Newtown School Shootings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That's your response? I respond point-by-point and your critique [...]

---

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't speak Wall of Text.

Bottom line is that you are putting yourself over in this thread as someone who believes that any regulation of firearms is a violation of a fundamental right. You can huff and puff about how this misrepresents the deep logic of your position, but in your haste and heat to discredit the EVIL GUN GRABBERS, you have not bothered to flesh out your own position beyond GUNS GOOD and GUN GRABBERS BAD.

Sheesh, you even write off the value of statistical reporting because it might be used by evil gun grabbers. I mean, seriously, take a look at your own posts in this thread, man. There's absolutely no reason to get into a point-by-point wall of text rebuttal game that only you and I will read, certainly not if you're as entrenched and utterly convicted as you make yourself out to be. I got all my arguing-with-an-immovable-object out of my system with Gawain back in the day; the only reason I would wade into it now would be to sway the audience, but I don't see anyone in this thread that's wavering.

So how's about we play find-the-common-ground? That might be a more interesting game to play before the Mayan Apocalypse. Is there any regulation of firearms that seems both sensible and constitutionally legitimate to you? If so, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?

CR

---

Because it's seen as a worse case of buissness as usual, rather than an exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What happened in Norway cannot be compared, that was a terrorist attack not your ordinary rampage. He had planned it for years. Norway deserves a lot of respect for how it dealt with it, they just trialed him. For me at least, I saw a monster that frightened the hell out of me becomming something utterly pathetic.

---

And you think Columbine was spontaneous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

And you think Columbine was spontaneous?

---

Not like this. Breivik is a terrorist who planned his massacre for years. Just because terrorism usually comes from the left doesn't mean it can't also come from the right, that's what happened here. It wasn't his specific goal to kill as many as he could, he wanted to whipe out an entire generation of future labour-leaders. It's ice-cold logic in the most twisted way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Just because terrorism usually comes from the left doesn't mean it can't also come from the right, that's what happened here.

---

it does?

What Left wing terrorist groups are you referring too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

it does?

What Left wing terrorist groups are you referring too?

---

Just about every one?

you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then

Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)

In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then

Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)

In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)

---

the list is a lot longer than that...just in Europe (Italy, Germany, Portugal just off the top of my head)....also south america.

But agreed, there is no monopoly either on the extreme left or the extreme right for terrorism.

Rote Armee Fraktion (Germany) or CCC (Belgium) to name a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then

Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)

In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)

---

Al qaeda doesn't really count, but still, the left is absolutely in love with islam, so no go.

ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.

---

Sure but there is a little bit more sympathy for that Nordic berserker than I can be comfortable with. Especially now since things are going a bit less good, in Greece the Golden Dawn is now bigger than they ought to be, all fascist/seperatist parties thrive in the south. Not good.

I did say off the top of my head :yes:- yeah I would agree with that Kralizec - Terrorist groups by their very definition are extremists so its unlikely to find them in the center

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?

CR

---

I'll serve: your past is taken into account when judging your actions today. So, if you were all stupid violent idiots before, something shocking happens and you continue as you did before, you all remain stupid violent idiots. As you were, then.

Seriously though: Norway's attitude towards safety, security and fire arms was comparatively sensible to begin with. The USA, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

I did say off the top of my head :yes:- yeah I would agree with that Kralizec - Terrorist groups by their very definition are extremists so its unlikely to find them in the center

---

TOLERATE OTHERS OR WE BOMB YOU!

Yeah...

Doesn't sound right.

Anders Brevik was an anomaly in pretty much every way you can think of. Frags has a point - terrorism is largely either a Left-Wing or Relgious phenomenon, and the religious element has more often been Islam than anything else. That's not to say the Right can't be vile and violent, but they often seem to work on getting elected before unleashing the hounds of hell.

I think a centrist terrorist movement could work. A bombing campaign to promote a fairer tax system. High profile assassinations to highlight the lack of suitable creche facilities for working mothers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.

---

Separatists are the really big group, at least in Europe. Corsica got the second largest group (FLNC. Doesn't seem to have a left wing histroy) after the basques. Hungary got pretty much all European right wing terrorism at the moment.

I could see a laissez-faire capitalism group form in the US (in particular with Ayn Rand being popular), but yeah they aren't big on terrorism. It's mostly for the revolutionary and extreme reactionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

TOLERATE OTHERS OR WE BOMB YOU!

Yeah...

Doesn't sound right.

Anders Brevik was an anomaly in pretty much every way you can think of. Frags has a point - terrorism is largely either a Left-Wing or Relgious phenomenon, and the religious element has more often been Islam than anything else. That's not to say the Right can't be vile and violent, but they often seem to work on getting elected before unleashing the hounds of hell.

---

Not surprising really since the far left tends towards revolution while the far right tends towards entrenchment.

Edit:

Mind you, your analysis does depend on the idea that a state (or elements of the state) cannot be terrorists which simply isn't true eg kristallnacht.

There is a difference between motivation and justification. We tend to forget that, especially when it comes to so-called "religious extremism".

The NRA needs to fire it's PR team. Armed guards in every school is the best they could come up with? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't speak Wall of Text.

Bottom line is that you are putting yourself over in this thread as someone who believes that any regulation of firearms is a violation of a fundamental right. You can huff and puff about how this misrepresents the deep logic of your position, but in your haste and heat to discredit the EVIL GUN GRABBERS, you have not bothered to flesh out your own position beyond GUNS GOOD and GUN GRABBERS BAD.

Sheesh, you even write off the value of statistical reporting because it might be used by evil gun grabbers. I mean, seriously, take a look at your own posts in this thread, man. There's absolutely no reason to get into a point-by-point wall of text rebuttal game that only you and I will read, certainly not if you're as entrenched and utterly convicted as you make yourself out to be. I got all my arguing-with-an-immovable-object out of my system with Gawain back in the day; the only reason I would wade into it now would be to sway the audience, but I don't see anyone in this thread that's wavering.

So how's about we play find-the-common-ground? That might be a more interesting game to play before the Mayan Apocalypse. Is there any regulation of firearms that seems both sensible and constitutionally legitimate to you? If so, what?

---

In NY, we are about 2-3 weeks away from a wholesale Semi-Auto gun ban where Andrew Cuomo has said that confiscation is on the table. You should have seen the line at the store. They are going to have a major problem on their hands if they don't de-escalate this situation. Gun owners are being treated like criminals and threatened by the government with punitive force (confiscation) because one crazy person committed a terrible crime in another state. You guys are nuts and creating a potentially dangerous national situation because of poorly understood data and a hair-trigger response.

There are 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year on average, nationwide out of 9k gun homicides. You guys are nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

You guys are nuts and creating a potentially dangerous national situation.

---

That sounds rather ominous. My position, as I've stated three times elsewhere in this thread, is that gun ownership should be roughly as regulated as motor vehicle ownership. If that's treating gun owners "like criminals," well ...

And in reference to drone's note, the NRA has unveiled its proposal (they would not take questions, so no follow-up): Armed guards in every school in America.

Details here.

Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets seized from them because of the crime.
Again, 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year and we should be punished.

I understand how it felt to have GWB as your President and how we held you over the coals for 8 years. I know that it is making the politics of the Democratic party want to exact revenge on the GOP and it's supporters and Obama is going to make this term hurt. Remember how it felt to have us on the run 4 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets taken from them because of it is not a reasonable way to pursue justice.

---

To go back to the motor vehicle analogy, I seem to remember that when an 80-year-old driver plowed through a crowd in a mall, there was, in fact, a push to re-test old people more frequently to retain their drivers' licenses. Exact same scenario; someone graphically demonstrates a problem in the system, so people look at it and ask, "Are there adjustments we should make to the system?"

If not, then not. If so, then what?

Were old people asked to feel ashamed for themselves? Is that a usual response? I understand the push for more transparency. I am in favor of checks and balances. You want to permit people to own high powered weapons pending a background? Go for it. Permit them for unrestricted CCW? Be my guest. Get a good idea of which weapons are being used in violent crimes? Go right ahead. I think those arguments can be made by both sides and I agree more with the control lobby on those issues. I do not like restricted CCW (sportsmen nonsense here), magazine count limits, "evil features" limits, other than silencers and punitive renewal fees. Don't pretend the gun control lobby in NY has any interest in keeping the 2nd Ammendment in the Constitution. Most of them want no guns, anywhere. In Wisconsin they are just more likely to make friends with middle grounders. Mike Bloombers "I don't think anyone has done more to protect the 2nd Ammendment than me". What a load of crap. You can't carry a 2 inch knife with a locking mechanism in his city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_mJa3wYFHc
This knife is illegal in NYC. 2.5 inch blade - lock makes it so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27GoHb9tEhM
This knife is illegal in Chicago. 3 inch blade - .5 inches makes it so.

These people do not believe in the right to bear arms. These things arn't even "arms", they barely register as "chodes"

I've never seen so many people buy AR-15's in such a short period of time and I've got one on it's way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets seized from them because of the crime.
Again, 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year and we should be punished.

I understand how it felt to have GWB as your President and how we held you over the coals for 8 years. I know that it is making the politics of the Democratic party want to exact revenge on the GOP and it's supporters and Obama is going to make this term hurt. Remember how it felt to have us on the run 4 years from now.

---

A gun is a tool for killing things - explain why you need a semi auto.

And don't say "to do a follow up when hunting" because if you don't kill the animal with the first shot the meat will be no good anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A gun is a tool for killing things - explain why you need a semi auto.

And don't say "to do a follow up when hunting" because if you don't kill the animal with the first shot the meat will be no good anyway.

---

A gun is a tool for killing or stopping things. I agree. A semi-auto is an effective tool for killing and stopping, often more things than a pump action or self loaded bolt action is. This is why you would need it. Limits in NY on ammunition have already been lowered to 10 rounds, 18 years ago. Now they want to ban the weapon, even though homicide rates nationwide have gone down with less gun control. At some point, the amount of things you need to kill or stop becomes a concern beyond reasonable self defense. A line has been drawn at full auto weapons, and hey - I can be persuaded to agree in some situations. If we get past the idea that the second amendment exists to protect people who want to have a fun hobby or eat gamier meat than is available in local stores, then we are getting somewhere. That argument is fallacy. A gun is not a tool for sports and there is no amendment is not in or Bill of Rights to protect cricketers or basketball players. It is there to protect the right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones from dangers - from violent criminals - but more notably from state-sized enemies within and those outside.

I'm not a hunter. I'm only a sportsman to become proficient at using my weapon. I keep and bear arms because it is my duty to myself and others in the event where I need sufficient firepower to resist tyranny on a small scale or large scale; burglary, murder, coup, invasion, riot, despotism.

You are under a good government, I am under a good government - bot have their problems. Problems can and will metastasize over time and that government can become a bad one. Or it can be supplanted by a bad one. Your rights will disappear. People fight wars to get rights, against others and against their own countrymen. If you don't have the tools to win the war, you will lose the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

To go back to the motor vehicle analogy, I seem to remember that when an 80-year-old driver plowed through a crowd in a mall, there was, in fact, a push to re-test old people more frequently to retain their drivers' licenses. Exact same scenario; someone graphically demonstrates a problem in the system, so people look at it and ask, "Are there adjustments we should make to the system?"

If not, then not. If so, then what?

---

The "gray menace" is also largely overblown. Sure, it makes good press when grandpa plows through a farmers market- but statistically they're far safer drivers than young demographics.

Quote:

---

My position, as I've stated three times elsewhere in this thread, is that gun ownership should be roughly as regulated as motor vehicle ownership.

---

As far as I know, there are very few limitations on who can own a car. You're thinking of driver's licenses. You don't need one of those to own a car- only to drive one on public roads. I don't think you're arguing that gun ownership is over regulated. ~D

Old people are dangerous - as a claims adjuster I think I can say this - and so are drivers below 21 as a rule. Old people tend to drive too slowly, causing added danger for people who drive too quickly. I wouldn't say they cause an absurd amount of accidents. Here again, we test them at a certain age to make sure that they can drive safely. We don't ban them from driving if they can safely drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As far as I know, there are very few limitations on who can own a car. You're thinking of driver's licenses. You don't need one of those to own a car- only to drive one on public roads.

---

Right, of course, I actually thought about editing it to read "ownership and operation" but decided it was a bit clunky, and people would know what I meant. Apologies for not being more precise.

Also note that any purchase of a motor vehicle is recorded and registered, at least in most states. Perhaps it's different in the wilds of Pennsylvania. You people are weird, what with the state having a monopoly on booze.

But in most places, if you fail to register a motor vehicle, and attempt to drive it without a license, trouble will occur. Records of owners, registrants, and licensees are well-kept. That seems like an appropriate level of oversight to this lemur.

Do you believe there is anything that should be addressed with gun ownership and operation? Anything at all?