Mass shooting

[gunrutz]

It's pretty disgusting that you guys are drooling over guns in a thread about mass homicides and in particular someone that walked into a school and murdered a bunch of kindergarten children. Take your guns & ammo love fest to another thread.

I suppose the same could be said about people who want to turn every gun incident into another grave from which to stand to ask for gun controls that accomplish nothing.

[gunrutz]

If only police officers were armed, this could have been avoided.

Well that's fairly typical, you see out here in the real world where that won't ever happen we need to consider real solutions to this problem, we also need to consider that there may not be any. There is a lot going on here, yes access to these firearms certainly makes killing a bunch of people a lot easier, but when i was a kid we had firearms on the wall, unlocked, as was the ammunition in the drawer beneath them, this was the case in most homes, yet most of us didn't shoot anyone. I would wager that more firearms were more accesible then than now, so what has changed?

There are probably about a hundred different things you could point to, and maybe its impossible to change them, maybe its impossible to turn the clock back 30 years, or 50, but some of you who keep pushing for change may want to consider that those changes have consequences, and at least in my experience society has only gotten more progressive, moslty for the better I will add. But in the case of young people, how many of them now live in single parent homes, often without fathers, or parents who are never at home, or when they are spend there time working or with there heads buried in a laptop. Most of the time this doesn't matter much, but if your child has some not so good tendancies perhaps you should spend more time parenting. The same can be said for the hands off approach to parenting, where your child has to be your friend or equal, and o you must never yell or spank, or even harshly correct them, maybe those tactics make fewer mosnters overall, i doubt it though. Maybe those violent games come into play, for most kids i don't think so, for those with problems..who knows, goes back to parenting i suppose.

The only way i could ever see real restrictions on firearms in the US is with a constitutional change, the odds of that happening are basically zero, the reality is that you can't get these guns back, and even if you could it isn't the guns doing the killing, so instead of pretending that is a posibility what would be your real solution? Just like the gun registry here that did nothing (pleae don't argue the numbers dont lie) there is no point in enacting feel good laws that only serve to placate the ignorant, persoanlly i don't see any solution, maybe there doesn't need to be one, but after something so horrifying, even I am questioning. If I turned in my shotgun would people stop dying? The only answer i can come up with is no.

[xul]

No, as the term "terrorism" applied retro-actively would find many such "attacks" going back to at least Civil War times (Harpers Ferry). More recent aircraft hijackings were a huge problem in the 1970's for the U.S. The private Pinkerton security services company was founded in the U.S. over 150 years ago to address such threats to government and private concerns.

I totally agree with your history lecture.

But you still haven't answered my question----Why has US applied more security measures since 911 terrorist attacks?

I think it is because the level of the terrorism threat rises. 200 years ago, British needed an army and a war for burning the White House, but today only a few terrorists with a hijacked airplane can do this.

Edited December 16, 2012 by xul

[Black Dog]

So, if according to you, firearms garner in some males a form of “primeval macho male vibe interjected into sexual development”, as such, would that make those males that are afraid of guns “neutered in their sexual development”?

Nah, just comfortable enough that penis proxies aren't needed.

Which is exactly what they are. How dare some liberal elites deny the poor and poverty stricken their right to own firearms.

Own the means of their own destruction you mean.

I don't think so, but this sexuality angle is always the last refuge for our liberal friends. Wouldn't explain why many women choose to own and use firearms.

A fraction compared to the number of men. Probably a bit of penis envy going on there.

[jbg]

Until we face the fact that the problem is people killing each other, then nothing will change.

What we have to face up to is the need to force treatment and even institutionalization in many cases.

[Guest American Woman]

What we have to face up to is the need to force treatment and even institutionalization in many cases.

What if the "treatment" is drugs that have side effects that can cause behavior like this? And do we really want to start institutionalizing everyone with these problems because an immeasurably small minority lose it like this? - certainly no one could predict this was going to happen - that Lanza was going to snap like this.

Edited December 16, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

I suppose the same could be said about people who want to turn every gun incident into another grave from which to stand to ask for gun controls that accomplish nothing.

Bingo!

[Argus]

And Firearms safety......between the NRA and Jeff Cooper, the entire "book" on firearms safety, used not only by private owners, but police and military, was written..............Funny what those that know about a subject like guns can do.

Kill themselves quickly and easily in a moment of drunken depression?

[Argus]

Yeah, just as disgusting as those that would use little children’s deaths as an emotional vehicle to further their own stated agenda…………….

Isn't it a normal human function after a disaster to try and figure out how to prevent future disasters? When a plane crashes, don't we immediately launch a full investigation to figure out what caused it, and figure out how to prevent that from happening again? If a bridge collapses, do you say "Now is not the time to use this as an emotional vehicle to further your agenda of proper bridge maintenance." ?

And in any event, there is a difference between arguing that gun control would not help, and making masturbatory posts about how exciting guns are right after a bunch of six year olds were slaughtered with one.

[Argus]

So, if according to you, firearms garner in some males a form of “primeval macho male vibe interjected into sexual development”, as such, would that make those males that are afraid of guns “neutered in their sexual development”?

No, I think those would be men who don't feel the need for a penis substitute.

[Black Dog]

Isn't it a normal human function after a disaster to try and figure out how to prevent future disasters? When a plane crashes, don't we immediately launch a full investigation to figure out what caused it, and figure out how to prevent that from happening again? If a bridge collapses, do you say "Now is not the time to use this as an emotional vehicle to further your agenda of proper bridge maintenance." ?

Well said. Of course it's clear that for some (many?) guns aren't an issue of public safety, but one tied directly to their own feelings of self-worth and masculinity. I can't see why else they take any discussion of making it more difficult to get guns so very personally.

[Shady]

Well said. Of course it's clear that for some (many?) guns aren't an issue of public safety, but one tied directly to their own feelings of self-worth and masculinity. I can't see why else they take any discussion of making it more difficult to get guns so very personally.

Connecticut already has very strict gun laws. In fact, the shooter tried to acquire a gun himself but was denied. Regardless, it's very reasonable to think of ways to make gun access more difficult. But that's a very broad term.

[cybercoma]

I suppose the same could be said about people who want to turn every gun incident into another grave from which to stand to ask for gun controls that accomplish nothing.

Riiight. Because it's such a dirtbag move to use a mass shooting as a reason to discuss gun control. How could anyone talk about making society safer at a time like this!?

[cybercoma]

And in any event, there is a difference between arguing that gun control would not help, and making masturbatory posts about how exciting guns are right after a bunch of six year olds were slaughtered with one.

This.

I don't care that people want to argue against gun control policies. Fine. However, that's not what BC and Derek were doing earlier.

[cybercoma]

Well said. Of course it's clear that for some (many?) guns aren't an issue of public safety, but one tied directly to their own feelings of self-worth and masculinity. I can't see why else they take any discussion of making it more difficult to get guns so very personally.

I think an important point in the debate that rarely, if ever, gets brought up is this.

You would think gun owners and those that really want to keep their firearms would be the first to stand up, denounce these actions, and really be the core of people contributing to ways that this kind of thing can be prevented. They know that this sort of thing contributes to public support for taking away their guns. If they were smart, they wouldn't act like juvenile selfish fools and try to be involved in the discussion in a constructive way. Otherwise, they risk having the public look at them like idiots that are part of the problem, rather than contributing to solutions. Digging their heels in, making threats, and criticizing people who are looking for ways to make society safer is going to leave them out of the discussion. They should be the first ones to the table offering solutions and advocating for safe gun ownership and better laws that allow them to keep their guns, while reducing harm.

[Shady]

I think an important point in the debate that rarely, if ever, gets brought up is this.

You would think gun owners and those that really want to keep their firearms would be the first to stand up, denounce these actions,

You've jumped the shark now. You really need them to denounce these actions? Seriously? Come'on man.

[kimmy]

Riiight. Because it's such a dirtbag move to use a mass shooting as a reason to discuss gun control. How could anyone talk about making society safer at a time like this!?

"I'm offended that someone would use a horrible tragedy like this to advance their personal agenda. Up next, Mike Huckabee will be here to explain how prayer in schools could have prevented the massacre."

-k

[cybercoma]

You've jumped the shark now. You really need them to denounce these actions? Seriously? Come'on man.

Shady, if you're going to quote things out of context, don't bother to expect to be taken seriously. You cut a single clause out of a sentence and responded to it.

[cybercoma]

"I'm offended that someone would use a horrible tragedy like this to advance their personal agenda. Up next, Mike Huckabee will be here to explain how prayer in schools could have prevented the massacre."

-k

Did you hear the Phelps Family will be protesting the funerals of these children?

[Shady]

Shady, if you're going to quote things out of context, don't bother to expect to be taken seriously. You cut a single clause out of a sentence and responded to it.

The context of you suggesting gun owners need to denounce these actions is absolutely ridiculous. Like I said, you've completely jumped the shark. Congratulations.

[cybercoma]

The context of you suggesting gun owners need to denounce these actions is absolutely ridiculous. Like I said, you've completely jumped the shark. Congratulations.

That wasn't the point of the argument at all. Go back and read it again. Have someone help you maybe because you seem to be having comprehension issues.

[Shady]

That wasn't the point of the argument at all. Go back and read it again. Have someone help you maybe because you seem to be having comprehension issues.

You're right about that, there was no point of the argument. As a white person, you need to denounce these actions too, because they were committed by a fellow white person. We need to know where you stand on mass murder of innocent children.

[cybercoma]

You're right about that, there was no point of the argument. As a white person, you need to denounce these actions too, because they were committed by a fellow white person. We need to know where you stand on mass murder of innocent children.

You seem to still be having issues understanding the argument made in the post. Keep trying. I've got faith that you'll figure it out.

[kimmy]

Did you hear the Phelps Family will be protesting the funerals of these children?

I'd be surprised if they didn't. But whatever.

I was referring to the network that gets indignant when people talking about gun-control after tragedies running this on the air:

Because it's wrong to exploit the deaths of these children to advance gun-control. But it's right to exploit the deaths of these children to advance prayer in schools!

-k

[Shady]

You seem to still be having issues understanding the argument made in the post.

Nobody could understand it, because it doesn't make any sense. Btw, I'm still waiting for you to denounce these actions.