Connecticut Massacre

[Cognisant]

At least 27 people, including 20 children, have been killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in western Connecticut.

Only in US, and places like Somalia, Uganda, Syria, Kazakstan, etc.
Y'know, all the civilised places where access to lethal weaponry is restricted.

Edit: No, wait, it's 28 now.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This is officially a weaponry regulation thread then?


I feel I've made enough of a case here to demonstrate that the problem is neither with weapons access nor the shooters themselves: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14813

In any case, let it be said that the only ones who would be restricted by weapons regulations, even total and outright banning and seizure, are the stupid. And especially in the context of such proposed policy, the willfully stupid.

 

[Cognisant]

I feel I've made enough of a case here to demonstrate that the problem is neither with weapons access or the shooters themselves

Then where is the problem?

Because we have much tighter laws in Australia, indeed in most every other first world country, which conveniently coincides with relatively low (in comparison to the US) occurrences of crime involving guns.

Tighter laws will never make it impossible for someone to get a gun, but they'll make it harder, and why should it be easy?

BTW it's 29 now.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I do believe there have been a couple instances in the UK and dare we forget, Norway. Perhaps they too should be added to your list.

We do certainly have a subsect of gun owners in the US who hold our woefully misinterpreted 2nd amendment as the most sacred of rights. Often referred to as the "gun nuts" (which isn't very creative but being pithy about them isn't all that great an idea). They are immensely powerful. Not for their guns but for their collective vote and political sway. Calling us Somalia will not sway them. They are too paranoid of tyranny to be persuaded no matter how many events such as today or a couple days ago in Portland Ore. occur.

Yeah, we're a little fucked up but don't think it can't happen where you live. Humans, pffft.

Edit: News here still reporting 26 dead with 20 being children.

 

[Niclmaki]

I'm having a hard time caring.
And I know that sounds awful, but oh well. Things happen.

 

[joal0503]

Then where is the problem?

Because we have much tighter laws in Australia, indeed in most every other first world country, which conveniently coincides with relatively low (in comparison to the US) occurrences of crime involving guns.

Tighter laws will never make it impossible for someone to get a gun, but they'll make it harder, and why should it be easy?

BTW it's 29 now.

its protected by our constitution. its old, its archaic, its outdated...but thats america woohoooo...i believe it was the english who made the right to bear arm a right of the people wayy back in the 1800's i believe...but its irrelevant...gun culture is mad over here, and its highly protected by large portions of our population i.e. the majority.

id say that no, this ISNT about gun control. thats just the typical fallback events like these produce.

the bigger issue? why do so many young individuals turn to this sort of measure...why people in general seem to have these sorts of actions carried out in a 'civilized' society. but no, people are too worried about politics, and arent able to simply say, "mebbe there is something wrong barrelling down the highway at 100 mph with two loaded guns aimed at our heads"...

well never heal, if we dont take on the real problem. society is sick, in many ways. can we personally feel responsible for this? no, but we have to realize that we are contributing by allowing dominance, violence, and the male ego to take over our world.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Then where is the problem?

The external forces that drive people insane. The anti-meritocratic components of human society.

Because we have much tighter laws in Australia, indeed in most every other first world country, which conveniently coincides with relatively low (in comparison to the US) occurrences of crime involving guns.

Tighter laws will never make it impossible for someone to get a gun, but they'll make it harder, and why should it be easy?

Perhaps you're just not creative enough. Anyone could do the same within 24 hours with $20, a Google search, and a trip to the local hardware store. The information isn't exactly hard to come by (given that whole "information age" thing).

BTW it's 29 now.

We all know how effective bans are: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12329

 

[joal0503]

whoops edit.

 

[crippli]

the bigger issue? why do so many young individuals turn to this sort of measure...why

It would take time to answer this, if we even have enough knowledge to do so. There is also the question if society is robust enough to handle the answer.

And there are not many. Just a few each year out of 7 billion + people. I am actually surprised there are not more.

It's bad, but I consider some of the US drone shooting in irak a much more serious issue. This here pales compared to what they do in war.

I guess I would prefer the news companies to make their money on something more actual and interesting.

Would this guy have done this if no one cared?

 

[BigApplePi]

There were guns here and there before the first one happened. The first time it was new. Creativity? After that, the idea is planted. The news and today's news is spread all around the country ... world? What do you think will happen when a troubled young person can't solve his problem? Many of them will act this way.

It's me and my pain versus yours. I wouldn't do this if you'd see my pain. Now you have evidence and lots of it.

It's like fashion. Someone ought to make a graph of these shooting against time. It's idea, pain, rage, means, opportunity, attention, release.

 

[joal0503]

It would take time to answer this, if we even have enough knowledge to do so. There is also the question if society is robust enough to handle the answer.

And there are not many. Just a few each year out of 7 billion + people. I am actually surprised there are not more.

It's bad, but I consider some of the US drone shooting in irak a much more serious issue. This here pales compared to what they do in war.

II guess I would prefer the new companies to make their money on something more actual and interesting.

Would this guy have done this if no one cared?

most of what people would consider to be atrocitiy, occurs on a daily basis without attention from western media outlets.

it may appear to be complex, and in all seriousness it probably is...but i see several things about our society that would be responsible for this...its not just 'oh that poor boy watched too many television shows'. its the constant barrage of violence, dominance, gun culture, thats so rampant within our hierarchy and social institutions. Wanna get ahead in life? put down the troves of idiots beneath you, and dominate dominate dominate. we euphemize and just call that 'hard work and opportunity' but thats what it boils down to. W've built a world, where emotion, empathy, dont exist. we're told, 'no dont pay attention to that shit, its outdated, and science can tell it better, you arent important, you arent special, you arent anything but a machine wasting awayin chaos' ...

It goes on without us ever really feeling the effects until its too late. we dont pay attention to it, because its simply normal.

 

[own8ge]

I do not agree.

 

[Words]

Another one? Is this turning into a culture? A structural problem?

Not very informed on the gun law debate, but I dont think its fair to compare drugs with guns. Drugs, I think, are way more profitable than guns. They have higher and more consistent demand due to its addictive qualities. They create a tight market. Sellers want to sell as much as buyers want to buy. What do they call it...inelastic demand? Legal/technological accessibility is more of a factor with guns than it is with drugs.

 

[joal0503]

Another one? Is this turning into a culture? A structural problem?

Not very informed on the gun law debate, but I dont think its fair to compare drugs with guns. Drugs, I think, are way more profitable than guns. They have higher and more consistent demand due to its addictive qualities. They create a tight market. Sellers want to sell as much as buyers want to buy. What do they call it...inelastic demand? Legal/technological accessibility is more of a factor with guns than it is with drugs.

id agree that its not very sound to try to compare the two...

...profits...are you talking about the black market vs legal sales? or just generally comparing global drug trade vs global arms industry?

drugs and guns, both legally acquired and black market are both highly profitable businesses to be involved in.

but for me theres a pretty clear distinction, with the intended use of a product. On one hand, you have a set of chemicals and substances usually designed or used to help promote health/wellbeing. of course there is abuse, and other negative connotatios with illicit drugs, but when it comes to the majority of RX (i know tis debatable with all of the pharma agendas out there) they arent given to people to help us blow eachother to hell.

guns on the other hand are designed, manufactured, and used mainly for one purpose: killing.

but with all that jazz...i still stand by what i said earlier. its not control of the weapons, its the societal reasons/justifications we use to have them in the first place.

i know this isnt making much sense. im tired, de-caffeinated, and longing for a burrito.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Another one? Is this turning into a culture? A structural problem?

Not very informed on the gun law debate, but I dont think its fair to compare drugs with guns. Drugs, I think, are way more profitable than guns. They have higher and more consistent demand due to its addictive qualities. They create a tight market. Sellers want to sell as much as buyers want to buy. What do they call it...inelastic demand? Legal accessibility is more of a factor with guns than it is with drugs.

An effective solution isn't an easy one. I would expect major reforms involving everything from education to economics and drugs to immigration for real progress to be seen.

Black markets tend to arise with the outright banning or restriction of anything. Prohibition's the easy example, but consider everything from black bear gallbladders to the interstate firework trade as well. There are even some in my (extended) family who own well in excess of $50k in guns and ammo alone; close to the value of their house.

Demand for guns has actually spiked in recent years due to unfounded McCarthyism coupled with the fact that a guy with a (D) after his name won the presidency (not to mention that it's yet another investment bubble, or the militant drug trade itself):

Spoiler

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/11/07/guns-obama-smith-wesson-sturm-ruger/

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2048229,00.html

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=4bb8adad-8b3c-4f4b-8e7e-8844bf30ee08

And actually, guns play a pretty integral role in the drug war itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYCdHLNkNEk

 

[Proletar]

I agree with Words here, definately.


Guns are not drugs. Otherwise, doctors could prescribe patients with rifles for stomach pains, and a general could toss either a gun or a bottle of pills to their soldiers, no matter which. I hope that anyone reading this realizes that that sounds stupid. Guns are not drugs.

Sweden is another example of a country with very strict gun-laws. It's possible to own certain guns here, such as rifles for hunting and so forth, but handguns are mostly just available to police-officers and the military, and so forth. Despite this fact, Sweden is one of the least corrupted countries in the world. The US conservatives just want to push guns, that's what.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

I had to turn off the news. Not because the story was too sad or too horrendous to watch. I turned it off because after ten minutes the media brought up gun control and speculated about what political action the president might take on the issue. They then showed clips of all the other shootings that occurred recently and suggested gun control as the only way to limit these attacks.

Maybe the only reason anyone brings up gun control is because of this typical media response. What if instead of bringing in a panel of politicians who discuss gun control, the media brought in a panel of psychologists who discussed the causes of mental illness and how best to recognize, care for, and manage it.

Millions of people are watching the news and sending their love, compassion and prayers without a clue that hatred, anger and evil all come from the same place. All it would take for them to unleash hell is a genetic disorder, a blow to the head or a developing tumor.

 

[BigApplePi]

I call it fashion among the troubled. Try contrasting these events with terrorist attacks. The motives are quite different. I'd dread to think if that ever became "fashionable." I guess there are more introverted troubled than there are extroverted outsiders.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Guns are not drugs.

I'm referring to the creation of a black market in general, not what the products in a given black market are used for. So long as there is any level of demand, it will form. It's also unrealistic to assume the subjective aspect of value would decline either. What's more attractive to a given criminal in a gun-free land than a gun?

And I speak from experience saying that it's not difficult to re-load old ammo.

Sweden is another example of a country with very strict gun-laws. It's possible to own certain guns here, such as rifles for hunting and so forth, but handguns are mostly just available to police-officers and the military, and so forth. Despite this fact, Sweden is one of the least corrupted countries in the world. The US conservatives just want to push guns, that's what.

Sweden also has a VERY different socio-economic structure than the U.S.

And I laugh at the notion that it's a conservative issue. Spoonfeeding the public McCarthyism is a conservative issue, not gun availability.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I call it fashion among the troubled. Try contrasting these events with terrorist attacks. The motives are quite different. I'd dread to think if that ever became "fashionable." I guess there are more introverted troubled than there are extroverted outsiders.

So often described as loners. Perhaps we will become persons of interest in the near future.

 

[Cognisant]

I absolutely agree that there are social/psychological/cultural issues that need to be dealt with and it is these issues that create the people who do this sort of thing, and in that sense gun control is treating the symptoms, not the disease, but y'know doctors do that, a broken leg isn't something that can be quickly fixed so while they fix it you're given painkillers to prevent you going into shock, following the analogy I agree gun control isn't going to be a magical solution, but nor are social/psychological/cultural issues going to be solved overnight either, and until they are solved I don't think semi-automatic weaponry has any justification for being in civilian hands.

It's no good resetting the bone and putting the limb in a cast if your patient has gone into cardiac arrest and died as a result of you doing the afore mentioned without giving them some kind of anaesthetic.

 

[TriflinThomas]

Let me put it this way: if people (read: Americans) actually cared about mass shootings, then they would have done setting about it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Maybe the only reason anyone brings up gun control is because of this typical media response. What if instead of bringing in a panel of politicians who discuss gun control, the media brought in a panel of psychologists who discussed the causes of mental illness and how best to recognize, care for, and manage it.

It's little more than reactionary identity politics. Something else added to the pile that distracts us from real issues.

I guess there are more introverted troubled than there are extroverted outsiders.

I'd think it has more to do with genetics, stress, and various forms of trauma/abuse. Suicide and homicide are sometimes the end results under such extreme pressure. Sometimes addiction occurs prior to either.

 

[Cognisant]

It's little more than reactionary identity politics. Something else added to the pile that distracts us from real issues.

Unjustified dismissal, I don't even live in your country and I think it's a real issue.

Mainly because Australia is heavily influenced by the US and I would hate to see the gun control laws here lessened, because IB's right, it could happen here, and I don't want it to, or at very least I want the psycho that's shooting at me to have a shitty homemade pistol rather than military grade assault weaponry.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's no good resetting the bone and putting the limb in a cast if your patient has gone into cardiac arrest and died as a result of you doing the afore mentioned without giving them some kind of anaesthetic.

The problem is that you're anesthetizing the wrong target (the general public) as opposed to the actual source of pain.

In this case, the source of pain enjoys some fairly large retaliation efforts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas


https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&tok=dlifL30YchaZ5csVyPE6Vg&pq=zetas&cp=7&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=zeta+execution&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=zeta+ex&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.aWM&fp=f25ade6bff8bd752&bpcl=39967673&biw=1366&bih=658

I agree with the idea of an auto/semi-auto ban. It just won't work. Our original assault weapons ban failed miserably in the 90s.

Unjustified dismissal, I don't even live in your country and I think it's a real issue.


Mainly because Australia is heavily influenced by the US and I would hate to see the gun control laws here lessened, because IB's right, it could happen here, and I don't want it to, or at very least I want the psycho that's shooting at me to have a shitty homemade pistol rather than military grade assault weaponry.

I'd argue that it's such a reactionary issue that it's indeed in fact localized. Australia's borders and trafficking issues (drug, human, and otherwise) are very different. It's nothing compared to economics, education, foreign policy, healthcare, energy... Like most social issues, it's distraction fodder here.

 

[Proletar]

I'm referring to the creation of a black market in general, not what the products in a given black market are used for. So long as there is any level of demand, it will form. It's also unrealistic to assume the subjective aspect of value would decline either. What's more attractive to a given criminal in a gun-free land than a gun?
Sweden also has a VERY different socio-economic structure than the U.S.

And I laugh at the notion that it's a conservative issue. Spoonfeeding the public McCarthyism is a conservative issue, not gun availability.

Yes, but a black market also decreases the quality of the product. That's a bad thing when it comes to drugs, since unpure stuff tends to harm the body more than pure stuff, but a good thing when it comes to guns, since a shitty pistol made in Venezuela shipped across the sea and filled with sand is better than a state of the art desert eagle perfectly suited with the ammo sold at k-mart (or wherever). The rules of the black market affect these different things in different ways. That's why likening them to eachother makes for a really bad analogy. The same goes for the prohibition of alcohol.

Guns are bad. Get rid of the guns.

 

[joal0503]

Unjustified dismissal, I don't even live in your country and I think it's a real issue.

Mainly because Australia is heavily influenced by the US and I would hate to see the gun control laws here lessened, because IB's right, it could happen here, and I don't want it to, or at very least I want the psycho that's shooting at me to have a shitty homemade pistol rather than military grade assault weaponry.

hmmm australia...the us has steadily been bolstering/preparing your homeland with military grade arms the past decade...and its sort of obvious why...you are the ally in the pacific, a key strategic place...

post 9/11, i believe your arms spending went up nearly 300%.

its all the machine working...the fear of attack, the fear that you genuinely express now. but they play off of events like this, gather fervor so that everyone can re arm themselves and thats where i see it getting fucked up. we justify our own excessive amounts of arms and weapons for 'protection' ... but who really needs protection?

we look at an event like this, and because it takes place in the civilian populations in the middle of white america is shocking and repulsive. but give me a fucking break.

we've been bombing out iraq and afghanistan for over 10 years now. look at the gaza/israeli crisis, and its clear that there is side armed to the teeth and backed by the us military. what the FUCK am i ranting about now? i really have no idea..

oh yes, gun control. there are other more pertinent issues to address. when you compare the numbers to deaths caused by weapons that society accepts i.e. evil bad dudes who deserved to die, to the actual amounts of fatalities guns cause in high profile cases like this, its not even close. distraction and fodder, guns and arms are a staple of the global society and economy. bleh

wheres my coffffeeeee?!!?!?

 

[crippli]

most of what people would consider to be atrocitiy, occurs on a daily basis without attention from western media outlets.

it may appear to be complex, and in all seriousness it probably is...but i see several things about our society that would be responsible for this...its not just 'oh that poor boy watched too many television shows'. its the constant barrage of violence, dominance, gun culture, thats so rampant within our hierarchy and social institutions. Wanna get ahead in life? put down the troves of idiots beneath you, and dominate dominate dominate. we euphemize and just call that 'hard work and opportunity' but thats what it boils down to. W've built a world, where emotion, empathy, dont exist. we're told, 'no dont pay attention to that shit, its outdated, and science can tell it better, you arent important, you arent special, you arent anything but a machine wasting awayin chaos' ...

It goes on without us ever really feeling the effects until its too late. we dont pay attention to it, because its simply normal.

Yeah, it's quite shocking, when you look a bit further into it. Perhaps you can just ignore them. Set up your own little haven, and shut them off. I even tend to think this stuff is non of my business, The humans will have to sort it out themselves.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Yes, but a black market also decreases the quality of the product. A well-stocked readily available product that is built to last 200+ years. That's a bad thing when it comes to drugs, since unpure stuff tends to harm the body more than pure stuff

This would imply that more addicts are dying than joining the pool, which is the opposite of reality. It doesn't reduce the demand.

Spoiler

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1109075503.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/26/global-drug-users-rise-un

The goal with drugs, in addition to profit, is to slowly wean a customer on to something else more addictive. Heroin addicts don't choose to become heroin addicts, instead they usually start off with speed which is eventually spiked with heroin. That's how you maintain a customer base if I ever saw it.

, but a good thing when it comes to guns, since a shitty pistol made in Venezuela shipped across the sea and filled with sand is better than a state of the art desert eagle perfectly suited with the ammo sold at k-mart (or wherever). Both kill. The rules of the black market affect these different things in different ways. That's why likening them to eachother makes for a really bad analogy. The same goes for the prohibition of alcohol.

Several of my ancestors were moonshiners throughout Maryland and West Virginia. Oddly enough, they all owned guns, just like today's drug dealers and cartells. They also had some sweet track cars to run it.

Guns are bad. Get rid of the guns. Drugs are bad, mm'kay?

If nothing else speaks to the level of corruption experienced along the U.S./Mexico border, this is it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245798,00.html
^ @Cognisant Hold in your laughter.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's been a while since I've done this. Feels good, can't lie

 

[Proletar]

A well-stocked readily available product that is built to last 200+ years.

Just slightly change the caliber of the ammunition and these guns will be obsolete.

This would imply that more addicts are dying than joining the pool, which is the opposite of reality. It doesn't reduce the demand.

False premise. More addicts are dying today than would have died had drugs been legal.

The goal with drugs, in addition to profit, is to slowly wean a customer on to something else more addictive. Heroin addicts don't choose to become heroin addicts, instead they usually start off with speed which is eventually spiked with heroin. That's how you maintain a customer base if I ever saw it.

What you are stating here is the gateway-theory. The gateway-theory has been shunned by the scientific community for decades now. Heroin-addicts choose heroin, plain and simple. One week they get a weak one, and the next they die because of too high quality.

Several of my ancestors were moonshiners throughout Maryland and West Virginia. Oddly enough, they all owned guns, just like today's drug dealers and cartells. They also had some sweet track cars to run it.

Good for them they had high-quality guns to push their low-quality booze then. Without the booze to sell, why would they get armed to begin with?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Just slightly change the caliber of the ammunition and these guns will be obsolete.




You act as if there already isn't enough ammo on the planet to kill the world's population 1000x over. You can also fire a bullet without a gun... SO many ways. Hammer Time? Plus a surprising number of guns will fire multiple calibers with minor, if any, adjustments.

Also,:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=shotgun+shell+mine&oq=shotgun+shell+mine&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i5i30l2j0i8i30.1138.9293.1.10057.18.15.0.3.3.1.204.1985.5j8j2.15.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.hhixZUL--5s&psj=1&fp=1&bpcl=39967673&biw=1366&bih=658&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b

Among many, many more. And we've stayed in wuss territory thus far considering the explosives available at the typical hardware store. Regulating such information and sheer human willpower is simply impossible, so we may as well focus on real solutions instead of the band-aid/enema combo that is a firearms ban.


What you are stating here is the gateway-theory. The gateway-theory has been shunned by the scientific community for decades now. Heroin-addicts choose heroin, plain and simple. One week they get a weak one, and the next they die because of too high quality.


No, I'm stating that dealers intentionally cut it in to hook them on something more expensive over time, especially if you're a reg. You can only snort and smoke speed up to a certain point before you have to inject to get the same high, and that's where the cutting begins, as soon as needle marks are visible. Soon after it becomes a 1x free sample once the quantity of speed required becomes too costly. Others transition through speedball.

The gateway theory is the irrationally moralistic belief that the user magically gets a stronger high when moving from a weaker substance (weed being the stereotype) to something stronger (heroin being the traditional foil) regardless of the fact that they're completely different substances. It reeks of DARE and McGruff the Crime Hound, and it's downright bullshit.

False premise. More addicts are dying today than would have died had drugs been legal.


Since when did you start agreeing with me? I think you're missing the point.
This also contradicts your previous statements re: heroin cutting and the damaging effects of impure drugs.


Good for them they had high-quality guns to push their low-quality booze then. Without the booze to sell, why would they get armed to begin with?

There will always be a black market for guns within the forseeable future for many reasons, not the least of which being the fact that they are inextricably linked to every other black market. The fact that the U.S. actively arms it's own enemies in a roundabout manner doesn't help much either. It's a positive feedback loop.

Perhaps if Sweden had a 12:1 difference in standard of living compared to a drug lord-fueled lawless Norway brimming with desperate impoverishment and certain sectors of the population willing to behead your citizens at a 10:1 ratio per incident while laughing at your government's ineptitude, you'd be a little more inclined to back my position. Fortunately I know of no such Norweigians.

I'm not lobbying for guns to be legal and unregulated everywhere, just in the U.S. here, now, and through the foreseeable future.

Notice I don't resort to the ol "guns are here to protect us from teh big bad gubment" fallacy? Military industrial complex >>>>>>>>> guns.


How ironic is it to be named proletar and be debating with an anarcho-communist over gun rights?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
fwiw. Lists studies that favor and oppose gateway theory.

But off topic though.

Today's gunman aquired the guns he used that were legally purchased by his mother. However there is no restrictions currently on a 20 yr old man with a history of mental problems (the nature of which I haven't seen confirmed) purchasing such firearms himself. He just didn't need to in this case.

Why the hell would a kindergarden teacher own an assault rifle?

Edit: Back to the offtopic:

No, I'm stating that dealers intentionally cut it in to hook them on something more expensive over time, especially if you're a reg. You can only snort and smoke speed up to a certain point before you have to inject to get the same high, and that's where the cutting begins, as soon as needle marks are visible. Soon after it becomes a 1x free sample once the quantity of speed required becomes too costly. Others transition through speedball

Interesting and certanly this is practised among some. Any idea how widespread this may be?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Why the hell would a kindergarden teacher own an assault rifle?

Murika.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Murika.

Oh yeah.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Edit: Back to the offtopic:

Interesting and certanly this is practised among some. Any idea how widespread this may be?

It's common enough to keep southwest PA riddled with a stable population of heroin addicts, and was especially popular where I got my undergrad. We actually lost a frat over it (but the football team continues the tradition). I'd imagine typical dealers would do it less often for fear of being shot.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

It's common enough to keep southwest PA riddled with a stable population of heroin addicts, and was especially popular where I got my undergrad. We actually lost a frat over it (but the football team continues the tradition). I'd imagine typical dealers would do it less often for fear of being shot.

Yeah it does seem like something you could only pull off on someone who is already dependant on something. Plus it would be wise to know who your customers friends are.

 

[PhoenixRising]

What is kinda sad.. I found out about this today when I made a (unfortunately INTP-ish) joke about the Columbine shooting. My EXFJ coworker told me it was wayy too soon.. like I had already watched the news er something =P

Anyway, the "Right to Bear Arms" was originally included in the Constitution so that people would have the means to rise up against their government if it became tyrannical. Which, it doesn't seem anyone is taking the initiative with that idea. It is unfortunate, give a chimpanzee access to a crowbar, and it is more likely to bash its fellow apes on the head than use it to pry open its cage.

Time for transhuman brain implants that subdue the behavioral tendencies of the subcortex!

 

[Niclmaki]

It's never "too soon" for jokes. Time is relative after all.

 

[snafupants]

Then where is the problem?

Because we have much tighter laws in Australia, indeed in most every other first world country, which conveniently coincides with relatively low (in comparison to the US) occurrences of crime involving guns.

Tighter laws will never make it impossible for someone to get a gun, but they'll make it harder, and why should it be easy?

BTW it's 29 now.

Are you really inferring a causal relationship between the second amendment and fatalities related to guns? Come on. If everyone was like me, even armed, there wouldn't be any gun deaths. It's the people. Correlation does not imply causation, as I'm sure you already know.

 

[snafupants]

Seriously, what's the alternative? Ban/restrict guns so that only criminals and cops have them?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Are you really inferring a causal relationship between the second amendment and fatalities related to guns? Come on. If everyone was like me, even armed, there wouldn't be any gun deaths. It's the people. Correlation does not imply causation, as I'm sure you already know.

I think he knows it's the people. I think he's merely suggesting we don't so easily allow them their favorite means. It's too late of course as they're already out there in sufficient numbers. From my experiences with those living outside the US, it's hard to grasp just how many we already have and how easy they are to get without going through legal purchases.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Seriously, what's the alternative? Ban/restrict guns so that only criminals and cops have them?

I think Cog just wants to disarm society for his eventual attempt at global domination. As Hank the Cowdog would say, "syruptitious loaderation". (Don't ask).

 

[crippli]

I never understand the ban on guns in these debates. It would make much more sense to me to ban violent video games. That's where they often acquire their training(if one has to do something). Most of them haven't even fired a real gun before they go ballistic. Also as was mentioned guns are for the people to deal with oppressive governments, surely one don't want to give up this option? Imo, it's one of the strong points of America. The people can always band together and deal with the governing body if things get out of proportion. At least that has been my impression, but don't know if it holds anymore. It's a power balance I think it's important to preserve.

 

[snafupants]

I think he knows it's the people. I think he's merely suggesting we don't so easily allow them their favorite means. It's too late of course as they're already out there in sufficient numbers. From my experiences with those living outside the US, it's hard to grasp just how many we already have and how easy they are to get without going through legal purchases.

I think Cog knows that too. Yeah, the favorite means argument sounds familiar. Well, the founding fathers inserted the right to bear arms in the constitution as a means of safeguarding against tyrannical regimes; critiquing the outmodedness of the second, let alone third and seventh, amendments is fine by me but perhaps an irrelevant point. I know Kuu will cynically belch that the US is already intractably despotic, but I see these senseless shooting sprees as a necessary price towards some small degree of liberty; I can hear the guffaws on INTP forum already. Again, consider the alternative though. Criminals would brazenly rob people on the street and so forth without the foreboding that someone might be holding, eager to quash robbery or whatever. Look, I liked that some media outlets refrained from repeating the shooter's name but everybody needs to ask why US citizens go nuts from time to time and go Call of Duty on Walmart. On the heels of the recent Oregon shooting, there's something endemic going on here.

 

[Proletar]

Perhaps if Sweden had a 12:1 difference in standard of living compared to a drug lord-fueled lawless Norway brimming with desperate impoverishment and certain sectors of the population willing to behead your citizens at a 10:1 ratio per incident while laughing at your government's ineptitude, you'd be a little more inclined to back my position. Fortunately I know of no such Norweigians.

I'm not lobbying for guns to be legal and unregulated everywhere, just in the U.S. here, now, and through the foreseeable future.

Notice I don't resort to the ol "guns are here to protect us from teh big bad gubment" fallacy? Military industrial complex >>>>>>>>> guns.


How ironic is it to be named proletar and be debating with an anarcho-communist over gun rights?

I don't think I exactly understand your scenario in the first column there. Sorry. But sort of.

To just clearly state my position: I think drugs should be legal, and weapons illegal. That is, during this stage in history. How can there be law without government? But since we're here, let's make the best of it. Furthermore, when we rise up against our governments (and capitalists), we should do that using non-violent (but really aggressive) means. The key is to make their policemen desert. General strikes, occupations of public space, spreading of information, that sort of stuff. But that is offtopic.

The main difference between drugs and guns are that guns are naturally destructive. Their purpose comes directly from damaging stuff. Adverse effects are less destructive than their main purpose. A high quality gun is worse than a low quality gun. A high quality narcotic is better than a low quality narcotic, and therein lies the main difference between the two in prohibation-politics, which is to say that banning guns would do exactly what they wanted banning drugs to do. Therefore, legalize the drugs and put prohibiting efforts towards the guns. I really don't think it's a coincidence that it's the other way around today.

Of course there are loads of guns and loads of ammunition. If you really are an anarcho-communist, you should be familiar with marxist economics, stating that more labour put into production equals a higher value (~ price) per unit of produced goods, and that putting efforts to work against the production of it would grant a higher price and a lower availability for it, since that would prolongue the chain of production. When those 200 years have passed, guns would be much rarer. Point being that less quantity/quality in production leads to less guns in the future. They would be more expensive to use and would therefore be used less. And really, how many of the guns produced today will make it for 200 years?

 

[snafupants]

I think drugs should be legal, and weapons illegal.

Where's the money in that plan?!

 

[Proletar]

Where's the money in that plan?!

In the pockets of you and I - the decent and honest ones. Because you are one of the honest ones, arent you, snafupants? Arent you?

Guns are a destructive force, usually used to protect other stuff. With no drugs to push and no means of power (Well... Venezuelan sand-revolvers), the cartells of the world would just vanish into the obscurities of the past.

 

[snafupants]

In the pockets of you and I - the decent and honest ones. Because you are one of the honest ones, arent you, snafupants? Arent you?

Guns are a destructive force, usually used to protect other stuff. With no drugs to push and no means of power, the cartells of the world would just vanish into the obscurities of the past.

Yeah, I'm honest. Half-ironically I say that I only have three meaningful things in this decaying and blessedly brief (TM) world - health, intelligence, and integrity. Those are the big, perhaps indivisible, three for me. Take away one and I'm imbalanced; you can't really enjoy anything with ill-health, you know? I guess some people try to skate by without integrity, but are those people truly happy? Are they schmucks? /philosophizing

OK, I hear this argument you're making...what about crime or power grabs not affiliated with drugs?! Edit: Of course I agree that the DEA funds terrorism in Latin America while spiking stateside drug prices but that subject seems better suited for another thread.

 

[Proletar]

Yeah, I'm honest. Half-ironically I say that I only have three meaningful things in this decaying and blessedly brief (TM) world - health, intelligence, and integrity. Those are the big, perhaps indivisible, three for me. Take away one and I'm imbalanced; you can't really enjoy anything with ill-health, you know? I guess some people try to skate by without integrity, but are those people truly happy? Are they schmucks? /philosophizing

OK, I hear this argument you're making...what about crime or power grabs not affiliated with drugs?! Edit: Of course I agree that the DEA funds terrorism in Latin America while spiking stateside drug prices but that subject seems better suited for another thread.

Good for you. Decensy is very important to me as well. I wouldn't do anything against my moral compass. Even though I'm broke at the moment and will be for atleast another week, I wouldn't steal or harm anyone to get money. Even if that means I'll have to live on rice or even starve. Similarly, I wouldn't bend the facts to my own advantage in a discussion. Integrity, bitches!

The principle is that any kind of oppression becomes harder to do without the guns. If not drug-cartells, take sweatshop-owners southeast asia or diamond-miners in the Congos. With lower quality and more expensive guns available, all kinds of business that have to be enforced by arms would become less lucrative. We should of course not import stuff made from slave-labour, either. But that's a whole different discussion.