[solo]

(12-15-2012 12:08 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

South America has the most strict gun control laws in the world. How's that working out for them?

While I agree gun control isn't the final solution to the problem (I do think it could help a bit though), the violence in Latin America has a LOT to do with the drug war which is fueled by the US and Europe. If LatAm was just left alone a lot of its violence would go away.

[EisenBarde]

Is this an aberration, or the natural state of man returning to balance as fallen beast?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The article in NYT says that the guns used in the massacre were owned by his mother. When you combine it with the divorce, alimony and other stuff found out so far, this is like a cream of shit on top of a cake made of diarrhea.

[Menace]

Profile of guy in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregi...ml?hp&_r=0

Select quotes:

Quote:

He carried a black briefcase to his 10th-grade honors English class, and sat near the door so he could readily slip in and out. When called upon, he was intelligent, but nervous and fidgety, spitting his words out, as if having to speak up were painful.

Quote:

Pale, tall and scrawny, Adam Lanza walked through high school in Newtown, Conn., with his hands glued to his sides, the pens in the pocket of his short-sleeve, button-down shirts among the few things that his classmates recalled about him.

The guy was an omega. There are many like him. Short of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which is unlikely in the extreme, no laws can prevent something like this from happening again.

Can anyone doubt that if this guy lived how we live that this would not have happened? It simply isn't about guns. But our message is controversial...so it will take time.

[beta_plus]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/conn.-gunm...MySeuT7KSo

FTA:

"Adam Lanza attended Newtown High School, and news clippings from recent years show him on the honor roll. Joshua Milas, a classmate who was in the technology club with Lanza, said that he was generally a happy person but that he hadn't seen him in a few years.

"We would hang out, and he was a good kid. He was smart," said Milas, who graduated in 2009. "He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius."

The tech club held "LAN parties" -- short for local area network -- in which students would gather at a member's home, hook up their computers into a small network and play games. Gloria Milas, Joshua's mother, said Adam Lanza's mother hosted one of the parties."

Divorced parents, goth nerd gamer. Not looking good.

[Katatonic]

(12-15-2012 09:28 AM)michelin Wrote:  

Quote:

Carrying a gun is illegal in Holland and the gun has to be dismantled when transported from house to shooting club.

This is how things should be, as Neil describes it. Not like going to the local candyshop and getting an automatic Riffle for free!

I predict that, sadly, it will take another 15 to 20 more mass shootings (20 to 50 victims) in order to get some people's minds go "bing!"

I'm pretty convinced that, before banning guns, videogames will be banned first. I love the US, but with any new shooting it makes a clown of itself by not taking any significant action.

It was illegal for him to carry those guns on to school property. I don't understand your logic here. Are you implying that if it were illegal for him to transport his weapons intact, he would've called the whole thing off?

[Katatonic]

There is also no fucking way we will ever give up our guns in this country. Liberal or conservative, most people I know are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment.

[Alpharius]

(12-15-2012 10:35 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

http://washingtonexaminer.com/conn.-gunm...MySeuT7KSo

FTA:

"Adam Lanza attended Newtown High School, and news clippings from recent years show him on the honor roll. Joshua Milas, a classmate who was in the technology club with Lanza, said that he was generally a happy person but that he hadn't seen him in a few years.

"We would hang out, and he was a good kid. He was smart," said Milas, who graduated in 2009. "He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius."

The tech club held "LAN parties" -- short for local area network -- in which students would gather at a member's home, hook up their computers into a small network and play games. Gloria Milas, Joshua's mother, said Adam Lanza's mother hosted one of the parties."

Divorced parents, goth nerd gamer. Not looking good.

Hey whooaaa! I was a goth kid in high school, I'm still a nerd and a gamer (and proud of it, too)! My parents are divorced. That doesn't mean I have any intention of doing something absolutely psychotic.

It's almost 2013, it's about time to stop stereotyping people who listen to Eminem and Disturbed and play video games.

[Samseau]

(12-15-2012 12:37 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

...south America is largely populated by non-first world countries. Why don't we compare South America with Africa then...that would be a fairer comparison.

Whereas comparing USA with Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Australia makes a lot more sense.

When America passed the second Amendment, it was a third world country.

[ElJefe]

If I wanted, I could build a home-made device, step onto a crowded bus or train, wait for it to stop at a crowded station, then blow that shit up. Have you seen how unprotected natural gas storage areas or refineries are? A terrorist with half a brain could walk into an unamed location in the UK, set off a chain reaction with Breivik like car-bomb, and knock out 20% of Britain's energy supply overnight - causing tens of billions of pounds in damage. It's not that hard.

Human life is fragile. Flesh and bone can be cut and broken with relative ease. Wielding objects for disproportionate destruction is the dark side to our intelligence, the same things that enabled us to lift ourselves up from destitute poverty and short, nasty and brutish existences (as Hobbes would say).

As we become more numerous, more crowded, the opportunity for acts like these will increase. But again, in perspective, how terrible is the world really?

Is it so bad that a few psychos go amok within the time-span of a few years, garnering ridiculous attention, or the fact that in San Pedro Sula in Honduras, the murder rate is 86 per 100,000 per year. In Manhattan alone, that would be equivalent to 2,600 murders a year. That's grotesque. Or the fact that millions of people die from any number of causes.

Life is fragile, and the human ability for cruelty must necessarily be as great as the ability for compassion, since both are ends of a spectrum that spans the same yardstick we call morality.

People will always be careless, mistakes will always be made, psychos will always try to hurt others.

Why is everyone so eager to try to make the world perfect by passing more laws against "imperfection"? Were I a teacher or principle, I might take the lesson that I need to learn how to shoot, so that if a killer one day decides to ravage the school, I can instantly do something about it. A discretionary decision for a discretionary event, a judgment-call made by a good man in a moment of need. That kind of behavior is sustainable for the long-term, and begets more good behavior. Not a generalizing, bureacratic law designed by do-gooders and self-sanctimonious progressives trying to right every wrong for you, so you don't have to think for yourself. That is unsustainable behavior. To quote Cicero: "the more law, the less justice".

[PhilE]

Stricter Gun Laws would NOT prevent these tragedies.
If their were a mental examination
1.) I am pretty sure his mother would of passed it since they were in her name and
2.) all it takes is for one or two people to sue the pants off a mental examination they claim is biased especially if they dont have a history of any violent acts, abuse etc etc

lets not forget that the gun debate usually arises because of INNER CITY GUN VIOLENCE and guess what, some of the cities with the worst gun violence have THE STRICTEST LAWS!
It is illegal to carry a handgun in these cities below:

Camden, NJ
Chicago, Il
Washington D.C.
Ny, NY

The only thing that banning handguns in those cities did was give criminals the knowledge that robbing law abiding citizens is a cake walk. The average police response time is 8 minutes, the average crime takes 1 minute. A law abiding citizen in an inner city must likely carries a gun for protection (like myself) and I am in no way disillusioned that a gun will absolutely save my life, but it would give me a fighting chance...and ill take that over no chance.

But as a law abiding handgun owner i dont understand why it is so CHEAP to own a mini weapon of mass destruction. Here are my solutions.
1.) Create a gun responsibility task force. They will eliminate straw purchases by checking on all registered gun owners every 2 years (randomly) to find out where their guns are at. Meaning you can just say you lost or it was stolen.

2.) You only get one lost/stolen gun, if you loose a 2nd one you not only loose your privilege but you will be charged for the same crime if that gun is used in a crime. If a gun is used in a crime that you didnt know was missing you still will be charged with that crime (negligence). I dont care if the kids broke into the cabinet, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. IF you have to buy a fingerprint special reinforced safe because you know your children could be psychopaths then so be it. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. PERIOD. As a gun owner it is the gun owners responsibility to know the whereabouts and safety of their gun status AT ALL TIMES. No matter the cost of time, money or inconvenience.

3.) Eliminate Straw buyers by making the reselling of a legally purchased gun illegal. Thats right you can only sell it back to an authorized dealer or the government (Gun Responsibility Task Force). You can't be a reseller of a gun. I dont care if it is a gun show, a pawn shop, etc. Once again why do we make something convient for a small group of people if it causes so much destruction. If someone says they sold or gave away a gun, they are immediately charged with a 5-10 year bid and also any time associated with the crime that gun commits

4.) The task force will be paid because each and every gun owner has to pay 240.00 per year for the right to own a gun and 50.00-120.00 per year for each additional gun. Look I know this hurts collectors mainly but with the kind of problem we have in this country if you want to collect guns your're going to have to pay for each and everyone of them. And they all will be tracked every two years. I think by placing the annual fee on owning guns as opposed to a limit is better because it forces the owner to make a choice of having multiple guns for no reason or just having something for protection.

Why should there be LESS responsibility for owning a CAR then it is for owning a gun? As a owner of .45acp Ruger i would happily pay 20.00 per month to walk around with protection in Philly especially if it means less guns would get in the hands of criminals because of that price.

[el mechanico]

I don't understand why the mom would have guns in her house in that sleepy little town especially with a disturbed kid in the house. I also have to say because of all the money in that area there's a lot of house dwellers. I have many friends I went to high school with that still live at home and have never had a job (43 year olds) A girlfriend of mine said she saw one of our house bound friends on his roof a couple months ago with a rifle. As a teen I've seen people kill themselves over relationships and it was usually very very rich spoiled guys.

I was talking with Fisto in the DR at a traffic light and mentioned that some of the dudes selling shit when you stop are retarded or handicapped. There's no safety net for them there they need to figure out how to eat and live.

Another thing about the DR..They have dudes sitting with shotguns at pretty much anyplace where there's a risk and even in front of grocery stores etc. Our government wastes enough cash on nonsense it's time to guard our schools just like they do in the DR..Soldier out front with a assault rifle.


Another thing about Newtown...The place has a darkside and the people in that area have never let it die. Some of them are obsessed with mental illnesses and ghosts. This is a link to why...
http://www.damnedct.com/fairfield-hills-...l-newtown/

[iknowexactly]

(12-15-2012 11:05 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

There is also no fucking way we will ever give up our guns in this country. Liberal or conservative, most people I know are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment.

Not in the foreseeable future, I agree. But the second amendment is _very_ ambiguous. It does not explicitly just say "The right of the people to bear ALL arms shall not be infringed on. "

It's already infringed on, for practical purposes. You can't carry a .50 cal machine gun in your car because then a nut could take out many dozens, maybe hundreds.

What is a "militia?" What are "arms"?

If you REALLY believe in a literal interpretation of the second as an absolute right to bear ANY arms, you should be able to manufacture medium size missiles in your back yard that would take out a small city.

Anyone here who believes that, please do it. PLEASE go ahead and argue for unlimited arms ownership. I'm serious. I'm sure some believe it's needed.

They just let you have what they will tolerate for paractical risk management reasons. And the bomb equivalency argument doesn't work because hardly anyone does it.


Here it is (underlined section mine)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Here's an early draft:
http://www.inlandvalleynews.com/wp-conte...ts.jpg.gif

Could anyone make an argument this massacre had --anything, anything at all-- to do with the operation of a militia, let alone a "well-regulated" militia. I sure don't truly understand what "militia" really meant in 1777 or how it would translate now.

I'm serious, go ahead and try without changing the subject, or becoming bellligerent. I know you'll shoot me before you'll give up your gun. I don't doubt it. But what did they mean by "well-regulated militia" and how did it apply then and now?

It's the well-regulated militia clause that can easily be "re-interpreted" to affect the rest of the Amendment. Meaning more regulations on gun ownership.

Just like Black people were never considered to be potential voters, but later things were changed.

It's already infringed, on for practical purposes. You can't carry a .50 cal machine gun in your car because then a nut could take out dozens, maybe hundreds. And the bomb equivalency argument doesn't work because hardly anyone does it.

I agree it's politically hopeless for at least 20-30 years.

For the paranoids among us (Gubmint gonna getchoo) , if you were to have some fantasized revolution against the Gubmint, a Blackhawk with a misslie will take out your whole house and your pals holed up in it before you can even draw a bead. The gubmint has such superior firepower you could never fight them. Not even close. All you can do is Lee Harvey Oswald shit. Real productive.

[Samseau]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


How did you miss that part iknowexactly? I mean this is some seriously plain language, not sure how it is difficult to understand.

[painter]

Right on Mechanico. It seems like these psychos specifically target places where they know they'll be the only one armed to the teeth with a death wish. The Joker in Colorado picked that theater because it had a "gun free zone" policy. Sure, armed guards won't prevent everything but they will certainly deter these pussies who want to kill a lot of innocent people when they're picking a target. Once a few crooks get shot outside the mall or a bank or wherever the armed guards are posted word will get out.

And it is mind boggling this lady had a fucking glock and a sig in her house. That's what happens when dumb people play with handguns, they usually get killed by their own weapons. I've seen a lot of stupid people who treat guns like toys when they should be treated like nitroglycerine and handled accordingly.

[rudebwoy]

(12-15-2012 11:05 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

There is also no fucking way we will ever give up our guns in this country. Liberal or conservative, most people I know are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment.

These type of killings will continue to happen until people give up there guns.

[iknowexactly]

(12-15-2012 12:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


How did you miss that part iknowexactly? I mean this is some seriously plain language, not sure how it is difficult to understand.

Well, is that "rights" statement completely unrelated to the previous clause?

I'm not being obtuse, constitutional scholars agree it's a poorly written sentence that's not clear in its intent by current grammar standards. Do you think the "well regulated millitia part" doesn't have any relation to the rest of the sentence?

Here's how a stricter gun control advocate might interpret it (my sentence) :

"In order to have a well-regulated militias for freedom's sake, people in or reasonably expected to be needed in A WELL_REGULATED MILITIA shall be allowed to have arms consistent with a well-regulated militia. "

For one thing, I don't think there was a standing army then. The idea of a Militia defending against someone like the British or anyone else is wholly anachronistic.

In the geopolitical state at the time, invasion of the US by other than the British was pretty unrealistic. There was literally no need for an Army, unless we were already exterminating the Native Americans. Now we have one because we're so powerful that we want to rule the whole world, or force it to act in our interests.

The idea of a globally mobile force that can, in armament terms, literally kill anyone in the whole world within in an hour (This is obviously insane, but you could just nuke the city the Chinese leaders are in for example. Nuclear sub off the coast -- I think the missile would get there in less than 20 minutes) would be inconceivable before the invention of the internal combustion engine and jet plane.

They could not possibly see the world we live in. Including gang-bangers, Asperger kids whose MOTHERS buy them arsenals. As a matter of practice, "bums" probably would have found it impossible to afford guns. The Founders were in my opinion definitely thinking about functioning adult males, established as reliable members of society by their work. That standard would have screened out this kid, the Norway guy? ( I don't know if he had a job) , not Oswald I guess ( Book Depository) .

I don't really know exactly what they meant by a free state. The gun owners of the US can't conceivably fight a SWAT team backed up by National Guard and Army copters if they decide to secede, etc. Who's going to invade us, the Chinese?

However, on NRA side, the Supreme Court, (whose families are far, far away from any ghetto or non-prep-school violence), have agreed that militia connection is NOT needed for gun ownership:

( from Wikipedia
"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[thebassist]

Further quote from the NYT article Menace posted.

Quote:

Ms. DeVivo remembered Mr. Lanza from sixth grade and earlier, talking about aliens and “blowing things up,” but she chalked this up to the typical talk of prepubescent boys.

Still, after hearing of the news on Friday, Ms. DeVivo reconnected with friends from Newtown, and the consensus was stark. “They weren’t surprised,” she said. “They said he always seemed like he was someone who was capable of that because he just didn’t really connect with our high school, and didn’t really connect with our town.”

So much bullshit. Hate these kinds of gossiping bitches who just love the fact that they're somehow involved in the drama.

/rant

[Blackhawk]

There were two gunman before they became one.
The shooter was named Ryan Lanza before he became Adam Lanza
The shooter was 24 years old before he became 20 years old
Mom was a kindergarten teacher at the school, then school staff, then she became nothing.
Mom let him in, then he stole her key to get in, then he broke his way in through a window.
Mom was killed at school before she was killed at home.
Dad was killed in New Jersey before he was spotted walking around in CT

And the hyper-ventilating media gaffs around this story just continue.

Media outlets competing to be soonest with the least accuracy!

[painter]

http://www.infowars.com/im-going-to-kill...-the-news/

Was an Internet messageboard post made on Wednesday night by a user who threatened to kill himself on Friday morning and “make the news” made by Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, or is it a Photoshopped fake?
The post, which according to the screenshot appeared on the 4Chan website at 22:18 on Wednesday night and was made by a user called ‘iKTatjYX’. The post stated, “I’m going to kill myself on Friday and it will make the news, be watching at 9am.”
Under the message is a disturbing image of the dead bodies of Columbine school shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
A respondent subsequently asked the poster where he was based, to which he responded, “I live in Connecticut, that’s as much as I’ll say.”
4chan is a controversial messageboard once described by the Guardian as “lunatic, juvenile… brilliant, ridiculous and alarming.” It is frequented by hackers as well as pranksters, which is why the veracity of the post cannot be confirmed.
However, if proven true it would mean that Lanza’s massacre was pre-planned and not a spur of the moment rampage.
View the thread below (warning – GRAPHIC).

Never saw that picture of the columbine shooters. One of the comments is "do it faget" but I'm sure they were only thinking the loser was just going to off himself, not a school.

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

(12-15-2012 11:05 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

There is also no fucking way we will ever give up our guns in this country. Liberal or conservative, most people I know are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment.

Who says we have to? We have a legal gun culture here just like in Canada and Switzerland; hunters, gun collectors, guys who just love blowing off steam at the shooting range, people who have guns for self-defense, etc. I'm for all this. I'm also for taking lessons from Canada and Switzerland about the right gun control laws to substantially lower gun crime here in America. They have done it, no reason why we can't do it.

And let's be honest; the NRA does not represent gun owners, they represent the gun manufacturers. If these people keep moderating the gun debate we will never get anywhere.

(12-14-2012 04:50 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  

Especially starting at 1:40...

Quoted for truth! They need to listen to this doctor. It's a real shame they only care about ratings. No professionalism whatsoever. To think journalism used to actually be a respectable field.....

[MrXY]

(12-15-2012 12:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

For the paranoids among us (Gubmint gonna getchoo) , if you were to have some fantasized revolution against the Gubmint, a Blackhawk with a misslie will take out your whole house and your pals holed up in it before you can even draw a bead. The gubmint has such superior firepower you could never fight them. Not even close. All you can do is Lee Harvey Oswald shit. Real productive.

Are you seriously saying that anyone concerned about the oppressive use of state power is an irrational and ignorant paranoid?

Because if you are , you are just demonstrating your own ignorance of human history. In the 20th century alone governments killed 100 million+ of their own people. And that's just the dead-not including the 100s of millions who were impoverished, starved, oppressed, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

Do you really have that much faith in the eternal beneficence of the all powerful State? I don't, and neither did the Founding Fathers, which is why they recognized the citizen's right to keep and bear arms as a counterweight to state power.

As for your claim that resistance against a better armed government is hopeless, history refutes that as well in countless examples.

[Katatonic]

(12-15-2012 12:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


How did you miss that part iknowexactly? I mean this is some seriously plain language, not sure how it is difficult to understand.

People need to read what the founding fathers thought of the right to bear arms. The main reason Thomas Jefferson supported the 2nd Amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from the tyranny of the government.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect any individual citizen. Therefore we must be able to defend ourselves.

[Katatonic]

(12-15-2012 12:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 11:05 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

There is also no fucking way we will ever give up our guns in this country. Liberal or conservative, most people I know are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment.

These type of killings will continue to happen until people give up there guns.

A lot more people will die from alcohol until we give up drinking. Same with tobacco, and the same with our horrible diets. If gun violence were truly an epidemic, wouldn't gun deaths, specifically murder, be much more prevalent per capita than it is?

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

(12-15-2012 01:14 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 12:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


How did you miss that part iknowexactly? I mean this is some seriously plain language, not sure how it is difficult to understand.

People need to read what the founding fathers thought of the right to bear arms. The main reason Thomas Jefferson supported the 2nd Amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from the tyranny of the government.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect any individual citizen. Therefore we must be able to defend ourselves.

5 Ways to Curb Gun Violence
Do you find any of these gun control measures unreasonable?