. Regulating legal weapons however stringently will never reduce the supply or ease of access to this market.
3. There are too many guns within the United States to ever have hope of effecting a serious ban of any nature. We might as well try to burn all books - a long ordeal.
4. Legislation spurred by catastrophe is always worse than well-considered and soberly-analysed legislation.

There, I think I've regurgitated Panzerjaeger's points.

Now, perhaps the easy way out would simply be to institute an examination for gun owners, as well as a license, in the style of drivers' licenses and exams. Renewals might be every 5 years. All new guns sold would need to be registered. To undercut the black market, it would be necessary to make the process simple and easy in a way not wholly detrimental to the selective process itself. Otherwise, many would always simply turn to criminality.

I can't imagine a way to accomplish this - the regulations and tests would appear as a joke. What would the effect be Rather than regulating the legal market, it seems to make more sense to go for curtailing the illegal market, and that makes no sense because, well, how the heck could it be done? A War on Guns?!

There aren't easy ways out, and we shouldn't search for them - it's counterproductive in every way. Mental illness aside, bans must be cast aside as an option and any new controls and restrictions considered should be very specific as to ways, means, and ends, in what they intend to accomplish and how. Well-meaning blanket legislation never works, fellows.


So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?

The War on Terror is indeed a strawman. It is wasteful and unnecessary. The problem is minimal, though theatrical and dramatic. Islamic terrorists have never seriously endangered the country or even substantially increased the risk of using any means of transportation. The proper response to 9/11 would simply have been to increase funding for the FBI and CIA, and prioritize their function as to monitor for local cells and lone wolves in the country, and to reduce abroad the operational capacity of large and coherent terrorist franchises. At the very most, a black-ops raid in Afghanistan and select other states as a show of power and to eliminate some of the leadership. Otherwise, life should have gone on as normal. Anyway, if the number of gun deaths is empirically small the per-capita rate shouldn't concern anyone overmuch.


I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

The schoolbook variant. Most of the more 'radical' revolutionaries, the ones who fomented in the first place, had a significant financial stake in eliminating British mercantilistic competition.

Finally, articles on the psychology of These People:

http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/students/scherer/Documents/CJS%202008.pdf
http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/87.full.pdf+html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15332586.2011.581523

Introversion, narcissism, persecution complexes, and extensive prior criminal records.

[Sir Moody]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=101s



http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

honestly you ALL need to take a step back

this is a 3 way problem and surprisingly you all have missed the WORST part which Sasaki brought up and instead got caught up in the whole Knife versus Gun straw man

The youtube link was the most important problem we HAVE to address - the reason these shootings keep cropping up is more to do with how we air them and less the tools used

There is a certain kind of mentally ill individual which these shootings (or rather the media attention) calls to - they feel ignored and failed by the system (and usually their parents and loved ones as well) and if (when...) they snap they want their name to be remembered - they want to go out in a blaze of "glory", they want EVERYONE who failed to notice them or their problems to hear their name - and we do just that

by the end of this weekend only the most hardened hermits wont have heard the news of this shooting - and not just in the states, across the entire western world

Pape is right - gun control would make it harder for these "loner" types to get a gun, but a lack of a gun wont stop these attacks

ACIN is right - this is a Mental Health problem and addressing this problem will limit the number of individuals who could potentially go on to be a spree killer but individuals will always slip through the net

Reining in the Media is the key to reducing the number of these attacks - as long as they publicize them in the most sensational way they are proving encouragement for the next killer

[rvg]

As much as I agree with you and Sasaki, I have to say that "reining in the media" is just not going to happen. It's not even a free speech issue as much as a monetary one: sensationalist coverage == ratings == ad money.

[Visor]

Damn internet deleted my post.

Anyway, this is a tragedy, my condolences to the victims and their families. ACIN is right (not necessarily entirely), that it is an important healthcare issue, that needs fixing urgently. And reining in the media does need to happen, but it won't unfortunately.

Oh and thanks for the laugh Ronin.

[Montmorency]

How would you have the media reigned in? What does "reigned in" mean?

I

[Visor]

How would you have the media reigned in? What does "reigned in" mean?

IMinimal coverage. If the doesn't have the effect that these people want, they won't do it, or at least will be deterred.

Then again, they might turn to other crimes, such as animal murders. Who wants to see 20 kittens killed? Not me.

Fixing the healthcare system, making it more available or whatever they need to do, will provide a much better solution then restricting guns or restricting media, IMO.

[Montmorency]

Minimal coverage. If the doesn't have the effect that these people want, they won't do it, or at least will be deterred.

So, an edict specifically prescribing a procedure to be followed with respect to mass killings? Interesting.


Fixing the healthcare system, making it more available or whatever they need to do, will provide a much better solution then restricting guns or restricting media, IMO.

Sure.

[Visor]

So, an edict specifically prescribing a procedure to be followed with respect to mass killings? Interesting.



Sure.
No idea if you're being sarcastic with the second part.

[Montmorency]

The first one.

[Visor]

The first one.

The idea behind minimal coverage/SOP of these crimes is so they aren't as widely recognised and given so much attention. A fair number of these people do it to be remembered and other things already discussed in this thread. If they don't get that response they get ignored essentially, which will deter other psychos from doing that, because it will not achieve the message that they wish to send.

However, now that I think about it, I realise this is a terrible way to go about it, as they may simply perform a different crime, or do it anyway, and we would be trivialising the murder of children and others. That is something I don't think should happen.

[Montmorency]

Logistics of state prescription and proscription - beyond profane diction - and ideological implications.

[Visor]

Logistics of state prescription and proscription - beyond profane diction - and ideological implications.
Do I look like an english major? Dumb it down for me. :tongue:

[Montmorency]

The US government has difficulty even preventing some channels of news media from publishing classified documents.

What would it mean for other areas of government-media relationship if the government could here, in the name of public safety, legislate a particular format for reporting on specific acts, and penalize deviation?

Could not this same pretext be used for every other category or aspect of reporting on crime, or reporting on anything at all? Would it not become obligatory? Shouldn't it, even?

It's perhaps an overly onerous burden to place on a Western state in its current manifestation.

You might refer to the successful promulgation of anti Holocaust-denial laws in parts of Europe, but these are aimed at preventing a very specific sort of expression entirely and not tightly regulating overall discourse. Further, all it requires from a government is to grant authority to law enforcement to target instances of the forbidden speech, not to design a specially conceived format prescribed to an institution. Of course, reporting on killings at all could always be forbidden wholesale. That would have interesting consequences...

But I'm afraid I'm not making myself clear. The one-liner is probably a better summary and guide for your imagination.

[Sir Moody]

I wasn't suggesting the Government do the "reining in" - it is best for the Government to stay out of free speech and the media - it would be better if the Media reined itself in via self regulation (or better a independent body)

as to how the reining should be handled - the youtube clips summed it up perfectly - keep it low key - focus on the tragedy and the victims - don't put pictures of the killer up at all in fact make him a foot note

the problem is the "cult" of the killer the media creates - we focus entirely on the story of the killer trying to find out why - all the time putting his face on TV which builds the "Hero complex" - which in a lot of cases is EXACTLY what the killer wanted

I am under no illusions - the chances of the Media reining itself in is small - there is too much money in it

[ICantSpellDawg]

This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.

Everyone who is over the age of 21 should carry, 24/7, barring those with serious mental illness, violent criminal history or credibly threatening behavior.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The schoolbook variant. Most of the more 'radical' revolutionaries, the ones who fomented in the first place, had a significant financial stake in eliminating British mercantilistic competition.

I am not a history major, so perhaps they were greedy bastards. However, the logic behind the post I criticized is still lacking in that the motivations of the Revolutionaries are somehow meant to invalidate the validity of the 2nd amendment. It seems to a be post amounting to attacking the man (men in this case) rather than the argument, which he clearly admits he doesn't understand.

EDIT: Back on topic, this is not a problem that government can cure. No government policy will change social stigmas surrounding mental illness, no government policy will promote family, friends and strangers to lend a helping hand to others or to even be on the look out for symptoms of such problems.

Was listening to the radio and a father was talking about how he will explain the massacre to his son. It was summed up more or less as, "well son, there are just some sick people out there who do bad things."

Indeed, this is what our culture treats these incidents. Some people are "just sick" and they "happen" and that's that. And we continue to be shocked and confused when they "happen" again.

[Fragony]

--Newtown Shooting No Surprise, We've Systematically Removed God From Schools--
- Mike Huckabee

Could you kill this man for me please? I am sure he thinks he's a respectable person but imho he deserves to have every bone in his body snapped for trying to hijack these events for his own gain. Bah, disgusting. Truly. FU&die

[Husar]

ACIN, your argument is laughable because you want to make America more socialist, that's no different from reducing gun ownership in terms of eroding fundamental american values.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN, your argument is laughable because you want to make America more socialist, that's no different from reducing gun ownership in terms of eroding fundamental american values.

Altruistic != socialist

Try again. This time by using words that are actual synonyms.

[Husar]

Altruistic != socialist

Try again. This time by using words that are actual synonyms.

Capitalism is about caring only about finishing first, about opimizing and if you're not optimal you get left behind and told that you "fail at life".
There are some good things about that in general but also some bad ones. There are also altruistic capitalists but I don't really see many of them so please explain how altruism fits with caring only about winners.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Capitalism is about caring only about finishing first, about opimizing and if you're not optimal you get left behind and told that you "fail at life".
There are some good things about that in general but also some bad ones. There are also altruistic capitalists but I don't really see many of them so please explain how altruism fits with caring only about winners.

Well when you only see the world through a Marxist point of view you can't. But in the real world people can be both competitive in business and caring in their personal lives at the same time.

It's as if people are more than just their modes of production. But like I said, you can't see what Karl Marx doesn't believe exists.

[Husar]

Well when you only see the world through a Marxist point of view you can't. But in the real world people can be both competitive in business and caring in their personal lives at the same time.

It's as if people are more than just their modes of production. But like I said, you can't see what Karl Marx doesn't believe exists.

I never said it's not possible, I said it hardly seems to happen in America because people are too preoccupied with being great.

[Fragony]

Capitalism is about caring only about finishing first, about opimizing and if you're not optimal you get left behind and told that you "fail at life".
There are some good things about that in general but also some bad ones. There are also altruistic capitalists but I don't really see many of them so please explain how altruism fits with caring only about winners.

Intellectual scrutiny of capitalism is the realisation that their intellectual kung-fu isn't of any use in the real world. Socialism is a great comfort zone for the useless who wish things were always like things were on university.

[Husar]

Intellectual scrutiny of capitalism is the realisation that their intellectual kung-fu isn't of any use in the real world. Socialism is a great comfort zone for the useless who wish things were always like things were on university.

And mass shootings are great to remind people like you that there are downsides to your world view as well, whether you like it or not.

[Fragony]

And mass shootings are great to remind people like you that there are downsides to your world view as well, whether you like it or not.

Nothing about anybody's worldview or political affiliation where this can be pinned upon, this is just someone who's insane. These things happen everywhere there is no system in the world that can prevent people from going nuts. There is no explanation and there is no cure. Just a fact of life that these things can happen. If you are sane you will never understand insanity. Nobody did anything wrong it's just a major tragedy. It can happen everywhere no need for any soul-searching.

[Husar]

Many of these people are outcasts of some sort who feel they have nothing to lose anymore, calling them insane is just an easy explanation for people who don't want to think about it or reconsider anything.
Then again if you think it's normal, why are you so shocked and sad? If you're saying it's essentially no different from the 500 traffic deaths every year then there's no reason to be any more sorry over this than over the 500 dead people from traffic accidents every year.

[Fragony]

Many of these people are outcasts of some sort who feel they have nothing to lose anymore, calling them insane is just an easy explanation for people who don't want to think about it or reconsider anything.
Then again if you think it's normal, why are you so shocked and sad? If you're saying it's essentially no different from the 500 traffic deaths every year then there's no reason to be any more sorry over this than over the 500 dead people from traffic accidents every year.

As you said, they are outcasts. There is nothing that can be done about outcasts, in ANY system they will always exist. Predictably people start claiming this for their own uses, lack of god, lack of gun control, too much liberal upbringing, too much conservative upbringing, whatever suits them. Stop claiming it. There is NOTHING that will stop this from happening again as there will always be people who lose it.

[Husar]

As you said, they are outcasts. There is nothing that can be done about outcasts, in ANY system they will always exist. Predictably people start claiming this for their own uses, lack of god, lack of gun control, too much liberal upbringing, too much conservative upbringing, whatever suits them. Stop claiming it. There is NOTHING that will stop this from happening again as there will always be people who lose it.

What can be done is to make people stop casting others out. We've stopped casting gays out of society, why can't we stop casting geeks and other "strange" people out? We still haven't cast you out of this forum either so don't say it's impossible not to do. ~;)

[Fragony]

What can be done is to make people stop casting others out. We've stopped casting gays out of society, why can't we stop casting geeks and other "strange" people out? We still haven't cast you out of this forum either so don't say it's impossible not to do. ~;)

We stopped lawful discrimisation of gays, the social stigma remains, just changing the laws means little to their everyday life. Look! We put it on paper everything is different from now on, twelve a'clock let's lunch. That's a reality that only exists on paper, it has nothing to do with the harrasment gay couples still endure. When complaining about said harrasment they get to read a piece of paper, as if that helps them to have it on paper. It's a reality that only exists on paper.

Horrible tragedies are just a fact of life. Sometimes someone will snap. That isn't very fun but what do you suggest?

[ICantSpellDawg]

States should pass a law allowing concealed carry in formerly no carry zones. It should be sort of like the Air Marshall system; with a few weeks of training, school staff are allowed to bring small firearms to class, concealed, IWB, with a heavy police grade trigger, a. Level 3 holster and they should be asked not to discuss the fact with anyone.

You'll never be able to stop rampages, but you must be able to reduce death toll. Like it or not, kids are sheep and cannot defend themselves. When faced with these situations, they need responsible adults to protect them more reliably than this

[Husar]

The social stigma is much lower today than it was in 1950 for example, these changes obviously do take some time. That's why it's better to start now than to keep talking about how doing this or that now will not yield immediate results next year. That sort of thinking only works for turbo capitalists and housing bubbles. The recognition of blacks in the USA for example also took a long time, if they had gone and kept your attitude, they could still be slaves now. It's absolutely true that you cannot change some attitudes over night but just accepting that never helped anyone. I thought the great strength of America is that it takes issues and relentlessly works towards improvement, no?

[Greyblades]

Only if the improvement makes more money than the current situation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Husar is correct in that social stigmas can change. But it takes time and more importantly, it takes a dialogue in order for progress to be made. This is why I was mad yesterday about the thread and much of the public dialogue focusing on guns instead of the healthcare issue. If people are not even talking about this aspect of it, no progress will be made. And in fact that is what has happened at least since Columbine, everyone talks about guns and we have had no social progress on mental illness, so the mentally ill continue to attack after years of non treatment.

[Fragony]

The social stigma is much lower today than it was in 1950 for example, these changes obviously do take some time. That's why it's better to start now than to keep talking about how doing this or that now will not yield immediate results next year. That sort of thinking only works for turbo capitalists and housing bubbles. The recognition of blacks in the USA for example also took a long time, if they had gone and kept your attitude, they could still be slaves now. It's absolutely true that you cannot change some attitudes over night but just accepting that never helped anyone. I thought the great strength of America is that it takes issues and relentlessly works towards improvement, no?

And what exactly do you actually think that can be done about some people being outcasts. People shouldn't think that tragedies like this can be prevented.

[Major Robert Dump]

If we allowed our children to legally carry guns things like this would not happen.

Gun control works really well in Chicago. If we could model the entire nation as we do Chicago, the minority underclass should wipe itself out in 3-7 years, using all those guns they are not legally allowed to possess. This would make whitey happy, and we could finally have White Flight Part 2: The Reclamation go into effect

[Major Robert Dump]

BUT AT LEAST THEM GAYS CAIN'T GET MARRIED!!! *charges rifle*

[Major Robert Dump]

AND HERE I THOUGHT THE ONLY THING THAT COULD HARM KIDS IN SCHOOL WERE LIBERAL TEACHERS AND LACK OF PRAYER *charges assault rifle*

[Husar]

If we allowed our children to legally carry guns things like this would not happen.

Yes, absolutely, because they wouldn't be nervous or confused at all and statistics show that a country with more guns, like America, is a safer place.


Gun control works really well in Chicago. If we could model the entire nation as we do Chicago, the minority underclass should wipe itself out in 3-7 years, using all those guns they are not legally allowed to possess. This would make whitey happy, and we could finally have White Flight Part 2: The Reclamation go into effect

Absolutely correct again because a single city with gun control surrounded by a whole country with hardly any gun control and gun fares, gun shops and tons of illegal weapons floating around is really the best example of why gun control on a nation-wide level would never work. :rolleyes:

I didn't want to enter the gun debate as America will never change anything about that and happily pay the price of more gun deaths, which is okay with me as long as you don't expect me to be shocked, but please spare me with completely nonsensical "examples".
If you want to make a valid comparison, take a country that actually has effective gun control, has had it for more than ten years and isn't flooded with guns due to the lax policies all around and from the past, i.e. an area that simply has effective gun control and not the lame US regional version.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, absolutely, because they wouldn't be nervous or confused at all and statistics show that a country with more guns, like America, is a safer place.



Absolutely correct again because a single city with gun control surrounded by a whole country with hardly any gun control and gun fares, gun shops and tons of illegal weapons floating around is really the best example of why gun control on a nation-wide level would never work. :rolleyes:

I didn't want to enter the gun debate as America will never change anything about that and happily pay the price of more gun deaths, which is okay with me as long as you don't expect me to be shocked, but please spare me with completely nonsensical "examples".
If you want to make a valid comparison, take a country that actually has effective gun control, has had it for more than ten years and isn't flooded with guns due to the lax policies all around and from the past, i.e. an area that simply has effective gun control and not the lame US regional version.

I think your sarcasm detector may be miscalibrated, bra. You may want to take it in and have it looked at, is the little red light on? I hear Wal Mart is running a special, but you guys don't get superior stores like Wal Mart because you hate guns, freedom, and hence, low prices.

[Husar]

I think your sarcasm detector may be miscalibrated, bra. You may want to take it in and have it looked at, is the little red light on? I hear Wal Mart is running a special, but you guys don't get superior stores like Wal Mart because you hate guns, freedom, and hence, low prices.

Ok, when I went to have a shower I wondered whether I would regret breaking my rule of not posting in the morning before I'm fully awake.
I can see the sarcasm in the first part but given that Chicago actually has gun control and lots of crime, how is the second part sarcasm? Or is it sarcasm in the sense that you also think of it as a bad example? My apologies if I horribly misunderstood, I still love you anyway.

[Catiline]

States should pass a law allowing concealed carry in formerly no carry zones. It should be sort of like the Air Marshall system; with a few weeks of training, school staff are allowed to bring small firearms to class, concealed, IWB, with a heavy police grade trigger, a. Level 3 holster and they should be asked not to discuss the fact with anyone.

You'll never be able to stop rampages, but you must be able to reduce death toll. Like it or not, kids are sheep and cannot defend themselves. When faced with these situations, they need responsible adults to protect them more reliably than this

You want to live in a country where primary school teachers carry weapons in class?

I keep seeing this suggested as a solution today, and it's the most pathetic and moronic thing i think I've ever read.

[HopAlongBunny]

Of course its moronic. Deterrence relies on display hence a 0.50 cal. machine gun on the desk and an assault rifle in hand. Truly, it would send a message...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not all teachers should carry, just some. The principle, assistant principle, some others, maybe randomized so they can't be individually targeted as easily. There would be a courses similar to the auxiliary air marshalls course. We do it on flights. People should be able to carry concealed, children should be protected and with special training there should be responsible people available to make sure that these rampages go from 25 to 10. More rapidly than waiting for police to get there to pick up the bodies. It would slow most shooters down and instead of easily running room to room them may be forced to take cover while kids flee and police arrive

[Major Robert Dump]

Ok, when I went to have a shower I wondered whether I would regret breaking my rule of not posting in the morning before I'm fully awake.
I can see the sarcasm in the first part but given that Chicago actually has gun control and lots of crime, how is the second part sarcasm? Or is it sarcasm in the sense that you also think of it as a bad example? My apologies if I horribly misunderstood, I still love you anyway.

Its sarcasm because its both measurable and not measurable. Yes, it has strict gun control. No, its not working. Yes, it is surrounded by states where guns are legal, so acquiring guns is still rather easy. All in all it is a perfect example both for and against gun control.... If guns were prohibited tomorrow, how would said guns be removed from the street? Well, I would imagine that the gun registry would be scrubbed and people would be forced to hand over their legal guns..... okay, great, so thats a fraction of the guns.... what about all the cartel members, the gangs, organized crime, career criminals, hillbilly militias, how would we get thier guns? The same way we get them now, when they get arrested and the guns get confiscated, which hasnt reduced the illegal guns significantly (yes, yes, supply i know). Those people wont be turning their guns in for a Kmart gift card. Making ownership a life sentence will have a negligible effect just like it does for other life sentence crimes.

Gun prohibition is a circular argument. People would be all for it, if there werent so many illegal guns.

[PanzerJaeger]

As I've said before, it would be a terrible shame if Americans allowed fear and ignorance to convince them that restricting rights that millions of their fellow citizens enjoy would somehow prevent the statistically insignificant actions of madmen. This is a mental health issue, and any legislation that results from it should be focused on that.

[Idaho]

You want to live in a country where primary school teachers carry weapons in class?

I keep seeing this suggested as a solution today, and it's the most pathetic and moronic thing i think I've ever read.

Those yankees love it! They love shooting guns. Not only is it fun, but it defends them against the US government and the King of England. So anything that prevents gun ownership is crazy and will never work.

[Catiline]

Not all teachers should carry, just some. The principle, assistant principle, some others, maybe randomized so they can't be individually targeted as easily. There would be a courses similar to the auxiliary air marshalls course. We do it on flights. People should be able to carry concealed, children should be protected and with special training there should be responsible people available to make sure that these rampages go from 25 to 10. More rapidly than waiting for police to get there to pick up the bodies. It would slow most shooters down and instead of easily running room to room them may be forced to take cover while kids flee and police arrive

Absurd. No one that does this sort of thing is going to be deterred by Miss Miggins with a concealed weapon, though you can guarantee eventually someone will pinch it off her and go postal on the kids, and a decrease from 25 to 10 isn't a real improvement, its window dressing. The only thing that will help is a fundamental reduction in the number of serviceable weapons, which is achievable over time if society wills it, and making access to mental healthcare easier than access to hand gunsand assault rifles.

But hey, drape yourself in your fabricated interpretation of the 2nd, and pretend that each time this happens it's worth it for freedom and your right to have Rambo fantasies that these weapons that are fantastically good at killing kids could otherthrow the government when they get a just a little bit more tyrannical.

[Major Robert Dump]

The teachers with guns argument isn't even worth having, especially when it moves away from the random odd teacher with a concealed weapon to some organized, trained in-school militia like flight marshalls. Give me a break. This isn't a video game. The librarian, the gym coach and the cafeteria supervisor tactically moving as a strike team... yeah. As if teachers don't have enough on their plate already, and as if most teachers would be a match for a couple of teenage thugs who decide to overpower them and take their gun.

If schools need to be more secure, then add more security guards and cops, with modified ROE, and be careful not to encourage police brutality while also allowing those security/cops to act accordingly against serious threats. Oh, and make sure they are well trained and not overweight, gaping vaginas like the cop who fled the columbine shooting because he was "outgunned." A trained cop with his service pistol should be more than enough match for a couple of nerdy dorks who don't even know how to handle a weapon.

A few cops/security in every school should do the trick. Cost too much, you say? Well, there's the price of our freedoms. Turns us into a police state, you say? Well, there's the cost of our freedoms. Wallow in it and enjoy it.

For the record, him having an assualt rifle in this case is laregly irrelevant IMO. It's not like he took on the SWAT Team. Kids that age freeze, the dont run, and he shot each multiple times. He could have caused just as much carnage with a pistol and a few magazines

Theres an interesting story coming from portland, a guy with a concealed weapon had the mall shooter in his sights but did not have a clear shot due to civilians cowering nearby. He is claiming the shooter saw him there pointing a gun at him, then shot himself..... I saw this on a blog, gonna wait and see if someone legit picks it up

[Major Robert Dump]

I should also point out that many of the armchair cops and taciticians who think arming teachers is golden are the same people who think teachers are lazy, overpaid, incompetent union monkeys. They don't trust those liberal teachers to teach their kids, but by god lets give em guns. Funny

[Papewaio]

Is it normal in the US to be vetted before entering school grounds or is it an exception to the rule? I thought it was limited to problem inner city schools and definitely not the norm particularly for primary schools.

[quadalpha]

And this really sums it all up doesn't it? You don't understand, but continue to comment and make judgement anyway?




I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:


And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)
So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/newtown-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2FFZiJQ9X

The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.

Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

The problem with America is that from the very inception, it is a nation founded on commercial interest on the one hand, and popular demagoguery on the other. The perversity is how the phoney ideals of the revolution have been enshrined in the national consciousness as the ultimate good of humanity. The need to indoctrinate the masses in the legitimacy and goodness of the revolution has led to such wonderful things as American exceptionalism and the worship of founding texts like the declaration of independence and the constitution. The former is thankfully coming under increased scrutiny, but the latter still dominates political discourse. It is typical that political discourse on gun control is based on how to interpret the second amendment rather than the good of the nation, that no rational thought examines what is a 'constitutional right' and if something should be a right.

It might be debated whether such textual literalism is fueled by the fundamentalist Christian right, or whether the contradiction at the heart of the idea of America is particularly amenable to fundamentalism (I suspect the latter, personally). The situation is in no way improving with even greater access to the political process by the wealth of corporations (Citizens United, another decision based on constitutional technicalities) and the general fostering of ignorance as a political position (mostly the Tea Party, but also the vapid Occupy movements).

[Hooahguy]

Is it normal in the US to be vetted before entering school grounds or is it an exception to the rule? I thought it was limited to problem inner city schools and definitely not the norm particularly for primary schools.

I was actually just discussing this with some of my friends yesterday.

I went to a private school so we didnt have any security checks, but in my elementary/middle school we had a secure fence (not chain-link: a real fence that you can get over), and special doors that you needed to be paged in. And there were a few security guards. But that was because it was a Jewish school and we have gotten threats before so it pays to be prudent. For high school it was even less. No security guards and no fence.

But my friends who went to public schools? Nothing whatsoever. Not even a clear backpack that Ive seen some of the kids who go to the inner-city schools have to wear.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I should also point out that many of the armchair cops and taciticians who think arming teachers is golden are the same people who think teachers are lazy, overpaid, incompetent union monkeys. They don't trust those liberal teachers to teach their kids, but by god lets give em guns. Funny

Maybe they could earn their keep. Maybe we could pay ex-cop pensioners 10-20k per year to be armed and on premises. I'm all for useless hillbillies with guns, so it stands to reason that some teachers should have them, with the proper training.

Or we could go the way of eliminating a right to own semi-automatic firearms, which is most of them. What is Switzerland's Homicide rate per 100k with an overwhelming population armed with auto and semi automatic weapons? .7 - lower than the UK. Finland? How about Russia with their overbearing gun control? 14 - almost 3 times as high as the U.S. Counter-intuitive. My points about certain armed staff are not absurd, nor are they poorly reasoned. You can poison the well, suggesting that those opposed to the current structure or incentives in our educational system are inconsistent - but what's inconsistent in first saying person A provides sub-optimal service for payment and then later addressing the need to bestow additional responsibilities on person A? I'm in favor of arming individuals on the regular and arguing those in responsible positions over defenseless children when they cant arm themselves. I'm ok with regulation and mandated safety courses. In fact, I would push for more firearms education even in New York. I'd also discourage those parents with adolescent or teenage children from even owning firearms or keeping them on the premises, unless they were kept secret in a heavy duty safe.


Unrelated - I went to Catholic grammar school mostly and at both public and private elementary schools attended, all doors were locked and intercom systems used to allow entrance during the school day. This was more to reduce kidnapping than a baby-shoot as almost all conceivable measures would likely proof useless against armed assailants should the will exist to enter. Most schools use Windows, but those have been known to serve as weak entryways - i know, it stretches the imagination a bit to consider, but it's true.

[Hooahguy]

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:
Oh look, once again you fail to realize that there are so many more factors going into crime related to guns than just 'OMG GUNS R BAD" rants that I see people just like you always spouting. Look at Switzerland. High gun ownership, yet low gun crime.#Why is that?

If you did a shred of research (which you clearly have not done) you would realize that banning guns wont do much in this country due to demographics and cultural attitudes.



The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.
Please read this article (http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother). You will notice, as Im sure you have, that the other Western Nations where shootings are not a regular occurrence, their health care is better than what we have here. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. No guns involved, yet 168 people died, including 19 children.



Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

I think he is trolling. Either than or the post is an opaquely constructed ironic argument meant to convey the opposite agenda.

[Papewaio]

Well I live in Sydney's west. I'm what they call a Westy. It's considered the less desirable and more dangerous part of Sydney. A city of some four million inhabitants.

I can walk my year one kid straight into the center of school. There is a little fence around it to stop children's sports balls rolling out from the grounds. No vetting process, parents just wander in with their kids, the younger ones clutching their hands and the older ones it you are lucky giving you a kiss on the cheek and then running to line up.

My kids safe, I don't have to go through an ID check and I can go home and not worry about the safety of my kid.

A five year old kindergarten boy got run over on his way to school. It was in the papers and news for days afterwards, that's the level of tragedy here that makes multi night headline news on paper and tv.

[Hooahguy]

Well I live in Sydney's west. I'm what they call a Westy. It's considered the less desirable and more dangerous part of Sydney. A city of some four million inhabitants.

I can walk my year one kid straight into the center of school. There is a little fence around it to stop children's sports balls rolling out from the grounds. No vetting process, parents just wander in with their kids, the younger ones clutching their hands and the older ones it you are lucky giving you a kiss on the cheek and then running to line up.

My kids safe, I don't have to go through an ID check and I can go home and not worry about the safety of my kid.

A five year old kindergarten boy got run over on his way to school. It was in the papers and news for days afterwards, that's the level of tragedy here that makes multi night headline news on paper and tv.

But Australia also has a much better health care system which perhaps is able to catch would-be killers and commit them before they do anything terrible. Im not very knowledgeable about Australia's mental health care system so I cant really comment to the fullest, but I can only assume that with the better health care system that there are other positive results from it.

[rvg]

Australia also has 22 million people vs our 300+ mil.
It's pointless to draw parallels between the two countries.

[Montmorency]

It's not pointless, by any means. Though a sentiment like, "Here is Australia. Why can't Amerikkka be more like it?" isn't very useful, the questions for analysis it raises can lead to workable solutions. Just because Australia is a different country does not mean we can take nothing from its policies or circumstances. Differences invite circumspection and qualification, not disregard.

Certainly, though the military situations the US found itself in when invading Iraq and Afghanistan would share little in common with an American entanglement against China, the Chinese military studies these situations very carefully for any lessons it could glean.

[Papewaio]

Australia also has 22 million people vs our 300+ mil.
It's pointless to draw parallels between the two countries.


Ratios.
Per Capita.
Compare similar number of states, with similar ethnic mix and background.
Meta studies.
Many ways to compare and contrast data from different sized number sets.

Canada, Australia and US are different but similar enough that you can learn from each other and cherry pick the best of solutions.

As I stated earlier its your country, your rules, your outcomes. USA leads the way in so many areas it is an amazing icon. It's size doesn't always work for it and its social inertia can be counter productive.

Forgive me if I have different preferences. I do not as a Kiwi expect everyone to be an Ozzie. That's like asking a Canuck to want everyone to be a Yank. I like the variations, I'm just personally happier to give up urban gun ownership for increased safety in Australia. In New Zealand with far more rural based people and plenty of pests to hunt, gun ownership is a far more positive thing as they are tools and generally taught as such. So horses for courses.

[Major Robert Dump]

DAWG: nothing you laid out makes organized arming of teachers any less absurd. And the fact that you think they can "earn their keep" by being armed is even more absurd. Throw as much analyticals as you want, I will continue to live in the real world. I wold be perfectly willing to entertain the notion of allowing CC holders to carry at school, but never the idea of arming teachers as a rule.

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting in this entire tragedy, with their talk of changing gun culture, is the irrepairable harm that would come to the rap industry if we enacted gun prohibition. Are you guys willing to answer for all those lost jobs? Won't someone think of the rap music?

[ICantSpellDawg]

DAWG: nothing you laid out makes organized arming of teachers any less absurd. And the fact that you think they can "earn their keep" by being armed is even more absurd. Throw as much analyticals as you want, I will continue to live in the real world. I wold be perfectly willing to entertain the notion of allowing CC holders to carry at school, but never the idea of arming teachers as a rule.


How would CC holders being allowed to carry at school and not be punished by the government have helped prevent this kind of tragedy? Other types, sure. Unless you also allowed employees who had their CCW's to carry to work at school it would be meaningless. My suggestion is not that we arm all teachers, but rather that we arm some admins or other workers who arn't in regular contact, maybe teachers if they are so inclined and it would not pose a major hazard. Not arm teachers as a rule, I havn't said that

[PanzerJaeger]

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol. Alcohol related deaths (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UM57S4PAd8E) claim the lives of millions (http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually) of people each year, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent children - far more than firearms. Even infallible Australia isn't immune (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/alcohol-guidelines/alcohol-and-health-australia) to the misery caused by the substance. And the typical arguments about guns are uniquely interchangeable. Consumable alcohol serves absolutely no beneficial social good. It's sole purpose is to alter people's mental state, which leads to all manner of terrible outcomes. The fact that millions consume it responsibly each year does not negate the fact that millions also die each year because of it.

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

[Major Robert Dump]

How would CC holders being allowed to carry at school and not be punished by the government have helped prevent this kind of tragedy? Other types, sure. Unless you also allowed employees who had their CCW's to carry to work at school it would be meaningless. My suggestion is not that we arm all teachers, but rather that we arm some admins or other workers who arn't in regular contact, maybe teachers if they are so inclined and it would not pose a major hazard. Not arm teachers as a rule, I havn't said that

It would have to be "as a rule" because otherwise there would not be enough takers. We are talking about schools, at least in this instance, as being in municipalities inside of towns inside of states, not feds in federal airports in federal skies. In order for your plan to come off, it would have to be complied to, which would raise all sorts of liability, district, county, city and state issues that no one wants to touch, especially school admins and teachers. Or we could just put more cops/security in schools as dedicated security, not an administrator trying to juggle duties and be school security. To argue that it would cost more would actually be unprovable, because I promise you that arming clerks and educators will make insurance premiums skyrocket. And if it did cost more, then so what? That's the price we have to pay for getting our cool toys.

Let me tell you where this is going to go, since politicians don't have the balls to close loopholes for fear or rustling feathers. They are going to take the path of least resistence. They are going to use the same conecept being used for ObamaCare, for Tobacco and for Lotteries: PREPARE FOR FIREARMS TO HAVE THE LIVING HELL TAXED OUT OF THEM. And that, my friends, is how we will cover the costs of added security, both physical and administrative.

Panzer: many states (not sure about the federal level) have laws that do not allow firearms in the homes of felons or abusers. I foresee similar measures to be taken in conjunction with homes where people with mental issues are present.

What I find really funny is that the VA and DOD give names of mentally defunct veterans to the fed to prevent them from buying firearms. Not gonna debate this issue, and I would be willing to bet ole Tom Coburn takes his dog out of this fight now. But if I am not mistaken, there is no similar database kept for the casual mental health recipient, due much I am sure to patient-provider confidentiality. Much of the ATF form relies on the honor system.

[Hooahguy]

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol.

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

[Beskar]

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy. Only issue with America is the prevalence of guns in mainstream culture which would make it difficult to remove whilst in other countries, it is a non-issue.

[Hooahguy]

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy.

Its not making the guns, its buying the guns illegally. People who want guns can get guns. Our southern neighbors have plenty and Im sure the cartels would love to open another form of business if the cash and situation is right. Just like with the drugs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing. I look forward to the arguments we'll have.

[Hooahguy]

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing.

Actually has been tested. The receiver fell apart after a few pulls of the trigger.

[Catiline]

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.

Yay for the strawman.

[Hooahguy]

Yay for the strawman.

Explain please.

[Major Robert Dump]

Drinking yourself to death is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

[Catiline]

It's not difficult. Just because two things are, or can be, bad for us doesn't mean that's an instant equivalence that means because you wish to restrict or prohibit one should you wish to restrict or prohibit the other to the same extent.

More people are killed by cars, you don't see anti gun people trying to ban them.

THe illegal guns argument doesn't really stand up either. They're still all fed into the market at the top end legally - take that supply away and over time the number of illegal guns, certainly working and properly maintained ones, will go down.

How many of these shooters actually obtain their guns illegally anyway. At most they're 'stealing' them from friends and family. It's not like some LAN party attending goth misfit is going down to his local illegal gun cartel and say, 'hey I'm thinking of doing a massacre, give me a gun dude'.

[Catiline]

Drinking yourself is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

blood or urine? I prefer my white really chilled

[Ironside]

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

"Why do you have a military compound in the middle of the city?"
"It's a school."

Simply comparing the number of school shootings in the US to Europe tells that something is off. And since you do have an unusually aggressive gun culture (guns for defense (and therefore aggression) is seen as normal) it's what the focus will be.

It is more factors involved, but that's more subtile and harder to see if they are influential or not.

[Husar]

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol. Alcohol related deaths (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UM57S4PAd8E) claim the lives of millions (http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually) of people each year, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent children - far more than firearms. Even infallible Australia isn't immune (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/alcohol-guidelines/alcohol-and-health-australia) to the misery caused by the substance. And the typical arguments about guns are uniquely interchangeable. Consumable alcohol serves absolutely no beneficial social good. It's sole purpose is to alter people's mental state, which leads to all manner of terrible outcomes. The fact that millions consume it responsibly each year does not negate the fact that millions also die each year because of it.

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

Says the guy who was in favor of invading two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and taking a whole lot of freedoms away over a statistically insignificant terror attack... Statistical significance can obviously not be a deciding factor.

[Papewaio]

A moderate amount of shots of alcohol can increase ones lifespan.

How many shots to the head with a gun can increase ones lifespan?

There is a risk vs reward/utility of an object or action. Not only equally risky actions have an equal payoff.

Cars kill people regularly. And I for one think a drunk or drugged driver should be prosecuted harsher then a non-addled driver. However I do not support a ban on vehicles for everyone as they have a utility that if driven correctly far outweighs their problems. I do support banning those with medical conditions such as epileptics passengers only, and those who need glasses should be wearing them.

A lot, not all alcohol related injuries and deaths are to the user. Unfortunately a lot also hurt those around them. I'm not pro-alcohol, I've had my share of bad mentors in that field. I chose not to get a car license until I felt I was more mature and could handle the responsibility, I also did not even touch alcohol until 22 and even then not very regularly at all (legal age is 18). I do drink now, but my rule is only when I am happy and in general have achieved something.

I'm also not against hunters and farmers having access to firearms.

[Brenus]

“What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.” Never heard of a mass killing imposed by binge drinking against the victims’ will… None of victims in firearms mass killing were willing (we don’t speak of accidents here).

[rory_20_uk]

Deaths due to drink are legion. The most obvious example is drink driving. Violence would be another one.

But back to the topic...

Since the Supreme court in 2008 decided the right to bear arms in a state militia meant the right for individuals to bear arms it appears a lost cause, frankly. Even if some states were to tighten laws then people will just drive over the border. If you are about to slaughter a bunch of kids and then yourself I doubt a citation for having an illegal weapon is high on the list.

A system of ID tagged weapons or even better weapons linked to a ring for example would eventually help. After decades. And since the last small step was revoked a few years after it started I doubt it is realistic.

~:smoking:

[Andres]

A tragedy of this proportion affects an entire nation, so I'd like to offer my condolences to all US citizens here. I sincerely hope none of you knew the victims or their families personally.

This thread has been an interesting read so far, but there's one thing that surprises me. Apparently, the killers' mother was a gun fanatic. Now, I know that that in itself isn't much of an issue to our US residents, but I find it hard to understand that this woman took her children, among which a son with serious mental issues, to the shooting range and, apparently, kept deadly weapons in her house in a place where her mentally ill son could acces them. She paid for it with her life and I know this is a harsh thing to say, but I think part of the responsibility lays with the killers' own mother. Also, what good would a very strict law on gun ownership be if parents of mentally ill children let their guns laying around in the house? No guns in a house where a mentally ill lives? That won't work, since that would mean you touch on an individuals' rights because of another individual. It's also very easily circumvented. How does the government know where person X lives de facto? Or are you going to invade the houses of gun owning parents of mentally ill on a random basis to check if their son/daughter doesn't live there?

I think Fragony is right that tragedies such as these can never be completely prevented. But perhaps there are ways to reduce the risk. I don't think you can stop somebody who planned everything ahead, like the Norway nutter Breivik. Somebody who is determined to do such a horrible act and is able to prepare himself during years; you can't stop him, it's impossible. But somebody who would do such a thing during a moment of frenzy, on impulse, perhaps it's possible to prevent slaugherts of this scale if guns aren't as accessible as they apparntly now are in the US. Sure, a knife kills too, but it's not as deadly as a firearm.

Perhaps there is something to say for changing your gun laws, but I don't think this event should be the basis to start from with legislative work. It's a terrible idea to drasticially change legislation because a nutter went nuts. It's as absurd as banning buses after a major bus incident. Banning guns after this event, would be legislation made by your underbelly. It's understandable and it's a human reaction, but it's not a good basis to go on for writing new laws.

For starters, you need to find out if the legislation on guns is a direct cause for a higher amount of killing involving guns. It's not because statistic A says US citizens more often than other countries' citizens own a gun and statistic B says there are more killings involving guns in the US than abroad, that A is a cause of B. There's a connection, sure, but that in itself is not evidence. How many of the killings with firearms in the US are committed with guns bought on the black market and how many with legally obtained guns, for instance? Are there any figures or statistics about that? And how many of the guns acquired on the black market started their career as a legal gun? Also, how many crimes have been prevented because a citizen had a gun? Does gun ownership really help to prevent crime/to safe your own life, or is that a fable? Are there numbers on people who survived a murder attempt, because they were carrying a gun at the time? Numbers of people who succesfully stopped a bank robbery because they had a gun? Stuff like that? What I'm trying to get at: does having a gun really help or is that just something you believe?

Related: How safe is the US? Do you have to carry a gun, because your state doesn't provide you a secure country (is it really necessary to have a gun in the US in order to sruvive the every day life, is your country that dangerous?) ? In case of the latter, how comes? Not enough resources or are your resources used inefficiently? What are the priorities for your policemen and women? Do they have to keep themselves busy with insane amounts of paperwork or are they allowed to do their jobs on the streets?

How serious is the argument that people need to have the right to carry a gun in case the government oppresses them? Do you live in constant fear that your government is going to oppress you? Where does that fear come from? Is it justified anno 2012?

The US is a country with no national healthcare worthy of the name. It's a country that is generally speaking very harsh for people who are not succesfull in life. Isn't somebody who gets left to rot when he's unhappy in life more keen on committing crime, or even murder, than somebody who gets supported and provided a house, food, heating and a wee bit of pocket money? Who commits these murders with guns? If you take all people who killed somebody with a gun in the last 10 years; would they be a blueprint of society or would there be a disproportiate amount of poor people/mentally ill people/drug addicts etc.? If there's a disproportionate amount of a certain group, say mentally ill, perhaps you can then go and compare how the mentally ill are treated in the US compared to countries with lower numbers on killings involving guns? And perhaps also look at the numbers of mentally ill in other countries' statistics.

Then there's also the fact that the US shouldn't put its' head in the sand. Perhaps guns are not a direct cause for the amount of murders, but maybe they are an indirect cause. Perhaps it's true that you have more killings, because you treat your poor bad, but that doesn't have to mean guns aren't a factor and that you should stop the debate right there. Would your murderers have committed murder if they didn't have a firearm? That's a question you need to ask and answer, not simply brush away, because it's not the main cause. Perhaps it's not the main cause for the amount of killings, but if it has something to do with it, you need to act on it.

Imo, if the US banned gun ownership for citizens, the numbers of succesfull people committing murder will drop drastically. Without having looked up stats, figures, studies, however, I think most murders in the US are probably committed by people living on the other scale of society and I don't think banning guns will make the figures there drop.

Anyway, you can't have this debate with taboos, nor can you have this debate without looking at all different angles. You cannot simply reduce this to a debate about gun laws or a debate about mental healthcare in the US.

It would be moronic to instantly change gun laws because of this event, but it would also be moronic not to take the event as an opportunity to have a very open debate about your society as a whole. Perhaps gun laws need a few changes, but you most likely need a lot more changes as well, both in legislation as in mentality.

My :2cents:

[Lemur]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group (after AARP and AIPAC) is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

[Andres]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts and public are approx 50% 2A absolutists.

As long as you have such powerful absolutists, backed by such a large part of the population, clinging on to this Amendmenet as if it were some holy rule written in stone by Supreme Beings, you can't have an open debate. And gun legislation is only one aspect.


I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen.

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

If your legislation on guns is the main reason for events such like these happening, then only outright banning private gun ownership will help, imo. Even if you add extra regulation, it'll still be too easy for a deranged individual to get his hands on a gun.

[Lemur]

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...
The car is registered, and has a license plate. The ownership of the car is tracked at the State level. The parent had to pass a minimal driving and safety test before being allowed on the road, and is required to have insurance for the vehicle in most states.

Moreover, the car is required by law to have a host of safety features, such as locks, airbags, brakes, etc.

I don't see a meaningful comparison between motor vehicles and firearms, at least not in the USA. That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Truthfully, I think any change is going to need to come from gun advocates themselves. Fun little fact: The NRA was originally founded to support the regulation of firearms (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true). It's true, look it up. So when the NRA can move past Obama's gunna derk uhr gehns (http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s87ue/) and get into some sort of workable regimen of gun regulation, ain't nothing gonna happen.

https://i.imgur.com/JhTMr.png

[Major Robert Dump]

Many years ago I was a member of the NRA but let my membership lapse because their stance on gun shows irked me. They are absolutists. Thats the problem. Not unlike the ACLU in a sense, but the ACLU does not deal wth instruments of killing.....

I've been away for a good while, so pardon me if the laws have changed, which I don't think they have....

For decades we have seen reasonable (and unreasonable) laws put under the axe by the NRA. The mere fact that at a gun show (or in a person-to-person sale in a newspaper classified) a weapon can be transferred from one person to the other with not paper trail is absolutely absurd. No background check, no requirement for either party to inform anyone of the purchase and transfer....

The most common argument I hear supporting this is how gun show vendors are doing this to make a living and cant afford to pay for background checks, invoking that golden goose the Small Business Man, ma and pa farms, just a regular guy trying to make some money.....

If you can't afford to meet the health department criteria, you dont open a restraurant. If you cant afford insruance, you dont practice medicine. If you cant afford a license, you dont drive a semi rig. I dont see why this thing with gun shows is any different. There are more administrative hoops to jump through for selling real estate, an automobile or a boat than they are for selling a gun to a random stranger at a gun show.

Gun absolutists..... lets see, IIRC (i was just a boy) the NRA was none to happy about the automatic weapons ban after the mcdonalds massacre in 1984, and they saw Reagan as a cop-out for signing the law. The NRA supported the original bill as it offered gun owner protections, but the automatic weapon clause was added at the 11th hour, and some of the fringers did not care for it....I still remember the old men in my family making a fuss about it.... Curious what the NRA says about it today.....I could only imagine what the states would be like today if people could legally own and purchase MAC 10s....

And this recent rule where veterans deemed unfit by the VA cannot buy guns.... republicans and the NRA are fighting this, trying to pass legislation to kill it. Some of them are saying because the right needs to be revoked by a judge, not a bearaucrat. Not sure I understand the reasoning. The doctor says the guy is crazy, I don't see what it matters who takes away the right to own a gun..... a lot of the right wing nutters are saying this is just a ploy to begin taking or guns, the beginning of the end, typical NRA, anyway, I see this issue maybe being shelved for the time being

On a related note, most people arguing about guns -- including Rupert Murdoch -- still think Assault Weapon means Automatic Weapon, and the liberal media is none to forthcoming about striaghtening this out. So we get all this round and round about assault rifles, which are really only more useful than a pistol at long longer range, and no massacres in recent memory involved a guy at range, it was all up close. I could definitely see it making a difference in a long building like a mall, though, if you are an exerienced shooter with the rifle, which in most cases the person is not. Nonetheless, the debate focuses on assault rifles....

[Fragony]

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

At least you can register most of them, over here that's much harder because most come from former Yugoslavia. Better to accept things like this happening sometimes than to have no overview whatsoever. Carrying a gun on the street is utterly unacceptable imho but if you make it legal for those who don't have a criminal record to own a registered gun you at least are in control of the situation a whole lot more. It isn't hard to get a gun really, I can easily get you an AK-47 if you hand me 500 a 600 euro. What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

[Lemur]

What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?
According to the 2A absolutists, none at all. That's pretty obvious.

Again, I think proposals for change would be best if they came from the bastions of 2A absolutism, such as the NRA. Anybody who suggests we need any regulation at all is going to be crucified if they aren't a "conservative" Republican.

Obama? Man, forget about it. After four years of hysterical squealing about how he's gonna be a gun-grabber? After all of the right-wing reality-free froth and paranoia about how the OBUMMER is going to become a dictator? Due to the unhinged nature of the wingnuts, he has zero room to maneuver.

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

[Fragony]

I have absolutely nothing meaningfull to say really, I have no idea how to fix things like this

[Lemur]

Just checked the NRA's blog (http://www.nrablog.com/). They got nothing. Their news feed (http://home.nra.org/#/nranews/list/386)? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/nra-facebook-page-down/). In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/gun-control-nra-joe-manchin-time-to-act-85162.html?hp=l2). We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

-edit-

Sorry, my bad, the politician asking for a conversation about gun regulation is a Dem (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/17/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-congress-idUSBRE8BG0PR20121217). My mistake. He will now be flogged in public as the SOCIALIST GUN GRABBER he clearly is.

[Fragony]

Just checked the NRA's blog (http://www.nrablog.com/). They got nothing. Their news feed (http://home.nra.org/#/nranews/list/386)? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/nra-facebook-page-down/). In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/gun-control-nra-joe-manchin-time-to-act-85162.html?hp=l2). We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.

[Lemur]

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.
Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

[Fragony]

Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

I don't know what 2a means but if it means armed guards at schools it's stupid. Just an extra gun for who planned ahead.

[Lemur]

2A = shorthand for Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).

[Major Robert Dump]

Fragony: armed guards at schools are already a fact of life in the inner city. It has to be done, too many illegal guns and shootings. There are also armed guards and metal detectors cropping up at various rural schools. The key to thwarting the "plan ahead and take his gun" scenario is that you have guards woking on teams, not solo.
Andres: a persons right to own a gun can already be thwarted inderectly by having a felon in the house. In these cases, its not the gun owner that is typically punished, its the felon. I don't see why the same cannot be done with people with mental health issues. If there is a gun in the house, they have to go elsewhere, even if that means state custody

All these calls for increased mental healthcare are inevitably going to conflict with our national apprehension towards involuntary commitment for mental patients. While it still does happen when people pose a clear and violent threat, gone are the days where someone could be committed for far less, IIRC a few of the past shootings involved parents who tried to send their adults kids to mental healthcare but they could not be forced to go because there was no clear pattern of violence, etc.

2012 has been a very busy year, not just for homicide in general hotspots like chicago and detroit, but also mass shootings. I am sure many here have already forgotten about the middle aged Korean nutter in california who killed 6 people and then himself, mostly vibrant young women. We also had the racist revenge killings in Tulsa.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Andres made some good points. I'm also not sure why people brush the issue of the second amendment as a right allowing us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government. Notice that I didn't say "the government" as I don't believe that it is currently tyrannical. We arm ourselves for many reasons, but sport is the least legitimate one to defend the practice, by my reasoning.

[Lemur]

the second amendment as a right allow[s] us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government.
Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

Sure. States should be allowed to ban full auto weapons. States can also more strictly enforce prohibitions on people with serious mental illness or a violent criminal record owning weapons. High capacity mags you can try to restrict. Some mandatory gun and storage safety courses are a possibility

[Greyblades]

I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.
Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

[Greyblades]

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

...The american revolutionaries were operating out of a time where a bunch of hillbillies with rifles could actually make a difference due to the lack of defense against a rifle bullet. The Irish, Vietnamese and afghans where fighting against people who did not like hearing about the constant casualties reports and really didn't want to keep sending people to die. You think a tyrannical government is going to pull out of defending it's home or allow the media to create tension by reporting every single death that occurs complete with flowery prose and heartrending university graduation photograph?

Not to mention for the first three they relied on homemade bombs, black market munitions and the ability to evade the enemy, be it in a jungle, cave or urban sprawl, rather than a few handguns and uncle Jim-bob's collection of licensed shotguns. It would be attrition and hiding amongst the masses, not an abundance of small arms that would be the deciding factor in winning a revolution. If an american militia group tried to go toe to toe with the US army in any form of open combat today it would be a five minute massacre.

[Idaho]

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

Sorry - but that is utter nonsense on so many levels.

And by way of full disclosure - I couldn't give a **** how many guns you yanks have.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

[Greyblades]

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

[Hooahguy]

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

I dunno, Iraq and Afghanistan tells otherwise. Counter-insurgency is a :daisy:.

[Greyblades]

Um... Are you agreeing with me or disputing it? I honestly cant tell with that.

[Hooahguy]

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

[Greyblades]

Huh, well going by the news I got the idea that the afghans were causing more damage with bombs than bullets and that they were doing it with guns from out of the country.

[Goofball]

This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.

LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/frum-leadership-newtown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):


Here's one more such paradox: Obama has done literally nothing to restrict the (large and growing) rights of gun owners. President Bill Clinton signed two important pieces of gun control legislation and issued many restrictive executive orders; Obama has not so much as introduced even one.Yet the election of Obama has triggered an angry reaction among gun owners fiercer than anything seen under Clinton. Between 1960 and the late 1990s, there occurred a gradual decline (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx) in the percentage of American homes that contain a gun, from about one-half to about one-third.

(This trend is at least partly explained by the decline of hunting as a sport. In 2011, about 6% of Americans aged 16 or over went hunting (http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm) even once in the year. )
In 2009, however, that trend away from guns abruptly went into reverse. Gun buying spiked in the Obama administration, pushing the share of households with a gun all the way back up (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx) to 47%, near the 1960 peak, even as crime rates tumbled to the lowest levels ever recorded, making guns less necessary than ever to self-defense. Black Friday 2012 set a one-day record for gun sales (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57555989/black-friday-gun-sales-set-another-record/).


As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The comparison between alcohol and guns is bunk for the simple fact that the purpose of alcohol is not to kill someone or something with. If you want to compare, you would have to have an environment where you could own and load guns, but not, you know, actually carry them in public (public drinking).

Which sounds to me like it might actually be an improvement, but then again I am, you know disdainful, of the idea that you somehow should need a gun because of 2A against evil governments or because you apparently live in Somalia and criminals and police are gonna shake you down and burgle your home if you don't. Me, I think you should make sure that the baseline goal is a world wherein nobody should ever have to own, or use a gun or know someone who does and still be safe and secure from criminals and government and police brutality alike. That is what I'd expect people to strive for.

Leave the guns, then, to be a tool of recreational use at the shooting range or hunt, and for pest control by farmers. There is no need to prohibit ownership or use, but as Lemur put it so very well:


That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Gun ownership (and more importantly: use) should be more like car ownership: fine if you want it, but it is a privilege and not a God given right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/frum-leadership-newtown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):



As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

Well, based on prior legislation, they tend to exclude weapons purchased or manufactured before the bill is signed into law. I was going to buy another one anyway, but this just made the $700 look less precious.

I can do entry level now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15) in.223 and then, if the civilian version of the HK AR build the H&K556 with a perm-pinned stock no flash supress is released, I can upgrade. Just as long as the ban doesn't include too many new restrictions. If they target all scary looking builds I'll just get a ruger mini-14 in .223. I live in NY, so we've got years of practice living under the old assault weapons ban on a state level. 10 round mag limit here and I'm one handgun in already.

[Hooahguy]

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

Fair point, you got me, though looking at the statistics, IEDs only caused around 66% of all casualties, so there can still be a serious amount of casualties caused by small arms fire. Also within the gun community there is a high importance of accuracy, so Id bet US rebels here would be more accurate. Though I also wonder how quickly Russia or China would jump to help arm rebels in the US with bigger and better weapons?

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

Though overall I have to overall agree with you. We do need stricter laws when it comes to guns. Banning them outright wont do jack, even if you just ban assault rifles. There are too many and how are you going to enforce it? What we do need, in addition to better mental health care, is more care devoted to tracking weapons and background checks.

[Greyblades]

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.

[Hooahguy]

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.
Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.


Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason.
PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand what they went through, and through this lack of understanding by the civilian sector we get this "tough guys dont show emotions" routine that the military is just starting to break. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.


PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. War has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

[Husar]

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

That depends a lot.
First of all the US Army in Afghanistan and Iraq is kinda fighting a two-front war against both the rebels and the rest of the world which is watching everything they do. That creates a Level of restraint and ROI they probably wouldn't have if their tyrant master told them to massacre the insurgency at home. It's a bit like saying the german citizens in WW2 could've defended themselves with rifles and pistols against B-17s and Lancasters dropping fire bombs.

And then you have the whole terrain Thing, which became really obvious in Libya, where the rebels couldn't leave the cities because they would get utterly destroyed by tanks out in the open. And in the cities they were then shelled and assaulted as well without much room to maneuver. Now the USA are less of a desert than Libya in most parts but I'm not sure how much mobility the rebels would be able to keep.

A lot of the more successful rebellions seem to have an influx of either heavy weaponry/support from outside the country and/or military switching sides, possibly bringing heavy equipment.

And since it was mentioned that sports Shooting is one of the least valid reasons to have a gun, it's actually one of the few reasons to have a gun here in Germany. Our gun ownership level isn't really low either by the way, it is however very regulated and full of rules, requirements and regular checks.
http://p4.focus.de/img/gen/R/c/HBRcdkZn_Pxgen_r_700xA.JPG
This table lists the number of guns per 100 citizens and the overall number of guns in the country for some countries (they list gunpolicy.org as the source but it seems to be down).

[ICantSpellDawg]

And yet the British weren't so wholesale brutal during the American Revolution. I'd imagine that in the America that we fear there would still be some level of homefront empathy and reason, even if it were under wraps to an extent. We didn't overthrow the crown because they were sending us to work camps and burning us in ovens.

[Hooahguy]

Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. Ware has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

You act as if artillery and ordnance is a brand new thing. Humans have been bombing the hell out of each other since gunpowder was invented.

Traumatic brain injuries doesnt equal PTSD, by the way.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was under the impression that a causal link has been suggested all year.

[Papewaio]

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

All supported as by external states.

Vietnam by China but no Chinese were to be listed as combatants only observers.
Irish by America.
Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Russians they were supported by America, when they were fighting US it was Iran and most probably elements of Pakistan.
American war of independence was supported by France, Spain and the Dutch. The Contentinal Army was quickly formed and as unromantic as its appeal is, most victories on either side relied on a core of regular troops. The keeping of territories relied on the hearts and minds of the locals. So again a war was won based on how much nation state support was received and how well trained the troops were.

All were supported to some degree and the ones that succeeded had the most support.

The American Civil War the South wrongly assumed they would get European support. They did not and in the end they failed.

[Greyblades]

You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.
Um, actually I'm not under the impression the average soldier are super human or anything, just that considering that even basic trained soldiers are going to be a more capable in hand to hand than the average thief/muderer.


Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.

May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All supported as by external states.

Vietnam by China but no Chinese were to be listed as combatants only observers.
Irish by America.
Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Russians they were supported by America, when they were fighting US it was Iran and most probably elements of Pakistan.
American war of independence was supported by France, Spain and the Dutch. The Contentinal Army was quickly formed and as unromantic as its appeal is, most victories on either side relied on a core of regular troops. The keeping of territories relied on the hearts and minds of the locals. So again a war was won based on how much nation state support was received and how well trained the troops were.

All were supported to some degree and the ones that succeeded had the most support.

The American Civil War the South wrongly assumed they would get European support. They did not and in the end they failed.


Yes, there is nuance in history and no concrete rules.

[Slyspy]

"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association finally broke its silence to pay tribute to 26 new pairs of cold dead hands."

As the Daily Mash put it. I have no axe to grind, but that seemed quite pertinent to me.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

[Hooahguy]

May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

[ICantSpellDawg]

One or two armed people in an entire school keeping a maniac from running through rooms as quickly might do alot to lower the body count. Just making them think harder could cut it down a bit. They will probably die, but they would probably die anyway. I like the L.A. Police chief's idea of sending multiple police officers to stop by every school in the city randomly a couple times a day.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership,

Wrong: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/116_103154.html


She noted that the U.S. government, however, rejected Seoul’s proposal to export some 600,000 M1 Carbines, which were also used in the Korean War, as they come with a magazine that can carry multiple rounds unlike the Garands.

“We plan to announce a bid later this month or in February for the selection of agencies to sell the M1 rifles to Americans,” Kim said. “The U.S. has been reviewing legal procedures for the approval of a third party transfer.”

The official said Korea plans to purchase locally developed K2 rifles with the money raised by selling the M1s.

The Obama administration blocked the purchase of 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines in 2010, saying the American-made antique rifles could “potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”


At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

We do not have that view.

It is extremely rational not to base legislation, and wholesale curtailing of rights, on extremely rare events. Especially when the root of the problem is mentally ill people wanting to kill a lot of people. No gun ban deals with that, which is the core issue.

It's like the TSA and their asinine policies on liquids and shoes.


They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

Well they have, generally, bad eyesight and worse guns. Americans have fancy optics and glasses or laser eye surgery.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

More people are killed by cars, you don't see anti gun people trying to ban them.

Talk about a straw man. Cars provide a valid social benefit, consumable alcohol provides none. If the argument is that guns are unnecessary (which presents an incredibly slippery slope in its own right) and their use results in the occasional mass shooting, alchohol serves even less of a purpose (firearms are used every day to prevent and/or defend against crime) and certainly is the cause of millions of deaths each year, thousands of which are innocent children.

Are you in favor of a return to prohibition? If not, can you explain why your concern for the lives of such children extends only the threat posed by firearms and not alcohol or other unnecessary and risky freedoms that Americans currently enjoy?


Says the guy who was in favor of invading two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and taking a whole lot of freedoms away over a statistically insignificant terror attack... Statistical significance can obviously not be a deciding factor.

I'm not sure who you are talking about, but it surely isn't me. I supported the Bush era wars because their successful outcomes would have been in the best interests of the United States and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, I thought a) that the repressed and abused populations of both nations would jump at the chance to form representative governments and b) that the US military was more proficient in making war than it turned out to be. So much for that.

Speaking of 9/11 though, why does first reaction to national tragedies always seem to be a move to restrict freedom? That applies to both US parties. I think we were all a bit naive after 9/11, but haven't we learned our lesson? Mass shootings are not a national epidemic. They do not represent an existential threat to our way of life. Are we really going to let the - yes - statistically insignificant actions of two or three mentally disturbed individuals dictate legislation that will affect millions of law abiding citizens? What an incredibly immature reaction that would be.

[PanzerJaeger]

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap. As mentioned above, if our national focus is to directed towards decreasing preventable deaths by curtailing freedoms currently enjoyed, a return to prohibition and any number of other issues should take priority. Taking aim (no pun intended) at gun ownership out of an emotional reaction to a headline grabbing, yet isolated incident is not logical.

[Papewaio]

I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.

In 1776 it is estimated that there was 1/100th of the population of the modern US.
8000 died on the battlefield over an eight year period.

In comparison whilst the 11,000 who died of homicides this year from guns seems a lot larger. Once you adjust for population inflation it comes down to 100 per year. Which is a mere 800 over an eight year period or just ten percent.

So the human cost for freedom is cheaper then ever. IMDHO that is the very definition of progress. ~:cheers:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift.

Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.

[Fragony]

I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.

No shit Sherlock

I agree with Panzer by the way, shootings like this hit hard but are very rare.

[Greyblades]

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

A shotgun with a tazer round?

[Ironside]

No shit Sherlock

I agree with Panzer by the way, shootings like this hit hard but are very rare.

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

[Fragony]

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

US is a big country. I think the US and Europe taken as a whole are pretty much even. Not a statistically significant difference at least. We have had this in Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, I wouldn't say it is dramatically more common in the US. A loner gone nuts, Columbine, Tech whatwasit, the Joker, and this one.

[rory_20_uk]

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

WE need incidence, not prevalence.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

US is a big country. I think the US and Europe taken as a whole are pretty much even. Not a statistically significant difference at least. We have had this in Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, I wouldn't say it is dramatically more common in the US. A loner gone nuts, Columbine, Tech whatwasit, the Joker, and this one.

Europe has over 700 million people. The US is a lot less than that.

If Americans really want the right to have loads of really dangerous weapons, and are happy with the side-effects, then fine.

[Fragony]

Europe has over 700 million people. The US is a lot less than that.

If Americans really want the right to have loads of really dangerous weapons, and are happy with the side-effects, then fine.

I think it has more to do with being in a highly competitive society personally, all that 'be what you can be' nonsense as not everybody can be the best, becomming prom-queen and things like that, being pretty good should be more than enough to get by. I can understand why people can get lost in that, but I wouldn't blame the guns for it. More a matter of self-worthiness that is under attack for some.

[Catiline]

No, it's got to do with having shitloads of guns floating about the place, not not being prom queen.

Moderate alcohol consumption has plenty of social benefits. It can also cause a great deal of harm, which is why its sale and consumption are placed under a whole range of different restrictions. But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.

[Fragony]

There are shitloads of guns everywhere. It's a social problem people can snap when picked upon. Just this week this poor girl threw herselve before a train here in front of her classmates. A different outcome for the same problem really. She wanted to make a point. Andres made a great case here in this thread.

[Catiline]

And what's better - snapping and jumping in fornt of a train, or snapping and going on a murderous rampage? The former is sad. the latter is evil. And it's a pernicious evil enabled by a ridiculous lie about a freedom that isn't enshrined in a 200 year old document written by people who could never imagine where we are now.

Society has all sorts of problems - the world and people in particular are not pleasant. That being the case how can it possibly be a good thing to allow people the tools to do this sort of thing, especially when those tools serve no other purpose.

[rory_20_uk]

We need to learn from Futurama - have proper suicide booths around the place for those seeking a Darwin Award.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

And what's better - snapping and jumping in fornt of a train, or snapping and going on a murderous rampage? The former is sad. the latter is evil. And it's a pernicious evil enabled by a ridiculous lie about a freedom that isn't enshrined in a 200 year old document written by people who could never imagine where we are now.

Society has all sorts of problems - the world and people in particular are not pleasant. That being the case how can it possibly be a good thing to allow people the tools to do this sort of thing, especially when those tools serve no other purpose.

Well if you allready acknowledge that the problems run a little deeper them why be so comfortable on the surface

[Hooahguy]

Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.

Far more homicides with guns than there are mass shootings. Supposedly, Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan. Over 200 deaths in 6 months last I heard. Yet nobody seems to really care.

Also Catiline, have you ever fired a gun before?

[Lemur]

Well, if you're looking for the most jaw-droppingly wrong-headed reaction to the Newton massacre, you won't find it in this thread. Nope, the grand slam winner is Newsweek's Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html).

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.McArdle leaves herself some wiggle room by not directly saying she wants six- and seven-year-olds to gang-rush a mass murderer, but the implication is clear. I suppose any sociopath who wants to shoot up a kindergarten had better spend some time running calculations on this site: How many five-year-olds can you take in a fight? (http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/)

[Catiline]

Also Catiline, have you ever fired a gun before?

Yes thanks. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless I'm supposed to be overcome by feeling of empowering freedom and masculine liberty when I do it. What I actually come away with is the idea that a) its fun b) it's difficult to hit what you want, and c) that the things should stay locked up at the gun club where they belong because they're bloody dangerous.

[Hooahguy]

Yes thanks. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless I'm supposed to be overcome by feeling of empowering freedom and masculine liberty when I do it. What I actually come away with is the idea that a) its fun b) it's difficult to hit what you want, and c) that the things should stay locked up at the gun club where they belong because they're bloody dangerous.

I was just wondering. The only people I know in the outside world who are as rabidly anti-gun as you are have never fired one before. The ones who were as extremely anti-gun usually end up moderating their views afterwards to a more balanced opinion.

[Catiline]

Well, if you're looking for the most jaw-droppingly wrong-headed reaction to the Newton massacre, you won't find it in this thread. Nope, the grand slam winner is Newsweek's Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html).

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.McArdle leaves herself some wiggle room by not directly saying she wants six- and seven-year-olds to gang-rush a mass murderer, but the implication is clear. I suppose any sociopath who wants to shoot up a kindergarten had better spend some time running calculations on this site: How many five-year-olds can you take in a fight? (http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/)

I think the worst I saw was one suggesting that people shouldn't grieve because infact they're weren't murdered kids, they were actually heroes who fell in the defense of liberty and freedom.

Or 26 new pairs of cold dead hands as the Daily Mash put it - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/arm-teachers-say-unspeakable-pieces-of-shit-2012121753763

[rory_20_uk]

Americans waddling towards a shooter, others with their hands hard on the accelerator of the mobility assists... Clearing a distance of what? 50-100m with a shooter blasting away...

Assuming that the person has ensured targets to the front and not behind (as they do choose the terrain) this person is advocating charging down someone who is firing a semi-automatic weapon directly at them.

I imagine that the limiting factor would be the amount of ammo the person carries - the greater the density of persons charging the faster the effective fire (I am assuming the average civillian would be incapacitated by shock from pretty much any wound from a high-velocity rifle).

Gun advocates stupid... who could possibly say.

~:smoking:

[Catiline]

I'm not anti gun per se. I've got no issues with public servants, be they military or police or the like havng them. I've got no issues with hunting weapons, provided they're used with respect and kept safely. I simply think that weapons whose sole intention is to kill another human have no place in civilian society. Keep them at the gun club if you must have them.

[Husar]

I was just wondering. The only people I know in the outside world who are as rabidly anti-gun as you are have never fired one before. The ones who were as extremely anti-gun usually end up moderating their views afterwards to a more balanced opinion.

You might be surprised. In fact I wish I had a gun because I'm awesome and all that and would use it only to do good. But then again I realize that I also have faults and it would be unfair to give one to me because I think I'm good but not to other people who think the same of themselves. As such I think it's better if we all don't have one. And yes, that's partly because I can easily see how I would casually overestimate my own prowess in handling a gun. Then again I have no education on how to handle one.

It's also nice to see that Fragony has adopted my view after arguing against it. ~;)

As for the charging thing, it could work in the sense that fewer people may die if it's not happening on an open field, but it would require drilling stoicism into the children and turning them into some kind of mindless hive-mentality zombieforce. Of course that may help them later in their job in a sweatshop as well. ~;)

[rvg]

I'm not anti gun per se. I've got no issues with public servants, be they military or police or the like havng them. I've got no issues with hunting weapons, provided they're used with respect and kept safely. I simply think that weapons whose sole intention is to kill another human have no place in civilian society. Keep them at the gun club if you must have them.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to my constitutionally guaranteed right.

[Ronin]

Americans waddling towards a shooter, others with their hands hard on the accelerator of the mobility assists... Clearing a distance of what? 50-100m with a shooter blasting away...

Assuming that the person has ensured targets to the front and not behind (as they do choose the terrain) this person is advocating charging down someone who is firing a semi-automatic weapon directly at them.

I imagine that the limiting factor would be the amount of ammo the person carries - the greater the density of persons charging the faster the effective fire (I am assuming the average civillian would be incapacitated by shock from pretty much any wound from a high-velocity rifle).

Gun advocates stupid... who could possibly say.

~:smoking:

if the Japanese could do it on WW2 I find it extremely offensive for you to suggest Americans are not able to do the same or better.

'Muricah **** YEAH!

[rory_20_uk]

if the Japanese could do it on WW2 I find it extremely offensive for you to suggest Americans are not able to do the same or better.

'Muricah **** YEAH!

In those attacks the Americans soldiers often had qualms regarding shooting persons. Here we have someone who has set out to kill unarmed persons.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to my constitutionally guaranteed right.

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.

[Hooahguy]

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.

To quote,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


There seem to be two parts to this: the militia part and the gun-owning part.

Now, back then, the militia was just regular townfolk like the Minutemen with no real training. And back then, there were no National Guard armories, they kept their weapons at home, so back then it would make sense for the two to go hand in hand.

Though today, well, people will interpret it as they will.

[rvg]

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

[Papewaio]

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

Is the Consitution infallible?

[rvg]

Is the Consitution infallible?

The fallibility of the U.S. Constitution is contingent upon the will of the American people. Nothing else and nobody else matters in this regard.

[Papewaio]

The fallibility of the U.S. Constitution is contingent upon the will of the American people. Nothing else and nobody else matters in this regard.

Well based on that criteria, I suggest you get a bigger boat arsenal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

Well, it was written by Englishmen, not Americans.

The principle in question concerns the use of Foreign mercenaries to enforce Executive power, and the mustering of troops by the elected assembly, rather than the use of Royal retainers - I don';t think there's anything in that amendment that points towards the right to form private "militias", quite the opposite.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You should see that the point is that a citizen-army protects the state, which is not the same as an individual toppling the state.

For God's sake - if you want to have guns enforce the same rules on civilians as you do on the military.

[rvg]

Well...

There we go again... yet another armchair Constitutional expert has come to enlighten the savages.

Our right to bear arms has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of the land. Your input is thus irrelevant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Xiahou]

What we should really have is gender control, rather than gun control. Virtually all spree killers are men. Almost all violent crime is perpetrated by men. Therefore, less men = less violent crime.

Who's with me?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There we go again... yet another armchair Constitutional expert has come to enlighten the savages.

Our right to bear arms has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of the land. Your input is thus irrelevant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?

I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.

[rvg]

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?
It's defined just fine by the Federal and State laws.


I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.
Wager or not, paid professionals i.e. the SCotUS over the course of the centuries were very clear and very consistent on what the right to bear arms means, and what constitutes an infringement of that right. Who are you compared to those people? Who are you to contradict them? :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow. I visited the local gun store this afternoon to pull the trigger (pun intended) on a SCAR-H, as it is the only 'modern sporting rifle' currently available on the market that I do not own and I do want to risk missing out if the authoritarians get their way. The lines were incredible. I've never seen anything like it. The gun I dropped $2500 on eight hours ago is now going for $3500 and higher on auction sites.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow. I visited the local gun store this afternoon to pull the trigger (pun intended) on a SCAR-H, as it is the only 'modern sporting rifle' currently available on the market that I do not own and I do want to risk missing out if the authoritarians get their way. The lines were incredible. I've never seen anything like it. The gun I dropped $2500 on eight hours ago is now going for $3500 and higher on auction sites.

I'm going into South Shore Sportsman first thing to put money down on an M&P 15 tomorrow. Not a single store on LI has any AR lowers or full rifles. I don't know it will ever come in, but it's a necessity. Buy one now if you ever want one. Most stores didn't even have Ruger m-14's in stock - which are a staple.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What we should really have is gender control, rather than gun control. Virtually all spree killers are men. Almost all violent crime is perpetrated by men. Therefore, less men = less violent crime.

Who's with me?


I wish that they would just try all of these things at once. Maybe somebody would do something. Erosion of rights is the way forward for them. They'll get to that in time

[ICantSpellDawg]

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?

I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.

Which right is specifically defined rather than merely affirmed in our bill of rights?

Honestly, I'd say that "Infringement" as it is meant is clearly occurring. "Act so as to limit or undermine".


People couldn't say lewd things in public at the nations foundation.

[Catiline]

It's defined just fine by the Federal and State laws.


Wager or not, paid professionals i.e. the SCotUS over the course of the centuries were very clear and very consistent on what the right to bear arms means, and what constitutes an infringement of that right. Who are you compared to those people? Who are you to contradict them? :laugh4:

It's been clear and consistent on individual rights since 2008. It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.

But hey, you've got a couple of handwritten versions of the clause with some wonky punctuation to go on trying to justify it, so knock yourselves out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, it was written by Englishmen, not Americans.

The principle in question concerns the use of Foreign mercenaries to enforce Executive power, and the mustering of troops by the elected assembly, rather than the use of Royal retainers - I don';t think there's anything in that amendment that points towards the right to form private "militias", quite the opposite.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You should see that the point is that a citizen-army protects the state, which is not the same as an individual toppling the state.

For God's sake - if you want to have guns enforce the same rules on civilians as you do on the military.

Well regulated from that time meant well equipped. The whole militia part (and the founders considered all adult men to be part of the militia) displays their reasoning behind the right. It is not a prerequisite (that people must be in an official state militia to bear arms) for the right. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. You are wrong.

Every one of the foreigners opining on how our constitution doesn't mean what we Americans have decided, legally and as a society, it means, is wrong.


The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap.

This is very true, and a point that bears repeating. The government should not be a parent, not least because it can not be. There is risk in life.


But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.

Yes, some guns are designed to be effective at killing people. But if someone is trying to kill you, such a tool is exactly what you want. Guns make it much easier for people to defend themselves from acts of evil.


It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.

Please do go on about how you better understand the legal history than SCOTUS does.

CR

[Catiline]

Urgh.

Regulated means equipped according to rules. It doesn't mean just equipped.

It's been comprehensively demonstrated that guns simply make it much more likely you'll get shot. Statistically they don't defend you, all they do is escalate situations.

We should have one prohibition back, and that's the 'No gun debates @ .org' one.

[Papewaio]

How long would it take to get the law changed that weapons are deemed unlawful? Wouldn't it take weeks to months to get it through, signed off and even then it would have a set start date before being in effect.

Isn't it a case of drumming up artificial scarcity (a common marketing technique) to create demand and push up margins?

[Catiline]

It's nearly Xmas Pape - don't you want a SCAR under the tree? They're running out you know.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I really don't get why people feel the need to defend the current constitutional interpretation. The originalist interpretation is is that we need people to be armed because we need a militia for protection. We don't need a militia anymore, thus we don't need to guarantee everyone a gun. That's what the damn thing says. Arguing that the right to bear arms is tied to the natural right for an individual's self defense is an argument that stands on its own. Trying to pretend that that argument is what the 2nd Amendment argues is revisionist like a vast amount of other SCOTUS rulings.

The interpretation was made to fit the current argument by pro-gun groups, not the other way around.

EDIT: You thanked this post Catiline, but I want to make this clear, this is not an anti-gun post.

[rory_20_uk]

It appears Americans kill as many as expected, although given the rates of killings and gun ownership are so disperate from civilised countries there is some potential for error.

The most important thing is Americans concentrate on killing each other and give the rest of the world a break.

8237

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is scarcity right now because it couldn't have come at a worse time. Most of the stores may have been sold out of these things to begin with for christmas. panzer said that he wants a gun and happened to be at a store that was packed. In ny, where I live, we have democratic assembly, democratic governor and republicans like Pete King on gun control. Act now or forever hold your peace. New legislation here will be the end of the ar15. Who knows, maybe this will kick start the economy. A lot of these sales may not have happened.

[rvg]

The most important thing is Americans concentrate on killing each other and give the rest of the world a break.



You have your monarchy, we have our guns. Let's keep it that way. After all, we don't go around suggesting that you get rid of the Monarchy, even though a good rifle is far more useful than a good king.

[Greyblades]

You have your monarchy, we have our guns. Let's keep it that way. After all, we don't go around suggesting that you get rid of the Monarchy, even though a good rifle is far more useful than a good king.

Well that's just silly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which right is specifically defined rather than merely affirmed in our bill of rights?

Honestly, I'd say that "Infringement" as it is meant is clearly occurring. "Act so as to limit or undermine".


People couldn't say lewd things in public at the nations foundation.

Yes, but what is being infringed - what is the right to bear arms? Is it an unrestricted right, or is it in fact a limited right? You don't think that the right to life is infringed by judicial execution, do you? Is the right to personal liberty infringed by prison?

If they were you would consider them repugnant, but I know you don't.

Something to consider - this "Right to bear arms" does not define the type of arms borne, it can be interpreted several ways. One interpretation would be that the members of Congress and the public should not be required to surrender their swords when entering the chamber or in the presence of the President, as we are in England. Or, you could interpret it as the right to own a tank and rocket artillery.


Well regulated from that time meant well equipped. The whole militia part (and the founders considered all adult men to be part of the militia) displays their reasoning behind the right. It is not a prerequisite (that people must be in an official state militia to bear arms) for the right. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. You are wrong.

Nope - "Well Regulated" means regularly mustered and trained by the Civil Authorities - in ~1800 the standard arm was a musket, so a militia could equip itself, more or less, provided it purchased muskets of acceptable quality and the correct bore size.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's just silly.

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle, and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.

[Ronin]

I know I have suggested this here before, but since it is clear that you people can´t come to an understanding about what some strangely worded phrase from 2 centuries ago means, may I suggest that you...I don´t know.....write a new one?

sit down and write in plain English what you mean....(use pencil)

this would save a lot of time in future discussions, it is surely worth the investment.

[Greyblades]

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle, and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.


I know, a good king can be better than a good gun, even better than a good president because he has spent his entire life being trained to rule, he has his entire life to do good on his country and isn't distracted with popularity contests every 4 years, a good president has 8 years maximum to get what he wants done, spent his life learning to appeal to people instead of doing the job he's supposed to do, has to spend time working on his PR and all his efforts can be undone by enough votes by the opposition. Unfortunately for every good king there's a bad king, and a bad president can be offset and kicked out of office a lot easier. Personally I kinda wish constitutional monarchy allowed the monarch to advise parliament more, would be good to have a long term perspective to compliment the elected official's short term perspectives.

[rvg]

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle
Valuable and useless. Rifles are useful. Constitutional monarchs aren't.


and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.
Can you point out a backroom conversation where we were urging you to abolish monarchy?

[Greyblades]

One good king can create an empire that stretched from Greece to India in under 30 years, What can one good gun do that can compare?

[rvg]

One good king can create an empire that stretched from Greece to India in under 30 years, What can one good gun do that can compare?
Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

[Greyblades]

Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

Beyond triggering a minor civil war? Seriously the queen is so popular among those who identify themselves as royalists that if she told them parliament was corrupt and needed to be overthrown a number of the less than smart ones would probably try. And that's even ignoring the amount of damage she could cause to British relations if she purposely messed up a royal visit. Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.

[rvg]

Beyond triggering a minor civil war? Seriously the queen is so popular among those who identify themselves as royalists that if she told them parliament was corrupt and needed to be overthrown a number of them would probably try. And that's even ignoring the amount of damage she could cause to British relations if she purposely messed up a royal visit.
And this is useful how exactly?


Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.
What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?

[rory_20_uk]

Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

Do you know what the Queen and PM discuss at their weekly meetings? I don't.
Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

Do you know what the Queen and PM discuss at their weekly meetings? I don't.
Exactly.


Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.
Listen? They might or they might not. Politicians are not required to follow the wishes of the monarch. Their mind might just as well be swayed on an issue by a photo of a crying baby or a particularly sappy movie. Or the sound of a rifle discharge.

[Greyblades]

And this is useful how exactly?
How useful something is depends on your point of view, assume the hypothetical situation of a tyrannical government, what's more useful to a rebel? A figurehead who inspires a number of people into resisting, or one good gun? And the inverse, what is more useful to a tyrannical president, a popular figure head who can persuade people to keep calm and carry on, or one good gun? Even to the average person on the street trying to get on with his life, what is more useful to them, a person who matters like a king who at least appears to sympathize with the problems of people like him, or a good gun?


What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?
The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about. A good king with absolute power like Alexander the Great can create an empire that is still admired over 2000 years ago. Even without power, a good king with a constitution like George VI can inspire a nation into struggling far past the ordinary breaking point just by showing solidarity by not fleeing in the face of danger.

I ask again what can a good gun do that can compare?

[rvg]

How useful something is depends on your point of view, assume the hypothetical situation of a tyrannical government, what's more useful to a rebel? A figurehead who inspires a number of people into resisting, or one good gun? And the inverse, what is more useful to a tyrannical president, a popular figure head who can persuade people to keep calm and carry on, or one good gun? Even to the average person on the street trying to get on with his life, what is more useful to them, a person who matters like a king who at least appears to sympathise with the problems of people like him, or a good gun?
Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.



The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about...
And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.

[Catiline]

Rather entertainingly this whole discussion is taking place on the day the the Queen went to that cabinet meeting. It's the first time a monarch's done that since George III during the war of Independence.

Presumably she's decided there's so much stupidity being demonstrated over there that it's time that you lot have had your fun, and it's Independence revocation time.

And given that the alternative is President Cameron and VP Clegg, or, God forbid, POTUK Blair, I think the modern monarchy is a very good thing indeed. God bless her and all who sail in her.

[Sir Moody]

Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.

Maybe true when the best a government could bring to the table was a Musket and Cannon - I would really love to see a "Militia" take on an Apache Helicopter - would be brilliant, if short, viewing

That said a Monarch isn't exactly a good safeguard either since the Army only technically takes orders from them - the real orders still come from the Government... a figure head is just as useful as a good gun against a Apache...

[Lemur]

Rather entertainingly this whole discussion is taking place on the day the the Queen went to that cabinet meeting.
I am not the author, but this seems like a fine time to reprint this firsthand account (http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1501ub/bbc_news_queen_to_attend_cabinet_meeting_for/c7i393f) of how that went down:

https://i.imgur.com/wvrde.jpg

The meeting ended. A mere fifteen minutes into the agenda. Elizabeth dropped the pen, it was crimson with the blood of the fallen so called politicians. They had failed her. They had failed the country. The country she held so dear to her heart. For Elizabeth was not merely the queen of this one realm. But the government of this, her home nation had disappointed her so. It was time for a change she thought.

She licked her lips, and took a deep nasal breath, remembering the day when she last smelled the blood of her victims. So long ago in Zimbabwe. Her second breath brought a different memory though. What was that odour? Gunpowder? No, more subtle that that. Liquorice? Nearly... Elizabeth surveyed the room, slowly taking in the mental panoramic of the glorious dead, then there it was. The lone survivor.

"Fear." Elizabeth mouthed. That was the smell. The lone politician cowered. Hiding behind the bodies of so many fallen. he sobbed slightly. Elizabeth was not amused. "Arise, whelp," the monarch said. "Is this how you wish to die? Clutching the bloated corpse of Kenneth Clarke? Arise, and accept your fate."

The politician pushed the body aside and slowly stood up. Still sobbing. She had not seen sobbing like this since Charles announced his divorce. A young, clean faced man stood before her. Awaiting his fate. "What is your name?" Elizabeth hissed.

"Clegg ma'am. Nick Clegg"

"So, Nicholas. Did you really think you could escape? Are you not aware who I am? Are you not aware of my power? I, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of your God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith! Did YOU believe you could escape ME?" Clegg fell to his knees. His fearful sobbing turned to pathetic begging for his life.

"Mercy!" He pleaded

"NO." Stated the monarch. "Your words are nothing to me. I will show you my Mercy." She lifted her sword high. The small square blade slowly extending in the dim Downing Street lights, as if by a darker power. The stub became a blade. The blade became an edge, then she struck the blow.

Cleggs head slumped from his neck. Blood sprayed across the room. Elizabeth could literally taste Cleggs life draining from his useless flesh. She sheathed the Sword of Mercy. Lifted the head of the final politician and headed for the door.

Hordes of people were in Downing Street. Cameras, reporters, from every possible news outlet. The Queen held the head of Clegg aloft, triumphantly.