0
Driver1

Another mass shooting...

Recommended Posts

SkyDekker

Quote

I've noticed that we used to blame people for killing. We all know the names of Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, Ramirez, Berkowitzs, but now killers are anonymous. Without Google can you tell me the names of the VTech shooter, D.C. snipers, Colorado theater shooter, CT school shooter?



Not following your logic here. Because people don't remember the names of the perpetrators you believe people aren't blamed for killing?

***The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows.



Not at all. The positive effects of banning guns in the US would likely take decades (if not generations) to take effect.

In practice I don't think banning guns in the US is feasible. In my opinion, your founding fathers fucked up on that part of the constitution, resulting in a very violent society.
I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

***

Quote

I've noticed that we used to blame people for killing. We all know the names of Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, Ramirez, Berkowitzs, but now killers are anonymous. Without Google can you tell me the names of the VTech shooter, D.C. snipers, Colorado theater shooter, CT school shooter?



Not following your logic here. Because people don't remember the names of the perpetrators you believe people aren't blamed for killing?

***The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows.



Not at all. The positive effects of banning guns in the US would likely take decades (if not generations) to take effect.

In practice I don't think banning guns in the US is feasible. In my opinion, your founding fathers fucked up on that part of the constitution, resulting in a very violent society.
I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.

What nonsense. The Nazis lost the war the day they invaded Russia, long before a single US soldier was involved.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.



You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

*********But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.



He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them.

Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft?

Lanza wasn't 15. He was an adult. His mom even gave him the money to buy his own gun, and she let him use hers.

And he tried to buy it, but failed the background check, so he was denied. I guess that means you are actually right. Gun control did work. Everything that gun control advocates ask for happened. He tried to buy a gun, but couldn't. Score one for your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.



You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable.



The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

***

Quote

I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.



You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable.



The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

You didn't answer his question. How did the 2nd Amendment prevent all the Jews from being killed, as you claimed?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******

Quote

I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.



You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable.



The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

You didn't answer his question. How did the 2nd Amendment prevent all the Jews from being killed, as you claimed?

Ok. Name the event where the American government brainwashed its citizens and then mass exterminated millions of that same population because of their race or religion. What's that you say? There was no such event? Hmm, 2nd Ammendment worked exactly as designed then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

************But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.



He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them.

Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft?

Lanza wasn't 15. He was an adult. His mom even gave him the money to buy his own gun, and she let him use hers.

And he tried to buy it, but failed the background check, so he was denied. I guess that means you are actually right. Gun control did work. Everything that gun control advocates ask for happened. He tried to buy a gun, but couldn't. Score one for your argument.

Clearly the law was easily circumvented in Lanza's case by his own mother. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous of you.

And then there are the other mass killers: Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Kazmierczak, etc., all of whom managed to circumvent laws that which are so ridiculously easy to work around that even loonies can get around them.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

*********

Quote

I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.



You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable.



The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

You didn't answer his question. How did the 2nd Amendment prevent all the Jews from being killed, as you claimed?

Ok. Name the event where the American government brainwashed its citizens and then mass exterminated millions of that same population because of their race or religion. What's that you say? There was no such event? Hmm, 2nd Ammendment worked exactly as designed then.

You wrote: " you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye."

So instead of going off on a tangent, answer the question. HOW did the 2nd Amendment save us from speaking German and save all the Jews? Was there some movement in the USA to make everyone speak German and kill all Jews that was thwarted by gun toting civilians?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

The flaw in that argument is that the Nazi government was freely elected by the German people, and it (and its ideals) were strongly supported by the German population. The Nazis did not have to use military force to seize power in Germany.

Hitler was successful with the German population because he was a genius at identifying and exploiting the fears, biases, and frustrations of the people, and using that to convince them that he was the only one willing to stand up for them against the Jews and other "enemies of the State". I think the US is more susceptible to such a leader than they like to think. I don't think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to see the "well armed militia" turned against muslims, "liberals", or other "enemies", just as the German population turned on the Jews.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Clearly the law was easily circumvented in Lanza's case by his own mother. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous of you.

And then there are the other mass killers: Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Kazmierczak, etc., all of whom managed to circumvent laws that which are so ridiculously easy to work around that even loonies can get around them.

This very statement proves the ineffectiveness of gun control. The only thing it accomplishes is to make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm, while the criminals will still squire them and use them in the commission of their crimes regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General question:
Has anyone read/heard any info about how this shooter acquired his weapons?
I have no info yet, and it seems pointless to discuss more gun laws when we don't even know what could have made a difference.

I did read that he graduated from here, which would indicate he had a learning disability: http://www.switzercenter.org/
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002


Quote



Clearly the law was easily circumvented in Lanza's case by his own mother. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous of you.

And then there are the other mass killers: Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Kazmierczak, etc., all of whom managed to circumvent laws that which are so ridiculously easy to work around that even loonies can get around them.



This very statement proves the ineffectiveness of gun control. The only thing it accomplishes is to make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm, while the criminals will still squire them and use them in the commission of their crimes regardless.



Rubbish.

In post #154 this thread you stated that gun control DID work. Make up your mind.

What it proves is the ineffectiveness of the CURRENT gun control laws. And they have been rendered ineffective by the efforts of people like YOU who oppose any and all efforts to make them effective.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really do not have much to say as this incident takes a back seat to what happened to my brother's granddaughter (at least, in my family.)
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/eureka-police-retrace-final-hours-before-murder-suicide-of-woman/article_629c8738-120c-5e06-b4c2-f930f7cae500.html

My sister, Kim, raised my brother's daughter, Tabitha (the mother of Lexi,) after his wife left with and then abandoned their children. Kevin fought to get them back but, the court felt otherwise. Kevin continued to support his children and saw them on a regular basis.
I cannot fathom the reason why the grandmother, Colleen, would do such a thing to Lexi. Lexi's mother, Tabitha, has not been in her life for a couple of years (heroin addiction.) Kim's daughter, Amber, had hoped to adopt Lexi.
I do not blame it on the gun. I blame the mental health system and the availability of the gun to mentally ill people. I have no idea where or how Colleen got the gun. She may have owned it for years. She has been in and out of mental healthcare for years. Being that is the case, she easily slipped through the crack that is apparent in the system.
I am just sick to my stomach and heart broken. My feelings are this kind of behavior will only get worst and there are no answers in sight.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

Can you offer one single control measure that could effectively prevent anything from happening?



No, nor is that a realistic expectation. Generally you would look for ways to reduce, not prevent gun crime.



As long as there are guns there will always be such pain.
I am a gun owner. I am at a loss for words.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

Can you offer one single control measure that could effectively prevent anything from happening?



No, nor is that a realistic expectation. Generally you would look for ways to reduce, not prevent gun crime.



This one I agree with. I just don't think the answer can be found on the far left or far right. My position is that in choosing a side I'm going to protect gun rights because I don't think that stripping them away will solve anything.

There are an estimated 200 million guns in America owned by an estimated 60-65 million people. Personally, I think the real number is twice that much.

If you ban all guns in America, completely disarm the country, and make everything illegal, there are still 200 million guns out there. Most people will not comply, so those guns will be stashed here and there, and steadily people will get caught with them and the prisons will become inundated with otherwise good law abiding people who became a nonviolent criminal over night because they disagreed with a law that violated their constitution.

Even if I played along, my approximately $25k collection of firearms becomes illegal and I just hand it over to be melted down without compensation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really sorry to hear of this. You have my condolences.

At the end of the day, it is real people who are being killed and maimed by people wielding guns. Real people are being devastated every day to learn the people they love are gone forever.

Real people. Not just tokens to be paid as some inevitable price for freedom. Who among us would offer our own loved ones to serve as such tokens? Who, having suffered such a loss, would stand up and say "that's OK, it's just the price we must pay to live in a free society".

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you ban all guns in America, completely disarm the country, and make everything illegal, there are still 200 million guns out there. Most people will not comply, so those guns will be stashed here and there, and steadily people will get caught with them and the prisons will become inundated with otherwise good law abiding people who became a nonviolent criminal over night because they disagreed with a law that violated their constitution.

Even if I played along, my approximately $25k collection of firearms becomes illegal and I just hand it over to be melted down without compensation?



That's why I stated earlier that the positive effects of a very strict gun control would take decades, if not generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...Maybe if we blame the person instead of the inanimate object ....



sure because the gun(s) had nothing to do with it...I mean if he did not have access to guns, he would have used a spoon. or maybe a rake....an iPhone or a piece of a tree, someone easily as accessible....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


I'm sure it provides great solace and comfort to the families of the murdered people to know that their loved ones were more likely to be killed in a traffic accident.



The same great solace that the family of the kid that died in a car crash is comforted by the fact that people shooting a gun were less likely to kill him, but I bet they still drove to a the funeral, and he was still initially transported by ambulance.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

Quote

...Maybe if we blame the person instead of the inanimate object ....



sure because the gun(s) had nothing to do with it...I mean if he did not have access to guns, he would have used a spoon. or maybe a rake....an iPhone or a piece of a tree, someone easily as accessible....



How many people have been killed by kitchen knives? Have you ever rallied for kitchen knife control? Mass killing in Boston with pressure cookers, should we ban pressure cookers? Women have been strangled with their own underwear, should that be banned? I will help you rally to ban women from wearing underwear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0