BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Sarah Palin. A woman with balls.
=(:-( °)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM

> ...with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

Urged by other women.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

As usual. Lizzie is the sensible voice.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

Not by me, Sandy, I'll still call her 'mother'.   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM

Yeh, I know that Backwoodsman, but that is only a matter of title. The consort of the king is usually called queen but Camilla will perhaps be just addressed as rotweiler.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:31 PM

Wrong, Sandy! Camilla won't be the Queen if Charles becomes King, she will be the Consort - exactly the same situation as exists with Prince Philip, the Queen's husband and Consort.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM

Wow....that is bad...........I greatly would prefer the Toad.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:06 PM

Yeh Spaw and you could look forward to Camilla being your queen! Off with your head! :<)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:00 PM

LOL@Kendall.....Hey my friend, I have an idea!!! Let's blame the Brits for this entirely.

See, every ruling culture as far back as you care to look had a standing army and of course they used it as that is what happens when you have a large standing army.   When the British Empire ruled the world they did so with a giant standing army. Then some of us pesky colonists got it in our head to rebel and the home grown militia served us well. So in the effort to stay away from the standing army which we had proven able to beat with just a militia, those dumbass founders wrote up the goofball amendment which seems to have gotten us all in so much trouble.

So you see, if the Brits had not stuck with the standing army tradition AND HAD put down the rebellion as proper army should, all would be okay now.

.............'Ceptin' we'd all be talkin' funny and eatin' toad in the hole.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:45 PM

Who ever closed that other thread, thanks. What took you so long?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM

MtheGM, I used to think you were one of the more intelligent members here, but your recent statement that people who disagree with my opinion is a pain in the ass is simply not true. Go back and read it again.

Look, we need some clarity of thought here. I am NOT defending the gun nuts, and I am not supporting the NRA, or the do nothing government.
What I AM< doing is trying to point out what we are up against in the regulations department, and the quandary of how to get around 200 years of a bad habit. You folks who don't live here are only aware of the lack of control we have here, and apparently, you can't understand why that lack is such a problem. Put your minds on a solution and get off the raving about the obvious!

If this is not clear enough then you are not as bright as I thought. I got As and Bs in English in high school.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM

I am not alone around here in having a child go off the deep end and then try to access the mental health system. For us things eventually worked out pretty well but that doesn't mean I'm happy with the "system." I'm not. One great thing that did happen was that the kids at school had been trained enough to feel free in reporting his dangerous behaviors which I'm sorry to say we missed. So as a given we need more, better, and easier in the mental health field.

We need to start seeing ways to tone back the violence which we have built into the American culture as this also comes into play. This too has much to do with mental health. I saw Rudy Giulani the other night say that "74% of these shootings were mental health related and 25% related to guns." He might be right but that doesn't mean we can just forget about the 25% does it.

We are long past the time to address the gun laws but let's get started now. Diane Feinstein is introducing an assault weapons bill on Day One of the new Congress. Already they're lining up with the "slippery slope" argument and assorted other 2nd amendment issues.

I love all of you but on this issue we may have to agree to disagree. Let me put it bluntly. Fuck the slippery slope. I am an actual card carrying member of the ACLU and I would never expect enough to happen to ever do away with the 2nd but I'm also sick and tired and really pissed that we not doing a damned thing!   I think a later model supreme court might be willing to interpret the amendment differently. The founders were scared to death of having a standing army as they just tend to cost lots of money and get into unneeded trouble. They were right of course.............But do we still need an armed militia? No, but hunting and shooting are (or can be) reasonable sports. Just what sport do you use an AK47 in?

Let's make some sensible laws though. Consider joining me in saying "Fuck the Slippery Slope" and let's do away with assault weapons. Then let's close up the gun show loopholes and tighten the federal requirement on background checks and waiting periods. Let's also make gun owners show proof of a locked storage cabinet(s) whenever the make purchases. Other small rules and better enforcement could make a big difference to Giulani's 25%.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM

Street gangs in Canada are arming themselves with handguns and assault rifles mostly smuggled from the USA. Halifax, the city I know best and once considered its streets safe to walk at night now has the second highest per capita murder rate in Canada. In the USA gun control seems to be a state government responsibility and some states have good gun control and some have little or none. Problem is that anyone can purchase in a lax state and transport it legally or otherwise over state lines. Canada has a fairly open border with the USA and enterprising smugglers seem able to bypass customs without any great difficulty. Therefore we in Canada share your gun control problem even though we have much stricter laws here.
Part of the answer was given by Bruce when he advocates harsher treatment for crooks using guns. I agree with him but Canadian courts see it otherwise, and lazy prosecuters accept plea bargains allowing the crook to plead guilty to a lesser or a single charge. Con-current sentences, double time credits and early manditory parole mean the crook is back on the street much sooner than he would be in the USA.
Kendall, I have the highest respect for you and your opinion, but we in Canada are also greatly affected by your laws and we share the shoes in which you walk! I know that some of our problem is of our own making and but our countries share a large bed the damn bedbugs don't care on which side they feed!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM

The NRA and the gun lobby are, unfortunately, not the deciding element in this issue.

The gun manufacturers would start going broke and the NRA would look pretty silly if there weren't a massive demand by Americans for firearms.

Think about it: 310 million guns but only 300 million Americans. And the guns are still rolling off the assembly lines.

But the reasons - never fully explained - must go a lot deeper than the NRA lobbying Congress and threatening the public with tales of Obama coming with thugs to get their guns.

The people want guns, dude! Men and women! Guns 'n guns 'n guns 'n guns. It don't matter for what: they just want 'em! They crave 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM

Well, as expected, lots of spurious reasons from the usual suspects for retaining their personal armouries, so all I can say is this: that any country that loves its guns more than it loves its children (and can I just mention Kent State University here) has no right to consider itself civilised.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:03 PM

I think that Charmion's idea (6:49 AM)of requiring all gun owners to be members of the National Guard is a good one. That would ensure that anyone 'packing' has had training in the use of weaponry and counseling in the utilities and ethics thereof and that could only be a good thing.
Further, some people might well decide that the requirement is too onerous or restricting and give up their weapons.

Most importantly, it would be a start. A start in meaningful dialogue. And just maybe it would be acceptable to the NRA/gun lobby.

(Far off topic: I wish people would be more aware of the difference between 'discreet' and 'discrete'. The misuse always sounds dumb.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM

"Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct."

Not always the way. My uncle had WAY more maternal instinct than his ex-wife. Had his daughter been brought up by him, she'd have been a very different person I think, far more thoughtful and intelligent..
He's gay, as is his ex-wife...

My Dad was far more protective of me than my mother, who did not have much 'instinct' about me at all, for she was way too busy thinking of herself most of the time, but then, my Mum had many problems for various reasons. Had my Dad not been there, I don't know how I'd have got through it all at times.

And, I would argue that the 'Mother's Instinct' is dead and dying,for I now see so many women who seem to not give a toss about their babies and children these days...We've killed off Femininity and Motherhood, with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

And now, back to guns...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM

Just an observation. Take it for what it's worth to you:

I live in a very rural area in the southeastern US. Pretty much everyone around here owns guns, and shooting them is a favorite weekend activity for many. It's rare to go more than a few minutes, particularly this time of year, without hearing a gunshot or two from someone hunting or target shooting. I was just outside for over an hour catching up on some chores and did not hear a single gunshot during that period. To say that's unusual is a huge understatement. It's actually pretty much unheard of. The gun crowd seems to have declared a moratorium on shooting. The only time I can remember it being this quiet around here was after 09/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM

Wether or not "People kill people" or "guns kill people" or "people with guns kill people" it's obvious that semi auto pistols and rifles are very efficient tools for killing a lot of people quickly, especially defenseless children. While they're not the only part of the problem we need to recognize that their use is a large part of it and procede from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:27 PM

"...rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from." ~ MtheGM

Truth be known, it is not always easy to tell where anybody is "coming from" all the time.

I am a minor player on Mudcat and post an average of twice per day.

I have no plans to enlarge my role here, not do I have any authority to become an "enforcer".

I am simply pointing out that personal attacks don't win arguments. Besides, they are supposed to be banned on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:10 PM

I thank all you folks who are sending me your support via PMs.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM

pdq ~~ In what way did questioning the validity as argument of Kendall's statement that he found opposition to his views 'a pain in the ass' constitute a 'personal attack' on him? I should love to 'discuss the issue' with him -- if I could find anything he had said that was worth discussing, rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM

Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct.

I'm one of the kids of which you speak. My Father didn't give a shit about anyone but his bottle of booze. We had no male role model and one of my brothers acted up, quit school, raised hell, broke into a store with his no good buddies, but Mother coddled him until he spent a night in jail for decking a cop. If I even mentioned his behavior she got really protective.

Now, before I go, let me clarify something. This saying People kill people is absolutely true. Gun violence doesn't start with a gun, it starts in the twisted mind of a person. A gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands, just like a chain saw, butcher knife or car.

When I stated that many of the regs that John mentioned were already in place, I was referring to Connecticut where this horror happened.
Got that, John P?
Now I believe that all assault weapons should be banned just like sub machine guns have been for many years. No one uses a AK 47 or a AR 15 to hunt anything but people.
As for hand guns, only law enforcement officers and retired law men who qualify for a concealed permit should be allowed to carry

There, that's my opinion, for what it's worth, and that aint much.

We still need a realistic solution, but all I see here is opinions of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 PM

Thou shalt not contradict the omniscient and immutable Saint Liz of Blather.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

One or two? too bad thats not the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

What Bee-dub said

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM

So it's not going to happen again, is it?
I mean this only happened because the guy had psychological problems did it?
So how many people with mental problems have access to guns?
How many people who have access to guns, have mental problems, and of those, how many KNOW they have problems?
It's now becom e such a regular occurence, we now only wonder where it's going to happen next time.
It WILL continue to happen, and the reason why is pretty obvious.
BTW who would want to invade the US? Do you think they would do it without flattening large parts of the country, and the people first?
Just think Baghdad, or Japan, or many other places that have been invaded. After a form of blitzkrieg.
One or two men with a pistol ain't gonna deter anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM

2/3 of a majority to changes is not democracy; 50%+1 is democracy!

Decisions made by 50%+1 are also subject to being overturned or repealed when the political winds turn just a few degrees. The Founders put those 2/3 and 3/4 majority provisions into the Constitution to insulate the amendment process from the vagaries of politics and public opinion. If an amendment has enough support to survive the process, it's probably not going to be repealed. It's only happened once.

If 50%+1 were the standard for amending the Constitution, the rights of those in the minority would be trampled. The only reason an amendment declaring marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, thus making same sex marriage illegal, has not been brought before Congress is that it probably wouldn't survive the 2/3 and 3/4 majority requirements. If 50%+1 were the rule, it would pass in a heartbeat and there'd be no legal gay marriage anywhere in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:15 PM

The personal attacks on kendall are pointless and gutless.

If someone is incapable of discussing the issue and must resort to personal attacks, don't post anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:51 AM

".....my point is Mothers tend to overlook serious flaws in their kids.
Enough of this crap. Come up with some solutions or shut up."


That's crap. Mothers are very often the ones who are left to deal with children who have problems, because the fathers walk away...

There ya go, kendall, I'm throwing your sexist crap back at you....

I also know 2 fathers who've walked away from their children, or refused to accept anything was wrong at all, leaving their wives to deal with all the trauma that came their way. My best friend's husband not only refused to accept his son had Aspergers, but neither did his entire family, so for many many long and difficult months Kimmy was left to deal with all the problems on her own. She went through hell, but she came out the other side, as did her son, eventually, when she'd finally GOT that side of his family to accept the diagnosis.

And as for me mentioning Aspergers here, purely because Adam is now reported to have had it, well, time will tell, I guess. But I'll tell you this, there are a LOT of deeply disturbed kids out there...and the adults have been turning away for way too long, even encouraging it.

When my kids were younger I remember asking, in a GAME store, if they had any 'gentle' computer games for children which combined intelligence and adventure, but with no violence. The young man told me I was the first parent who had ever asked him that question, because most parents just bought the latest game, regardless of what was in it. Some of these games are horrifyingly gruesome, dark and gory. They are often made for single players only. Do the research on who the people are who design these games, as well as why so many are for single players only...and you might be surprised....

Our children's heads, worldwide, are filled with images that we NEVER had, unless we had lived through a war and seen horrendous things. Many parents let their children play on these games endlessly to the point where the child ceases to be 'in the real world'...It desensitizes them all.

Our TVs are FILLED with violent, dark and sinister dramas and films. Hollywood has a GREAT deal to answer for...as do those who make these films, write the scripts, do the special effects etc...

I won't discuss Autism in any way again in this thread, nor link it to what happened here, if people don't want to even see a connection...Previous killers from way back were never linked, because they didn't truly understand how the brain worked back then.

I've seen an autism meltdown..and it scared me shitless, for at the time I wasn't truly aware of what I was witnessing. I hear them now and then in the home for adults with severe Aspergers, next door to me. The amount of emotional pain which comes out as terrible anger is traumatic to hear.

NONE of us will ever know the reasons behind this tragedy, ever. We can all surmize as much as we may want to, and to be honest, I doubt even Adam could have told you the reason he did this.

As to the solution? Well, that lies with the American people, but it also lies with the rest of the world, for whilst people continue to watch violence, buy the DVDs, go to the cinema, buy the computer games and never complain, ever, about any of it, nor how the TV pumps out hatred and violence every single day, all day, it will continue to surround our children, to get into their Souls.

Some of those children will eventually implode......

And then, everyone can start going "Oh Fuck!" all over again, just like they did with Columbine.

There won't BE a solution, because most people don't give a fuck about anything any longer..so long as it doesn't directly affect them, so this will soon have faded into 'yet another school attack' and life will continue on....

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM

Bobad, that's a piece of good news. Thanks for posting it.

I hear you, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:44 AM

I SAY AGAIN GOD DAMN IT LISTEN!!

\Your opinion is no better than mine or anyone else. we don't need rehashing opinions we need solutions!

John P look up Connecticut's gun laws. That's where this horror took place.
And for the last time, I am sometimes mistaken, unlike certain Narcissistic pricks here, but I do not consciously lie, so knock it off.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:40 AM

It's a good thing they didn't have cars then, and stick an amendment about them in the constitution. They kill more people than guns do. Thatt isn't what they're intended to do, and they're more regulated.

People would be zooming around with no licenses, at whatever speed they wanted, without even a tenuous assurance of competency. Can't limit our constitutional right to drive.

Bruce, the whole Asperger's thing pissed me off, too. I think the ones who started talking about it were trying to put some distance between the killer and "people like us".
"This guy was different, he was inherently flawed, so you don't have to worry."

Anybody think these murderss wouldn't have occurred if his mother hadn't had (legally owned) guns, and he hadn't had access to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM

At least it's a start:

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of Friday's mass killing at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.

"I'm going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House -- a bill to ban assault weapons," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to a tweet from show producer Betsy Fischer Martin.

The shocking murder of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Conn., on Friday has sparked a national discussion on gun control, with mostly Democratic legislators saying laws need to be tightened.

President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but the measure expired a decade later. Democrats have tried several times since then to renew the ban, without success.

Feinstein called for the ban to be renewed after the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they're for hunting people."

On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

Feinstein would not comment on whether President Obama had failed to lead on gun control. "He is going to have a bill to lead on," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM

It seems that the constitution of the USA is cast in 1776 stone and nobody has the fortitude to make changes. 2/3 of a majority to changes is not democracy; 50%+1 is democracy! If Obama were to pose a referendum to the people of the USA creating changing gun ownership rights and it were to pass, would he be wrong to declair it into law or would the goverment dare to ignore the democratic wishes of its people? That certainly would show leadership!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM

Kendall, it's time for me to call you out. You got pretty hot earlier when you thought someone was calling you a liar. Here's a hint: if you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies. Below is a post I made earlier. Your response was to say, "John, most of the things you listed are in effect and have been for some time."

Bullshit.

In order to say that, you have to either be a liar or too ignorant to be part of this discussion. Please tell me which of the proposed laws below are in existence, nationwide, and adhered to our government. I'm tired of your crap. If we can't have a reasoned debate on the issue, then you are a waste of time. Your dismissiveness on this subject is harmful to our national dialog. According to the paper this morning, we have a mass shooting in this country every three months. What are you doing about it?

Another hint: loudly proclaiming over and over again that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" makes you sound like a spoiled child. Can you refute the statement that people with guns kill way more people than people without guns? For reference, read the next to last paragraph in my post below. Please respond to it in some way that actually answers it.

Please note that I still haven't suggested taking any guns away from any responsible gun owners. I'm just asking for a definition of the phrase "responsible gun owner", and for actual action to ensure that all gun owners are responsible.


The earlier post:
I keep hearing that "no responsible gun owner would do this" or "no responsible gun owner would do that". The problem isn't the responsible gun owners. It's that we let irresponsible people have guns. There are a few things we could do that would allow responsible gun owners to keep their guns, but let the rest of us have a little more confidence that the person next to us on the freeway or behind us in the grocery line isn't both mentally unstable and carrying a gun:

A requirement for extensive training for all gun owners.

Extensive background checks and a demonstrated need before we give concealed weapons permits.

The right to sell a gun should be very difficult to obtain. A fascination with guns should probably be a disqualifier.

No automatic firearms of any kind.

Any gun that's confiscated gets destroyed.

All guns should be securely locked up when not in use. Stolen guns get that way because they aren't adequately secured.

Allowing a gun to fall into the hands of your unsupervised child should be a felony.


As for the statement that if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns, I would like to point out that if guns are illegal, someone has to become a criminal before they use a gun. The way things are now, many crazy people who shoot others don't become criminals until they open fire. If the criminality happened earlier in the process, we'd have a better chance of keeping it from getting to the shooting stage. Also, most people are law-abiding and wouldn't buy a gun if it was illegal to do so. The problem is the ones who buy them legally and then go crazy or allow their guns to be stolen by other people who go crazy. Besides, if only criminals have guns, it will be easier to tell who they are.

There are statistics that show that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend, neighbor, or family member than on an armed intruder. It makes me want to quiz people about gun ownership before I visit them. It makes me angry that people are allowed indiscriminate gun ownership anyway.

As soon as the gun lobby can convince me that all gun owners are responsible, I'll support the so-called right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:03 AM

Fuckity hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:59 AM

How many times in real life has an armed intruder, bent on mass murder, been taken out by an armed civilian (or even a police officer) before he could kill anybody?

I'll rephrase that. How many times does it even *appear* that a hero has prevented a mass killing by drawing down faster than the heat-packin' bad guy?

Or even managed to *cut short* a shooting spree by nailing the gunman when he wasn't looking?

Come on, guys. How many?

I want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:51 AM

We have some shocking statistics above, of comparative figures of various nations regarding death by gunshot. The statistic for the US in comparison with the others is almost unbelievable, and an absolute disgrace to that wonderful nation. But Kendall endeavours to prevent any of the rest of us from drawing attention to this situation, because his Kendallship finds it "A pain in the ass"!

Really, Kendall; I am astounded. I should really have expected better of you.

Best Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM

Well..once again I went to bed after pointing out the awkwardness inherent in the 2nd Amendment. Several have agreed and made the same point in different words. And in his usual clever manner, pdq responded by RE-quoting the amendment and saying this is "the last time he will do so"! As if that clarifies everything.

Sadly, that method of debate IS what what the NRA and many gun fanciers fall back on, and as long as they have frightened legislators and Supreme Court judges in their pocket to nod wisely and say: "Yes, that's the way it is.", we will have more headlines.


--------------------------------------------

about the crime: The school was LOCKED.. he broke a window and forced his way in. Even teachers having access to weapons somewhere would not have helped. Only an armed guard at the door could have possibly have stopped him. I'll bet a few schools in rich areas WILL hire armed guards. And some malls... and a few theaters... How many libraries, swimming pools, sports stadiums, folk festivals, public parks..... well, you get the idea... will pretend that some sort of 'guard' will prevent similar stories? A deranged person with the right weapons will find someplace to go out in his blaze of righteous glory.

"Oh Bill... you are just morbidly hypothesizing."

Maybe... I hope so....

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM

Amen, Bruce. Well and nicely put.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:11 AM

Thank you, Don T.

I have been in two situations in my life when guns were pointed at me. In neither would my having a gun have helped in the least. In fact, had I reached for a weapon in either case I'd have been shot. (That's not bullshit; both instances really happened. And they happened in Montreal.) In fact. unless a third party had shot either of those guys just through the earlobe area of the head causing their gun hand to spasm open instead of squeeze shut, I'd have been shot anyway, so intervention wouldn't have helped. (That thing about the earlobe area is likely known to Kendall, Dan, gnu and Rap, but I doubt many others here would be aware of it.)

The UKers here have no way to get their heads around the notion of people having guns. I understand that and wish it were the same here, but it isn't. Jaysus, Joseph and Mary does North America have guns. There have been really stupid laws passed in the US about people's right to bear arms, stand your ground being the stupidest, imo. It gives people an excuse to go look for trouble and get personally involved.

I would suggest that anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime be sentenced to life in jail, no parole, period. I would also suggest that anyone killing someone in the commission of a crime be similarly sentenced.

The people who have gone on rampages -- I notice folks getting into Asperger's stuff needlessly, because anyone who does that kind of shit IS mentally unbalanced to begin with and Asperger's has little to do with it -- certainly has issues. Also, I would like to see a gun law that holds purveyors of assault weapons and handguns to account. Believe me on one thing: if any of my family were involved in a tragedy of this nature, I would spend the rest of my life finding the person(s) ultimately responsible for making the weapons available to a killer, then I would do my best to dispatch him, her or them. I would do so without remorse and without mercy, and I do not much care who thinks what of that.

I would like programs that glorify violence taken off television, and video games that do the same outlawed. We have become a violent society in North America. I think a good beginning would be to put major security checks in the way of anyone wanting to procure a weapon that is semiautomatic or automatic, and that goes for handguns, too. Then, people found to be in possession of said weapons without a license to have same given mandatory 20 years sentences, no parole. IMO, killers lose all their rights save one the moment they kill. They retain only the right to a trial. That's it, that's all. Sounds harsh? Compared to 20 dead 6 and 7 year olds, it sounds just about right to me.

As a BTW, I think that even mentioning Asperger's in this case does a disservice to all people with mental difficulties and disabilities. The guy who dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima wasn't labelled in that manner. Nor are the various 'legal' killers around the world: SAS, JTF 2, SEALS, HRT, Delta, GSG 9, etc. IMO. And if you want to email me or message about this, do so. Most folks here know how to locate me. I've never made a secret of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:05 AM

It seems clear that the NRA and other pro gun lobbyists believe that the occasional massacre of innocents (say two or three a year) is an acceptable price to pay for unrestricted gun ownership. The fact that politicians appear terrified to stand up to the pro gun lobby suggests that they believe this view is shared by a majority of voters. We would be foolish to believe that this hideous tragedy will lead to any changes in gun laws. Apart from anything else guns are big business, just listen to that money talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:54 AM

The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed or amended in our lifetimes. It takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress just to propose an amendment. That's difficult, but possible. But that proposed amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That means 13 states voting "No" kills the proposal. I can name at leas 15 states in which the chances of a majority of voters voting "Yes" are about the same as your chances of winning the Powerball lottery without buying a ticket.

As I said a number of posts back, the only way to solve the problem is by gradually eradicating the pervasive American myth of guns as agents of empowerment. The fact is that guns rarely empower, they usually dominate. If we don't want to be dominated by whatever fool happens to have a gun in his hand, we need to realize that fact, let go of the old myth, and take steps to free ourselves from that fool's ability to dominate us.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:44 AM

The one big mistake that the Founding Fathers made IMHO, was to assume that future generations would have the plain common sense to react to changing times, by adjust the constitution to allow for those changes.

They simply assumed that those who came later would have as much intelligence as they themselves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gilllymor
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:44 AM

Speaking of crap:
"There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed."

That wasn't even true in 1812! It just sounds like another feeble homily to justify an antiquated notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM

Couple of things...

First, what good does it do if Connecticut has stringent gun laws or not if you can go to a gun show in Virginia, back a U-Haul truck up, load it with AR-15s and AK-47s and a $5 book telling you how to covert them into automatic weapons used in war???

What is needed are some uniform federal laws...

Second, as for the American people having their say in any gun control laws??? Ain't gonna happen... Because of re-redistricting, mostly by Republicans, we do not have a House or Representatives that represent the overall wished of the American people...

Lastly, the NRA and it's mouth-pieces will sandbag with their usual bag of BIG LIEs and half-truths and this shooting, like all of them, will be not bring about meaningful changes... Or any changes, for that matter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 AM

Here we go again, commenting on the obvious. We all know that something should be done about guns in the wrong hands, the question is WHAT? Repeating the same old tired opinions is getting to be a pain in the ass.

Lizzie, I have a grandson with Autism. He is not a whacko. I was referring to mentally unstable people.Criminally insane.
"Only a Mothers certain belief that her child is exceptional keeps her from drowning them at birth." (Lazarus Long)
No, I am not suggesting that the shooters Mother should have drowned him at birth, my point is Mothers tend to overlook serious flaws in their kids.

Enough of this crap. Come up with some solutions or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:58 AM

"Flower power sucks compared to gun powder"

I don't agree Gnu. Gandhi freed an entire nation from brutal oppression using non-violent methods, and as Howard Jones pointed out above, after Dunblane and Hungerford here in the UK we tightened gun laws, made the possession of handguns illegal and we are all for the better.


"The keyboard is mightier than the gun, to coin a phrase."

Too right!


"All you foreigners are tyrying to walk a mile in our shoes...they don't fit!"

Would it be too much of an affront to your nation(man)hood to take some counsel from a concerned, caring neighbour? For some of us that visit the US frequently, have good friends there and love the place deeply this whole episode is very painful to watch; more so as the writing is writ so large on the wall but too many heads are in the sand. All this "guns don't kill people" bollocks that's being spouted is not doing your nation any favours. Guns are enablers, and they enable people to kill lots of other people quickly.

If killing seven-year-olds doesn't disgust you enough to get rid of the guns, I can't think of what will and the future is too bleak to consider. Change the laws, dump the outdated, ludicrous second amendment, (or change it - you're a democracy) and sideline it's adherents to the lunatic fringe where they belong.

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:31 AM

kendall...it is now coming out that Adam had Aspergers. He was *not* 'Whacko' and your comments above are highly insensitive. As I stated in another thread, had Adam been helped more by people who *truly* understand Aspergers, than maybe, just maybe, what happened last week would *never* have happened.

This is not just about Gun Laws and Guns, but it is about the refusal of the Human Species to face up to the fact that Autism is increasing very fast and that it is affecting society in many, many ways.

Despite this happening, NO government is looking into the causes of Autism or pouring money in to those people/families who so desperately NEED help in so many ways.

Here, John Elder Robison, former special effects designer for the rock band, KISS, (remember the smoking guitars?) explains not only his life as someone with Aspergers, but also his research into the TMS research now being done, which enabled him to feel, REALLY FEEL the emotions of another person, for the first time in his life.....

Ingenious Minds - John Elder Robison - Part 1

Ingenious Minds - Part 2

John, on the TMS Research now being done

The 'whackos' are the ones who refuse to acknowledge what is going on, thus helping to ensure that more and more of these tragedies will continue to happen, because of their stubborn refusal to see what is right before their eyes....And of course, the Corporate Medical Bastards who are ensuring that they don't 'find a cure' too fast, because they're making a fecking fortune from drugging MILLIONS of children up to the eyeballs with drugs which affect their brains each and every day.....

ALL are tragic here...those innocent people who died and a young man who imploded bigtime after 20 years of struggling in a way so many may never even *want* to understand because their minds are happy to continue to call very sensitive, intelligent, creative and confused people as 'whackos'.....