26 Dead in a Shooting at an Elementary School.

I can’t imagine any response other than profound grief.

Apparently the shooter – who is dead – was only 20 years.  18 children dead.

Let’s fucking talk about gun control.

mental health

 

 

, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 11:53 am

    You can’t imagine any other response then profound grief?

    How about dancing in the blood of the innocent child in order to push an agenda?

    And doing it before the blood cools.

    Pathetic

  2. #3 by ProActiv on December 14, 2012 - 12:06 pm

    No worse than a drone murder terror strike really, what you do in leadership, you will beget in society, what filth

  3. #4 by Mike Murphy on December 14, 2012 - 12:12 pm

    How about a link to the article so we can have a more intelligent discussion: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/police-respond-to-shooting-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

    Jumping to a political and irrational conclusion only adds to the extremely poor journalism characteristic of this sites contributors. Thinking the trigger pulls the finger is indicative of poor critical thinking.

    • #5 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 12:32 pm

      From Andrew Sullivan:

      In a remarkable coincidence, just as people were learning about the Connecticut elementary school shooting, we were also reading about a knife attack on elementary school kids in China. While both events are horrific and indicative of mental illnesses in their perpetrators, the contrast is clear: Without a gun, one deranged maniac was able to severely wound 22 kids, but, as of this writing, none of them have died. With a gun, another deranged maniac was able to shoot dead more than two dozen people in a matter of minutes.

      • #6 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 12:39 pm

        From the American Prospect (written after the theatre mass killing in Colorado):

        This horrifying event demonstrates, as though we needed any demonstration, how removed from reality so many gun advocates are. When they push laws to allow gun owners to take their weapons anywhere and everywhere, they often paint a picture of a nation of skilled crime-stoppers, ready at a moment’s notice to cut down that psychopath before he has a chance to draw his weapon. But this is an absurd fantasy. Colorado is a state with lots and lots of gun owners, and it has a concealed-carry law that allows you to get a permit without too much trouble. We don’t know if anyone else in the theater had a gun on them, but even if they had, it probably wouldn’t have mattered. Lots of gun owners imagine themselves to be some kind of Jack Bauer figure, who will see an event play out in slow motion while he calmly draws his weapon and delivers one perfectly aimed shot to save all the civilians. But that’s not how things work in real life. A mass shooting like this one is chaos. Things don’t happen in slow motion, and a few hours at the shooting range don’t turn you into Jack Bauer.

  4. #7 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 12:57 pm

    On MSNBC this morning, former FBI Agent Clint van Zandt noted that America averages 20 mass shooting incidents per year.

    I don’t know what defines a mass shooting, but I’ll bet seldom a day goes by without several crazy people with guns shooting innocent victims. It’s a big country, and a lot of stuff never makes the national news.

    Bob S. demands a waiting period… for even TALKING about what we can do to save Americans from mass shootings. But they happen every couple of weeks, so that idea isn’t practical.

    Here are some facts to inform the debate: A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

  5. #8 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    Richard,

    Not all the facts are in yet – and here you and Glenden calling for more gun control.

    You don’t know if there was mental health issues, like so many of the other shootings, involved. If you really wanted to reduce death and injuries; shouldn’t you focus your efforts there?

    • #9 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 1:34 pm

      Bob – I don’t believe there’s any question that people who perpetrate mass killings are mentally ill. One of the reasons I personally favor a comprehensive national health care system is to provide better treatment for the mentally ill.

      Policy positions have real world consequences. The ready availability of guns is an experiment that has created an environment in which the mentally ill have ready access to weapons which allow them inflict far greater harm than would otherwise be the case. To put it simply, take a look at any mass shooting and ask yourself “Exactly how effective would the perpetrator have been if he had knives rather than guns?” A mentally ill person with access to weapons and ammunition can far more easily inflict death on many persons. Guns also make impulse killings far easier. Without having to delve into the exact details of today’s crime, I feel confident asserting that without guns, the killer (I believe his name was Ryan Lanza) couldn’t have killed 26 people in a few minutes.

  6. #10 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 1:18 pm

    Bob S. –

    How many facts do you need? Read the Mother Jones article I linked to and then we can discuss. Here’s another one for you:
    More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?

    If you update the graph based on today, that makes 2012 the worst year ever for mass shootings.

  7. #11 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 1:28 pm

    Dance in the blood Richard. Show how ghoulish you are instead of respecting the families and victims.

    Not playing that macabre game.

    • #12 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 1:37 pm

      Bob – I’m calling BS on your comment at 128 p.m. The families’ grief will not decrease by one iota should we refuse to discuss gun control. The families’ suffering will not be reduced by even a tiny fraction if we refuse to discuss gun control. And our silence about the societal and policy positions which contributed to a mass killing isn’t respectful of the victims or their families. Ask Judy Shepard.

  8. #13 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 1:30 pm

    I don’t know the victims and their families. I do know the facts about the epidemic of mass shootings.

    What can be done to reverse the trend?

  9. #14 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 1:39 pm

    Glenden,

    I didn’t say we could reduce their grief. I just said we should respect it.

    Put yourself in their place — would you want people using your loss, your suffering to push an agenda?

    • #15 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 2:22 pm

      Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association has already stated, as for example, that the God allowed the shooting to happen because the school was insufficiently faithful. I find that incredibly disrespectful and offensive because it puts the blame on the victims – it tells parents they’re kids died because they didn’t pray.

      If publicizing my suffering could prevent other people from going through the same in the future, yes absolutely I would want people to talk about it and understand how is happened and how to prevent it. You’re asking the wrong question – for good reasons, but I still think it’s the wrong question. The notion of respect for victims and families is a good one; what would it mean to respect them? Part of that is letting them grieve as they see fit. But by its very nature, a crime like this takes place in the public sphere. Public policy is a component of the discussion.

      • #16 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 2:29 pm

        I like this from Lisa Belkin at HuffPo:

        More than a dozen children went to elementary school this morning and were dead before lunch.

        White House spokesman Jay Carney says today is not the day to talk about gun control.

        I disagree. That’s all we should talk about today.

        We are heartbroken, yes. But saying that will fix nothing. It won’t bring anyone back, and it won’t keep this from happening again. And of course we know the parents of Newtown could have been any one of us. That’s important to remember, but it isn’t enough, because the knowing doesn’t change the fact that we could still be next.

        So we can’t just do as we did after Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora. We can’t just grieve and hold our children close. We have to demand that our country earn the right to call itself a civilized nation. We need to do this because our central job as parents — maybe our only job, really — is to keep our children safe so they can grow up. Easy access to guns keeps us from doing that job.

        • #17 by Glenden Brown on December 14, 2012 - 2:33 pm

          Andrew Sullivan rounded up some reactions.

          My favorite:

          But I really want someone who advocates against gun control to balance the scales for me, to go ahead and try to explain to me why the inconvenience suffered by gun owners and prospective gun owners under much tighter restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammunition outweighs the death of children in their classrooms, a place where they’re not just supposed to be safe, but to thrive. Explain to me why their suffering is worse than that of the people who died, and lost family members, in the rampage at Aurora, Colorado, where they were drawn to a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises out of enthusiasm, because it’s a time when parents with infants can see a movie and trust that they’ll sleep through the screening. Please, balance out for me, the loss of Gabby Giffords’ potential with impatience at a waiting period, or frustration at not being able to fire a certain number of bullets per minute. Because this is the choice we make, every time. And I’m terrified to watch us make it again.

  10. #18 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 1:47 pm

    “I think it’s important on a day like today to view this as I know the president, as a father does and I as a father and others who are parents certainly do, which is to feel enormous sympathy for families that are affected and to do everything we can to support state and local law enforcement and support those who are enduring what appears to be a very tragic event. There is, I’m sure, will be, rather, a day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates but I don’t think today is that day.”

    – Jay Carney, White House Spokesman [via CNN]

  11. #19 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 2:10 pm

    The only time we hear from Bob S. is when there is a post about gun violence. So who is pushing an agenda?

    We are not politicians or lobbyists. I want to find out how to make it harder for anyone, with or without mental health issues, to kill innocent people. Do we have to put airport security in elementary schools now?

  12. #20 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 2:13 pm

    David Dayen on FDL:

    One side says that “today is not the day” to talk about gun laws. And that’s the side that includes the President! Then you have the predictable theory that, if only the entire world was armed, everyone would be safe from everyone. And everyone argues and yells, and 5 days later, tops, everyone moves on without any action taken.

    …The political leadership of the country long ago turned over gun policy to a trade group called the NRA which is primarily concerned with profits from the sale of guns and ammunition. And seemingly no crime, no matter how horrific, can change that reality.

    I might add that President Obama has done wonders for gun sales, and the only gun-related legislation he has signed was the law allowing loaded guns in national parks for the first time, for no reason. The NRA/GOA ought to give Obama an award!

  13. #21 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 3:04 pm

    http://youtu.be/PezlFNTGWv4

    Richard,

    The only time we hear from Bob S. is when there is a post about gun violence. So who is pushing an agenda?

    You should actually do some research (and maybe clear my comment from moderation) before you start spouting off lies.

  14. #22 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    Bob S.–

    I actually think the YouTube video you linked to makes a valid point. I’m not happy either about the media’s tendency to focus on the perpetrators of mass shootings.

    That’s why I never type their names – I just say “the shooter.” Unless it’s a case of politically-motivated terrorism, I never speculate about why they did it – that’s not important either. The story is about the victims, as far as I’m concerned.

  15. #23 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 3:28 pm

    President Obama this afternoon, implicitly contradicting his White House spokesman (emphasis added):

    “As a country, we have been through this too many times, whether it’s an elementary school in Newton, a mall in Oregon, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago. These neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. We’re going to have to come together to take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

  16. #24 by Cliff Lyon on December 14, 2012 - 5:59 pm

    We MUST seize upon this tragedy as an opportunity to push strict hand gun control and provide access to mental health services.

  17. #25 by ProActiv on December 14, 2012 - 6:12 pm

    It’s pretty strict now, background checks would not have stopped this loon, and obama will do nothing

  18. #26 by Becky Stauffer on December 14, 2012 - 6:23 pm

    You are absolutely right, Cliff. I’d like to add, we’ve allowed the NRA to control the message on gun control for too long. I’m sick of hearing “guns don’t kill people.” How about we say it this way, “PEOPLE with guns kill people.” And then there’s this scare tactic: “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” implying this is an all or nothing proposition–that there’s no room for ANY reasonable regulation.

    Bob S., you accuse others of dancing in the blood, but you wrap yourself in that precious blood in order to avoid any discussion of why this happens again and again. And what might possibly done to fix our badly flawed system of gun ownership and the cultural issues that are making these incidents more and more frequent. We could never satisfy you, Bob S. You will always have some accusation like “dancing in the blood” to put your opponents on the defensive.

    It’s time for reasonable people to take over this discussion. People who really do want to see solutions. People who don’t perpetrate stupid slogans like the ones I quoted above. People who understand this means that SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS.

    Tonight people like Bob S. (and my own friends, neighbors, and family), are clinging to their guns and shouting about rights and waiting, and all kinds of bullshit trying to prevent a reasonable discussion, and in essence defending this evil shooter. Well you can hug that cold steel, Bob S. I’ll be hugging warm human beings, my 5 and 10-year old grandsons–grateful that no crazed person entered their school today with a gun.

  19. #27 by Nathan Erkkila on December 14, 2012 - 7:58 pm

    Bob S. :

    Richard,

    Not all the facts are in yet – and here you and Glenden calling for more gun control.

    You don’t know if there was mental health issues, like so many of the other shootings, involved. If you really wanted to reduce death and injuries; shouldn’t you focus your efforts there?

    So this person went to an elementary school to specifically target young children and you are saying that you don’t know whether this is a mental health issue or not?

  20. #28 by Bob S. on December 14, 2012 - 8:02 pm

    Becky,

    I offered, on my blog 3 days ago, to have the conversation — so far not one anti-rights cultist like yourself has accepted it.

    We’ve had this conversation – time and time again — and we’ll have it again.

    What do you call it other then dancing in the blood when the calls for ‘gun control’ start before the last body is even identified?

    What do you call it when your side exploits every tragedy, every mass murder to try to pass another law ?

  21. #29 by Nathan Erkkila on December 14, 2012 - 8:21 pm

    ProActiv :

    It’s pretty strict now, background checks would not have stopped this loon, and obama will do nothing

    Background checks do not cover mental health.

  22. #30 by Becky Stauffer on December 14, 2012 - 8:50 pm

    You see, Bob S., you like to characterize me as exploiting and politicizing just because I have something to say. That’s your MO and I already know. No, we won’t have that discussion all over again. Ditto will suffice.

  23. #31 by cav on December 14, 2012 - 10:35 pm

    Your right to membership in a well regulated militia ends at my not wanting to be killed.

    The victims.

  24. #32 by cav on December 14, 2012 - 10:43 pm

    I’ve noticed when people are having sex, or just about to have sex, or just finished sex, they’re usually not thinking about killing anyone.

  25. #33 by cav on December 14, 2012 - 11:07 pm

    This guy killed the kids to get at the mother/teacher.

    Family issues.

  26. #34 by Mike Murphy on December 14, 2012 - 11:20 pm

    Glenden Brown :
    From Andrew Sullivan:

    In a remarkable coincidence, just as people were learning about the Connecticut elementary school shooting, we were also reading about a knife attack on elementary school kids in China. While both events are horrific and indicative of mental illnesses in their perpetrators, the contrast is clear: Without a gun, one deranged maniac was able to severely wound 22 kids, but, as of this writing, none of them have died. With a gun, another deranged maniac was able to shoot dead more than two dozen people in a matter of minutes.

    While we’re in the banning mode let’s add automobiles and alcohol to the list and save thousands of lives…

    Sad fact of the matter is that people will always find a way to kill each other.

    Background checks do cover mental illness but how can you account for mental breakdowns? There is no easy answer to this problem; it certainly isn’t as easy as banning firearms. They are simply a tool and a necessary tool intended to be held by citizens to keep their government in check. Read the words of the Founders and see for yourself.

    http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF.gif

  27. #35 by Nathan Erkkila on December 15, 2012 - 12:39 am

    Mike Murphy :

    Glenden Brown :
    From Andrew Sullivan:

    In a remarkable coincidence, just as people were learning about the Connecticut elementary school shooting, we were also reading about a knife attack on elementary school kids in China. While both events are horrific and indicative of mental illnesses in their perpetrators, the contrast is clear: Without a gun, one deranged maniac was able to severely wound 22 kids, but, as of this writing, none of them have died. With a gun, another deranged maniac was able to shoot dead more than two dozen people in a matter of minutes.

    While we’re in the banning mode let’s add automobiles and alcohol to the list and save thousands of lives…

    Sad fact of the matter is that people will always find a way to kill each other.

    Background checks do cover mental illness but how can you account for mental breakdowns? There is no easy answer to this problem; it certainly isn’t as easy as banning firearms. They are simply a tool and a necessary tool intended to be held by citizens to keep their government in check. Read the words of the Founders and see for yourself.

    http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF.gif

    No they don’t. So far, Seng Hui, Jared Loughner and James Holmes all had a past of mental issues where they all legally bought guns with multiple clips. They do not check your mental health at all.

    And what is with this keeping government in check bullshit? That is the same crap that comes from the supporters of the military industrial complex. Both of those are 100% contradictory.

  28. #36 by schlep bergan on December 15, 2012 - 12:56 am

    What about our drone murder terrorist president? Does he have mental issues?

  29. #37 by Becky Stauffer on December 15, 2012 - 6:47 am

    Mike Murphy, it’s a popular technique to suggest we ban cars, knives, rocks, etc. It’s just a way of changing the subject. Stay on topic here. The topic is mass shootings. Some other thread may deal with auto deaths and you can go there to post your ideas about that.

  30. #38 by Bob S. on December 15, 2012 - 9:17 am

    So Becky,

    Let me see if I have this right.
    Without knowing what, if any, laws were broken – you are pushing for more ‘gun control’, right?

    Without knowing knowing what set off the murderer, you are pushing for more ‘gun control’, right?

    So please explain to me which law – current or proposed – will prevent someone who is intent on murder from obtaining a firearm?

    And why do you feel it is most important to address the tool used instead of the cause (evil, mental illness, etc) of the crime?

  31. #39 by cav on December 15, 2012 - 9:21 am

    We all dance in blood perpetually. My flag’s been at half mast (or lower) for as long as I can remember. Maybe if there was a little less killing, you know, a few more knife fights, things would be…

  32. #40 by Bob S. on December 15, 2012 - 10:48 am

    Cav,

    People seeking to control others have been dancing in the blood of the victims for centuries. Nothing has changed; people seeking to impose tyranny will always use any crime, any excuse to be tyrants.

  33. #41 by Becky Stauffer on December 15, 2012 - 11:11 am

    Bob S., dancing suggests celebration. No-one here is celebrating. I refuse to be put on the defensive by people like you any more. You only want to criticize those who seek answers. You have no answers of your own. Like Robert Reich, “I find it hard to believe we can’t do a far better job than we’re doing now.”

    https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/534745639871370

    “Several of you made the important point that part of the problem is we provide little or no help to individuals suffering from mental illnesses or to their families. Others of you made the equally valid point that guns aren’t like kitchen knives or cars or any number of things that can cause death and destruction if in the wrong hands, but more analogous to dangerous drugs, lethal poisons, and destructive weapons, all of which are carefully regulated. (Even cars are regulated to the extent you need a license to drive one, and the license has to be renewed.)

    So the central issue here is how to reduce the likelihood that guns will fall into the hands of people who are mentally ill and will use them to kill innocent people. And while there’s no way to guarantee they won’t ever do so, I find it hard to believe we can’t do a far better job than we’re doing now. The first step is to debate the issue openly and respectfully, which many of you have done on this page and for which I thank you.”

  34. #42 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2012 - 11:18 am

    Bob S. ignored my invitation to discuss the facts. The most important fact being 2012 is now the worst year for mass shootings. Half of the worst mass shootings in our history happened in the last five years. You have to look at the trend, and wonder what’s causing it and what we can do about it.

  35. #43 by cav on December 15, 2012 - 12:32 pm

    BobS.

    I really do have a hard time with the straight across equating tyranny with what most people expect would be sane regulation. But then, such a soft target as myself would.

    Real tyrants do sometimes need the persuasive use of a more powerful tool – and that is as it should be. Hunters, and hunting rifles…no argument there. Beyond that, you have to admit, there’s plenty of room for give without such oppression as the gun lobbies like to fearfully suggest.

  36. #44 by Bob S. on December 15, 2012 - 2:14 pm

    Becky,

    Dancing in the blood isn’t celebration – it is using the blood of innocents to drum up support for a cause. Are you suggesting that people ONLY dance to celebrate?
    not to mourn, not to worship — sorry but your attempt at a distraction doesn’t work.

    You are using the dead to drum up support for gun control when the issue isn’t the tool but the murderer.

    The central issue isn’t how to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who would commit crimes but how to prevent those willing to commit crime from doing so.

    People have been trying to perfect humanity through legislation for centuries. Hasn’t worked before, won’t work now — unless you believe you are better than anyone who has every tried before.

    Again — what law, what regulation, what rule would stop it, what rule would reduce it? And while you are at it, could you show evidence that it would work?

    Richard,

    Once again, you lie. I have not ignored your invitation to discuss the facts. Still waiting for you to present facts. So what rights are you willing to infringe in an attempt to reduce crime?
    Privacy, free speech, freedom of association?

    Just how far will you go to stop ‘gun crime’ ?
    England effectively has a ban on firearms; doesn’t stop ‘gun crime’ from happening there, does it?

    So just how far will you go?

    Cav,

    You have a problem equating ‘sane regulation’ with tyranny. Hmm…let’s see there have been calls to ban and confiscate ‘assault weapons’ — basically anything that looks military-ish and scary.

    Tyranny?

    There have been calls to confiscate even semi-automatic handguns, all handguns even.

    Tyranny?

    There have been people proposing the government be allowed to examine my medical records if I want to own a firearm.
    Require me to take a psychological exam, probably through doctors they appoint, in order to exercise a right.

    Tyranny?

    Several states are ‘may issue” (meaning the local LEO can approve or not a permit) to own or carry a firearm.
    What do you call it when the government can abridge a right ?

    I call it tyranny.

    Plenty of room for what? What law, what regulation will stop someone intent on muder?

    Oh MY GOODNESS, I wanted to kill someone but there is a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun. Guess I’ll go to the local homeless shelter and volunteer instead”

    Really think that is going to work if you substitute in background checks, one gun a month, training requirements or anything else?

  37. #45 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2012 - 5:44 pm

    Bob S.–

    You never addressed the facts. I wondered how the shooter in this latest in a long series of mass murders reportedly fired about 100 rounds in such a short time. Turns out he was using an assault rifle – is anyone surprised? These weapons were banned by federal law until 8 years ago, when the gun lobby prevented an extension. The very least Congress can do is reinstate this ban – it impinges on no one’s rights.

    FYI according to Wikipedia, the last similar incident in England was a spree killing in 1987. The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland took place in 1996. There is no comparison with the rising tide of mass shootings in the USA.

    If you are so concerned about “tyranny,” then why not say something about widespread domestic surveillance by the government? Why not criticize the 2012 NDAA? Why not advocate a reduction in the Pentagon’s budget?

  38. #46 by cav on December 15, 2012 - 5:58 pm

    BobS.

    They should limit every one to one hand gun and six bullets. If they want to practice- go to a gun club and use their bullets. If they want to hunt, they have to sign the gun out from a hunt club and return it when done.

    Somewhere in all of this: The real Tyrant is being masked. When the Ownership of the government is in the hands of the Oligarchs, yes, I would agree Tyranny is irresponsible and not subject to the particular constraints that ‘reconditioning’ your line-and-track civil servant would entail. The tyranny of the ‘too big to jail – all but above the law’ racketeers might be the place to start. If that means a redirection of a shit-pile of government contracts, I’m all for that.

    While you joke about the need for social services, I would suggest the decline of same – obviously, especially, mental health-care, may have a more pronounced roll in these killings than is suspected.

  39. #47 by Cliff on December 15, 2012 - 6:05 pm

    Bob S,

    What Cav said.

    Your premise that we can “legislate” good behavior is so utterly stupid its hard to resist calling you an IDIOT!

  40. #48 by Bob S. on December 15, 2012 - 8:21 pm

    Richard,

    Why do you constantly lie?

    The “Assault Weapon Ban” did not ban scary rifles that look like military weapons. It banned a few weapons by name, it banned a few cosmetic features from being sold.

    It didn’t ban semi-automatic rifles.

    Cliff,

    Your premise that we can “legislate” good behavior is so utterly stupid its hard to resist calling you an IDIOT!

    Look in the mirror Sir and call yourself what is appropriate. That is exactly what you are trying to do – legislate good behavior.

    You want to make it against the law to own assault weapon — so you can try to stop people willing to commit murder. Tell me how that makes sense?

    Cav,

    So you are okay with someone being able to kill 6 people but not 7?

    What is the moral or ethical difference between a revolver with 6 rounds and a semi-automatic with 15?

    And when people don’t stop killing with firearms, what will you do? Take away that one gun and their 6 rounds.

    Call it what you want….it is still tyranny.

  41. #49 by Larry Bergan on December 15, 2012 - 8:53 pm

    Everybody may be missing the point.

    Maybe Big-Pharma is the problem. It’s no secret that people going off their prescription drugs have been causing violence.

    Here’s a guy who knows something about this issue and even made an Academy Award winning movie raising questions about this problem.

    Here is an interesting article and Moore’s take on what might be happening:

    Might be time to start weaning people – SLOWLY – off their anti-depression pills, unless cash cows are more important.

  42. #50 by Larry Bergan on December 15, 2012 - 10:11 pm

    Local channel 2.2 is showing “Bowling for Columbine” at 3:00 a.m.

    This may be a first: a television station playing a movie made by Michael Moore.

    You can also watch it here, because Michael isn’t in it for every last penny he can squeeze out of his great movies.

  43. #51 by cav on December 15, 2012 - 10:52 pm

    You know Bob, that really hadn’t occurred to me. So I suppose I’m not okay with anyone killing anyone. But they will, so we should all arm ourselves to the teeth and wait for them (either the s.w.a.t. or the home invasion crimers) to bust down our doors. It’s the only sure way to be safe, you know.

    But isn’t it the case that none of these murders were stopped by another citizen who just happened to be legally packing?

    And regarding this latest tragedy. It occurred to me that the slain mother of this psychopath may have only had guns in her house to protect herself from her wacked-out son. Like she knew what a ‘case’ he was. Had she only invested in a quality alarm system instead – maybe those he killed might be hitting the hay in their own beds tonite instead of at the morgue or mortuary.

    These murders are pretty tyrannical in their way. Would you rather be shot up while enjoying the movie or have rational limits on constitutional rights? I mean it ain’t 1776, and too many gun nuts don’t have the first clue about smart use of the items, let alone community defense associations. Abuse and mayhem are too well connected with guns when safety and smart use have been co-opted by company profits.

  44. #52 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2012 - 11:21 pm

    I can’t believe Bob S. is unfamiliar with the federal assault weapons ban. It most certainly DID ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles. The Bushmaster used by the Connecticut shooter was one of them.

    It’s hard to have a serious discussion when the pro-gun side is consistently and thoroughly wrong on the facts.

  45. #53 by Larry Bergan on December 16, 2012 - 4:15 am

    Apparently somebody in high places at local channel 2.2 has been notified that “Bowling for Columbine” will NOT be shown in in middle of the night.

    UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!

    But thanks for trying. I’ll watch more!

  46. #54 by Bob S. on December 16, 2012 - 10:41 am

    Cav,

    Most people are against murder — that is why there is a law prescribing a penalty for it.

    That wasn’t what I asked about. You proposed “1 gun, 6 rounds of ammunition”. Since one of the main component of an ‘reasonable regulation’ is magazine capacity in order to save lives; you appear to accept that someone will be able to kill 6 people but not okay with someone able to kill 7.

    right?

    And there have been plenty of cases of mass/spree murders stopped by armed citizens – New Hope Church, Peal Mississippi High School, Appalachia Law School, the mall in Colorado.

    Now…let’s say for one minute that we accept your unreasonable, unconstitutional and unworkable limit of 1 gun/6 rounds.
    What do we get in exchange?

    This is a conversation right? A dialogue trying to find a compromise, right?

    Do we get unlicensed Open or Concealed Carry? Every state recognizing other state carry permits? Removal of prohibited places?

    Just what will your side give up?
    Or is it typical of what ant-rights cultists want — you stating the limits and we are just supposed to shut up and agree?

    Abuse and mayhem are too well connected with guns when safety and smart use have been co-opted by company profits.</blockquote?

    Apparently the companies are doing a lousy job; more and more guns in the world, in America – yet violent crime, including/especially firearm related crime has been trending down for decades.

    How do you explain that?

    Richard

    You should look up the facts before you spout off. Could people still own those ‘banned’ firearms, Yes they could.
    Could they still sell them, yes they could.

    The manufacture of NEW firearms listed by name was prohibited. Not one gun was required to be turned in.

    The manufacture of new regular capacity magazines was prohibited but people could own and sell the ones they already owned.

    Apparently you need to find a definition and learn what ban means.

  47. #55 by schlepp bergan on December 16, 2012 - 10:50 am

    Any changes shall be of a quid pro quo nature with the mind to preserving and restoring legal gun owners inalienable rights, anything less is a gun grab

  48. #56 by Larry Bergan on December 16, 2012 - 11:08 am

    I guess Americans don’t like movies anymore., even if they’re free :(

  49. #57 by Nathan Erkkila on December 16, 2012 - 1:32 pm

    Larry Bergan :

    I guess Americans don’t like movies anymore., even if they’re free :(

    With all these reboots and sequels, it’s hard to like new movies anymore.

  50. #58 by Bob S. on December 17, 2012 - 6:19 am

    A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

    Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

    In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

    Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

    The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

    Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

    Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

  51. #59 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 7:01 am

    John Fund is lamely cherry-picking stats in support of up-is-downism. An honest analysis clearly shows that mass shootings are on an upward trend, and 2012 is the worst year so far. As President Obama said last night, “We can’t tolerate this anymore.”

    BTW Wikipedia lists the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre (7 victims) as the only mass shooting of 1929.

    We Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning (or bitten to death by a dog) than to be a victim of terrorism. Yet we gave up a good chunk of the Bill of Rights in exchange for a promise by the Bush administration to save us from terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. Neocon John Fund did his part for Bush, merrily making stuff up in an attempt to justify Bush’s so-called “global war on terror.”

  52. #60 by Cliff Lyon on December 17, 2012 - 7:52 am

    Just a reminder CCP holders are increasing, not decreasing the chances of getting a piece of lead pumped up their asses.

  53. #61 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 8:49 am

    This morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough blamed Hollywood for gun violence. But that criticism cuts both ways, doesn’t it? People who buy guns for self-defense are living in a Hollywood fantasy just as much as the deranged shooters who commit massacres.

  54. #62 by cav on December 17, 2012 - 9:45 am

    BobS.

    Thanks for talking me down a bit. I realize there are so many gun owners that are responsible, conscious users. I guess the issues really revolve around the criminal and the psychopath. Yes, there are LAWS. And yes, the saner among us would entertain, if not entirely accommodate concessions which would alter their present belief system and hardware holdings if the argument were convincing enough. Well. how convincing does it need to be?

    I saw ‘Lincoln’ last nite. For as much tumult and mayhem as the Civil War presented the nation (many of the issues that still plague us) Abe made a good call in not further humiliating the Lee forces after their surrender. I think, in much the same way, it would serve no purpose to demand that ‘All guns be taken away’. So, I don’t see that happening or hear that specific being discussed all that much.

    What I do know is, fear is driving much of the survivalist and gun affection – and not without some reason. Sadly this leads, in an upward spiral, to the very situation we have, where ‘crazed’ people get their hands on way overpowered weaponry and, in their delusions begin killing and killing.

    So quelling the proliferation of ‘assault type’ weaponry, controlling assess to same, seems to me to be within the philosophical scope of the smart, caring users – the type of people I know you are attempting to represent.

    What I was unaware of and which scares me even, is that there appear to be so many of these Assault weapons around, that it doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for the stray nut-cake to get their hand on one and go about their grizzly business. So where are the locked cases, the locked racks, the insurance policies that would themselves curb irresponsible storage at the same time pooling money for the community when these ‘rare’ occurrences do occur? I don’t come into contact with this type of weaponry – ever, but the crazy seem to have no problem laying hands on them. Are we sure the fire-power inbued in them has nothing at all to do with the insanity? What’s up with that?

    So, I guess we can all promote better healthcare, better mental healthcare, a better Social Safety Net as it were, better ways of weaponizing the ‘sane’ among us – because otherwise the fears will send more into contact with WMD, and that statistical slice ‘over the edge’ – and all of us once again onto that slippery, sticky, dance-floor of death.

    Don’t wanna do that.

  55. #63 by Bob S. on December 17, 2012 - 11:28 am

    Cav,

    If you aren’t hearing the calls for complete bans and total confiscations, you aren’t listening very carefully. Heck, Piers Morgan from CNN is one of the voices doing so.

    There is some fear, but not as much as anti-rights cultists claim, driving the increases in ownership. Increases in the number of places to participate in IDPA, 3-gun matches, USPPA, and other shooting sports is driving a portion of it. Increases in female ownership and participation is another factor.

    Don’t confuse what is being publicized (Doomsday Preppers and main stream media reports) with reality.

    What I do know is, fear is driving much of the survivalist and gun affection – and not without some reason. Sadly this leads, in an upward spiral, to the very situation we have, where ‘crazed’ people get their hands on way overpowered weaponry and, in their delusions begin killing and killing.

    Maybe instead of looking it as too many weapons, maybe the focus should be on the ‘crazed’ people.
    In some case, like Arizona, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, it was readily apparent for years in advance that the murderer had problems that were not adequately controlled. Yet due to legislative action to ‘mainstream’ the mentally ill, it is harder then every to get people help and/or involuntarily committed when the problems are obvious.

    What I was unaware of and which scares me even, is that there appear to be so many of these Assault weapons around, that it doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for the stray nut-cake to get their hand on one and go about their grizzly business.

    So….there are so many around but as my earlier post from John Fund showed, the number of incidents really aren’t increasing. Doesn’t that show the current laws are working?

    http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/10/graphics-matter-year-the-fourth-part-two.html

    Many states require child access prevention laws – the Connecticut shooter was 20; how would changing that have helped?

    Many laws mandate ‘safe storage’ laws; but do you think a child willing to kill his mother would be deterred by a cable lock or gun cabinet? Even ‘gun vaults or safes’ are rated in terms of minutes — how long it will last against a person trying to break in.

    The CDC examined various gun control laws to see if any or all of them had an affect on violent outcomes — they found “insufficient evidence” (fancy weasel wording to say they found nothing) to show that any or all combinations of laws reduced violent outcomes. Look for this report “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws ”

    I don’t come into contact with this type of weaponry – ever, but the crazy seem to have no problem laying hands on them. Are we sure the fire-power inbued in them has nothing at all to do with the insanity? What’s up with that?

    Ever hear of the McMurrary Federal Building bombing? I refuse to name the murderer but he killed 18 children – with a bomb.

    Ever hear of Bath Township Michigan in 1927? That murderer used bombs to kill 38 children and 6 adults. Evil doesn’t need a firearm to kill.

  56. #64 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 11:37 am

    John Fund has no credibility on any subject. He is a professional liar. See my comment above for a graph that shows the trend in mass shootings.

    The assault weapons ban in effect from 1995 to 2003 did not ban the possession of assault weapons. So naturally, the gun lobby criticized its lack of effectiveness. Senator Feinstein’s new bill will ban possession, but not retroactively. I’m in favor of any law that decreases the social acceptance of Americans casually toting around loaded military assault rifles.

    It’s fair to point out that Connecticut currently has a partial assault weapons ban. Also that Connecticut has one of the lowest death rates from gun violence in the nation. No law is 100 percent effective, however it has been proven that better gun laws produce results. At this point, I don’t know why the Bushmaster assault rifle used by the Connecticut shooter was considered legal.

  57. #65 by Bob S. on December 17, 2012 - 1:46 pm

    Richard,

    Care to cite some evidence to support your claims about John Fund?

    Your earlier link had to manipulate their own criteria in order to achieve their results.


    The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—as opposed to a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), and typically in a single location.
    -
    We included six so-called “spree killings”—prominent cases that fit closely with our above criteria for mass murder, but in which the killings occurred in multiple locations over a short period of time.

    Either provide some evidence supporting your statements or tell us how you obtained your super power – the ability to discredit someone with just your statements.

    The assault weapons ban in effect from 1995 to 2003 did not ban the possession of assault weapons.

    Thanks for admitting you were lying earlier. It appears to be a grudging admission abut an admission of lying nonetheless.

    I’m in favor of any law that decreases the social acceptance of Americans casually toting around loaded military assault rifles.

    But for some reason you can not stop lying

    People are not ‘casually toting fully automatic weapons and you know it. Conflating semi-automatic versions with fully automatic weapons is a base lie.

    And just exactly what evidence do you have that ‘better gun laws produce results’? Mexico? Connecticut?

    How about the words of the Centers for Disease Control?

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

    For 2 years they studied the issue and couldn’t find sufficient evidence (bureaucratic weasel wording for lack of evidence ) to support your contention.

    At this point, I don’t know why the Bushmaster assault rifle used by the Connecticut shooter was considered legal.

    Thanks for admitting your ignorance. Perhaps you could find a gun club or range to visit; see the people there participating in shooting sports using it.

    Maybe you could review the laws around ‘firearms in common use’ — and try to convince people that the Bushmaster platform isn’t a rifle used by millions of people without breaking the law. That it isn’t used by thousands of police departments everywhere in the country.

  58. #66 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 2:18 pm

    Tagging John Fund as a liar was a piece of cake. Media Matters has caught him lying 943 times. That’s even more than Willard (“Mitt”) Romney.

    I never said the original assault weapons ban prohibited possession of assault rifles. In fact, I linked to the Wikipedia article on it.

    I never said people were casually toting around automatic weapons. Your words, not mine.

    You can cite CDC all you want. Other scientific studies have concluded that common-sense gun laws reduce firearms-related violence.

    “When you deny high-risk people access to guns, the evidence shows that saves lives,” said Daniel W. Webster, director of Hopkins’ Center for Gun Policy and Research and the report’s lead author. “And when you regulate all gun sales, fewer guns get diverted to criminals.

    I read the Connecticut assault weapons ban, however without knowing the details of the rifle used by the shooter, I was unable to determine why it was deemed legal by the authorities. Does that statement fulfill your need for exactitude?

    You imagine I am lying. But I’m trying to inform people of the facts. Sorry you can’t grasp that. Here is a comment I made on another thread yesterday:

    Things that we know, which ought to inform the public debate, and probably won’t (h/t Think Progress):

    1. More than two-thirds of U.S. households do not own firearms. We are the majority, yet we are expected to sacrifice our security to the whims of a minority. More and more Americans are making the sensible decision to get guns out of their house.

    2. A survey by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the idea that, even if you control for poverty levels, more people die from gun homicides in areas with higher rates of gun ownership.

    3. Scholars Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander recently studied state-to-state variation in gun homicide levels. They found that “[f]irearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.”

    4. According to a recent CNN poll (last August, before the latest mass shooting incident), 57 percent of Americans want the federal government to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This morning California Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired under President George W. Bush in 2004, told “Meet the Press” that she plans to reintroduce the law on the first day of the new Congress in 2013.

  59. #67 by Bob S. on December 17, 2012 - 3:03 pm

    Richard,

    Maybe I missed the part where Media Matter debunked Fund about the firearms — could you pick it out of the mass of bias and lies spread by that organization?

    Why do you continue to lie about what you say?

    I never said the original assault weapons ban prohibited possession of assault rifles

    Really? You don’t remember saying this in coment #45 above???

    Turns out he was using an assault rifle – is anyone surprised? These weapons were banned by federal law until 8 years ago, when the gun lobby prevented an extension.

    And “I never said people were casually toting around automatic weapons. and yet another lie !

    I’m in favor of any law that decreases the social acceptance of Americans casually toting around loaded military assault rifles.

    Comment #64 — just today ! Dude you are slipping if you can’t even keep from lying about what you said on the same day !!!

    And nice article about a study but could you actually find the study ?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    45% of households report having a firearm, not 33%

    And let me ask — what are you willing to give up in order to get your proposed laws?

    Anything?

    Universal Concealed Carry reciprocity? Reduction in prohibited places ?

    And since you conflate fully automatic weapons with the semi-automatic version– removal of the 1934 NFA restrictions?

    See the reality is you don’t want a conversation, you don’t want to compromise. You want people to be stripped of the rights you don’t agree with — and they aren’t supposed to complain.

  60. #68 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 3:46 pm

    I called out Fund’s dishonest cherry-picking on the mass shooting trend. But he’s wrong on every other issue, too. He’s not even a good liar, despite the fact he gets paid for it.

    The federal assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of assault rifles for civilian sale. I never claimed anything beyond that. Fortunately, the new ban next year will be more restrictive.

    Where did I ever say anybody could casually tote around automatic weapons?

    Why should I give up anything in exchange for reducing gun violence in America? Isn’t that something everybody is in favor of?

    No one has the right to own an assault rifle. It’s not designed for hunting, or for target practice. It’s for killing people, period. Even our right-wing partisan Supreme Court hasn’t asserted such a right.

    Therefore, your claim that people will be stripped of their rights is meaningless.

  61. #69 by Bob S. on December 18, 2012 - 8:30 am

    Richard,

    You’ve been dishonest and cherry picked your stats; by your own standard then you have no credibility.

    You still haven’t provided any evidence that he is wrong on this issue. Guess when you can’t refute the evidence you attack the messenger.

    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

    Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

    Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-17985070#.UNCISlKVP6Q

    Nor does anyone on this site seem to want to mention the worst school massacre – Bath Michigan. 38 children killed by bombs.

    I never claimed anything beyond that. Fortunately, the new ban next year will be more restrictive.

    You may not have outright claimed it but you sure tried to imply it. You repeated several times that it ‘banned’ (without explanation) those rifles.

    Where did I ever say anybody could casually tote around automatic weapons?

    Look to your own statement “I’m in favor of any law that decreases the social acceptance of Americans casually toting around loaded military assault rifles. — Sure looks like you are saying people are casually toting around assault rifles, doesn’t?

    Why should I give up anything in exchange for reducing gun violence in America? Isn’t that something everybody is in favor of?

    Nice straw man argument !!! Well Done Sir.

    I didn’t say anything about ‘exchange for reducing gun violence’ – I asked about the laws you propose.
    Law that despite your repeated insistence have not shown to reduce violence.

    So basically you are admitting that you don’t want a conversation as requested Let’s fucking talk about gun control. — that you want to dictate how and when people lose their rights!

    And how is that not tyranny?

    No one has the right to own an assault rifle. It’s not designed for hunting, or for target practice. It’s for killing people, period. Even our right-wing partisan Supreme Court hasn’t asserted such a right.

    Better read the Miller decision again Sparky.

  62. #70 by Bob S. on December 18, 2012 - 8:33 am

    Richard,

    You’ve been dishonest and cherry picked your stats; by your own standard then you have no credibility.

    You still haven’t provided any evidence that he is wrong on this issue. Guess when you can’t refute the evidence you attack the messenger.

    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

    Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

    Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-17985070#.UNCISlKVP6Q

    Nor does anyone on this site seem to want to mention the worst school massacre – Bath Michigan. 38 children killed by bombs.

    I never claimed anything beyond that. Fortunately, the new ban next year will be more restrictive.

    You may not have outright claimed it but you sure tried to imply it. You repeated several times that it ‘banned’ (without explanation) those rifles.

    Where did I ever say anybody could casually tote around automatic weapons?

    Look to your own statement “I’m in favor of any law that decreases the social acceptance of Americans casually toting around loaded military assault rifles. — Sure looks like you are saying people are casually toting around assault rifles, doesn’t?

    Why should I give up anything in exchange for reducing gun violence in America? Isn’t that something everybody is in favor of?

    Nice straw man argument !!! Well Done Sir.

    I didn’t say anything about ‘exchange for reducing gun violence’ – I asked about the laws you propose.
    Law that despite your repeated insistence have not shown to reduce violence.

    So basically you are admitting that you don’t want a conversation as requested Let’s fucking talk about gun control. — that you want to dictate how and when people lose their rights!

    And how is that not tyranny?

    No one has the right to own an assault rifle. It’s not designed for hunting, or for target practice. It’s for killing people, period. Even our right-wing partisan Supreme Court hasn’t asserted such a right.

    Better read the Miller decision again Sparky.

    And when they talk about banning semi-automatic pistols, shotguns that use detachable magazines, rifles with pistol grips — how is that not stripping people of their rights.

  63. #71 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 8:54 am

    If mass shootings decreased during the period when the assault weapon ban was in effect (1995-2003), that just might be evidence the ban worked.

    How can 1929 be the peak for mass shootings, when Wikipedia records that the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre (7 victims) was the only such incident that year?

    Again, as I said before, the chance of an American being killed by terrorists is less than being struck by lightning (and more of us die from dog bites than terrorism). Yet our government takes drastic measures to combat the threat of terrorism, and even routinely ignores the Bill of Rights.

    If you go back to my comment, I linked to an example of a guy casually toting an assault rifle… to a public appearance of President Obama.

    There is no right to own an assault rifle. There is no right to have large-capacity magazines. There is no right to buy a gun without a background check. That’s just factual information.

    Frankly, if the government tramples on our rights to wage the so-called “war on terrorism” – with the enthusiastic support of right-wingers – then why is the Second Amendment so sacred? The NRA’s maximalist interpretation of so-called “gun rights” is offensive to most Americans. The Second Amendment was intended to make us more secure (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”), not less secure.

  64. #72 by Bob S. on December 18, 2012 - 9:52 am

    Richard,

    If you go back to my comment, I linked to an example of a guy casually toting an assault rifle… to a public appearance of President Obama.

    So linking to a person ‘casually toting’ isn’t claiming people are ‘casually toting’ – gotcha. Nice world you live in.

    And it is not an assault rifle. Why can’t you understand that?
    Oh, wait. I bet you do.
    You repeatedly conflate civilian models with military models — and after your years of experience I find it hard to believe you do it by accident.

    If mass shootings decreased it might be evidence or it might not have anything to do with the assault weapon ban. Didn’t we put more cops on the street during the same time? Wasn’t there a greater emphasis on community policing?

    Correlation does not imply causation – show evidence that it did.

    How can 1929 be the peak for mass shootings, when Wikipedia records that the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre (7 victims) was the only such incident that year?

    You really need to go back to school and study statistics – seriously.

    Again, as I said before, the chance of an American being killed by terrorists is less than being struck by lightning (and more of us die from dog bites than terrorism). Yet our government takes drastic measures to combat the threat of terrorism, and even routinely ignores the Bill of Rights.

    And you decry the actions taken to combat terrorism but support those same actions against crime – inconsistent, aren’t you?

    Frankly, if the government tramples on our rights to wage the so-called “war on terrorism” – with the enthusiastic support of right-wingers – then why is the Second Amendment so sacred? The NRA’s maximalist interpretation of so-called “gun rights” is offensive to most Americans.

    I don’t care if my interpretation or the NRA’s is ‘offensive to most Americans.” It has been upheld repeatedly by the Courts that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Even fully automatic firearms — the Miller case was about TAX EVASION — he didn’t pay the tax stamp a short barreled shotgun. The 1934 National Firearms Act didn’t outlaw fully automatic weapons – just provided a tax on them…sort of like not having health care.

    The Second Amendment was intended to make us more secure (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”), not less secure.

    Well, I for one, feel feel more secure so I guess it is working. And since we’ve had very few invasions since the Bill of Rights was passed — remember it was a package deal, all those other rights you support — it seems that it is working.

    And since violent crime has been trending down for decades as ownership of firearms increases, I guess it is working there also.

    There is no right to own an assault rifle. There is no right to have large-capacity magazines. There is no right to buy a gun without a background check. That’s just factual information.

    I’ve finally figured out your super power — Mastery of Logical Fallacies !!

    Guess we can all you Captain Vigorous Assertion !!

    You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again — ever going to provide evidence to back up your statement?

    Here is a novel concept for you to consider Richard – the Constitution isn’t a limit on what the people can do.

    I know…It is stunning to consider but it really isn’t a limit on what the people can do.

    It is a limit on what the Federal government (and in most cases) what the State governments can do.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    There is no right to own an assault rifle. There is no right to have large-capacity magazines. There is no right to buy a gun without a background check. That’s just factual information.
    And that shows you are lying again — It’s the 9th Amendment!

  65. #73 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 10:30 am

    I use the legal definition of an assault rifle.

    For the rest, you have devolved into incoherence. Guess we’re done, on this thread at least.

  66. #74 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 6:28 pm

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Corporations are people…it’s becoming clearer all of the time.

    Inane troll-snark tags > off.

  67. #75 by Mike Murphy on December 19, 2012 - 1:35 am

    cav :
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
    Corporations are people…it’s becoming clearer all of the time.
    Inane troll-snark tags > off.

    That’s called the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

    Corporation AREN’T people? You don’t have a pension, 401k, IRA, mutual fund or hold any stocks? If so, you are a joint owner of a corporation, making you part of a corporation which consists of people: owners and employees. Get it? Why are these concepts so difficult for some to understand? Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

    Ignoramus + troll = cav* IQ<60

  68. #76 by cav on December 20, 2012 - 12:08 am

    It doesn’t matter how the corporations aka ‘citizens’ come by their money either. Just so long as you’re on the receiving end of some of it. Yea, we’re all the same that way – or ought to be. Right? I mean, there’s really no other way! Right? Why they probably even supplied you with night vision goggles for when you’re in HUA mode yourself. So you can read! Right? Well praise jesus and beef up the arsenals. There’s money to be made and culpable shareholders are not a lot different than the Board of Directors – except they’re stupider. Funny how that works.

    It takes a while for the really intelligent to get wired to my ignorance, but as dumb as I get, and I get dumber with each encounter of this type, this corporate horse-shit is still inescapable.

  69. #77 by rmwarnick on December 20, 2012 - 11:55 am

    Somebody once said, “I won’t believe corporations are people until they execute one in Texas.”

  70. #78 by Larry Bergan on December 20, 2012 - 5:27 pm

    Corporations just don’t seem to have been raised right by their parents.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: