• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Connecticut Massacre

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
The principle is that any kind of oppression becomes harder to do without the guns.

I could argue the exact opposite; the founding fathers did so. :smoker:

Since the power of plutocrats will not foreseeable be diminished, the electorate should remain armed. Even with smaller affairs, guns deter crime and violence when used appropriately.

Perhaps, in short, the scenarios you outlined are more applicable to pre-industrialized areas where power might be wrested in its embryonic stages from oppressive peoples.

Once clear strata of power prevail, the weaker classes need some means of defense.
 

Andronicus

Acid Anonymous
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
9
---
Anders behring breivik was the guy who killed 77 people in norway. Mostly under 18. I think he felt the pressure that lies in western culture. That everyone has felt. The presure of doing something great. As if life isn't worth living if you haven't done something for humanity. He had started many small buissnesses who went bankrupt or didn't work out. And it seems he had always been an outsider. The other factors are fame and beeing remembered. There are many right extremist who thinks hes a hero. But even more people that hates him. He gets letters in jail from women who has fallen in love with him, and people who thinks hes an rolemodel and an inspiration. Combine this with Narcissism, lack of emphaty, And a desperate Ideology based on finding a purpose (Islamophobia). You got yourself a mass murderer.

Its the same with Eric harris and Dylan klebold who did the shootings at columbine. they had obivous psychological disorders. But fame is a important drive for these people. Whoever the guy who did this is. He is going to be frontpage news.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
Its the same with Eric harris and Dylan klebold who did the shootings at columbine. they had obivous psychological disorders. But fame is a important drive for these people. Whoever the guy who did this is. He is going to be frontpage news.

I noticed some news outlets responsibly refrained from releasing known names though. :smoker:
 

Proletar

Deus Sex Machina
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
730
---
Location
The Cold North
I could argue the exact opposite; the founding fathers did so. :smoker:

Since the power of plutocrats will not foreseeable be diminished, the electorate should remain armed. Even with smaller affairs, guns deter crime and violence when used appropriately.

Perhaps, in short, the scenarios you outlined are more applicable to pre-industrialized areas where power might be wrested in its embryonic stages from oppressive peoples.

Once clear strata of power prevail, the weaker classes need some means of defense.

But, my boy! The fondling fathers had no idea what the private sector would be capable of, because they lived in a whole different world. In fact, they wrote those stuff right in the beginning of our current system. They were great men, sure, but they didn't have super-powers. To them, it was all about the people vs. the state, and the people was literally anyone that wasn't the state. Take anything they ever wrote with a huge grain of salt if you intend to fit it's policies into our world.

When used appropriately, yes. There's the key. Appropriate to what?
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
But, my boy! The fondling fathers had no idea what the private sector would be capable of, because they lived in a whole different world. In fact, they wrote those stuff right in the beginning of our current system. They were great men, sure, but they didn't have super-powers. To them, it was all about the people vs. the state, and the people was literally anyone that wasn't the state. Take anything they ever wrote with a huge grain of salt if you intend to fit it's policies into our world.

When used appropriately, yes. There's the key. Appropriate to what?

Used appropriately means employing guns merely to deter threats and not to foment unnecessary violence as was seen in Connecticut recently. When there's a threat to your life, liberty or property, lethal force may be warranted to crimp that threat. Well, apropos the second amendment, I already said that it might be outmoded. I would have included the clause, commensurate with contemporary martial clout or something like that. Is that acceptable?! I'm just not sure about arming Alabama or California with nukes. That looming (lunacy?) threat might stir the republicans to compromise. :D
 

InvisibleJim

Banned
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
199
---
Location
Everywhere
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.

Are you sure? Excessive competition for the same niche creates conflict as iften as excessive societal actions against them generates conflict.

Logic aside: draw the critical point between armed snafus, resources and time before murders occur :)

Comment: this post is for fun and snafu is a top banana.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Problem & Solution

I never understand the ban on guns in these debates.
Problem: Too many shootings
Solution: Ban guns

Problem: Too many drownings
Solution: Drain the lakes

Problem: Too many drugs
Solution: License drugstores

Problem: 30k+ auto deaths per year USA
Solution: Remove engines from cars
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Local time
Today 8:10 AM
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,252
---
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
I think Cog just wants to disarm society for his eventual attempt at global domination.

^This^


I find it funny that people that have probably never even fired a gun are talking about banning them, and acting like they know about how they work. FPS games are nothing like shooting a real gun.

I notice how a lot of people calling for us to ban guns happen to not be Americans. You guys really don't know what it's like to live in a city filled with organized crime fighting over turf and willing to beat you to death for any stupid reason. And yes, the crazy people, there are crazy violent people here. I arm myself so that I at least stand a fighting chance. Not all of the US is a horrid cesspool of crime and violence, so I don't mean to be totally alarmist. But look at New York after the recent ban. Things haven't gotten better.

Also, people forget about things like MK ultra or fast and furious. The US government is not the benevolent force that some people seen to think it is. They have their hands in many of the things that go on in this country and around the world. They can't be trusted and even our founding fathers so many years ago could see that. Thus why we have the right to have guns and form militias.

Blaming this all on mental illness is a big cop out. Blaming it on video games is ignorant, and blaming it on guns is ridiculous. These are people with free will. The only mental problem they have that lead up to something like this, is their own selfishness and stupidity. Things that can be changed if they wanted to change them. I've met many people with mental illness, even ones that don't med up, and non of them have gone on a killing rampage, or ever will. I know a guy from high school that is in jail for murder, because he was just an asshole that put him self in a bad position, not because there was anything wrong with his brain. His philosophy was fucked up, not his brain. And even if their brain is messed up, they could still have proper philosophy, and not do something horrid. humans aren't just a mass of cells, we are creatures with a body soul unity. Souls filled with world views and ideas.

I'm glad that other countries are doing ok without guns, though. I hope it stays that way for ya'll.
 

Melkor

*Silent antagonist*
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,746
---
Location
Béal feirste
Hehe.
Yep.
Could tell how this would go before I even opened it...
Outsiders raving about guns and yanks cradling their shotguns while barking softly.

Personally I think it's ridiculously simple. Just look at the negligible levels of gun crime in any other modern nation with strict gun controls, and then at the high levels of gun crime {and crime in general} in the comparatively lax U.s.a.
Guns make it easier for otherwise weak psychopaths to make a large amount of easy kills in a short space of time. Take away that easy dimension and they have to get up close and personal, seriously decreasing their potential body count.
*Shrug*
But there's quite a strong culture for it so I don't think there's anything outsiders can do or say, it's something the Americans have to address for themselves.

As a Criminologist however, I think that addressing the massive social and economic inequalities within America would do much more than restricting freedoms.<3
 

Inappropriate Behavior

is peeing on the carpet
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,795
---
Location
Behind you, kicking you in the ass
It's too late to try and ban guns in this country. That's what I don't think is understood by reasonable "outsiders" and the certain insufferable "insiders". The private stockpiles, often hidden, alone are enough to rearm every man, woman and child in this country. Assuming they'd be willing to share which I believe they would. They are under the delusion that they could rise up and successfully oppose tyranny in the face of the most powerful army in the world.

If the US military joins the revolt, those guys aren't neccesary. If they don't, those guys are gonna end up like the VC without any NVA type support.
 

Lostwitheal

Mr. LoveRobot
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
562
---
Location
I have an existential map. It has "You are here" w
Firstly, I've shot guns before. The experience just reinforced the stupidity of having an armed civilian population for me.

I think the answer's pretty easy, really. You ban guns, then conduct random searches of people's houses en masse. Anyone found with a gun gets deported to Australia.

What? It worked for the British :D

Or perhaps start flooding the ammunition market with bullets that explode in the chamber and break the gun? :phear:
 

NoID10ts

aka Noddy
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,541
---
Location
Houston, TX
It's too late to try and ban guns in this country. That's what I don't think is understood by reasonable "outsiders" and the certain insufferable "insiders". The private stockpiles, often hidden, alone are enough to rearm every man, woman and child in this country. Assuming they'd be willing to share which I believe they would. They are under the delusion that they could rise up and successfully oppose tyranny in the face of the most powerful army in the world.

If the US military joins the revolt, those guys aren't neccesary. If they don't, those guys are gonna end up like the VC without any NVA type support.

As someone from Texas, where we clip our fingernails with pistols, I totally agree with this. The gun control ship has sailed. There's nothing anyone can do about it now. How would the US government go about enacting meaningful action at this point? Go door to door and seize the guns? The day the US government does that is the day gun owners claim that it is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment in the first place. There would be plenty of bloodshed, there's not a doubt in my mind about it.

Look at this youtube channel for Christ's sake: http://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia

Don't let the Russian stuff fool you, he's an American and he's here in the US. I admit the videos are entertaining as hell, but the stuff this guy has access to blows my mind. I have a good friend who has become a "gun nut" in recent years, and he introduced me to this guy's videos just last night (trust me, the irony of watching this the same day of the Connecticut massacre wasn't lost on me). My friend assures me that much of this stuff is legal to purchase with the right permits. I mean Jesus, incendiary ammo is legal to purchase? It's not enough to fill them with holes, but we have to set them on fire while we do it?

In my opinion, the sickness many of us feel every time one of these mass shootings happens is an instinctual frustration at the realization that there's nothing we can do about it. We simply can't control our neighbors and yes, if our neighbors have a free run at a cache of weapons, they can do far more damage to us than if they didn't. In the US, I fear that the only solution is, as with many things, a victory in the realm of ideas — to plant seeds of peace in the hearts and minds of the public and to build stronger communities where we care for one another rather than trample one another. A society that stigmatizes firearms, rather than glorifies them.

Do I think that's possible given our current culture? Hell no. In fact, In many ways, it goes against human nature. Doesn't mean it's not possible, but it's not our natural state. All life, it seems, is competitive and there will always be those who get trampled in the running.

One of the defining characteristics of these shooters it seems, is that they are the trampled. Given enough rage, isolation, mental instability, fuck-all depression ... and guns, don't forget the guns ... they will kill themselves and take as many of us with them as they can.
 
Last edited:

The Introvert

Goose! (Duck, Duck)
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
1,044
---
Location
L'eau
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.

Thank you. Rather than inadequately attempting to convey my opinion, I can simply quote you. This is the question that I have been asking for some time now... it seems so simple...
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
---
has anyone dug into the fringe/conspiracy stuff thats out there regarding

aurora colorado - > dark knight - > LIBOR scandal - > sandy hook ?

the newest "information", as far as I can tell seems to check out....and its strange. very strange.

edit: it smells like bullshit
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
has anyone dug into the fringe/conspiracy stuff thats out there regarding

aurora colorado - > dark knight - > LIBOR scandal - > sandy hook ?

the newest "information", as far as I can tell seems to check out....and its strange. very strange.

edit: it smells like bullshit

Sounds pretty contrived - links?
 

Words

Only 1 1-F.
Local time
Today 6:10 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
3,222
---
Location
Order
It's too late to try and ban guns in this country. That's what I don't think is understood by reasonable "outsiders" and the certain insufferable "insiders". The private stockpiles, often hidden, alone are enough to rearm every man, woman and child in this country. Assuming they'd be willing to share which I believe they would.

As someone from Texas, where we clip our fingernails with pistols, I totally agree with this. The gun control ship has sailed. There's nothing anyone can do about it now. How would the US government go about enacting meaningful action at this point? Go door to door and seize the guns? The day the US government does that is the day gun owners claim that it is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment in the first place. There would be plenty of bloodshed, there's not a doubt in my mind about it.

Pffft. I think you guys underestimate the coercive power of sudden popular interest and the government(against corporations), and the flexibility of policy implementations. You don't simply remove the gunz, you can do it gradually. It's not an immediate all or nothing issue, it rarely is with policies. It's not about immediate banning, it's about level of accessibility. You lower access by not selling/buying guns like candy. You bureaucratize it, increase paperwork and slow down the process. It doesn't ban guns entirely but it reduces accessibility. There are many other indirect, non-forceful and economic ways of reducing guns and flow of guns. Government can offer money or benefits to households without guns, they can offer to buy the personal guns etc. Once society has come to terms with the change, then you can finally implement stricter policies.

Also founding fathers? You mean those dead people? >.>
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
---
Sounds pretty contrived - links?

please keep in mind, i DONT REGARD THIS INFO as absolute truth or any of that...at this point its just veeerrry intriquing...

Aurora Co

James Holmes Recent News - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-therapist-inmate-steven-unruh_n_2207724.html

Inmate is claiming that Holmes claims his therapist brainwashed him into the shootings.

Dr. Lynne Fenton - His therapist/psychiatrist

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/psychiatry/Faculty/Pages/Fenton,%20Lynne.aspx

An impressive background, with military connections.

Father Dr. Robert Holmes - Theyve deleted his LinkedIn profile...The main nuggets of information that were applicable

Robert-Holmes-LinkedIn.png


According to his LinkedIn profile, James Holmes’s father, Dr. Robert Holmes, who received a PhD in Statistics in 1981 from the University of California at Berkeley, worked for San Diego-based HNC Software, Inc. from 2000 to 2002. HNC, known as a “neural network” company, and DARPA, beginning in 1998, have worked on developing “cortronic neural networks,” which would allow machines to interpret aural and visual stimuli to think like humans.

The cortronic concept was developed by HNC Software’s chief scientist and co-founder, Robert Hecht-Nielsen. HNC merged with the Minneapolis-based Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO), a computer analysis and decision-making company. Robert Holmes continues to work at FICO.
now FICO, their gig? Creating advanced software that manages FRAUD - SIMILAR TO THE PLOT IN THE DARK KNIGHT...

http://www.fico.com/en/Products/Pages/default.aspx

FICO uses advanced predictive analytics to give you greater control over the complex, high-volume customer decisions your business makes every day. These world-class analytics can instantly analyze massive amounts of data to predict future outcomes, helping you make smarter business decisions that drive better results. Analytics are central to the three types of solutions that FICO develops:

essentially the type of sophisticated programming that would expose something like I dunno...LIBOR...

Dark Knight

If you've seen the movie, you know the plot. The plot which eerily shadows the events. just too much to get into there...

Interesting note Ive found..."Sandy Hook" region of the map, has traditionally been called in prior Gotham fiction, "South Hinkley" or even "Lower Gotham"...why it was changed for the Dark Knight to "Sandy Hook" - no clue.

but it was:

The_Dark_Knight_Rises___Sandy_Hook_1.jpg


A more detailed version, clearly denotes "Sandy Hook Bridge" as Strike Zone 1

http://batmangothamcity.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gotham-map-Dark-Knight-Rises.jpg


Peter Lanza Biological Father of Sandy Hook Shooter

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/peter-lanza/11/515/83b

  • [*]Tax Director and Vice President - Taxes at GE Energy Financial Services
    [*]
currently im hung up on the LIBOR testimony...I cant track any sources that can confirm Robert Holmes OR Peter Lanza were set to testify...But they are most definitely proven to have worked for companies involved, among a lot of other shady areas of interest (energy, taxes, computer science) according to their LinkedIn Profiles.

What dose ANY of this have to do with the bigger picture? I have no fucking clue. And again, Im not really sold on a lot of the minor details being tossed around without sources and on some really shady sites...god damn tho...
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
---
Re: Problem & Solution

Problem: Too many shootings
Solution: Ban guns

Problem: Too many drownings
Solution: Drain the lakes

Problem: Too many drugs
Solution: License drugstores

Problem: 30k+ auto deaths per year USA
Solution: Remove engines from cars
Yes, It would appear so. But all these solutions does make sense...

Where I am from, it would be no good with people carrying guns. The police are not allowed to carry guns either. Both groups could carry guns. I think either option is fine, depending on need, but not just one of the sides. System becomes unbalanced.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
@joal0503

Some curious tie-ins for sure. I'm not certain why the number of killers is constantly in dispute. On Friday, I remember hearing about a second shooter in the woods near Sandy Hook - as an aside, one eyewitness noted a presumed shooter in handcuffs on the ground, which is significant because it entails a second shooter as the main shooter was supposedly dead inside - and up to four shooters (according to eyewitnesses) with the Wisconsin Sikh temple attack. One eyewitness from the Aurora shooting also mentioned a second man opening the door for James Holmes after receiving a cell phone call; you can find that online. So, this disconnect between media reports and eyewitness reports is disconcerting. I will wait to hear how the Sandy Hook business is resolved; there definitely seems to have been at least a second shooter. Apart from those details, the Sandy Hook Batman thing is just weird. I feel, irrespective of conspiracy, that the government is angling for an erosion of the second amendment. Beyond that, who knows?
 

Lostwitheal

Mr. LoveRobot
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
562
---
Location
I have an existential map. It has "You are here" w
Pffft. I think you guys underestimate the coercive power of sudden popular interest and the government(against corporations), and the flexibility of policy implementations. You don't simply remove the gunz, you can do it gradually. It's not an immediate all or nothing issue, it rarely is with policies. It's not about immediate banning, it's about level of accessibility. You lower access by not selling/buying guns like candy. You bureaucratize it, increase paperwork and slow down the process. It doesn't ban guns entirely but it reduces accessibility. There are many other indirect, non-forceful and economic ways of reducing guns and flow of guns. Government can offer money or benefits to households without guns, they can offer to buy the personal guns etc. Once society has come to terms with the change, then you can finally implement stricter policies.

This ^

The reason for the 2nd amendment is now defunct anyway, as already mentioned somewhere else - a few guns against the US army, navy and air force aren't going to accomplish anything. If the army, navy and air force are in on it, though, then civilians won't need guns. Either way it's pointless.

Also, the myth touted by the NRA about guns being used as defensive measures is complete horse shit. You're more likely to have your gun used against you than use it to defend yourself.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,739
---
Location
Charn
Apart from those details, the Sandy Hook Batman thing is just weird. I feel, irrespective of conspiracy, that the government is angling for an erosion of the second amendment.

@Lostwitheal
(and any others who have been discussing 2nd amendment rights)

So what did you guys think of @EditorOne 's review of the 2nd Amendment, in terms of how this whole national debate is currently being framed? I was kinda surprised no one responded to him.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14826
 

Lostwitheal

Mr. LoveRobot
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
562
---
Location
I have an existential map. It has "You are here" w
Heh, well there you go. I assumed, from people here arguing for gun ownership with this as an example that this was the case. Assuming makes fools out of you and I, right?

It doesn't change what I was trying to say much, though. I really cannot forsee any likely scenario where the US Government would need to call on a militia, therefore it's irrelevant.

As @EditorOne concluded, the second amendment does not protect the right to bear arms, and I can't think of any compelling reasons to make it the case.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
---
Normally, when you overthrow a government, the army will, if this is to be successful, take a neutral position. And isn't the army intended for foreign threats? That leaves the citizens against the government + the police. A fight the citizens should be able to win easily, if they are armed and united.
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
"The day the US government does that is the day gun owners claim that it is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment in the first place."


Well, they'd be wrong, wouldn't they? The reason the 2nd amendment was written can be seen in the Whisky Rebellion about 20 years later. Farmers and whisky distillers in southwest Pennsylvania refused to pay a federal whisky tax. Washington (George) called out the militia in four states and mustered in an army of 13,000 miliitiamen, which went to southwest Pennsylvania to enforce the federal law. The Whisky Rebellion collapsed, even though a lot of those folks had formed violent mobs and attacked state and federal property.

That's one of the reasons a militia was deemed necessary, armed insurrection. And with not much of a standing army, bringing in your own weapons for the muster gave it teeth. And that's why there is a Second Amendment: So that the people may uphold the government when there are threats against the government, domestic or foreign.
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
Just as a contextual footnote in all this: I own guns. I own what would seem at first blush to be an unseemly number of guns. However a quarter of them no longer work and are not worth fixing; others have come my way through inheritance; none are modern assault weapons, although one original and one reproduction Enfield are certainly the latest technology in assault weapons in 1862. Most are shotguns for hunting.

And I even have a concealed carry permit for handguns.

Up to now I've been indifferent to the gun argument. This Connecticut thing has pushed me over the top, however, and I see no valid reason and certainly no Constitutional reason why it should be easy for absolutely anyone to get a lethal tool like a firearm. We license the act of driving automobiles and airplanes because those activities require levels of maturity, judgment and skill. So does owning and using a gun. I have no problem with people defending their homes and family; I have a great deal of trouble with the NRA position that even the village idiot is entitled to own not just a weapon, but a military assault weapon. It is definitely time to do something about the casual availability of lethal weapons.
 

NoID10ts

aka Noddy
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,541
---
Location
Houston, TX
Pffft. I think you guys underestimate the coercive power of sudden popular interest and the government(against corporations), and the flexibility of policy implementations. You don't simply remove the gunz, you can do it gradually. It's not an immediate all or nothing issue, it rarely is with policies. It's not about immediate banning, it's about level of accessibility. You lower access by not selling/buying guns like candy. You bureaucratize it, increase paperwork and slow down the process. It doesn't ban guns entirely but it reduces accessibility. There are many other indirect, non-forceful and economic ways of reducing guns and flow of guns. Government can offer money or benefits to households without guns, they can offer to buy the personal guns etc. Once society has come to terms with the change, then you can finally implement stricter policies.

Also founding fathers? You mean those dead people? >.>

Sounds like trying to carve Mt. Rushmore with a toothpick. One administration might get this put this into action, but four to eight years later it'll get reversed and we'll be right back where we started. I have as much faith in the government as I do in the general public, which is to say none. We're split down the middle and I see no end to this grand tug of war we've got going on.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not saying the gun crowd is right about the second amendment or their appeals to the desires of the "founding fathers," but it is absolutely what they fall back on. It is the wellspring of their righteous indignation and no one is going to tell them otherwise.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
---
It seems even very strict gun laws wouldn't have prevented this shooting. The owner of the guns was the mother. One very interested in firearms and such. She would have been allowed to buy those guns regardless of restrictions. Maybe not the assault rifle, but that wouldn't have made much difference.

Why not ban/restrict violent video games? The army could have them for training as they do. But why do the general population need this? A gun can at least provide food on table.
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
"also want to make it clear that I'm not saying the gun crowd is right about the second amendment or their appeals to the desires of the "founding fathers," but it is absolutely what they fall back on. It is the wellspring of their righteous indignation and no one is going to tell them otherwise."

This is one of the reasons I love history: The popular version is so oversimplified that people keep drawing wrong conclusions. And the truth/facts are so much more interesting. The biggest source of this poor reading of 2nd amendment words and history is popular literature that started almost as soon as the first shot was fired at Lexington, in which the idea that a bunch of farmers and tradesmen suddenly showed up at Lexington Green at dawn to oppose oppressive government, and that we all are entitled to keep private weapons in case we get a pre-dawn itch to rebel. In fact it was the legally constituted state militia called out, much like a volunteer fire company. That they were put to an unprecedented use in blocking the mother country's soldiers from taking those militarized weapons is true, but this was a militia, not vigilantes.

It is indeed true that it will be almost impossible to get ignorant people to change their understanding based on facts. (We more or less face that every day, don't we?) That's no reason not to try or not to get around them and get something done anyway. The same "they won't change" argument was made during attempts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment; fortunately those who believed slavery to be wrong tried and succeeded anyway. This is much the same. When the right thing is staring you in the face, you kind of have to do it, don't you?
 

NoID10ts

aka Noddy
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,541
---
Location
Houston, TX
It is indeed true that it will be almost impossible to get ignorant people to change their understanding based on facts. (We more or less face that every day, don't we?) That's no reason not to try or not to get around them and get something done anyway. The same "they won't change" argument was made during attempts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment; fortunately those who believed slavery to be wrong tried and succeeded anyway. This is much the same. When the right thing is staring you in the face, you kind of have to do it, don't you?

Great point. You're right about that, it's no excuse not to try. I've been in a nihilistic funk lately, and sometimes I need the reminder not to give up.

The gun crowd scares me, frankly. Sometimes I feel like I'm on a truck being driven somewhere with no control over where it's going. The friend I mentioned previously came over to my house about a year ago just to hang out and watch a movie. The first thing he did upon entering my house was pull out his Glock and lay it on the mantle of my fireplace. What for? That isn't a mentality I can identify with.

About 18 years ago I was robbed at gun point. The gun crowd says if I'd been armed, things would have turned out differently. Had that guy killed me, it would have been over a matter of $60 dollars and a watch. Everyone would have been outraged. If I'd killed him, it still would have been over $60 and a watch. The only difference is I'd be a hero.

Is that okay?

I don't really have any answers, just questions. As usual. :confused:
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
I assume it's uncomfortable sitting down with a Glock in your pocket. :D

Why he had one to come to your house, I don't know.
 

NoID10ts

aka Noddy
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,541
---
Location
Houston, TX
He does have a license to carry one, but my living room isn't exactly the OK Corral. Sometimes I think he just wants an opportunity to use it. Maybe he was hoping for a home invasion or something like that. ;)
 

Inappropriate Behavior

is peeing on the carpet
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,795
---
Location
Behind you, kicking you in the ass
"also want to make it clear that I'm not saying the gun crowd is right about the second amendment or their appeals to the desires of the "founding fathers," but it is absolutely what they fall back on. It is the wellspring of their righteous indignation and no one is going to tell them otherwise."

This is one of the reasons I love history: The popular version is so oversimplified that people keep drawing wrong conclusions. And the truth/facts are so much more interesting. The biggest source of this poor reading of 2nd amendment words and history is popular literature that started almost as soon as the first shot was fired at Lexington, in which the idea that a bunch of farmers and tradesmen suddenly showed up at Lexington Green at dawn to oppose oppressive government, and that we all are entitled to keep private weapons in case we get a pre-dawn itch to rebel. In fact it was the legally constituted state militia called out, much like a volunteer fire company. That they were put to an unprecedented use in blocking the mother country's soldiers from taking those militarized weapons is true, but this was a militia, not vigilantes.

The gun myth has become as powerful as the most deep felt of religions. It most certainly is a myth but when beliefs become so ingrained, it is difficult as all hell to break. The beauracracy approach proposed by Words would be great if we could pull it off but Noddy's counter is correct imo. This incident will last a brief time but will wear off in time. We're already hearing cries from that side that if guns were allowed in school, this wouldn't have happened.

Stupid as shit ain't it?

A US congressman said it on national tv (although it was Louie Ghomert one of the 3 dumbest people anywhere). The state of Michigan's legislature PASSED A BILL in both houses just the night before allowing for them in classrooms. I hope the odds of the Governor there not signing it are as good as a coin flip, but I fear he is closer to Ghomert in his sensibilities (or lack thereof).


It is indeed true that it will be almost impossible to get ignorant people to change their understanding based on facts. (We more or less face that every day, don't we?) That's no reason not to try or not to get around them and get something done anyway. The same "they won't change" argument was made during attempts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment; fortunately those who believed slavery to be wrong tried and succeeded anyway. This is much the same. When the right thing is staring you in the face, you kind of have to do it, don't you?

We should try certainly but I must cringe at your bringing up the 13th. Look at the bloody beatdown needed for that just to get through. I'm game but I suppose I better go buy me a gun :D
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
The Thirteenth: Even in January of 1865, with 11 slave states still in rebellion and still not returned to the Union, it was widely considered impossible that an amendment abolishing slavery could be passed. The total issue, and some subsidiary issues that went with it, did require an entire Civil War, yup, but what I was specifically referencing were the obstacles still faced even after the outcome of that war was clear to everyone. The reason it popped up is that I just saw Spielburg's "Lincoln," which focuses in on this very issue. :) The movie gets an A+ for a lot of reasons, and it is big on words and thinking, not action, so it's a natural for INTPs.

Footnote leading us farther astray from the thread: The use of southern state militias to oppose the federal government in 1861 is one reason why state militias were subsequently folded into the National Guard act of 1903. They had become private armies of the governors of the states.
 

NoID10ts

aka Noddy
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
4,541
---
Location
Houston, TX
We're already hearing cries from that side that if guns were allowed in school, this wouldn't have happened.

Stupid as shit ain't it?

They ran this story on one of the local news channels here: http://www.click2houston.com/news/S...1126/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/tewripz/-/index.html

The fact that anyone could propose this with a straight face baffles me. I work at a public school and we do have an armed officer at all times, but the thought of our teacher's having loaded weapons in the classroom? Most of them hyperventilate when their projector won't "talk" to their computer or when the internet goes down.
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Local time
Today 8:10 AM
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,252
---
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
They ran this story on one of the local news channels here: http://www.click2houston.com/news/S...1126/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/tewripz/-/index.html

The fact that anyone could propose this with a straight face baffles me. I work at a public school and we do have an armed officer at all times, but the thought of our teacher's having loaded weapons in the classroom? Most of them hyperventilate when their projector won't "talk" to their computer or when the internet goes down.

I don't see a problem with letting a teacher conceal carry to class. Making teachers carry guns would be stupid, making anyone carry a gun, that doesn't want to is stupid. But if they did carry on campus they would need to pass some sort of class, not sure what it would entail. There should be police on every campus, though. When I was a student I hated the idea, because I couldn't get away with as much crap, but as an adult I see the need for better security on campus.

As a gun lover, I wouldn't be opposed to having to take training/safety classes to obtain a license to own a gun, or even if they just did that for the semi-auto rifles. People knowing how to use their guns, would lower collateral damage of fire arm use.

I think Obama is right (oh shit! did I just type that?) that we need to have a serious talk about guns. The libertarian in me says that we should let each state have a talk for their own state. Guns are serious business. They are tools for death. They can be fun at the range, but the main purpose is killing/maiming/stopping the threat.

Someone mentioned the whole government conspiracy thing. I do think the Aurora, and Sikh temple incident were psy-ops, government fueled murders. This, how ever, was simply a fucked up dude. We often look for something sinister behind senseless murders like this, because as decent people, we don't see why/how anyone would do this. I do wonder why people use state of the art equipment to do these things, when you can get russian surplus guns and ammo for less than half the price.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Drunk drivers probably kill a lot more people than gun deaths. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) There is no license for drunk driving. But social outrage is a good thing. Advertising designated drivers is a good thing. Compulsory classes for those caught to discourage their driving drunk are given.

Perhaps something along parallel lines for gun carriers? Get even the RNA to do this. Maybe it would trickle down to troubled young men that using arms that way is a shameful thing to do ... don't know. Let's ask the NRA what to do???
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
---
I don't see a problem with letting a teacher conceal carry to class. Making teachers carry guns would be stupid, making anyone carry a gun, that doesn't want to is stupid. But if they did carry on campus they would need to pass some sort of class, not sure what it would entail. There should be police on every campus, though. When I was a student I hated the idea, because I couldn't get away with as much crap, but as an adult I see the need for better security on campus.
I have observed teachers loosing their composure. I shiver just by the thought of them having access to guns. I have no doubt that those teachers would have drawn and opened fire on the students.

I don't think there is a magic pill to solve the issues. Maybe redo the school system, so that one get more content students. The advantage of this would be higher quality education, and reduction of shootings. The other solution that would be sure to work is to redo the society at large, cut out stupid stuff like school uniforms, Macdonald, walmart etc. Restructure more after the French model. Cut out the death penalty, it only sends the wrong signals. And last, but not least, redo the entire economical system.

If one would like to see change, you need to do something, not just make a few laws and leave it at that.

I've seen this so many times. People complain, but when it comes to make actual changes, do they want it...no they dont, they like it just fine as it is. It is hopeless. My advise is to buy alcohol, make the first months pass more quickly. Soon enough it will be another distant fading memory. That's why both shootings, and minor changes that follow are useless. I'm amazed that the shooters doesn't see that. It's like throwing a stone in an ocean, at best/worst it will cause a few local ripples here and there.
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
The idea of armed teachers and administrators is repugnant, is it not? Even without being flavored by my recollection that some of my teachers over the years were batty enough that they ought not even have steak knives for lunch, let alone firearms.

In addition to the issue that some teachers may well be the very people who ought not have guns, there's a whole separate issue. Some schools have had weapons on campus for decades, for their rifle teams. It's not common, but it's not rare, either. Those weapons are so locked up except for the time they are in use that they are pretty much inaccessible without time, keys and codes. That's how they keep the guns under monitored control in an environment seething with childish energy, antics and ideas. The same kind of control would accompany weapons intended for defense: By the time you get racked up, the barbarians are already stacking your heads and eating your breakfasts. Certainly the Newtown shooter seems to have arrived in a bullrush, with no time for an armed deterrent.

But do you really want kids growing up in a world where we have to post police and armed guards to protect them from the world? If it reaches that point, it means the situation has already move farther than it should into the realm of the inaccessible. we need to back up a couple of steps and identify all thefactors that led to teh condition we now find ourselves in. And then see what it would take to get to a different place, either by seriously baring the mentally ill from access to lethal weaponry and just restricting the absolute amount of weaponry that's out there.

"More guns on campus" feels good on some level, it feels like it's plausible, but it is illusory. An armed campus just teaches kids that violence is normal and to be expected. That's just so wrong in so man y ways.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:10 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
The idea of armed teachers and administrators is repugnant, is it not?

Somewhat. I would go with tasers or knives and mandatory combat training.

It would be interesting, though, to see what pharmaceuticals these kids were on.
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Local time
Today 8:10 AM
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,252
---
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
I'm not saying let it be a free for all gun nut campus. I said that the should pass a class. I wasn't explicit with what the class would contain, but I'd hope it would have a psych evaluation. I also see that armed guard at school is a sign of a problem. But we need to do something, in the mean time. There needs to be a change in the very core of Americans. That takes time. Just like it took time for us to get where we are now. This craziness didn't happen over night, as I'm sure you could attest to that, EO.

I wasn't trying to propose a magic pill. I was presenting a suggestion and trying to find a compromise. It's something we INTP's can do well. Except on the internet I guess ;). I think there are way deeper issues to deal with. I'm at least with you guys on that. I'm still not convinced that a teacher with proper training (mental and physical) should not be allowed to conceal carry their guns to school. A taser might be a worse idea. I can see it now. Teachers with their "non lethal" keep um in line device. tasing kids left and right. Your parents won't put you on ADHD meds will they? ZAP ZAP. You feel like paying attention now Billy?

I do wonder if violence should be seen as normal. It seems as if it has been for all of history, and we are still the same humans as our pyramid building ancestors. I'm not saying we should go on a few more crusades and rally up another holocaust, but it's something to think about. I wonder if we can, as a whole, move past it, or if it keeps coming back, because that's what we are. And all these psychos are just the collective pent up aggression of polite society. Wouldn't that be shitty?
 

Inappropriate Behavior

is peeing on the carpet
Local time
Today 11:10 AM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,795
---
Location
Behind you, kicking you in the ass
Originally Posted by Lot
I don't see a problem with letting a teacher conceal carry to class. Making teachers carry guns would be stupid, making anyone carry a gun, that doesn't want to is stupid. But if they did carry on campus they would need to pass some sort of class, not sure what it would entail.

Source

Marshall’s singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the combat period, an average of only 15 to 20 “would take any part with their weapons.” This was consistently true, “whether the action was spread over a day, or two days, or three.”.......

Why did these men fail to fire? As a historian, psychologist, and soldier, I examined this question and studied the process of killing in combat. I have realized that there was one major factor missing from the common understanding of this process, a factor that answers this question and more: the simple and demonstrable fact that there is, within most men and women, an intense resistance to killing other people. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it......

Since World War II, a new era has quietly dawned in modern warfare: an era of psychological warfare, conducted not upon the enemy, but upon one’s own troops. The triad of methods used to enable men to overcome their innate resistance to killing includes desensitization, classical and operant conditioning, and denial defense mechanisms....

But desensitization by itself is probably not sufficient to overcome the average individual’s deep-seated resistance to killing. Indeed, this desensitization process is almost a smoke screen for conditioning, which is the most important aspect of modern training. Instead of lying prone on a grassy field calmly shooting at a bull’s-eye target, for example, the modern soldier spends many hours standing in a foxhole, with full combat equipment draped about his body. At periodic intervals one or two man-shaped targets will pop up in front of him, and the soldier must shoot the target.
In addition to traditional marksmanship, soldiers are learning to shoot reflexively and instantly, while mimicking the act of killing. In behavioral terms, the man shape popping up in the soldier’s field of fire is the “conditioned stimulus.” On special occasions, even more realistic and complex targets are used, many of them filled with red paint or catsup, which provide instant and positive reinforcement when the target is hit. In this and other training exercises, every aspect of killing on the battlefield is rehearsed, visualized, and conditioned.

So we should be putting Miss Crabtree through that?

1224678806_2.jpg


^^Pictured: Miss Crabtree

With whatever conditioning and screening we put her through we still won't know whether or not she will be calm cool and collected or shaky and nervous when the moment of truth arrives. She may fire her weapon but where will the bullets go?

It's been suggested here and elsewhere that violent games and movies/tv play an adverse role (sometimes the one and only role) in causing these mass shootings. Maybe they are, but I would suggest that maybe those very same movies and games are playing an adverse role on those suggesting we arm teachers (or whoever is present during the next shooting). For while the mass shooters see the villians on the tv and see the glory of randon indescriminate firing of their big honkin' weapon, others see the heroic Miss Crabtree taking out her gun and taking out the big bad villian in one clean shot.

Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, tv movies games...
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Local time
Today 8:10 AM
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,252
---
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
I explicitly said that you shouldn't force a person to use a gun. I never said we should arm teachers. And any learned conceal carry person, knows that there is a time to use your gun and there is a time to refrain. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have guns. Just means that there are more factors to go into training and for a person to consider.

Maybe I just suck at communicating, or people are reading WAY too much into where I'm coming from. At least you were light hearted. This thread feels a bit like watching a circle jerk; less lemon party, more yaoi.
 

Lostwitheal

Mr. LoveRobot
Local time
Today 5:10 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
562
---
Location
I have an existential map. It has "You are here" w
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have guns. Just means that there are more factors to go into training and for a person to consider.

I can still see no reason for any civilian to own, leave alone carry on their person, a handgun. I understand shotguns for hunting, even perhaps non auto rifles for target practice if you're into that sort of thing, but not handguns. And most definitely not military assault weaponry.

The whole self defence handgun thing is basically just a vote of no confidence in your laws and police, and implies that you wish to take vigilante action in response to threats. Make no mistake, that's what it is - taking the law into your own hands and appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. At what point does it become ok to bypass the judicial system when sentencing someone to death?
 
Top Bottom