NationStates Jolt Archive

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

I'm leaving the country as soon as possible, so it's not much of an issue to me.

Auto tracking rapid fire pie cannons should be deployed on all major college campuses. *nod*

If america went on a war on shooting sprees, in my opinion it would be the funniest war on an abstract concept ever.


So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?A lot of these mass killings are caused by people who where bullied in school and feel a sense of injustice. Every school I went to always claimed they care about bullying and do not tolerate it. However most teachers tolerated bullying in the classroom unless the insults where directed at the teacher. I was kicked, tripped, and made fun of during class and the teachers didn't do anything about it. I'm not mad at those kids but I'm still angry at the authorities for not doing their job. Schools should set up a system that makes a real effort to prevent this from happening.

When someone is beaten up, many schools punish both the bully and the victim. The thinking here is that it takes two to start a fight, or that it's too difficult to find out who started it. In some cases it would be difficult, but in some cases it would be easy to get information from witnesses. If one person is uninjured but the other person is bleeding I think it's safe to assume that only one of them should be punished.

A lot of bullying happens on the bus, because most schools don't hire anybody to supervise students on the bus. When a kid gets beaten up on the bus, the kid is usually sent to the sped bus or even homeschool. The bullys aren't sent anywhere (unless they commit a serious crime). This is punishing the victim. In kindergarten I had a bus driver who swore at everyone and drove like an idiot. She was like a worse version of the bus driver from south park. For most of my life I just forced my parents to drive me to school. Someone should regulate these busses. I was raised in an upper middle class town that is supposed to have good schools. If my schools where good I hate to think of what the others are like.

What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing?
Machine gun turrets that shoot to kill anyone with "I am kind of mad and in possession of a gun" pheremones.

I say we invade Columbine!

I think that one of the keys in lies in your phraseology. Everything we do is a 'war' on something. We continue to approach everything with aggression so it seems no wonder that that aggression would continue to manifest itself in these ways.

It's not our guns, but it's our attitudes about guns that is the problem. Way back when on this board even some state passed a 'concealed carry' law and posters tauted it as a reason why people in that state would be more polite. Seriously, polite. To suggest that rudeness might get you shot. While this might not be the predominant feeling of the 'average' gun user, it isn't as uncommon and one would hope.

The gun is the panacea to too many social problems for so many people. Far too many people think that the solution is for everyone to be strapped. This is a ridiculously dangerous world, an armed populace just looking for a reason to need that gun. At that point I'm not worried about someone shooting me on purpose but being caught in some dumbass cowboy's cross fire.

There are countries that have more guns than we do and don't have these problems, the gun isn't the only element required. It's the attitude that we need it, that it is any kind of solution. As long as we live under that illusion, people will continue to use it as one.

Auto tracking rapid fire pie cannons should be deployed on all major college campuses. *nod*

Cupcake Tommy Guns? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3813106384071651342&q=bugsy+malone&total=416&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?Well, for starters, implement national healthcare. National healthcare means more than just care for cancer and things like that, it also means psychological help. These people all had psychological issues that might have been treated if they'd had increased access to counseling.

We should hand over control of the schools to the private sector. They usually do a better job of preventing bullying.

Cupcake Tommy Guns? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3813106384071651342&q=bugsy+malone&total=416&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Now those should be required equipment.

Well, for starters, implement national healthcare. National healthcare means more than just care for cancer and things like that, it also means psychological help. These people all had psychological issues that might have been treated if they'd had increased access to counseling.

There's truth to that. Emptying our psychiatric wards did more than just increase our homeless problem...

I propose we get rid of schools altogether. No schools = no school shootings = no problem!

*runs*

If america went on a war on shooting sprees, in my opinion it would be the funniest war on an abstract concept ever.

A lot of these mass killings are caused by people who where bullied in school and feel a sense of injustice. Every school I went to always claimed they care about bullying and do not tolerate it. However most teachers tolerated bullying in the classroom unless the insults where directed at the teacher. I was kicked, tripped, and made fun of during class and the teachers didn't do anything about it. I'm not mad at those kids but I'm still angry at the authorities for not doing their job. Schools should set up a system that makes a real effort to prevent this from happening.

When someone is beaten up, many schools punish both the bully and the victim. The thinking here is that it takes two to start a fight, or that it's too difficult to find out who started it. In some cases it would be difficult, but in some cases it would be easy to get information from witnesses. If one person is uninjured but the other person is bleeding I think it's safe to assume that only one of them should be punished.

A lot of bullying happens on the bus, because most schools don't hire anybody to supervise students on the bus. When a kid gets beaten up on the bus, the kid is usually sent to the sped bus or even homeschool. The bullys aren't sent anywhere (unless they commit a serious crime). This is punishing the victim. In kindergarten I had a bus driver who swore at everyone and drove like an idiot. She was like a worse version of the bus driver from south park. For most of my life I just forced my parents to drive me to school. Someone should regulate these busses. I was raised in an upper middle class town that is supposed to have good schools. If my schools where good I hate to think of what the others are like.

Even now in "no tolerance" areas I hear from kids in the neighborhood that when they reported bullying on themselves they are singled out (which makes things worse "look! it's the snitch! let's punch/kick him!") or told to "grow a thicker skin" or "learn to compromise". A few of the kids have reported bullying on other kids, and were told by administration to "quit gossiping" or "stop being tattlers"

it's stupid.

1. Everyone should learn how to use a gun and the proper use of a gun. When I got my .22 semi automatic rifle (my first gun), my parents made me take a gun safety course at the local range. I learn how to care for my rifle and I learn how to use the gun. One of the things they stressed was that a gun is a tool and you should only use it in Self Defense. Self Defense as they define it was when your life was in immediate threat.

2. We should get rid of the stupid "Gun Free" Zone. How many shootings have taken place in "Gun Free" Zones now? Face it, "Gun Free" Zone does nothing but create a place where the shooter has free range on the victims who can't defend themselves. If we get rid of "Gun Free" Zones, then responsible gun owners like myself (who has a CCW, and a handgun) would be able to carry our gun into these places and if someone starts shooting, we can take the hostile gunman down.

3. Have all States keep their database of mentally ill people updated. I understand that there's a National database, every State should have access to the Database so that responsible gun shop owners can do a proper background check to make sure that the person buying the gun is sane.

4. Teach everyone that a gun is just a tool, to try to "control" it or "Ban" it won't do any good, just look at Washington D.C. and Detroit, two cities that have the highest crime rate and the tightest gun control laws.

5. Nationalize CCWs laws so that those of us who has CCWs can actually carry our weapon anywhere in the 50 States.

That's all I can think of.

1. Everyone should learn how to use a gun and the proper use of a gun. When I got my .22 semi automatic rifle (my first gun), my parents made me take a gun safety course at the local range. I learn how to care for my rifle and I learn how to use the gun. One of the things they stressed was that a gun is a tool and you should only use it in Self Defense. Self Defense as they define it was when your life was in immediate threat.


So let me get this straight, you think the problem is that no one told them that they weren't supposed to fire their guns at people they didn't like?

So let me get this straight, you think the problem is that no one told them that they weren't supposed to fire their guns at people they didn't like?

No, there are obviously other problems, but this was put in to counter the "OMG GUNZ ARE EBIL, BAN THEM!!!!111!!!!" crowd, really.

We should hand over control of the schools to the private sector. They usually do a better job of preventing bullying.
That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

2. We should get rid of the stupid "Gun Free" Zone. How many shootings have taken place in "Gun Free" Zones now? Face it, "Gun Free" Zone does nothing but create a place where the shooter has free range on the victims who can't defend themselves. If we get rid of "Gun Free" Zones, then responsible gun owners like myself (who has a CCW, and a handgun) would be able to carry our gun into these places and if someone starts shooting, we can take the hostile gunman down.
If memory serves, the most recent incident happened in less than two minutes. CCW holders always claim that the reason they need them is that the police can't respond fast enough to help, but somehow they (The CCW holders) would magically be there to "take the hostile gunman down" if all the gun free zones were repealed. Do they hand out the powers of Superman with CCWs now?

If memory serves, the most recent incident happened in less than two minutes. CCW holders always claim that the reason they need them is that the police can't respond fast enough to help, but somehow they (The CCW holders) would magically be there to "take the hostile gunman down" if all the gun free zones were repealed. Do they hand out the powers of Superman with CCWs now?

Anyone who is properly trained to take down a gunman can do it in 30 seconds. The key word is properly trained. That's why I go to the gun range every other weekend with my handgun. So I can keep up my proficieny and be in a constant state of readiness.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

In learning how to counter shooting sprees, one must take a look into the psychology of a shooter and counter it from there. All shooters share something in common- they are looking for fame, glory, an outlet for some extreme emotion they feel, and possess a phenomenal lack of regard for human life. Perhaps the best thing to do is propaganda-- emphasis the sub-human, cowardly nature of the killers (in the most extreme way possible), and you'll weed out all but the most sociopathic.

If memory serves, the most recent incident happened in less than two minutes. CCW holders always claim that the reason they need them is that the police can't respond fast enough to help, but somehow they (The CCW holders) would magically be there to "take the hostile gunman down" if all the gun free zones were repealed. Do they hand out the powers of Superman with CCWs now?

It comes down to if a CCW holder is present, then his reaction time greatly outweighs a police officer's. It's not that a CCW holder will run from another county and beat the police, it's the ones present that he's talking about.

Removing gun-free zones can cast doubt into a would-be shooter's mind. If a potential "target" all of a sudden carried the risk of the shooter being killed almost instantly, he may not actually go through with his idea. Even if he's too deranged for this sort of logical thought, a non gun-free zone increases the likelihood that someone else there has some sort of self-defense capability, and can instantly level the odds. Face it, the police officers, in best case scenarios, still have reaction times that are too high. Nothing will beat an armed defender on the scene for reaction time.

Anyone who is properly trained to take down a gunman can do it in 30 seconds. The key word is properly trained. That's why I go to the gun range every other weekend with my handgun. So I can keep up my proficieny and be in a constant state of readiness.
The idea of a bunch of wannabe cowboys walking around with guns in a 'constant state of readiness' frankly terrifies me more than the odd random gunman...

The idea of a bunch of wannabe cowboys walking around with guns in a 'constant state of readiness' frankly terrifies me more than the odd random gunman...

*sigh* and this is why there are "Gun Free" Zone, this right here, because of quite frankly ignorant thinking like yours. You think that we are a bunch of wannabe cowboys, but in reality nothing can be further from the truth. I know how to handle guns, I know when I'm suppose to use it, and I know the laws, rules and regulation concerning guns and CCWs. I'm not going around with a cowboy hat and shooting everything in sight.

Tell me, have you even handled a gun, and I'm not talking about when your daddy showed you how to fire a rifle, I mean have you actually went down to a firing range and shoot a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle by yourself?

Tell me, have you even handled a gun, and I'm not talking about when your daddy showed you how to fire a rifle, I mean have you actually went down to a firing range and shoot a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle by yourself?
Dude, no one is questioning your ability to use a gun, so quit going on about it.

The real question is: are you ready to spend the rest of your days in jail if you get one wrong and shoot an innocent person?

Dude, no one is questioning your ability to use a gun, so quit going on about it.

The real question is: are you ready to spend the rest of your days in jail if you get one wrong and shoot an innocent person?

No, because I doubt I would be a stupid enough to "get one wrong". Am I prepare to take a life because I consider that person to be a threat to me and to the people surrounding me, then yes. I have thought long and hard about this, and if the situation arise where I would have to take a life to save my own, then I would.

No, because I doubt I would be a stupid enough to "get one wrong".
Don't evade the question. Should you go to jail?

I'm pretty sure this is covered by Good Samuratian laws.

Thank you. :) I've forgotten about the Good Samaritan laws.

Don't evade the question. Should you go to jail?

For Unitentional manslaughter sure, why not. But I think I would be protected by the Good Samaritan laws.

Don't evade the question. Should you go to jail?

I'm pretty sure this is covered by Good Samuratian laws.

'When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.'

I already addressed this John Wayne bullshit in my first post.

*burns strawman with blowtorch*

Try again

This has fuck-all to do with anything.

Because I find that people with ignorant thinking like yours when it comes to gun, gun ownerships and the proper use of a gun, they have never handled one themselves, and they base their preception of guns on Criminals use of guns, and Old Westerns.

In learning how to counter shooting sprees, one must take a look into the psychology of a shooter and counter it from there. All shooters share something in common- they are looking for fame, glory, an outlet for some extreme emotion they feel, and possess a phenomenal lack of regard for human life. Perhaps the best thing to do is propaganda-- emphasis the sub-human, cowardly nature of the killers (in the most extreme way possible), and you'll weed out all but the most sociopathic.

^this. Stop plastering the faces of shooters everywhere, and stop giving them press coverage, and shootings will probably go down. We tend to make a shooter infamous, and for many of these people, killing a few dozen people is the way they try to get the attention they've been denied for most of their life.

As to banning guns, consider the following situations:

1: Guns are legal, no gun free zones, CCW's, ect:
Mr.X heads down to the local gun shop and buys a shotgun and a few pistols, plus extra mags and lots of ammo. He saws the shotgun off, throws the weapons into his car and drives to the mall, where he walks in and begins shooting wildly. Assuming the mall had 2,000 people in it, and .5% of the population have CCW's, that leaves 10 people in the mall with guns, plus security. The shooter probably hits five or sox people before being taken down.

2: Long arms are legal, pistols are not, no CCW.
Mr.X buys a shotgun and some ammo, grabs a knife and drives to the mall. He proceeds to open fire, and un armed and helpless people run for cover as cops rush to the scene. They arrive at the building ten to twenty minutes later, as Mr.X kills those trapped inside. It takes the cops 5-10 minuets to find/reach Mr.X, and they quickly kill him. Probably at least 20 dead/wounded

3: No legal guns, cops do not carry guns, with the exception of SWAT like units.
Mr. X heads to the black market and picks up a pistol, spare mags & Ammo. He goes to the mall and begins shooting. People run for cover, as cops rush to the scene. Discovering an armed man inside the mall, they call for SWAT, who takes half an hour to show up, while Mr.X runs around inside, killing at will. SWAT enters the building and kills Mr.X. The death toll in this case could easily excede 50, especially if Mr.X brought some Molotov Cocktails.

*sigh* and this is why there are "Gun Free" Zone, this right here, because of quite frankly ignorant thinking like yours. You think that we are a bunch of wannabe cowboys, but in reality nothing can be further from the truth. I know how to handle guns, I know when I'm suppose to use it, and I know the laws, rules and regulation concerning guns and CCWs. I'm not going around with a cowboy hat and shooting everything in sight.
'When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.'

I already addressed this John Wayne bullshit in my first post.

Tell me, have you even handled a gun, and I'm not talking about when your daddy showed you how to fire a rifle, I mean have you actually went down to a firing range and shoot a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle by yourself?
This has fuck-all to do with anything.

For Unitentional manslaughter sure, why not. But I think I would be protected by the Good Samaritan laws.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that would work. For unintentional manslaughter, you'd actually have to kill the person accidentally, which is clearly not the case. You may get a few years off because of the nature of your motive, but the killing clearly isn't unintentional.

Secondly, Good Samaritan laws apply if you try and help a person and hurt them in the process. In this case you're hurting a third party - what is to stop any murderer from claiming Good Samaritan?

Anyways, fact of the matter is that no level of expertise with the use of a gun actually qualifies you to know when to use it. That it would is a myth propagated by people who want to make it look like their gun ownership makes them superior people and protectors of society. In reality you'd just be Wilgrove with a gun, and that doesn't change the fact that to err is human.

EDIT: Found something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

Not to mention when 'Doc Holiday' here and the gun man get in their little shoot out I could still end up in the crossfire.

Yea, if you were stupid enough to not run away from the gun fire.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that would work. For unintentional manslaughter, you'd actually have to kill the person accidentally, which is clearly not the case. You may get a few years off because of the nature of your motive, but the killing clearly isn't unintentional.

Secondly, Good Samaritan laws apply if you try and help a person and hurt them in the process. In this case you're hurting a third party - what is to stop any murderer from claiming Good Samaritan?

Anyways, fact of the matter is that no level of expertise with the use of a gun actually qualifies you to know when to use it. That it would is a myth propagated by people who want to make it look like their gun ownership makes them superior people and protectors of society. In reality you'd just be Wilgrove with a gun, and that doesn't change the fact that to err is human.

EDIT: Found something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense
Not to mention when 'Doc Holiday' here and the gun man get in their little shoot out I could still end up in the crossfire.

Yeah...actually read the argument and get back to me, 'kay?

It was a Strawman, you basically set up an argument that all responsible gun owners and carriers of CCWs were "John Waynes" who sees everything as a nail. Should I link you to what a Strawman is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Try to come up with better arguments than the ol' All CCWs are John Wayne and have no real value in protection.

And yet still has fuck-all to do with anything. But hey, now we all know you know how to fire a gun. If we all acknowledge that can we move the fuck on?

You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever handled a gun?

I'm from California, not Krypton. Haven't really mastered that 'faster than a speeding bullet' thing.

and yet, many people who were involved in shootings like Columbine, VT, and the latest one managed to run away from the gun fire and not get shot....

Strange.....

*burns strawman with blowtorch*

Try again
Yeah...actually read the argument and get back to me, 'kay?



Because I find that people with ignorant thinking like yours when it comes to gun, gun ownerships and the proper use of a gun, they have never handled one themselves, and they base their preception of guns on Criminals use of guns, and Old Westerns.
And yet still has fuck-all to do with anything. But hey, now we all know you know how to fire a gun. If we all acknowledge that can we move the fuck on?

Yea, if you were stupid enough to not run away from the gun fire.

I'm from California, not Krypton. Haven't really mastered that 'faster than a speeding bullet' thing.

1. Everyone should learn how to use a gun and the proper use of a gun. When I got my .22 semi automatic rifle (my first gun), my parents made me take a gun safety course at the local range. I learn how to care for my rifle and I learn how to use the gun. One of the things they stressed was that a gun is a tool and you should only use it in Self Defense. Self Defense as they define it was when your life was in immediate threat.

2. We should get rid of the stupid "Gun Free" Zone. How many shootings have taken place in "Gun Free" Zones now? Face it, "Gun Free" Zone does nothing but create a place where the shooter has free range on the victims who can't defend themselves. If we get rid of "Gun Free" Zones, then responsible gun owners like myself (who has a CCW, and a handgun) would be able to carry our gun into these places and if someone starts shooting, we can take the hostile gunman down.

3. Have all States keep their database of mentally ill people updated. I understand that there's a National database, every State should have access to the Database so that responsible gun shop owners can do a proper background check to make sure that the person buying the gun is sane.

4. Teach everyone that a gun is just a tool, to try to "control" it or "Ban" it won't do any good, just look at Washington D.C. and Detroit, two cities that have the highest crime rate and the tightest gun control laws.

5. Nationalize CCWs laws so that those of us who has CCWs can actually carry our weapon anywhere in the 50 States.

That's all I can think of.

Couldn't agree more. Only those predisposed to obey laws will voluntarily disarm. Those who are disarmed are capable of nothing beyond victimhood. An armed, responsible citizen has the means to prevent tragedy, even though he is at the disadvantage of having to react to aggression initiated by others. I own a firearm, and, though greatly angered about recent events in my life, I have not and will not act violently to try to get revenge or gain attention.

I'm from California, not Krypton. Haven't really mastered that 'faster than a speeding bullet' thing.

Well what happens if are walking a mall and you hear gunshots? Do you sit there or run the other way?

And 20 some odd didn't..

Its harder to hit something when its moving....

Well what happens if are walking a mall and you hear gunshots? Do you sit there or run the other way?

and yet, many people who were involved in shootings like Columbine, VT, and the latest one managed to run away from the gun fire and not get shot....

Strange.....
And 20 some odd didn't...

It was a Strawman, you basically set up an argument that all responsible gun owners and carriers of CCWs were "John Waynes" who sees everything as a nail. Should I link you to what a Strawman is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Try to come up with better arguments than the ol' All CCWs are John Wayne and have no real value in protection.

It's on the front page, don't make me link it.


You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever handled a gun?
As your question has no relevance, I have ignored it. But to end this pointless parade, yes, I have in fact fired a gun. First with a former MP as a kid and later as an adult with another person who had grown up with guns, both of which were sticklers for proper handling. I had a good time, and it still has fuck all to do with anything.

And 20 some odd didn't...

and what's your plan to save the 20 some odd? My solution is to allow the population to arm themselves so they don't have to be victims and can actually defend themselves.

It's on the front page, don't make me link it.

Still a strawman. There's no proof that those with CCWs are "John Waynes".


As your question has no relevance, I have ignored it. But to end this pointless parade, yes, I have in fact fired a gun. First with a former MP as a kid and later as an adult with another person who had grown up with guns, both of which were sticklers for proper handling. I had a good time, and it still has fuck all to do with anything.

Ok, so you have fired a gun, now, where the Hell did you get the idea that CCWs are "John Waynes"?

Are you really married to this stupid ass line of reasoning? By this logic the solution to shooting sprees is that people should run for it. Why are we even arguing CCW et al if running will save us all?

To say that running won't save your life is stupid. But if you want to sit in one place and get shot at be guest. I'll take my chances running.

Its harder to hit something when its moving....

Are you really married to this stupid ass line of reasoning? By this logic the solution to shooting sprees is that people should run for it. Why are we even arguing CCW et al if running will save us all?

1. Everyone should learn how to use a gun and the proper use of a gun. When I got my .22 semi automatic rifle (my first gun), my parents made me take a gun safety course at the local range. I learn how to care for my rifle and I learn how to use the gun. One of the things they stressed was that a gun is a tool and you should only use it in Self Defense. Self Defense as they define it was when your life was in immediate threat.

Ah, yes, because knowing how to pull a trigger is clearly a great source of wisdom. I hate to break it to you, but the average toddler is capable of figuring out how to use a gun; that hardly makes them capable of figuring out how to use a gun wisely.

3. Have all States keep their database of mentally ill people updated. I understand that there's a National database, every State should have access to the Database so that responsible gun shop owners can do a proper background check to make sure that the person buying the gun is sane.

You know, there's something very funny (and sad) about the fact that the most zealous supporters of the all-important Second Amendment are completely willing to toss others' civil rights aside. My medical records are for me and my doctor to see, and I could not more strongly oppose the idea of a national database of anyone who has ever been treated for mental illness. There are so very, very many reasons why that is a terrible idea, not the least of which is the fact that such a gross invasion of privacy would create even more stigma on mental illness than that which already exists, preventing even more people from seeking treatment.

For Unitentional manslaughter sure, why not.

Unintentional manslaughter? What the hell is unintentional manslaughter? Is that like PIN number or ATM machine?

But I think I would be protected by the Good Samaritan laws.

Wait, what? What do you think good samaritan laws are exactly?

Ah, yes, because knowing how to pull a trigger is clearly a great source of wisdom. I hate to break it to you, but the average toddler is capable of figuring out how to use a gun; that hardly makes them capable of figuring out how to use a gun wisely.

Are people ignoring the "responsible" or "Proper use" or something?



You know, there's something very funny (and sad) about the fact that the most zealous supporters of the all-important Second Amendment are completely willing to toss others' civil rights aside. My medical records are for me and my doctor to see, and I could not more strongly oppose the idea of a national database of anyone who has ever been treated for mental illness. There are so very, very many reasons why that is a terrible idea, not the least of which is the fact that such a gross invasion of privacy would create even more stigma on mental illness than that which already exists, preventing even more people from seeking treatment.

The last two shootings were done by mentally unstable people who were able to buy guns legally, you can't argue that there's something wrong when mentally unstable people are able to buy guns and go shoot up a place.

The last two shootings were done by mentally unstable people who were able to buy guns legally, you can't argue that there's something wrong when mentally unstable people are able to buy guns and go shoot up a place.

That's a bit of an oxymoronical statement. Are there ever mass shootings done by mentally stable people?

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok) may explain a few things.

That's a bit of an oxymoronical statement. Are there ever mass shootings done by mentally stable people?

Those who did Columbine seem to be pretty stable. Hell they planned it in weeks in advance. The VT shooter and the latest one clearly had signs of being mentally unstable, the last one going off of his meds.

Those who did Columbine seem to be pretty stable. Hell they planned it in weeks in advance.

You consider the kids at columbine to have been mentally stable? You equate the ability to plan your events as stable?

You consider the kids at columbine to have been mentally stable? You equate the ability to plan your events as stable?

They clearly understood what they were doing and understood the consequences of their action. Now, one could argue that they were Anti-Social, which they probably were since from their videos and writings it seem like they didn't value human lives.

They clearly understood what they were doing and understood the consequences of their action.

Which means that they were rational. It doesn't in any way mean that they were stable. I'm pretty sure the guy who opened fire a few days ago didn't think he was shooting a magical lollipop gun at little pixie elves. I'm pretty damned sure he knew exactly what he was doing too.

The ability to understand what you are doing, and the consequences of your actions, is what defeats a claim for diminished mental capacity in a legal sense, but it in no way means you're emotionally and mentally healthy in a psychiatric sense. I didn't ask you if you thought they met the legal definition for an insanity plea, I asked you if they thought they were emotionally and mentally stable.

Charles Manson knew exactly what he was doing too.

Now, one could argue that they were Anti-Social, which they probably were since from their videos and writings it seem like they didn't value human lives.

And you realize that "anti-social personality disorder" is a recognized mental illness defined largely through ones inability to value human life or display any empathy, right?

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for your definition of unintentional manslaughter, and an explanation as to what you think good samaritan laws are.

No, because I doubt I would be a stupid enough to "get one wrong". Am I prepare to take a life because I consider that person to be a threat to me and to the people surrounding me, then yes. I have thought long and hard about this, and if the situation arise where I would have to take a life to save my own, then I would.

Become a cop?

Technically, if everyone knew how to properly and responsibly operate a car, there would be no more vehicle deaths either.

And you realize that "anti-social personality disorder" is a recognized mental illness defined largely through ones inability to value human life or display any empathy, right?

Yes I realize I pwned myself when I typed that, ah well, can't win them all.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for your definition of unintentional manslaughter, and an explanation as to what you think good samaritan laws are.

An old woman accidenty drives into a farmer's market and kills a person. She didn't mean to do it but it still counts as Manslaughter, the unintentional killing of that person would have to be unintentional manslaughter. I'm sure there's a legal term for this that you're going to tell me in the next post, but I believe I've established a long time ago that I'm not a lawyer.

As for Good samaritan laws, they are laws designed to protect a person in case he injures a person that he is trying to help. It's designed so that more bystanders are willing to help an injured person.

It has no application here, and Imperfect Self Defense would be more applicable.

An old woman accidenty drives into a farmer's market and kills a person. She didn't mean to do it but it still counts as Manslaughter, the unintentional killing of that person would have to be unintentional manslaughter. I'm sure there's a legal term for this that you're going to tell me in the next post, but I believe I've established a long time ago that I'm not a lawyer.

Then you shouldn't try to use legal terms as if you were. Manslaughter is by definition the illegal, unintentional slaying of another human being. There is no such thing as "unintentional manslaughter" any more than there is a PIN number or ATM machine. PIN stands for personal identification number, ATM is automatic teller machine. A PIN number is a personal identification number number, an ATM machine is an automatic teller machine machine.

There is no more an "unintentional manslaughter" than there is an "intentional manslaughter" Unintentional manslaughter means literally an unintentional slaying that was unintentional. Manslaughter by definition means unintentional. Murder, by definition, is intentional. It's what seperates the two.

It has no application here, and Imperfect Self Defense would be more applicable.

That post does not jive with this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13459950&postcount=28).

It seems he is not as well versed in the legalities as he has boasted...

When the hell have I ever booasted that I was well versed in legalities? I am compentent in certain legal sense, such as the FAR/AIM and Aviation rules and regulation, and I am compentent in the rules and regulation of guns laws in North Carolina and South Carolina.

I have never claimed I was a lawyer. You're just looking for any "win".

Are you really married to this stupid ass line of reasoning? By this logic the solution to shooting sprees is that people should run for it. Why are we even arguing CCW et al if running will save us all?Actually this is something worth thinking about. What should people do if they can't run? Most of the time they choose to hide under their desks. UNDER THEIR DESKS! Are the desks bulletproof?!

Even though the students being shot at are unarmed, if they are cornered in a classroom, they should all attack the shooter. The shooter can't shoot everybody if they all start throwing chairs at him. I guess there is no cure for cowardice though.

I know I sound pretty insensitive calling the murder victims cowards, but that is a part of the problem.

Then you shouldn't try to use legal terms as if you were. Manslaughter is by definition the illegal, unintentional slaying of another human being. There is no such thing as "unintentional manslaughter" any more than there is a PIN number or ATM machine. PIN stands for personal identification number, ATM is automatic teller machine. A PIN number is a personal identification number number, an ATM machine is an automatic teller machine machine.

There is no more an "unintentional manslaughter" than there is an "intentional manslaughter" Unintentional manslaughter means literally an unintentional slaying that was unintentional. Manslaughter by definition means unintentional. Murder, by definition, is intentional. It's what seperates the two.



That post does not jive with this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13459950&postcount=28).
It seems he is not as well versed in the legalities as he has boasted...

Anyone who is properly trained to take down a gunman can do it in 30 seconds. The key word is properly trained. That's why I go to the gun range every other weekend with my handgun. So I can keep up my proficieny and be in a constant state of readiness.
The key word, which you ignored, is being THERE. Why should I assume that just because you have a CCW that you'll magically appear faster than the police to have a shoot out with the bad guy?

Two minutes. That's what it took, that's not even enough time, assuming you're just down the hall, to ID what's going on, make your way safely in, ID the shooter, and fire.

By the time you got there, he was dead and his victims along with him. The ones that take a long time end up being hostage situations and you sir are NOT qualified to deal with those by just going down to the range and popping off a few shots.

Actually this is something worth thinking about. What should people do if they can't run? Most of the time they choose to hide under their desks. UNDER THEIR DESKS! Are the desks bulletproof?!

Even though the students being shot at are unarmed, if they are cornered in a classroom, they should all attack the shooter. The shooter can't shoot everybody if they all start throwing chairs at him. I guess there is no cure for cowardice though.

I know I sound pretty insensitive calling the murder victims cowards, but that is a part of the problem.
Are you volunteering to be shot first then?

Are you volunteering to be shot first then?

No, he's pointing out that a mob of students can overcome a shooter with minimal casualties. At least less than if they cowered in a corner. Hell, the ones in the front row can even use desks as shields.

No, he's pointing out that a mob of students can overcome a shooter with minimal casualties. At least less than if they cowered in a corner. Hell, the ones in the front row can even use desks as shields.
Ah, so YOU are volunteering to be shot first then. In the middle of an unplanned incident, unless said group had trained and drilled to handle such a thing, there is no mob, there's no planning, there's no group action, there's no thinking. There's just individuals attempting to survive as best they know how. And for the individual, there's no such beastie as minimal casualties. Law of the jungle, every man for himself.

Besides, as he pointed out, the desks aren't bulletproof. So I ask you again, given that you're not likely to have backup from your classmates who are either fleeing or hiding, are you volunteering to be shot first?

Yea, if you were stupid enough to not run away from the gun fire.

Let me know when you can outrun bullets. I'll bring the high speed film. And a ballistic vest, helmet and ceramic inserts.

Are you claiming to have 100% accuracy? In a firefight? Where shooter and unarmed are moving in a rush? Possible crowd situations? That's a tall order Wilgrove.

I know I sound pretty insensitive calling the murder victims cowards, but that is a part of the problem.

Few people are actually willing to court clear and present death on the off chance that they might survive.

People like to think we're a lot higher than animals, but the ingrained instincts of flight/fight are still fairly strong in us, and not having evolved from a carnivorous hunter species, flight is weighted heavier than fight.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

More security is not the answer. What we need is a deeper look at what causes them and maybe try to work up a stigma against them being so publicized. Basically, a de facto cover-up. Less media attention means less people will be inspired to copy previous attacks or even try it. If they don't know about whether it would succeed, they may not try it. Most importantly though, we need to find out what causes people to do it and try to fix that.

-

And that proves what? That I know about the laws regarding Guns and CCWs? Whoo, wow, it's like I've been saying that this whole thread. Now if you'd linked to me claiming that I know something about legal terms regarding manslaughter, murders, and the varying degrees then you might have something, but here, No, you don't.

Next!

The truth is that blaming the kids who tease the freaks and losers in school is pretty ridiculous. That will never stop. It was a hundred times worse in the past and these incidents almost never happened. Kids fight and insult each other over everything. We've already turned our schools officially into training grounds for pussies. You get suspended for fighting back if someone attacks you. What kind of message and environment does that establish? That's the problem, not bullying. Kids are trained to be pussies and then they act like pussies at an older age when they open fire on unarmed people. Truth is that with our massive population and pussy ass educational system, I'm surprised it doesn't happen always as often as it has this year.

These freaks need to be marginalized and removed from schools ASAP. Thinning the herd in school and aggressive policies towards habitual pests like "Cookie" Thornton. If that guy had been beaten half to death with a baton by police after disrupting a few of those meetings, then I think he'd have gotten the message and stayed away and not had the anger fester. You got to marginalize and target the worst elements. Take the restrictions off the police and school officials towards dealing with the problem.

When the hell have I ever booasted that I was well versed in legalities? I am compentent in certain legal sense, such as the FAR/AIM and Aviation rules and regulation, and I am compentent in the rules and regulation of guns laws in North Carolina and South Carolina.

I have never claimed I was a lawyer. You're just looking for any "win".
-
*sigh* and this is why there are "Gun Free" Zone, this right here, because of quite frankly ignorant thinking like yours. You think that we are a bunch of wannabe cowboys, but in reality nothing can be further from the truth. I know how to handle guns, I know when I'm suppose to use it, and I know the laws, rules and regulation concerning guns and CCWs. I'm not going around with a cowboy hat and shooting everything in sight.

Tell me, have you even handled a gun, and I'm not talking about when your daddy showed you how to fire a rifle, I mean have you actually went down to a firing range and shoot a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle by yourself?

We should hand over control of the schools to the private sector. They usually do a better job of preventing bullying.

Yeah, and put a higher priority on profit rather than education, but who cares?


Honostly, school shootings aside, the best way to prevent gun violence is to fix the social and poverty issues.

In regards to school shootings, stricter gun control isnt a bad idea. At least strict enough so crazy people cant get them. Having the only criteria in regards to mental stability being if youve been in a mental hospital in the last 6 months is pathetic (at least thats the only criteria in IL).

The truth is that blaming the kids who tease the freaks and losers in school is pretty ridiculous. That will never stop. It was a hundred times worse in the past and these incidents almost never happened. Kids fight and insult each other over everything. We've already turned our schools officially into training grounds for pussies. You get suspended for fighting back if someone attacks you. What kind of message and environment does that establish? That's the problem, not bullying. Kids are trained to be pussies and then they act like pussies at an older age when they open fire on unarmed people. Truth is that with our massive population and pussy ass educational system, I'm surprised it doesn't happen always as often as it has this year.




A simple psych 101 class will disprove that theory.

The truth is that blaming the kids who tease the freaks and losers in school is pretty ridiculous. That will never stop. It was a hundred times worse in the past and these incidents almost never happened. Kids fight and insult each other over everything. We've already turned our schools officially into training grounds for pussies. You get suspended for fighting back if someone attacks you. What kind of message and environment does that establish? That's the problem, not bullying. Kids are trained to be pussies and then they act like pussies at an older age when they open fire on unarmed people. Truth is that with our massive population and pussy ass educational system, I'm surprised it doesn't happen always as often as it has this year.

These freaks need to be marginalized and removed from schools ASAP. Thinning the herd in school and aggressive policies towards habitual pests like "Cookie" Thornton. If that guy had been beaten half to death with a baton by police after disrupting a few of those meetings, then I think he'd have gotten the message and stayed away and not had the anger fester. You got to marginalize and target the worst elements. Take the restrictions off the police and school officials towards dealing with the problem.

yes, yes, and clearly if a woman is raped, it's her fault for being attractive. :rolleyes:

And that proves what? That I know about the laws regarding Guns and CCWs? Whoo, wow, it's like I've been saying that this whole thread. Now if you'd linked to me claiming that I know something about legal terms regarding manslaughter, murders, and the varying degrees then you might have something, but here, No, you don't.

Next!

Ah, you say that like we all can't see the conversation you had with Neo Art.

Rolling squid;13460627']yes, yes, and clearly if a woman is raped, it's her fault for being attractive. :rolleyes:

Very bad analogy. Way off the mark.

It doesn't matter if everyone wears the same clothes, is the same race, has the same amount of money and are all attractive, kids will fight and insult each other, it's as simple as that. It's happened throughout history and like owning weapons, it's completely demented to blame it for incidents like this.

And that's just when it comes to the example of angry high school losers. Most of these shooters seem to be mentally ill and should have locked up or put down.

And that's just when it comes to the example of angry high school losers. Most of these shooters seem to be mentally ill and should have locked up or put down.



Or helped, since simple pills or some counseling more often than not work wonders...or simply not have been allowed to buy a fucking gun.


By the way, the NIU shooter was one of the "cool" or "popular" kids. He was very well liked, smart, laid back, had a girlfriend, etc.

And that's just when it comes to the example of angry high school losers. Most of these shooters seem to be mentally ill and should have locked up or put down.

How very good to know that I can physically and mentally abuse you however I see fit, including breaking each and every bone in your hand, and if you snap, it's your fault and should be locked up or shot.

Very bad analogy. Way off the mark.

It doesn't matter if everyone wears the same clothes, is the same race, has the same amount of money and are all attractive, kids will fight and insult each other, it's as simple as that. It's happened throughout history and like owning weapons, it's completely demented to blame it for incidents like this.

And that's just when it comes to the example of angry high school losers. Most of these shooters seem to be mentally ill and should have locked up or put down.

no, good analogy. You're blaming the victims, so does my analogy.

And most of the people who commit shooting sprees are either just plain nuts, or are constantly abused. (singled out at school, and often have broken homes.)

Rolling squid;13460695']no, good analogy. You're blaming the victims, so does my analogy.

And most of the people who commit shooting sprees are either just plain nuts, or are constantly abused. (singled out at school, and often have broken homes.)

Theyre just pussies. Real men can sustane constant mental and physical abuse, even at a very young age:rolleyes:

Theyre just pussies. Real men can sustane constant mental and physical abuse, even at a very young age:rolleyes:

please tell me that was sarcasm.

Rolling squid;13460715']please tell me that was sarcasm.



Read my previous posts on this topic. Then note the ":rolleyes:" at the end.


Now, you tell me if I was being serious or not;)

Cupcake Tommy Guns? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3813106384071651342&q=bugsy+malone&total=416&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

It would certainly cut down on the body bags. ;)

Do away with victim disarmament zones and allow people licensed to carry concealed handguns to carry them into schools and places of work.

That is the best response in terms of security provided balanced against freedom infringed.

Im sorry, but that is an awful idea. I dont know anyone who would feel safe with everyone walking around on a college campus packing heat.

Also, fighting fear with terror is not a sound idea.

Do away with victim disarmament zones and allow people licensed to carry concealed handguns to carry them into schools and places of work.

That is the best response in terms of security provided balanced against freedom infringed.

I don't really think there is anything effective we can do.

Everyone?

Only people that have had firearms training and met the qualifications needed to possess a gun, which should be 18 and is 21 of course.

And you disagree that school rules in the US are turning kids into pussies?

You think that kids should be suspended for fighting back when someone attacks them? Personally I think they should bring back corporal punishment and let kids fight it out in a boxing ring.

You know why that don't have this problem in Singapore? They cane these punks.

Read my previous posts on this topic. Then note the ":rolleyes:" at the end.


Now, you tell me if I was being serious or not;)

ah woops. *checks time* Note to self: stop posting at 2:00AM.

I thought you were still nearly 4x as likely to get hit by lightning than get shot in some Super Columbine Massacre. Yes, horrible anomolies make the news but the fact is that you're probably never even going to have a friend of a friend who got shot at Columbine or one of these other schools/malls/other "gun-free zones".

Rolling squid;13460627']yes, yes, and clearly if a woman is raped, it's her fault for being attractive.

That's what I've been trying to tell them.
Damn, you should be my lawyer.

Are you volunteering to be shot first then?Yes? If I'm cornered and going to be shot anyway, what difference does it make if I'm shot first or last? Attacking gives you the best chance of survival in that kind of situation.
Few people are actually willing to court clear and present death on the off chance that they might survive.

People like to think we're a lot higher than animals, but the ingrained instincts of flight/fight are still fairly strong in us, and not having evolved from a carnivorous hunter species, flight is weighted heavier than fight.No, the ingrained fight or flight instinct in humans is not nearly strong enough. When you're cornered in a classroom, there is no flight. There is only fight. Even a cornered mole will bite you. A cornered human is more likely to hide under their desk. That's a problem.
I thought you were still nearly 4x as likely to get hit by lightning than get shot in some Super Columbine Massacre. Yes, horrible anomolies make the news but the fact is that you're probably never even going to have a friend of a friend who got shot at Columbine or one of these other schools/malls/other "gun-free zones".Yes but mass shootings are scary because they are unpredictable and hard to avoid compared to other forms of death. There are things you can do to minimize your chances of getting hit by lightning, but there is nothing you can do short of wearing bulletproof armor every day to reduce the chance of being a victim of a random mass shooting.

Well, for starters, implement national healthcare. National healthcare means more than just care for cancer and things like that, it also means psychological help. These people all had psychological issues that might have been treated if they'd had increased access to counseling.

is socialized medicine what prevented these shooting from occuring in the 80's?

It would certainly cut down on the body bags. ;)

But it would increase the use of Tide and Simple Green. :eek:

That's what I've been trying to tell them.
Damn, you should be my lawyer.

nope, anyone who posts on NSG can't afford my legal fees.

OK lets take a long look into the future of where this war would lead us.... The entire idea is to lessen the amount of shootings taking place at public places is it not this would probably end up with a lot more of people being tried for attempted shootings when they had no intention to in the first place which would lead to a war against the war on shootings

No, he's pointing out that a mob of students can overcome a shooter with minimal casualties. At least less than if they cowered in a corner. Hell, the ones in the front row can even use desks as shields.

You'd be unpleasantly surprised if you tried to shield yourself from bullets using a desk.

I wonder how long it will be before some halfwitted ninny insists that we use bulletproof desks in schools.

You'd be unpleasantly surprised if you tried to shield yourself from bullets using a desk.

I wonder how long it will be before some halfwitted ninny insists that we use bulletproof desks in schools.

We should use bullet-proof desks in schools ;)

You know why that don't have this problem in Singapore? They cane these punks.

You think Singapore... doesn't have problems with bullying because... they cane people? Ahahahahahaha!

You haven't the slightest idea do you? I bet you've never even seen the Singaporean education system up close. Or how the student body operates.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

What about if something like Maximum Overdrive happened? You know, guns firing on their owners. Cars with no drivers running people over. Vending machines flinging pop cans into groins.

Yes? If I'm cornered and going to be shot anyway, what difference does it make if I'm shot first or last? Attacking gives you the best chance of survival in that kind of situation.


You're assigning rational thinking in environments where fear is an overriding factor. You'll need people inured to violence and imminent death in order to get that kind of thinking.


No, the ingrained fight or flight instinct in humans is not nearly strong enough. When you're cornered in a classroom, there is no flight. There is only fight. Even a cornered mole will bite you. A cornered human is more likely to hide under their desk. That's a problem.

A mole does have some fairly sturdy teeth and claws. And you're using the wrong comparisons anyway.

A herd animal is a closer example. Take African buffaloes. Or zebras. Lions and tigers are their natural predator. But lets see it from a physical aspect. A hunting pack of lions or tigers are usually much smaller than the total number of zebra's or buffalo's in a herd. A buffalo outweighs a tiger/lion easy, and has a pair of big horns that can gore anything it puts its mind to. In a no holds barred competition, the buffalo would be a tough nut to crack.

But when a lion does attack, what happens? The herd runs off, and if anyone is too slow, they get eaten.

Even if you somehow stuck them in a concrete pen, the story would be the same, with the herd running around as much as they can.

Very rarely, the herd will attack, but that is usually one or two of the bulls, and hardly the entire herd, which could stomp the lions into paste if they did.

But they don't. Why? Very simple, the fear reflex, that equates running away, or hiding and staying very still, as a measure of safety.

It's stupid, but that's instinct for you.

You think Singapore... doesn't have problems with bullying because... they cane people? Ahahahahahaha!

You haven't the slightest idea do you? I bet you've never even seen the Singaporean education system up close. Or how the student body operates.
Cane?

Mmmm...Candy cane.

You think Singapore... doesn't have problems with bullying because... they cane people? Ahahahahahaha!

You haven't the slightest idea do you? I bet you've never even seen the Singaporean education system up close. Or how the student body operates.

I was saying they don't have mass shootings because they cane people.

And yes, I've been to Singapore and seen the schools and guess what? It's my favorite place on earth. The entire country it is neat and orderly. You know why they don't have problems with graffiti and vandalism? Why you always feel safe there? They cane those punks.

They don't apologize about caning or executions, nor do they advertise how effective it is. They just let the results speak for themselves. Singapore should be a model for every other country in how to push the degenerates out of the gene pool. No tolerance for scum.

You're assigning rational thinking in environments where fear is an overriding factor. You'll need people inured to violence and imminent death in order to get that kind of thinking.I don't buy that. I've been in life threatening situations and nothing has stopped me from reacting the way I should. Some people react badly to fear and some people don't. I'm not sure how that problem could be solved though. This isn't Israel where military service is mandatory. Simply teaching people what to do in a situation like that may be enough though. It works pretty well for fires, people don't usually forget that they're supposed to crawl even if it goes against instinct.

I was saying they don't have mass shootings because they cane people.

You are confusing cause and affect. You have no evidence. I could say for example, that red cars are the cause of more accidents, and show statistics proving red cars are involved in more accidents than any other color of car. But that would be just be dumb. Why? Because I've shown nothing to link cause and effect.

You are doing the same thing.

And of course, obviously pretending not to notice that Singapore's gun laws are almost as draconian as Japans, and their customs is extremely efficient at rooting out smuggled arms. How are you going to shoot people without a firearm hmm? With rubber bands?


They don't apologize about caning or executions, nor do they advertise how effective it is. They just let the results speak for themselves. Singapore should be a model for every other country in how to push the degenerates out of the gene pool. No tolerance for scum.

Tell me, are you aware of the problem of imported domestic labor in Singapore? The sheer number of people imported from the Philippines, Indonesia and less well of countries as maids, only to be abused in ways that would make Guantanamo prison runners proud? Scalded with boiling water and oil, forced to eat their own excrement, forced starvation, beatings, rape, the list goes on.

So maybe I'll argue that's why there aren't any mass shootings, aside from weapons scarcity, in Singapore. Because they have Filipino maids who they can abuse and vent all their frustration on.

But do you hear about those? Oh no, you don't. Singapore doesn't want that kind of information going out. That would crippled their local labor force who need the domestic help to keep up. But you probably won't care either.

So, are you going to propose bringing in live "therapy slaves" which frustrated people can beat to death as a means of running society?

I don't buy that. I've been in life threatening situations and nothing has stopped me from reacting the way I should. Some people react badly to fear and some people don't. I'm not sure how that problem could be solved though. This isn't Israel where military service is mandatory. Simply teaching people what to do in a situation like that may be enough though. It works pretty well for fires, people don't usually forget that they're supposed to crawl even if it goes against instinct.

Some people respond better to life threatening situations than others, true. I won't deny that. But you're forgetting a few factors. One of them being group think. Or rather, group emotion.

Imagine a test case if you will, where in an isolated area, 200 people are forced to face a life threatening situation individually. That means 1 person, 1 attacker, across a 200 person sample size.

On a truly random sample, you might get anywhere from everyone running to everyone resisting. But the results would be at best, 50/50.

But make all those 200 people face one lone gunman at the same time.

Fear and panic would spread among the crowd, and very few, if at all any, will attempt to resist.

As to teaching them, short of a live exposure to such conditions, I don't know if it will work. Most people must remain calm enough to remember what they are supposed to do, which is difficult in crowd panic situations.

I agree with what Wilgrove said. Get rid of gun free zones and allow CCW Licenses to be used nationwide. If someone with a CCW is present during the next shooting, they'll be able to respond more quickly than the police, as he is already on the scene.

And no, CCW holder's won't magically appear at every shooting and stop the perp, but they'll stop a few more than are presently being stopped.


Besides, as he pointed out, the desks aren't bulletproof. So I ask you again, given that you're not likely to have backup from your classmates who are either fleeing or hiding, are you volunteering to be shot first?

Better to die brave and go out like a hero than live as coward.

I'd import some girls from Indonesia myself if I lived there. That has always been part of my dream you know.

Better to die brave and go out like a hero than live as coward.
What, unarmed people running away from a nutter with a shotgun is considered cowardly now?

You'd be unpleasantly surprised if you tried to shield yourself from bullets using a desk.

I wonder how long it will be before some halfwitted ninny insists that we use bulletproof desks in schools.

Isn't that why the pentagon issued A-Bomb resistant desks?

Hmm, let's think.


250 million+ guns in the U.S, over 60 million gun owners in the U.S.

How many of those are out shooting people? Pretty much none statistically.

Look at the rest of the statistics here.


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.a-human-right.com/

These are real numbers, these aren't made up instances or partial truths to support ideas or to make it look like I know what I'm talking about. Cold, hard, numbers, just like everyone wants. Not Idealistic bull shit about cowboys or imagined criminals.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

If firearms are made illegal, "shooters" will just obtain their weapons through black market channels.

Even if concealed carry laws are tailored explicitly for the purpose of eliminating these incidents, they will still occur, and there will still be casualties.

I see no benefit to society to take this issue to one extreme or the other, simply as a knee-jerk reaction to a relatively minor social issue.

If we reacted this way to drunk-driving or heart disease it would be one thing...but we're going to devote all this time, money, and effort to make a bad attempt to prevent the deaths of a few hundred people per year??

The most effective thing to do would be to stop covering this kind of thing in the media...which won't happen anytime soon, as it's in the media's best interests to cover these things for weeks afterwards.

I agree with what Wilgrove said. Get rid of gun free zones and allow CCW Licenses to be used nationwide. If someone with a CCW is present during the next shooting, they'll be able to respond more quickly than the police, as he is already on the scene.

And no, CCW holder's won't magically appear at every shooting and stop the perp, but they'll stop a few more than are presently being stopped.
Really? Do you happen to have any numbers to back your claim up? Anything about, hmm, say someone who WAS on the scene but didn't have their weapon due to a gun free zone? How many times has it happened that someone was there, was able to do something (Meaning not just in the general area, but right on the scene) but didn't have their weapon handy? How many times now? 1? 2? Well?

No, I can't foresee that this will make any sort of difference besides in the dreams of gun nuts.

Better to die brave and go out like a hero than live as coward.
But you won't BE going out a hero.

This is what will happen:

*Shooting starts*

You: Follow me! We can take him if we band together! Let's go!
*You stand up*
*Bang*

You're dead. And no one followed you, you will be just another body to count later on, not a 'hero' at all.

You wanna die in a blaze of glory and as a hero, join the military.

What, unarmed people running away from a nutter with a shotgun is considered cowardly now?

Just sitting in a corner waiting to get shot is cowardly.

Even if you die, wouldn't rather at least try to stop the person killing you, rather than sitting in a corner?

I've noticed many people's first response to extreme situations is fear. I find this strange because mine is anger.

@ Nervun:

If my death led to other people rushing and overwhelming the nut then it would have been a good death. Even if I rush alone, and get shot, at least I didn't die hiding and waiting for death.

Also, even if just 1 shooting is stopped because of increased CCW license holders and the elimination of gun free zones, then it would be worth it.

I don't buy that. I've been in life threatening situations and nothing has stopped me from reacting the way I should. Some people react badly to fear and some people don't. I'm not sure how that problem could be solved though. This isn't Israel where military service is mandatory. Simply teaching people what to do in a situation like that may be enough though. It works pretty well for fires, people don't usually forget that they're supposed to crawl even if it goes against instinct.
What situations have you been in? What kind of training did you have previously? And, most importantly of all, WHO WERE YOU WITH?! You're asking a bunch of near strangers to suddenly trust each other enough to charge a man with a gun in the middle of a shooting spree and possibly sacrifice themselves for said people. Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't know or like my classmates enough in college to be able to form that kind of bond that quickly in the middle of an emergency.

Just sitting in a corner waiting to get shot is cowardly.

Even if you die, wouldn't rather at least try to stop the person killing you, rather than sitting in a corner?

I've noticed many people's first response to extreme situations is fear. I find this strange because mine is anger.
Bully for you, most people are afraid and with good reason.

@ Nervun:

If my death led to other people rushing and overwhelming the nut then it would have been a good death. Even if I rush alone, and get shot, at least I didn't die hiding and waiting for death.
It's not going to cause everyone to rush over because you're just going to be another body. Dead. The end. A statistic on the nightly news.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be a good death to me, that just seems damn stupid.

Bully for you, most people are afraid and with good reason.


It's not going to cause everyone to rush over because you're just going to be another body. Dead. The end. A statistic on the nightly news.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be a good death to me, that just seems damn stupid.

So let me get this straight. You'd rather sit and a corner and be shot, rather than at least try and take out the person before he killed you?

Is that what you are saying?

Bully for you, most people are afraid and with good reason.


It's not going to cause everyone to rush over because you're just going to be another body. Dead. The end. A statistic on the nightly news.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be a good death to me, that just seems damn stupid.

Yeah, but if Trollgaard charged the shooter with a big smile on his face and his eyes wide open, then the shooter would probably crap himself.

the proof is here ;)
Freaky Trollgaard ;) (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9659/picture017sk2.jpg)

I'd import some girls from Indonesia myself if I lived there. That has always been part of my dream you know.

So a supporter of slavery and abuse are we? Ah, but wait. I haven't had a chance to break all your fingers yet. And break you down until you have nothing left of your sanity, and then shoot you for snapping.

Just the way you wanted it.

So let me get this straight. You'd rather sit and a corner and be shot, rather than at least try and take out the person before he killed you?

Is that what you are saying?
Nope, I'm saying that your job is to stay alive, evade, hide, get out of the way.

Doing a one man rendition of the Charge of the Light Brigade and pretending that it's somehow meaningful and glorious is as stupid as the original charge of the light brigade.

I would like to point one thing out: the Luby's Massacre, taken from wiki (this point is well sourced).


Interestingly, your source also shows Trollgaard's "charge of the light brigade" position as so much bunk.

I would like to point one thing out: the Luby's Massacre, taken from wiki (this point is well sourced).

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general [2][3], after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person[4].) One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape.[5] Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.[6][7][8]

In this case, a lack of carry laws directly resulted in the disarming of law-abiding citizens, and allowed twenty people to be shot, including both this woman's parents.

So let me get this straight. You'd rather sit and a corner and be shot, rather than at least try and take out the person before he killed you?

Is that what you are saying?

If you want to save people's lives in the event of something like this happening, you need to buy a pistol, learn to use it, get a permit to carry it and then carry it concealed.

It is a disgrace to the memories of people who died to hunch over your computer screen and run your mouth about 'fighting back.' You have no business speculating about the experience of being a victim of a massacre in a school or anywhere else unless you yourself have been one.

Unarmed or disarmed students are under no obligation at all to throw their lives away trying to charge an armed attacker, and courage does not require that they try.

It is despicable to call the actions of anyone killed or wounded in a school shooting "cowardly," and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

In this case, a lack of carry laws directly resulted in the disarming of law-abiding citizens, and allowed twenty people to be shot, including both this woman's parents.
I'd also like to point out that out of 80 people, only one seemed to have been carrying a weapon, and who is to say that one would have been able to do ANYTHING?

If you want to save people's lives in the event of something like this happening, you need to buy a pistol, learn to use it, get a permit to carry it and then carry it concealed.

It is a disgrace to the memories of people who died to hunch over your computer screen and run your mouth about 'fighting back.' You have no business speculating about the experience of being a victim of a massacre in a school or anywhere else unless you yourself have been one.

Unarmed or disarmed students are under no obligation at all to throw their lives away trying to charge an armed attacker, and courage does not require that they try.

It is despicable to call the actions of anyone killed or wounded in a school shooting "cowardly," and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

I said sitting in a damned corner-as what's his face, vietnamsounds, said earlier- if you are trapped in a corner why not fight back? If you're going to die, at least go out fighting.

If you are unarmed, and there is a way out-take it.

I should have said that I was agreeing with vietnam in that situation (trapped in a room, or cornered, basically-trapped).

Nope, I'm saying that your job is to stay alive, evade, hide, get out of the way.

Doing a one man rendition of the Charge of the Light Brigade and pretending that it's somehow meaningful and glorious is as stupid as the original charge of the light brigade.

If there is a way out, take it. If you are trapped, why not at least try and fight back, rather than wait to be shot?

If there is a way out, take it. If you are trapped, why not at least try and fight back, rather than wait to be shot?

How about we make a test case out of you, will and testament made of course, and see if you can back up your words with action?

A lot of people can easily say "Oh, I'd fight back, etc, etc." But that's because they can't possibly imagine what happens to their minds and bodies at the exact moment when the hammer falls.

True.

I've never been threatened with a gun, but I was trapped by other kids when I was young (I'd guess about 10ish). I didn't stay there and take their punishment (words and fists). I gave it right back and got out. Granted that was just a common fight that all boys get into, but I'd like to think I could act the same now, or in the future, as I did when I was a wee lad.

You think that because you punched some bullies when you were 10 means that you're likely to do the same to a crazed murderer with a gun?

Um, wow.

How about we make a test case out of you, will and testament made of course, and see if you can back up your words with action?

A lot of people can easily say "Oh, I'd fight back, etc, etc." But that's because they can't possibly imagine what happens to their minds and bodies at the exact moment when the hammer falls.

True.

I've never been threatened with a gun, but I was trapped by other kids when I was young (I'd guess about 10ish). I didn't stay there and take their punishment (words and fists). I gave it right back and got out. Granted that was just a common fight that all boys get into, but I'd like to think I could act the same now, or in the future, as I did when I was a wee lad.

I would like to point one thing out: the Luby's Massacre, taken from wiki (this point is well sourced).

In this case, a lack of carry laws directly resulted in the disarming of law-abiding citizens, and allowed twenty people to be shot, including both this woman's parents.

Hupp survived, if she'd tried to pull the gun she would have been shot dead before she could aim the damn thing. See, I can wildly speculate too!

Rolling squid;13460004']

As to banning guns, consider the following situations:

1: Guns are legal, no gun free zones, CCW's, ect: ...

2: Long arms are legal, pistols are not, no CCW. ...

3: No legal guns, cops do not carry guns, with the exception of SWAT like units. ...

And where's the most obvious option?

4. No legal guns, cops carry guns

And where's the most obvious option?

4. No legal guns, cops carry guns

Not an option in a free country.

True.

I've never been threatened with a gun, but I was trapped by other kids when I was young (I'd guess about 10ish). I didn't stay there and take their punishment (words and fists). I gave it right back and got out. Granted that was just a common fight that all boys get into, but I'd like to think I could act the same now, or in the future, as I did when I was a wee lad.

Are you seriously trying to compare a fistfight with guns? You cheapen the deaths of everyone who died from firearms.

In a fistfight, there's no eminent fear of death, only of rattling of teeth and bruises.

A knife fight is closer. A lot of people have been cut before, and can translate the fear of being cut to a knife fight. But it still lacks the fear element that a guy standing some 10 feet from you can point a hunk of iron at you and give you a new nostril.

Not an option in a free country.

Rolling squid's option no 3: No legal guns, cops do not carry guns, with the exception of SWAT like units. ...

Anyways... a free country? What's that? USA?

Rolling squid's option no 3: No legal guns, cops do not carry guns, with the exception of SWAT like units. ...

Anyways... a free country? What's that? USA?

Correct.

Not an option in a free country.

Last time I checked you weren't free to indecently expose yourselves either.

Correct.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll just roll my eyes for a moment.

Last time I checked you weren't free to indecently expose yourselves either.

I'm told in some jurisdictions you can expose yourself and urinate, and only be charged with the misdemeanor crime of public urination.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll just roll my eyes for a moment.

Taking deep breaths, growing up, and getting a firm grip on reality would be more conducive to learning and being taken seriously.

Taking deep breaths, growing up, and getting a firm grip on reality would be more conducive to learning and being taken seriously.

oh boohoo. IMO a proper justice system is more important than the right to carry a gun when talking about freedom. Or what about privacy? Medical privacy, financial privacy etc (+ of course the infamous Patriot Act)

USA is relatively free. I'll give you that.

Not an option in a free country.

But what about my bomb freedoms, if I choose to interpret the right to bear arms in that way? If I wish to defend myself by carrying a large bomb, using the logic of MAD, should I also be free to do that? If guns make for a polite society imagine how polite and safe everyone will be if they are all loaded down with high explosives.

But what about my bomb freedoms, if I choose to interpret the right to bear arms in that way? If I wish to defend myself by carrying a large bomb, using the logic of MAD, should I also be free to do that? If guns make for a polite society imagine how polite and safe everyone will be if they are all loaded down with high explosives.


It requires some rather gymnastic feats of the imagination to construe the right to bear arms to include the right to carry around munitions like bombs, which are not borne in the same sense as a rifle or a sword.

It requires some rather gymnastic feats of the imagination to construe the right to bear arms to include the right to carry around munitions like bombs, which are not borne in the same sense as a rifle or a sword.

Borne as in the sense of carried? I see no difference - it is also a stretch from a musket to a fully automatic weapon...and if we start adding in 'concealed'...

oh boohoo. IMO a proper justice system is more important than the right to carry a gun when talking about freedom. Or what about privacy? Medical privacy, financial privacy etc (+ of course the infamous Patriot Act)

USA is relatively free. I'll give you that.

Perhaps you can provide examples of three or four countries where the citizens enjoy more freedoms than they do in the united states, and provide specific examples so that we can learn exactly what it is you mean when you type "relatively free."

Borne as in the sense of carried? I see no difference - it is also a stretch from a musket to a fully automatic weapon...and if we start adding in 'concealed'...

In what sense it is a stretch whatsoever? Both are firearms that operate on an identical principle to propel a projectile towards whatever you point it at, when you activate the firing mechanism. One reloads itself, the other doesn't.


It was not difficult to conceal a pistol when the nation was founded.

Even granting, by way of hypothesis and fiction, the notion that a suicide bomb is an arm comparable to a rifle or a pistol, the constitution allows for minimal and reasonable restriction when there is an overriding danger to the lives of others.

It is perfectly legal to buy a gun or explosives in the United States, provided that the proper procedures, paperwork and taxes are completed and paid.

It is also worth noting that a 'bomb' is a simply another name for an explosive device, something which is not in itself an armament. Following this line of reasoning, and because explosives are not protected by the constitution the way that arms are, bomb ownership could be preempted by a law on explosives.

The right to keep and bear arms would no more apply in defense of a violator of the explosives law, on the argument that he planned to use his explosives as a weapon, than the right to free speech would apply to someone who claimed he stole money or killed people as a means of protected expression.

Perhaps you can provide examples of three or four countries where the citizens enjoy more freedoms than they do in the united states, and provide specific examples so that we can learn exactly what it is you mean when you type "relatively free."

Check http://www.worldaudit.org/
for democracy, human rights, press freedom, corruption and the rule of law

http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm
for economic freedom

The top three in democracy audit (world audit) are Finland, Sweden and Denmark. None of them are "free", far from it. Finland is no 1 and it has mandatory military service. But by some standards it's "freer" than USA.

USA is relatively free simply because it could be freer than it is.

Hupp survived, if she'd tried to pull the gun she would have been shot dead before she could aim the damn thing. See, I can wildly speculate too!

Even though she testified that she was standing BEHIND the shooter? Wow. The guy must have been like something from MIB.

Even granting, by way of hypothesis and fiction, the notion that a suicide bomb is an arm comparable to a rifle or a pistol, the constitution allows for minimal and reasonable restriction when there is an overriding danger to the lives of others.



So you would invoke that for bombs but not guns? What are the comparative statistics for people killed in US schools and campuses by people carrying bombs compared to guns? Which is more of a danger to others?

Check http://www.worldaudit.org/
for democracy, human rights, press freedom, corruption and the rule of law

http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm
for economic freedom

The top three in democracy audit (world audit) are Finland, Sweden and Denmark. None of them are "free", far from it. Finland is no 1 and it has mandatory military service. But by some standards it's "freer" than USA.

USA is relatively free simply because it could be freer than it is.

It squirms, it worms, it wriggles away.

I see.

A lot of people have argued that I can't say weather it's possible to think rationally in that kind of situation unless I've been shot at myself. The thinking here is that under terrifying enough circumstances it's impossible to think rationally. I don't believe that. There are examples of people who didn't get paralyzed with fear when they where attacked. I think this is the best example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 I don't think anyone in the virginia tech massacre attacked cho, but some of them did save themselves by holding the door shut instead of hiding when there was no place to hide.

All I'm saying is that it might be a good idea to train people what to do if they are trapped in a room by someone with a gun. Just the same way you have probably all been trained about what to do in a fire. Some people still try to hide in a fire, but most people manage not to do that because there are drills. There's no mass shooting drill, so most people haven't previously thought about what they should do if they cannot run away from someone shooting at them. It's not easy to come up with new ideas when you're in fear for your life, but if you've given previous thought to it than all you have to do is remember what you've already planned. That still isn't easy, but it's a better alternative.

So you would invoke that for bombs but not guns? What are the comparative statistics for people killed in US schools and campuses by people carrying bombs compared to guns? Which is more of a danger to others?

The constitution doesn't protect the right to own explosive devices, only arms.

It is however perfectly legal and extremely easy to purchase the components to make bombs, and more americans have been killed by bombs than have been killed in school shootings, regardless of the fact that making bombs and blowing people up is illegal.

You are chasing your tail by pretending that explosive devices are comparable in constitutional terms with arms. The fact is that they are not, as even a rudimentary understanding of the law would inform you.

Education!

ETA:

This was already explained to you in the remainer of the post you are purporting to respond to, but edited out of your quote.

Reading comprehension is fundamental!

It squirms, it worms, it wriggles away.

I see.

Loose gun control laws = free

I see.

The constitution doesn't protect the right to own explosive devices, only arms.

It is however perfectly legal and extremely easy to purchase the components to make bombs, and more americans have been killed by bombs than have been killed in school shootings, regardless of the fact that making bombs and blowing people up is illegal.

You are chasing your tail by pretending that explosive devices are comparable in constitutional terms with arms. The fact is that they are not, as even a rudimentary understanding of the law would inform you.

Education!

ETA:

This was already explained to you in the remainer of the post you are purporting to respond to, but edited out of your quote.

Reading comprehension is fundamental!

Perhaps you could aid my education by quoting me where in the US Constitution 'arms' are defined to mean a firearm but not an explosive device such as a grenade or a bomb. I would have said that definitions of 'arms' from the time the Constitution was drafted would even have included armour in its intended meaning. Looking forward to your demonstration of reading comprehension.

The constitution doesn't protect the right to own explosive devices, only arms.


Quick question. When personal wear starts incorporating ballistic weaves that render bullets useless, and directed energy weapons become the only way of actually doing harm, which of course only the criminals seem to have no trouble acquiring, will you argue that the constitution doesn't protect the right to directed energy weapons, which under no circumstance, can be translated to the traditional meaning of firearm?

The thinking here is that under terrifying enough circumstances it's impossible to think rationally.

This is simply not true, if we were to use a single standard of terror generation, like say, a lone gunman.

The average opinion around here, barring those who somehow believe that owning a gun confers a magical +3 to courage, is that until such a situation does arise, it is impossible to say whether a person can or cannot react in a rational enough matter to do anything different.

Some may be able to think rationally, some may not. Having a gun does not change that aspect. It merely enables the rational ones, presuming that they have a gun at the time of the event, to utilize more force than if they had their bare hands.

There's no way to stop it. Unless you want armed security guards in every last location, in which case the shooter will shoot them first. Basically you're fucked, and all you can do is hope you aren't the next one to get shot.

Taken on its face, the term arms indicates devices for which the sole use is killing people or animals.


"Taken on its face" is hardly proof or demonstration of your position. I take it your famed education and reading comprehension failed to turn anything up in the Constitution to actually support your argument?

Perhaps you could aid my education by quoting me where in the US Constitution 'arms' are defined to mean a firearm but not an explosive device such as a grenade or a bomb. I would have said that definitions of 'arms' from the time the Constitution was drafted would even have included armour in its intended meaning. Looking forward to your demonstration of reading comprehension.

Taken on its face, the term arms indicates devices for which the sole use is killing people or animals.

Explosives are used in a variety of industries and for many purposes other than killing people and animals, they are thus not arms in themselves and not protected by the second amendment, even if one intends to use them to kill people.

It is the same as a shovel, which can be used a weapon but is not solely designed as a weapon. The second amendment would not protect the keeping or bearing of shovels, if some bizarre law were to prohibit them.

For 10 dollars I'll email you photos of my reading comprehension credentials, they're rather impressive, if I do say so myself.

There is also the issue of what was permitted in the time of the founding of the country. I would be interested if you could find some evidence that people were allowed to own bombs which they made or bought for use as weapons.

As has been demonstrated above, there is nothing fundamentally different between a flintlock and a gas piston machine gun except for the fact that the first must have a round chambered by hand whereas the second accomplishes this feat mechanically. Red apples and green apples as compared to the ridiculous apples-and-oranges of guns and explosives.

This is simply not true, if we were to use a single standard of terror generation, like say, a lone gunman.

The average opinion around here, barring those who somehow believe that owning a gun confers a magical +3 to courage, is that until such a situation does arise, it is impossible to say whether a person can or cannot react in a rational enough matter to do anything different.

Some may be able to think rationally, some may not. Having a gun does not change that aspect. It merely enables the rational ones, presuming that they have a gun at the time of the event, to utilize more force than if they had their bare hands.The thing I'm arguing is that it's possible to train most people not to panic, even if that's their first instinct.

The constitution doesn't mention firearms, it mentions arms, so there isn't any relevance to the fact that a directed energy weapon isn't a firearm, in the current sense of the word.

Assuming that a directed energy weapon would be analagous to a firearm, which is to say an individually portable device designed to kill people or animals, which is operated by means of the hands and arms, pointed at a target and then manipulated such that it causes destruction at the desired point of impact, I see no reason why it wouldn't be protected.

You really do want to have your cake and eat it. You seem to be under the impression that there is a bit tacked on to the end of the Constitution saying "for more details on what we mean by any of this ask New Granada".

Quick question. When personal wear starts incorporating ballistic weaves that render bullets useless, and directed energy weapons become the only way of actually doing harm, which of course only the criminals seem to have no trouble acquiring, will you argue that the constitution doesn't protect the right to directed energy weapons, which under no circumstance, can be translated to the traditional meaning of firearm?

The constitution doesn't mention firearms, it mentions arms, so there isn't any relevance to the fact that a directed energy weapon isn't a firearm, in the current sense of the word.

Assuming that a directed energy weapon would be analagous to a firearm, which is to say an individually portable device designed to kill people or animals, which is operated by means of the hands and arms, pointed at a target and then manipulated such that it causes destruction at the desired point of impact, I see no reason why it wouldn't be protected.

"Taken on its face" is hardly proof or demonstration of your position. I take it your famed education and reading comprehension failed to turn anything up in the Constitution to actually support your argument?

You can read what I wrote again if you didn't get it. I have extreme difficulty believing you understood what I wrote based on the fact that you edited most of it out of your purported response.

My education is not what indicates my reading comprehension. You don't get to see the credentials unless you pay me ten dollars.

Uh huh

:rolleyes:

I take it that is an admission that you cannot produce any.

Loose gun control laws = free

I see.

No, you don't see.

You were asked to do something very simple to substantiate a claim you made and then failed to do so.

First you tried to claim that the US wasn't a free country with your cutesy 'roll eyes' routine, then you changed your position to it being 'relatively free,' then when asked what this was supposed to mean, and given a very simple and clear metric that could support your meaning, instead posted links to some pointless 'ranking' sites.

For you to "see" that "loose gun control laws = free" it would have had to have been posted, but it wasn't.

You either misapprehended what you read or are again trying to worm out of a position you've taken, so in the interests of determining which is the case, I will explain fully the position you misread as "loose gun control laws = free."

- One of the fundamental freedoms is the right to keep and bear arms, it ranks with free speech and expression, the presumption of innocence, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection of property, representative government, &c.

A country lacking that particular right can not be considered fully free, it is a condition for being a free country and not merely a partially free country.

You're welcome to find some examples of countries which have freedoms that the US does not and post them, so that we can compare the relative merits and demerits of the two systems and determine just what it means to be 'relatively free' by learning just what the US stands in relation to.

Not a difficult proposition!

You can read what I wrote again if you didn't get it. I have extreme difficulty believing you understood what I wrote based on the fact that you edited most of it out of your purported response.

My education is not what indicates my reading comprehension. You don't get to see the credentials unless you pay me ten dollars.

I get what you wrote - it is you offering an opinion instead of evidence or argument.

See if you can find any cases where the supreme court disagrees with me about the status of explosives under the second amendment.

Or the definition of arms, for that matter.

I'm a lot more interested in their opinions of the constitution than in yours, for reasons that are immediately obvious to all careful readers.

Strangely I am more interested in what the Constitution says than what your opinions are. You seem to have nothing to back them up.

I get what you wrote - it is you offering an opinion instead of evidence or argument.

Uh huh

:rolleyes:

You really do want to have your cake and eat it. You seem to be under the impression that there is a bit tacked on to the end of the Constitution saying "for more details on what we mean by any of this ask New Granada".

See if you can find any cases where the supreme court disagrees with me about the status of explosives under the second amendment.

Or the definition of arms, for that matter.

I'm a lot more interested in their opinions of the constitution than in yours, for reasons that are immediately obvious to all careful readers.

- One of the fundamental freedoms is the right to keep and bear arms, it ranks with free speech and expression, the presumption of innocence, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection of property, representative government, &c.

A country lacking that particular right can not be considered fully free, it is a condition for being a free country and not merely a partially free country.

You're welcome to find some examples of countries which have freedoms that the US does not and post them, so that we can compare the relative merits and demerits of the two systems and determine just what it means to be 'relatively free' by learning just what the US stands in relation to.

Not a difficult proposition!

Ok, so the simple fact that other countries are freer (and I shudder at using that word, believe me) in the sense that their inhabitants fought for and now have effectively more rights, and have those rights better protected than the US, doesn't come in to it at all then, does it?

The thing I'm arguing is that it's possible to train most people not to panic, even if that's their first instinct.

Then you're going to need to put everyone through life fire combat training.

Strangely I am more interested in what the Constitution says than what your opinions are. You seem to have nothing to back them up.

So you keep repeating, and it's fascinating, I'm sure!

The constitution doesn't mention firearms, it mentions arms, so there isn't any relevance to the fact that a directed energy weapon isn't a firearm, in the current sense of the word.

Assuming that a directed energy weapon would be analagous to a firearm, which is to say an individually portable device designed to kill people or animals, which is operated by means of the hands and arms, pointed at a target and then manipulated such that it causes destruction at the desired point of impact, I see no reason why it wouldn't be protected.

Then I suppose you have no issue with people wandering around with grenade launchers, which are individually portable, designed to kill people and/or animals, and are operated with hands and arms, while loading them with say, chemical, biological and fragmentation payloads?

A lot of people have argued that I can't say weather it's possible to think rationally in that kind of situation unless I've been shot at myself. The thinking here is that under terrifying enough circumstances it's impossible to think rationally. I don't believe that. There are examples of people who didn't get paralyzed with fear when they where attacked. I think this is the best example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 I don't think anyone in the virginia tech massacre attacked cho, but some of them did save themselves by holding the door shut instead of hiding when there was no place to hide.

All I'm saying is that it might be a good idea to train people what to do if they are trapped in a room by someone with a gun. Just the same way you have probably all been trained about what to do in a fire. Some people still try to hide in a fire, but most people manage not to do that because there are drills. There's no mass shooting drill, so most people haven't previously thought about what they should do if they cannot run away from someone shooting at them. It's not easy to come up with new ideas when you're in fear for your life, but if you've given previous thought to it than all you have to do is remember what you've already planned. That still isn't easy, but it's a better alternative.

As far as I know people on that plane had some time to make a plan before starting a fight. Gunmen at schools dont give cornered people 10 minutes to make a plan before attacking them.

and yet, many people who were involved in shootings like Columbine, VT, and the latest one managed to run away from the gun fire and not get shot....

Strange.....

And, yet, many of them managed to run AND get shot. Running away doesn't protect you from bullets.

And, yes, moving target and all that. It decreases your chances of getting shot, but that's little comfort to someone who actually gets hit. If there are enough people and enough bullets, some of the people running are going to get hit.

You're best bet is not to get shot at, which is why some people naturally choose to hide.

What I find interesting is your thinking that if everyone could just have a CCW then somehow they'll all be you (assuming you'd handle this situation well. Personally, I think you'd shit yourself.).

Here's a scenario. You show up on the scene and you see a man (call him A) shoot another man (call him B). Man A is not still firing. His gun is still up and vaguely pointed in your direction. What do you do?

Then you're going to need to put everyone through life fire combat training.Yeah, I guess.
Olmedreca;13461876']As far as I know people on that plane had some time to make a plan before starting a fight. Gunmen at schools dont give cornered people 10 minutes to make a plan before attacking them.That's a good point.
And, yet, many of them managed to run AND get shot. Running away doesn't protect you from bullets.

And, yes, moving target and all that. It decreases your chances of getting shot, but that's little comfort to someone who actually gets hit. If there are enough people and enough bullets, some of the people running are going to get hit.

You're best bet is not to get shot at, which is why some people naturally choose to hide.

What I find interesting is your thinking that if everyone could just have a CCW then somehow they'll all be you (assuming you'd handle this situation well. Personally, I think you'd shit yourself.).

Here's a scenario. You show up on the scene and you see a man (call him A) shoot another man (call him B). Man A is not still firing. His gun is still up and vaguely pointed in your direction. What do you do?If someone unexpectedly walks into your windowless classroom with a gun, running is not a choice. And unless there is a bomb shelter in your classroom hiding is not a choice either.

Then I suppose you have no issue with people wandering around with grenade launchers, which are individually portable, designed to kill people and/or animals, and are operated with hands and arms, while loading them with say, chemical, biological and fragmentation payloads?

We have this luscious distinction in English weapons terminology between 'arms' and 'munitions' which allows us to permit the ownership of a grenade launcher or RPG / missile tube* but not explosive or chemical munitions.

For what it is worth, the already existing and perfectly reasonable laws governing munitions (destructive devices, as the law calls them) permits their ownership subject to certain licenses, taxes and fees being obtained and paid.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a case in point would be your leap of logic between a firearm analogue and explosive or poisonous munitions. Apples and oranges instead of red apples and green apples.

If your hypothetical directed energy weapon produced an effect more akin to an explosive munition than to a firearm, something you notably failed to indicate in your post, then it would fall under the same regulation as explosive munitions, now wouldn't it?

ETA *tube, a word which is integral to understanding the meaning of the sentence and was omitted accidentally.

Ok, so the simple fact that other countries are freer (and I shudder at using that word, believe me) in the sense that their inhabitants fought for and now have effectively more rights, and have those rights better protected than the US, doesn't come in to it at all then, does it?

Can you come up with a compelling reason why I wouldn't ask for some specific enumeration and grounding in reality of this slippery and essentially meaningless claim?

Lets start simple, three countries (or two if there are honestly only two, you indicated the plural) whose citizens have more rights than do americans.

It can't be difficult if it is a simple fact!

ETA, It is getting late in Red China, and my nightly reading is calling, and so to bed.

and what's your plan to save the 20 some odd? My solution is to allow the population to arm themselves so they don't have to be victims and can actually defend themselves.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Hmmm... it seems that school shootings seem to be a mostly US phenomena. All these other countries manage to not have them and don't have people running around with guns in their pockets. It seems in reality, your claim is invalid.

Can you come up with a compelling reason why I wouldn't ask for some specific enumeration and grounding in reality of this slippery and essentially meaningless claim?

Lets start simple, three countries (or two if there are honestly only two, you indicated the plural) whose citizens have more rights than do americans.

It can't be difficult if it is a simple fact!

ETA, It is getting late in Red China, and my nightly reading is calling, and so to bed.

Let's see...

There would be Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland and several more European countries that all offer the right to free education, no matter what your age, and no matter what grade of education.
I don't remember that being a right in the US, but I might be mistaken.

Then there would be the Netherlands, where you have the right to not only grow Marihuana, but smoke it as well.

There would be Spain, Sweden, Norway and a good deal more where you have the right to marry your same-sex partner.

There would be Germany and the Netherlands, in which prostitutes have all the rights of regular self-employment, including health benefits and pensions.
Just three very, VERY basic rights, with several examples of countries in which, contrary to the US, citizens have those rights.
None of those countries have a legalised right to own guns.
And yet they all boast virtually all the freedoms of the US, and an additional few in the bargain.

Yes? If I'm cornered and going to be shot anyway, what difference does it make if I'm shot first or last? Attacking gives you the best chance of survival in that kind of situation.
No, the ingrained fight or flight instinct in humans is not nearly strong enough. When you're cornered in a classroom, there is no flight. There is only fight. Even a cornered mole will bite you. A cornered human is more likely to hide under their desk. That's a problem.
Yes but mass shootings are scary because they are unpredictable and hard to avoid compared to other forms of death. There are things you can do to minimize your chances of getting hit by lightning, but there is nothing you can do short of wearing bulletproof armor every day to reduce the chance of being a victim of a random mass shooting.

The problem here is that you would have no reason to believe he was going to shoot everyone. You're bullshit internet bravado aside, they'll be cleaning out your shorts with the rest of them or cleaning your brains off the wall. Even if you really did charge the shooter, your classmates would not join you, because they're smart enough to realize that in school shootings the vast majority of people survive.

It's the same reason that until one of the planes knew for certain that everyone aboard was going to die, none of them did anything. People don't just decide to be the first one shot, in general. If you think you're gonna be some hero leading an army, you're kidding yourself.

We have this luscious distinction in English weapons terminology between 'arms' and 'munitions' which allows us to permit the ownership of a grenade launcher or RPG / missile tube* but not explosive or chemical munitions.

Curious is not? For if we follow this line of reasoning, then a literal interpretation is that everyone can own a firearm in the US as a constitutional right, but not the ammunition. Thus rendering all manner of legally owned firearms rather expensive paperweights and clubs.

How say you then, with this argument? Guns are a protected right, but bullets are not. It follows a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment no?


For what it is worth, the already existing and perfectly reasonable laws governing munitions (destructive devices, as the law calls them) permits their ownership subject to certain licenses, taxes and fees being obtained and paid.


The term destructive device is so misleading. A single offensive (meaning explosive damage only) grenade would possibly be called a destructive device. Yet black powder, the common propellant used in bullets, would not. Yet a bag of black powder, even if collected from bullets, could become a destructive device, yet fundamentally being of the same thing.

A quandary is it not?


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a case in point would be your leap of logic between a firearm analogue and explosive or poisonous munitions. Apples and oranges instead of red apples and green apples.

A firearm works by nature of rapid chemical conversion of a solid into gas by means of ignition. Conventional explosives are exactly the same. Yet somehow there is a rather arbitrary line of distinction between the two, even if the legal bullet happens to be carrying an extra charge where a lead core would be.

How curious.


If your hypothetical directed energy weapon produced an effect more akin to an explosive munition than to a firearm, something you notably failed to indicate in your post, then it would fall under the same regulation as explosive munitions, now wouldn't it?

Mmm, yes, I had failed to account for that. Let us say, plasma weaponry then, of which the application of superheated plasma tends do more damage in a larger area than a finger sized lump of copper sheathed lead.


ETA *tube, a word which is integral to understanding the meaning of the sentence and was omitted accidentally.

Out of curiosity, what does ETA stand for? I had always felt it meant Estimated Time Arrival, which surely does not fit in this context.

Yeah, I guess.


Which incidentally, also makes possible future gunmen more proficient in their rampages no?

Yeah, I guess.
That's a good point.
If someone unexpectedly walks into your windowless classroom with a gun, running is not a choice. And unless there is a bomb shelter in your classroom hiding is not a choice either.

Even trapped in classrooms, most people live. That's a fact. This isn't a case where everyone there dies. It's never been that yet.

Meanwhile, I'm calling bullshit. The same guys who were pulling all this bullshit bravado in talk, were the same guys trying to figure out a way out when war was looming. Like I said, I'd be cleaning up your brains or you'd be cleaning out your shorts. You clearly don't understand the mentality of the people who are trying to survive the shootings.

We should hand over control of the schools to the private sector. They usually do a better job of preventing bullying.

How do you fiugre? I went to a non state run elementry school and it did absolutly nothing better (or worse) about the bullying situation of a school of the same size.

What would be their motivation?

Curious is not? For if we follow this line of reasoning, then a literal interpretation is that everyone can own a firearm in the US as a constitutional right, but not the ammunition. Thus rendering all manner of legally owned firearms rather expensive paperweights and clubs.

How say you then, with this argument? Guns are a protected right, but bullets are not. It follows a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment no?



The term destructive device is so misleading. A single offensive (meaning explosive damage only) grenade would possibly be called a destructive device. Yet black powder, the common propellant used in bullets, would not. Yet a bag of black powder, even if collected from bullets, could become a destructive device, yet fundamentally being of the same thing.

A quandary is it not?



A firearm works by nature of rapid chemical conversion of a solid into gas by means of ignition. Conventional explosives are exactly the same. Yet somehow there is a rather arbitrary line of distinction between the two, even if the legal bullet happens to be carrying an extra charge where a lead core would be.

How curious.



Mmm, yes, I had failed to account for that. Let us say, plasma weaponry then, of which the application of superheated plasma tends do more damage in a larger area than a finger sized lump of copper sheathed lead.



Out of curiosity, what does ETA stand for? I had always felt it meant Estimated Time Arrival, which surely does not fit in this context.

ETA = Edited To Add.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

If you're talking specifically school/campus/lone whacko shootings, then I disagree. If you're talking all victims of random gun violence regardless of motivation, then you're proabaly right.

Well what happens if are walking a mall and you hear gunshots? Do you sit there or run the other way?

A place like a mall can have odd acoustics. Unless you're conditioned to gunfire (which I guarantee you the average mall denizen is not), you might hit the deck, but you're not going to take off unless A) an exit is right nearby, or B) you can determine which direction said gunfire is coming from. I'd hate to run toward the shooter because I misinterpreted the reports from his weapon as coming from behind me.

A lot of people have argued that I can't say weather it's possible to think rationally in that kind of situation unless I've been shot at myself. The thinking here is that under terrifying enough circumstances it's impossible to think rationally. I don't believe that. There are examples of people who didn't get paralyzed with fear when they where attacked. I think this is the best example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 I don't think anyone in the virginia tech massacre attacked cho, but some of them did save themselves by holding the door shut instead of hiding when there was no place to hide.

*snip*


Uh, no. Flight 93 passengers had lots of time to figure out what was going on and determine that fighting back against box-cutters was the way to go. Not so when someone pops up with a semi-automatic greeting.

Taken on its face, the term arms indicates devices for which the sole use is killing people or animals.

Explosives are used in a variety of industries and for many purposes other than killing people and animals, they are thus not arms in themselves and not protected by the second amendment, even if one intends to use them to kill people.

It is the same as a shovel, which can be used a weapon but is not solely designed as a weapon. The second amendment would not protect the keeping or bearing of shovels, if some bizarre law were to prohibit them.

For 10 dollars I'll email you photos of my reading comprehension credentials, they're rather impressive, if I do say so myself.

There is also the issue of what was permitted in the time of the founding of the country. I would be interested if you could find some evidence that people were allowed to own bombs which they made or bought for use as weapons.

As has been demonstrated above, there is nothing fundamentally different between a flintlock and a gas piston machine gun except for the fact that the first must have a round chambered by hand whereas the second accomplishes this feat mechanically. Red apples and green apples as compared to the ridiculous apples-and-oranges of guns and explosives.

You're the only one who says so, but hey.

We have this luscious distinction in English weapons terminology between 'arms' and 'munitions' which allows us to permit the ownership of a grenade launcher or RPG / missile tube* but not explosive or chemical munitions.

For what it is worth, the already existing and perfectly reasonable laws governing munitions (destructive devices, as the law calls them) permits their ownership subject to certain licenses, taxes and fees being obtained and paid.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a case in point would be your leap of logic between a firearm analogue and explosive or poisonous munitions. Apples and oranges instead of red apples and green apples.

If your hypothetical directed energy weapon produced an effect more akin to an explosive munition than to a firearm, something you notably failed to indicate in your post, then it would fall under the same regulation as explosive munitions, now wouldn't it?

ETA *tube, a word which is integral to understanding the meaning of the sentence and was omitted accidentally.

Pray tell, are those "already existing laws" in the Constitution? No. By the premise of the argument, those laws have no bearing on the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, when no definition is given within the document in question. Nice try, though.

Here's a scenario. You show up on the scene and you see a man (call him A) shoot another man (call him B). Man A is not still firing. His gun is still up and vaguely pointed in your direction. What do you do?

If I'm not armed, run and hide...
If I am, well I'd wait and see, because based on your scenario I have no knowledge of what is actually going on.

If I'm not armed, run and hide...
If I am, well I'd wait and see, because based on your scenario I have no knowledge of what is actually going on.

Ding, ding, ding. However, the problem is that not everyone would actually be able to handle such a situation, even if trained. Hell, police officers often go ahead and pop off in that situation. You want to more guns in the hands of more people?

There is absolutely no evidence that more guns would solve this problem. There is evidence that something is very broken in America since we seem to be the only country regularly having this problem. Whatever that something is, it isn't that we don't have enough guns on the streets.

There is absolutely no evidence that more guns would solve this problem. There is evidence that something is very broken in America since we seem to be the only country regularly having this problem. Whatever that something is, it isn't that we don't have enough guns on the streets.

This.

Ding, ding, ding. However, the problem is that not everyone would actually be able to handle such a situation, even if trained. Hell, police officers often go ahead and pop off in that situation. You want to more guns in the hands of more people?

There is absolutely no evidence that more guns would solve this problem. There is evidence that something is very broken in America since we seem to be the only country regularly having this problem. Whatever that something is, it isn't that we don't have enough guns on the streets.

Who's even talking about "more guns"? Howabout letting those who have the ability to defend themselves not be forced to go defenseless? There's lots of evidence to support that.

Um, you do realize that the "streets" or "in the hands" is not the same as being locked in case at home. When you're talking about CCW you are talking about putting more guns on the street and the hands of their owners by definition. If you weren't then it would be pointless.

And there is no evidence to support that. There are numerous countries that don't have CCW that have lower crime rates than we do. There is something else wrong in America and having more people with guns on their person doesn't address it. We have way more lax laws than many countries and more crime.


Exactly, its a social/cultural issue. People just dont like talking about ho to fix that because one it shows that the US's culture isnt "teh bestest" and two because it is a lot harder to fix.

Who's even talking about "more guns"? Howabout letting those who have the ability to defend themselves not be forced to go defenseless? There's lots of evidence to support that.

Um, you do realize that the "streets" or "in the hands" is not the same as being locked in case at home. When you're talking about CCW you are talking about putting more guns on the street and the hands of their owners by definition. If you weren't then it would be pointless.

And there is no evidence to support that. There are numerous countries that don't have CCW that have lower crime rates than we do. There is something else wrong in America and having more people with guns on their person doesn't address it. We have way more lax laws than many countries and more crime.

I have an idea. When we catch the people doing the school shootings, instead of giving them a trial and all that silly nonsense, we just paralyze them for life and put them on public display. After people get bored of looking at a paralyzed and dehumanized killer, we bury the criminal alive.
While we're at it, let's start the production of baby-tacos with a seasoning of fetus.

Um, you do realize that the "streets" or "in the hands" is not the same as being locked in case at home. When you're talking about CCW you are talking about putting more guns on the street and the hands of their owners by definition. If you weren't then it would be pointless.

And there is no evidence to support that. There are numerous countries that don't have CCW that have lower crime rates than we do. There is something else wrong in America and having more people with guns on their person doesn't address it. We have way more lax laws than many countries and more crime.

CCW has not been shown to increase crime rates yet HAS been shown to stop incidents like this.

We have laxer laws than others w/ higher crime as well. It has nothing to do w/ firearm ownership.


NIU occurred in a state w/ waiting periods, licensing, multiple background checks and "Gun Free Zones" rated one of the strictest in the nation.

I have an idea. When we catch the people doing the school shootings, instead of giving them a trial and all that silly nonsense, we just paralyze them for life and put them on public display. After people get bored of looking at a paralyzed and dehumanized killer, we bury the criminal alive.
While we're at it, let's start the production of baby-tacos with a seasoning of fetus.

Only if it comes w/ hot sauce.

An armed, responsible citizen has the means to prevent tragedy, But not necessarily the ability to do so.

More security is not the answer. What we need is a deeper look at what causes them and maybe try to work up a stigma against them being so publicized. Basically, a de facto cover-up. Less media attention means less people will be inspired to copy previous attacks or even try it. If they don't know about whether it would succeed, they may not try it. Most importantly though, we need to find out what causes people to do it and try to fix that.There seems to be evidence in support of this, but it wouldn't take care of everything.

Schrandtopia;13460808']is socialized medicine what prevented these shooting from occuring in the 80's?You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann) think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkway_South_Junior_High_School_shooting) Columbine was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_attack) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer) first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre), do you?

Only if it comes w/ hot sauce.

It's cooked in hot sauce. It comes with extra hot sauce.

It's cooked in hot sauce. It comes with extra hot sauce.

Make mine super-sized w/ a side of fried stem cells.

CCW has not been shown to increase crime rates yet HAS been shown to stop incidents like this.

Link?


We have laxer laws than others w/ higher crime as well. It has nothing to do w/ firearm ownership.

DING!!! So when you say you're addressing the problem, it's untrue.


NIU occurred in a state w/ waiting periods, licensing, multiple background checks and "Gun Free Zones" rated one of the strictest in the nation.

And? You do know the difference between correllation and causation, right?

Make mine super-sized w/ a side of fried stem cells.

Sure. But you have to sign this document promising you won't do any research on your side order.

I have an idea. When we catch the people doing the school shootings, instead of giving them a trial and all that silly nonsense, we just paralyze them for life and put them on public display. After people get bored of looking at a paralyzed and dehumanized killer, we bury the criminal alive.
While we're at it, let's start the production of baby-tacos with a seasoning of fetus.

They don't get caught. They kill themselves. (Yes, I know you're joking, but even as a joke it fails.)

They don't get caught. They kill themselves. (Yes, I know you're joking, but even as a joke it fails.)

For the most part yes. I am assuming that at some point in history(be it past, present, or future) a school shooter will either not attempt to kill themselves, or fail to do so.

For the most part yes. I am assuming that at some point in history(be it past, present, or future) a school shooter will either not attempt to kill themselves, or fail to do so.
http://archives.cnn.com/1999/US/12/06/okla.school.shooting.02/

Link?

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/10/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens-2/




DING!!! So when you say you're addressing the problem, it's untrue.

You think I don't "address the problem" because I don't support "gun free zones"?




And? You do know the difference between correllation and causation, right?

Yep, and they all correlate to not solving anything. How did any of these measures "address the problem"?

You're claiming that allowing those who have CCW licenses to not be disarmed will cause more problems. Now it's up to you to show your proof.

http://archives.cnn.com/1999/US/12/06/okla.school.shooting.02/

Source?

Source?

*flames*

I'm not even supposed to be here today.

*flames*

I'm not even supposed to be here today.

Heh.

Is it because you reached 20k posts? Or some other nebulous reason?

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/10/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens-2/

You realize that in every one of those cases it's just wild guessing on whether or not it saved anyone. At all. Some of them might have saved some lives, but then we're going to have to include every case where the person was legally permitted to own and carry a firearm and killed innocents, which would be, well, most of these cases.



You think I don't "address the problem" because I don't support "gun free zones"?

No, I think that you're proposing a solution to a problem that hasn't been shown to work and clearly isn't the real problem. It's just gun owners making their argument in the blood of victims. It's poor politics and quite sad really.


Yep, and they all correlate to not solving anything. How did any of these measures "address the problem"?

Who said they did? I didn't. I don't think the problem is addressed by either creating those laws or repealing them. What I do think is that America is one of the most armed populaces in the world and it's also got some of the highest crime. Pretending that being armed prevents crime is ignoring the problem altogether.


You're claiming that allowing those who have CCW licenses to not be disarmed will cause more problems. Now it's up to you to show your proof.

No, I'm not. You're writing in the blood of victims. You can if you like, but you've got to prove that if you're going to use dead people as your argument that they wouldn't be dead if those laws were repealed. You've not shown it except with a link that makes wild claims that even the articles you list dispute.

You seem to be under the false pretence that one must agree with one or the other. I say that gun ownership is not the problem nor the solution. Please read my posts before you reply. It will save you future embarrassment. One doesn't have to be against gun ownership to be against the kind of convenient argumentation that some for (or against) gun ownership use to take advantage of victims.

Heh.

Is it because you reached 20k posts? Or some other nebulous reason?
20K, I was going to leave at 10K but I was debating, and NSG has been dead for MONTHS, and then I get 20K and there is stuff I want to say.....

:mad:

Ok, I want all the CCW people to answer this for me...


The UK does not allow private ownership of guns.
They have lower murder rates and dont have these mass shootings.

The US does allow private ownership of guns.
We have one of the highest murder rates and lots of mass shootings.

With thoe facts in mind, who in their right mind would believe more guns would solve the problem?

You realize that in every one of those cases it's just wild guessing on whether or not it saved anyone. At all.

You keep believing that.





No, I think that you're proposing a solution to a problem that hasn't been shown to work and clearly isn't the real problem. It's just gun owners making their argument in the blood of victims. It's poor politics and quite sad really.

It HAS been shown to work but you just don't like the solution. If you want to get into the whole "argument in the blood of victims." I'll start quoting the anti-gun groups who put out calls for donations on the day of the shootings and calls for unrelated laws based on it.


Who said they did? I didn't. I don't think the problem is addressed by either creating those laws or repealing them. What I do think is that America is one of the most armed populaces in the world and it's also got some of the highest crime. Pretending that being armed prevents crime is ignoring the problem altogether.

And yet disarming people hasn't prevented crime either and has resulted in people getting killed evenso.




No, I'm not. You're writing in the blood of victims. You can if you like, but you've got to prove that if you're going to use dead people as your argument that they wouldn't be dead if those laws were repealed. You've not shown it except with a link that makes wild claims that even the articles you list dispute.

Please. Put that tired refrain away. I've already linked to where people w/ CCW have stopped individuals in the act of murder. You don't like that so you waffle about it.


You seem to be under the false pretence that one must agree with one or the other. I say that gun ownership is not the problem nor the solution. Please read my posts before you reply. It will save you future embarrassment. One doesn't have to be against gun ownership to be against the kind of convenient argumentation that some for (or against) gun ownership use to take advantage of victims.

Lather, rinse, repeat. What you're saying is that you have no evidence supporting your hypothesis so you're going to make ad hominem attacks against my proposal.

20K, I was going to leave at 10K but I was debating, and NSG has been dead for MONTHS, and then I get 20K and there is stuff I want to say.....

:mad:

You fail.

And yet disarming people hasn't prevented crime either and has resulted in people getting killed evenso.


Yes, yes it has. In most western Europian countries.


So, guns arent the problem, nor are they the solution. Guns are just a tool used by both sides for a quick fix.

You fail.

not as much as you do. maybe I should mod-suicide, except I still like one of the mods.....so meh.

*attempts to leave again*

not as much as you do. maybe I should mod-suicide, except I still like one of the mods.....so meh.

*attempts to leave again*

*as NSG draws you back in*

You keep believing that.

I'll just keep following the evidence. Happy to do so, really.





It HAS been shown to work but you just don't like the solution. If you want to get into the whole "argument in the blood of victims." I'll start quoting the anti-gun groups who put out calls for donations on the day of the shootings and calls for unrelated laws based on it.

No, it hasn't. It's been shown to sometimes work. Among Western nations, we are among the most armed, if not the most armed, and we are also among the highest crime rates, particularly violent crime. Pretending like having guns prevents crime is just bullocks.



And yet disarming people hasn't prevented crime either and has resulted in people getting killed evenso.

No, it hasn't. Again, you've not demonstrated that this is so. It is provably inaccurate, since countries with disarmed populaces generally have less violent crime, not more. Your attempt to prove causation flies in the face of logic and evidence.



Please. Put that tired refrain away. I've already linked to where people w/ CCW have stopped individuals in the act of murder. You don't like that so you waffle about it.

Okay, let's play this game. How did these shooters acquire their weapons? Unless every one of them got it illegally, then that counts against your claim. See, if you get to make tenuous claims, then everyone does.

I'm not waflling. Violence in the US is a cultural problem, and gun control or lack thereof has not been shown to be a solution. That's not waffling, that's following the evidence. Sorry, if you're used to pundit-style argumentation, but really I have little tolerance for it, mostly because it relates to reason like I relate to Dennis Rodman, which is not at all.



Lather, rinse, repeat. What you're saying is that you have no evidence supporting your hypothesis so you're going to make ad hominem attacks against my proposal.

Seriously, people who don't know what that means should stop using it. You've admitted there is no connection to gun control here that can be established. This is an attempt at an emotional argument from both sides. Meanwhile, look up ad hominem. Saying your argument is written in the blood of victims is directly attacking your argument. It uses the same technique you're using when you use opportunities like these to make the argument in the first place. An ad hominem would be talking about you, rather than the style of argument used. This concludes today's lesson. Anything else you need me to teach you about logic?

-snip, snip-AARGHH! TOO MUCH!
Washington D.C.
Higher crime rate, no guns. Crime went up after a ban on guns. Guns are not the problem, people are. Solution: kill everyone and there will be no more crime.

Since you're link that might have saved a couple of lives through legal gun ownership counts, then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

The incident prompted immediate changes in Virginia law that had allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns.

Legally owned a firearm. So that puts some lives in the anti-gun column, too. Because according to you, the legality is what caused him to have a weapon, just like when people used guns to prevent crimes.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14605817
He had a police-issued firearms owners' identification card

Okay, so that's 37 deaths in the gun-ownership column. You got 37 lives saved to balance that?

Washington D.C.
Higher crime rate, no guns. Crime went up after a ban on guns. Guns are not the problem, people are. Solution: kill everyone and there will be no more crime.

Again, correllation is not causation. Basic logic. Try again.

Ok, I want all the CCW people to answer this for me...


The UK does not allow private ownership of guns.
They have lower murder rates and dont have these mass shootings.

The US does allow private ownership of guns.
We have one of the highest murder rates and lots of mass shootings.

With thoe facts in mind, who in their right mind would believe more guns would solve the problem?

Finland and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, and very few mass shootings. South Africa has extremely strict gun control, and one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world.

The amount of guns is irrelevant. As long as the underlying social issues that lead to mass killings remain, there will always be mass killings, regardless of the legality of guns.

You seem to be forgetting this yourself. You seem to be claiming that ownership causes crime. It doesn't.



Um, no, he never said that.


Are you reading his arguements, or are you just assuming that anyone who disagrees with CCW wants to take away your precious guns?

Again, correllation is not causation. Basic logic. Try again.
You seem to be forgetting this yourself. You seem to be claiming that ownership causes crime. It doesn't.

You seem to be forgetting this yourself. You seem to be claiming that ownership causes crime. It doesn't.

No, I'm not. It seems like some people can't grasp that I can argue that this case doesn't support CCW AND still not be against gun ownership. This case isn't a good argument either way. Most of these cases aren't. It's just poor rhetoric on the parts of zealots arguing for their side in the blood of the victims. There is no evidence that CCW would have done anything here, and at least as much evidence that if he could not have legally gotten a firearm he would not have had one.

I don't believe the crime problem in the US is dramatically affected by gun ownership either way. I've said this in nearly every post. I've put up a couple of posts that show that IF one were to claim that because a few lives were saved by CCW that this is evidence that CCW has a positive effect, then one also has to include those cases where massacres were performed with legally acquired weapons.

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/10/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens-2/

There are 8 stories in that link, in 2 of them the good samaritan is shot and in another he does nothing to stop the sniper.

There must be more than 5 accounts of CCW actually doing some good?

Yes, yes it has. In most western Europian countries.


So, guns arent the problem, nor are they the solution. Guns are just a tool used by both sides for a quick fix.

No, no it hasn't. If you want to show it has, show a chart comparing historic trends in comparison to passed laws and other factors. I'll wait.

Finland and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, and very few mass shootings. South Africa has extremely strict gun control, and one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world.

The amount of guns is irrelevant. As long as the underlying social issues that lead to mass killings remain, there will always be mass killings, regardless of the legality of guns.

Ding! That's the point. There is not a direct link here. People arguing that this case proves one or the other are just arguing while standing on a pile of victims.

No, no it hasn't. If you want to show it has, show a chart comparing historic trends in comparison to passed laws and other factors. I'll wait.

Amusing. You keep claiming the opposite, so you've got the same burden which you've not met. I love how people are so willing to require logic from one side and deny the need on their own side of the argument.

I have yet to see strong evidence that gun control prevents crime. I have yet to see strong evidence that an armed populace reduces crime. It's a weak argument both ways. But if you'd like to sway me, show me EVERY Western country in the world and the effect of gun control. Because unless every country fits your trend you claims of causation are WEAK>

Um, no, he never said that.


Are you reading his arguements, or are you just assuming that anyone who disagrees with CCW wants to take away your precious guns?

Yup. In fact, I said the opposite. I don't see a strong link.

There is no evidence that CCW would have done anything here, and at least as much evidence that if he could not have legally gotten a firearm he would not have had one.
I have a funny feeling that this criminal would have done wat criminals do best and break the law to acquire the weapon needed. And it doesn't take long to get your hands on detailed plans and instructions for the production of improvised guns and grenades. Weapons are not complicated things and we're fragile creatures, just about anything can be used to kill. Some things are just more effective than others. No weapon ban will ever stop the production or illegal proliferation of weapons. There is evidence that when industries (booze, other drugs, prostitution, weapons) are driven underground the shit hits the fan pretty quick because dealers don't do background checks or ask for IDs and gangsters mow down each other and a lot of innocent civilians in their bloody turf wars. In other words, criminalizing things that aren't real crimes creates real criminals and makes shit more accessable to the wrong people.

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation; that's one firearm for every twelve people. The only question is; how do I arm the other eleven?

There are 8 stories in that link, in 2 of them the good samaritan is shot and in another he does nothing to stop the sniper.

There must be more than 5 accounts of CCW actually doing some good?

Especially considering that in both the NIU incident and in VA Tech, the guns were legally acquired. If we're going to take a non-representative sampling of cases, then certainly they aren't going to be left in a good spot but such evidenciary requirements.

I'll just keep following the evidence. Happy to do so, really.

You keep ignoring the evidence and appear happy to do so.


No, it hasn't. It's been shown to sometimes work. Among Western nations, we are among the most armed, if not the most armed, and we are also among the highest crime rates, particularly violent crime. Pretending like having guns prevents crime is just bullocks.

It's been shown to "sometimes work" while the opposite of disarming folks has NOT worked.


No, it hasn't. Again, you've not demonstrated that this is so. It is provably inaccurate, since countries with disarmed populaces generally have less violent crime, not more. Your attempt to prove causation flies in the face of logic and evidence.

You just don't like the facts so you ignore them. You keep stating that I'm claiming causality to throw out the fact that you've got nothing, repeat NOTHING to support your argument except false comparisons between unlike countries.

Okay, let's play this game. How did these shooters acquire their weapons? Unless every one of them got it illegally, then that counts against your claim. See, if you get to make tenuous claims, then everyone does.

Columbine. Straw Purchase. Illegal.
VT. Failure of authorities to properly alert system.
NIU. Failure of ISP to do background check. Lying on Form. Illegal.
Omaha mall. Theft. Illegal.

Now you get to show how allowing CCW has increased these occurences. I'll wait.

I'm not waflling. Violence in the US is a cultural problem, and gun control or lack thereof has not been shown to be a solution. That's not waffling, that's following the evidence. Sorry, if you're used to pundit-style argumentation, but really I have little tolerance for it, mostly because it relates to reason like I relate to Dennis Rodman, which is not at all.

Correct, gun control has not shown to be a solution yet that is what is being called for.

Seriously, people who don't know what that means should stop using it. You've admitted there is no connection to gun control here that can be established. This is an attempt at an emotional argument from both sides. Meanwhile, look up ad hominem. Saying your argument is written in the blood of victims is directly attacking your argument. It uses the same technique you're using when you use opportunities like these to make the argument in the first place. An ad hominem would be talking about you, rather than the style of argument used. This concludes today's lesson. Anything else you need me to teach you about logic?

That's nice J. Why don't you try and defend your argument instead of trying to attack mine by demonizing it. Oh, right, you can't.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.


As far as school violence is concerned, in the 2003-2004 school year, some 48 students were killed while in school or on school grounds, just thought I'd share that statistic.

I have a funny feeling that this criminal would have done wat criminals do best and break the law to acquire the weapon needed. And it doesn't take long to get your hands on detailed plans and instructions for the production of improvised guns and grenades. Weapons are not complicated things and we're fragile creatures, just about anything can be used to kill. Some things are just more effective than others. No weapon ban will ever stop the production or illegal proliferation of weapons. There is evidence that when industries (booze, other drugs, prostitution, weapons) are driven underground the shit hits the fan pretty quick because dealers don't do background checks or ask for IDs and gangsters mow down each other and a lot of innocent civilians in their bloody turf wars. In other words, criminalizing things that aren't real crimes creates real criminals and makes shit more accessable to the wrong people.

So in other words, when the evidence plays against you using the exact same requirements of evidence you just used, you just make up an excuse of why it doesn't work?

There is no evidence they would have acquired the guns illegally. None. There is no evidence they would have known how to do so if they could. None. I could just as easily claim that the people carrying weapons in the stories that were used as pro- examples for your arguments would have got them illegally rather than give up their rights, but that would just be speculation. Speculation has no value here.

(By the way, I read the first two sentences. I'll read the rest when you start using paragraphs.)

Especially considering that in both the NIU incident and in VA Tech, the guns were legally acquired. If we're going to take a non-representative sampling of cases, then certainly they aren't going to be left in a good spot but such evidenciary requirements.

They were both failures of the authorities to properly do checks. The NIU purchase was NOT legal as he lied on the forms about being institutionalized.

Try again.

NIU. Failure of ISP to do background check. Lying on Form.

Actually, he was legally allowed to purchase the gun in IL without lying. The mental health question was simply Have you been in a mental hospital in the last 6 months.


The answer is no. In this case, stricter gun control would have prevented him from buying a gun.

They were both failures of the authorities to properly do checks. The NIU purchase was NOT legal as he lied on the forms about being institutionalized.

Try again.

He was not institutionalized in the last 6 months (if ever).


I go to NIU. I assure you I know the facts better than you.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.
This is silly. Average american is more likely to be killed by drowning than by a shooting spree. Should we declare a war on oceans? I know that this analogy is not perfect, but it is statistically accurate. Cars kill far, far more people than guns. War on cars, then? The statistic that you NEVER hear in the news is the number of crimes stopped by gun owners. It's as if it never happens. The truth of the matter is that US has lower violent crime rates than Europe (most of which does have strong gun-control laws). The reason that you might get the impression that shooting sprees are so prevelant is because the media makes a spectacle of it. But they are usually caused by derranged people acting out their insanity. Derranged people acted out their insanity before guns were so cheap, too. They just did it by choking their victims or knifing them. I personally never touched a gun in my life. But I think that the chance that we all take by living in a free society is that most people are decent and can be trusted. Insisting that guns must be taken away from the general population stems from abandoning this belief in the basic decency of people. Name a country with absolute prohibition on gun ownership and you'll almost automatically name a country with a high level of government corruption. Once the people are held to be unstable and in need of constant oversight, the government officials have a free hand in abusing power. I know the causality may seem tenuous. But it exists in the philosophy that must be adopted in order to accept a society in which the government is seen as the owner rather than as the servant of the people.

You keep ignoring the evidence and appear happy to do so.

Amusing. What evidence? Your couple of stories where in most cases they don't show that CCW had any effect.


It's been shown to "sometimes work" while the opposite of disarming folks has NOT worked.

Prove it. If what you're saying is true, then there should be an increas in crime every place that has instilled gun control world over. Get to providing the evidence.


You just don't like the facts so you ignore them. You keep stating that I'm claiming causality to throw out the fact that you've got nothing, repeat NOTHING to support your argument except false comparisons between unlike countries.

The facts? You've not provided any facts. Demonstrate that disarming the public increases crime. I claim it's not been shown. Prove me wrong.



Columbine. Straw Purchase. Illegal.
VT. Failure of authorities to properly alert system.
NIU. Failure of ISP to do background check. Lying on Form. Illegal.
Omaha mall. Theft. Illegal.

Hehe. Current laws allowed NIU and VT to acquire the guns. That you think they shouldn't have been given them is argument for tighter laws. You sure you want to make that argument? It's undeniably true that tighter application or tighter laws would have made it more difficult for at least three of those cases. Your claim that CCW would affect those instances has no evidence.



Now you get to show how allowing CCW has increased these occurences. I'll wait.

I don't have to. You've not shown that it decreases them. You've already demonstrated yourself that either in application or law, gun control is too lax. Thanks for that.



Correct, gun control has not shown to be a solution yet that is what is being called for.

I agree it's not been shown to be a solution. I'm saying it isn't. What's complicated about this?


That's nice J. Why don't you try and defend your argument instead of trying to attack mine by demonizing it. Oh, right, you can't.

What is my argument, pray tell? I'm attacking yours because yours has no evidence. I don't have to demonize your argument. You've done that yourself by showing that other than standing on a pile of victims you can't make one.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

Read the reports. He was institutionalized for a year after HS.


Ok, so he was....19 when he was released.


And he was 27 when he bought the guns.


Meaning, he did not lie when he answered that he had not been institutionalized within the last 5 years.

Ergo, he got the guns legally.

Ergo, tighter control would have helped the situation.

He was not institutionalized in the last 6 months (if ever).


I go to NIU. I assure you I know the facts better than you.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

Read the reports. He was institutionalized for a year after HS.

Yes, in the late 90's. That was more than five years ago. In IL, the question is whether it was in the last 5 years. You really want to keep arguing from the point of ignorance? Seriously? That's only making you look silly.

Dont discourage him, Im enjoying this.

They were both failures of the authorities to properly do checks. The NIU purchase was NOT legal as he lied on the forms about being institutionalized.

Try again.

So when you don't know something you just make it up. In IL, the question is "Within the past five years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?" He was 27. He was treated in high school and possibly for a period after high school. There is no evidence that his answer to that question was false.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/799695,CST-NWS-niugun18.article

According to the state's attorney, his purchase was not illegal. He did say that the screening should be increased, but that is not the current law.

You wanna make up any other evidence? This is fun.

Amusing. What evidence? Your couple of stories where in most cases they don't show that CCW had any effect.

Prove it. If what you're saying is true, then there should be an increas in crime every place that has instilled gun control world over. Get to providing the evidence.

The facts? You've not provided any facts. Demonstrate that disarming the public increases crime. I claim it's not been shown. Prove me wrong.

Hehe. Current laws allowed NIU and VT to acquire the guns. That you think they shouldn't have been given them is argument for tighter laws. You sure you want to make that argument? It's undeniably true that tighter application or tighter laws would have made it more difficult for at least three of those cases. Your claim that CCW would affect those instances has no evidence.

I don't have to. You've not shown that it decreases them. You've already demonstrated yourself that either in application or law, gun control is too lax. Thanks for that.

I agree it's not been shown to be a solution. I'm saying it isn't. What's complicated about this?

What is my argument, pray tell? I'm attacking yours because yours has no evidence. I don't have to demonize your argument. You've done that yourself by showing that other than standing on a pile of victims you can't make one.

*Sigh* Just because you don't like the fact that CCW holders DID stop shootings in progress doesn't mean they didn't happen. You state it's not a solution. That's nice. I've shown that it has the potential to be where "Gun Free Zones" like NIU aren't. You then go on to make false claims about my arguments (ie lie). In VT his mental records should have gone to the state system which would have flagged him. They didn't. The authorities failed.
At NIU, the police shouldn't have issued him a FOID card as he obviously had one w/ in the 5 yr time span and he lied on the form 4473. A felony.

If you can't go w/o blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying, you're being just as disingenuous and dishonest as you claim others are being.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

Read the reports. He was institutionalized for a year after HS.

Yes, in the late 90's. That was more than five years ago. In IL, the question is whether it was in the last 5 years. You really want to keep arguing from the point of ignorance? Seriously? That's only making you look silly.

Obviously you didn't look at the link. Had you , you may see the words "ever been".

Speaking of ignorance.



I just applied for a gun. The question is "In the last 5 years"


Either your source is wrong or you are.

Also, the States Attorny said nothing was done illegally. Youre starting to look like a fool. Stop.

That's nice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/police-investigate-niu-sh_n_87011.html

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

The first link you posted clearly states that the question that must be answered in IL. is not the same as the question asked on the form you are posting. IL. asks whether you've been in a mental health facility in the last 5 years and the form you posted asks whether you've ever been in one.

So when you don't know something you just make it up. In IL, the question is "Within the past five years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?" He was 27. He was treated in high school and possibly for a period after high school. There is no evidence that his answer to that question was false.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/799695,CST-NWS-niugun18.article

According to the state's attorney, his purchase was not illegal. He did say that the screening should be increased, but that is not the current law.

You wanna make up any other evidence? This is fun.

That's nice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/police-investigate-niu-sh_n_87011.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo/080216/480/2b030919586d4e07ade98877f078d3c2/

Kazmierczak spent more than a year at the Thresholds-Mary Hill House in the late 1990s, former house manager Louise Gbadamashi told The Associated Press. His parents placed him there after high school because he had become "unruly" at home, she said.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

Obviously you didn't look at the link. Had you , you may see the words "ever been".

Speaking of ignorance.

Obviously you didn't look at the link you posted. Had you, you would have noticed that that isn't the question asked in IL.

*Sigh* Just because you don't like the fact that CCW holders DID stop shootings in progress doesn't mean they didn't happen.

There is no evidence that less people died. That's where the problem lies. Like I said, if you're going to include this as evidence, then every legally-owned firearm used in a murder also counts, and, friend, you're gonna lose that battle.


You state it's not a solution. That's nice. I've shown that it has the potential to be where "Gun Free Zones" like NIU aren't.

Nope. Provide proof, not weak stories that may or may not have done anything to help.


You then go on to make false claims about my arguments (ie lie). In VT his mental records should have gone to the state system which would have flagged him. They didn't. The authorities failed.

Hmmm... you mean the guns should have been better controlled? You realize no matter how you slice it, it was gun control that was needed in these cases if you're claiming that they slipped through the cracks.


At NIU, the police shouldn't have issued him a FOID card as he obviously had one w/ in the 5 yr time span and he lied on the form 4473. A felony.

No, he didn't lie. According to the state's attorney, he followed the law. The law asks if he'd been in an institution in the past five years. I posted the exact question it asks.


If you can't go w/o blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying, you're being just as disingenuous and dishonest as you claim others are being.

Hehe. Pardon? Tell me exactly what I've misrepresented? First you made completely erroneous claims about what I was arguing, now you're squirming. What part of your position did I misrepresent? Be specific and stop wriggling.

Yes, in the late 90's. That was more than five years ago. In IL, the question is whether it was in the last 5 years. You really want to keep arguing from the point of ignorance? Seriously? That's only making you look silly.

Obviously you didn't look at the link. Had you , you may see the words "ever been".

Speaking of ignorance.