Conneticut Shooting will be a Bad One

[Federalist]

Consider yourself chastized for responding to his useless nonsense. Bad Federalist!

I'm ashamed of myself.

 

[Saboteur]

So you also agree that the notion of banning 'assault wesapons', with regard to this example, is reactionary, irrational and outright absurd. Good.

As tough as it is, I do agree that a ban isn't an option. But not in the way you put it, such as absurd.

 

[haymarket]

all civilians are under the same law when it comes to using deadly force. "professional" does not create a different standard

And that statement is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion. Police officers have the weaponry they do NOT because they are citizens being protected by the Second Amendment. Got that straight?

They have the weaponry they do because they ARE POLICE OFFICERS performing an official job for the peoples government with the full authority of the state behind them.

Ignoring that reality and pretending that you have the same entitlement to their weaponry is the height of absurdity and a complete denial of the reality as to WHY they have those weapons in the first place.

 

[haymarket]

No actually your argument is irrelevant.

But you are impotent to tell us why you believe so.

 

[TurtleDude]

And that statement is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion. Police officers have the weaponry they do NOT because they are citizens being protected by the Second Amendment. Got that straight?

They have the weaponry they do because they ARE POLICE OFFICERS performing an official job for the peoples government with the full authority of the state behind them.

Ignoring that reality and pretending that you have the same entitlement to their weaponry is the height of absurdity and a complete denial of the reality as to WHY they have those weapons in the first place.

that is completely irrelevant It is inconceivable and idiotic for a government bureaucrat or politician to tell responsible CIVILIANS that some weapons are so UNSUITABLE that they have NO PLACE in a "CIVILIZED SOCIETY" and thus even honest citizens who pass a background check CANNOT EVEN OWN THEM and then turn around and USE OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPLY OTHER CIVILIANS-who have no greater right to self defense than WE DO-WITH THOSE SAME WEAPONS

where your point fails is that you confuse RIGHT TO USE with RIGHT TO POSSESS

and yes POLICE OFFICERS BECAUSE OF THEIR DUTIES HAVE A GREATER RIGHT to use weapons or carry them (such as in courthouses)

but as to possession-FAIL

 

[haymarket]

that is completely irrelevant It is inconceivable and idiotic for a government bureaucrat or politician to tell responsible CIVILIANS that some weapons are so UNSUITABLE that they have NO PLACE in a "CIVILIZED SOCIETY" and thus even honest citizens who pass a background check CANNOT EVEN OWN THEM and then turn around and USE OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPLY OTHER CIVILIANS-who have no greater right to self defense than WE DO-WITH THOSE SAME WEAPONS

where your point fails is that you confuse RIGHT TO USE with RIGHT TO POSSESS

and yes POLICE OFFICERS BECAUSE OF THEIR DUTIES HAVE A GREATER RIGHT to use weapons or carry them (such as in courthouses)

but as to possession-FAIL

You are not making any sense on this because you are not using words in their proper meaning and are making it up to suit yourself.

Your complete and continual utter failure on this line of attempted reasoning is that you are falsely using the term CIVILIAN to describe both you and me as well as professional police officers. They are NOT civilians the way you and I are. They are in a special professional occupational class that is far closer to paramilitary personnel. As such, they are entrusted with special powers, special authority and special weaponry that goes beyond what you and I have as non professional police officers.

but forget what both you and I say about who is a civillian and who is not. Neither of us write dictionaries so lets use one.

ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
Source(s):
dictionary.com

That is about as straight forward as you can get.

or how about this from The Free Dictionary

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj.
Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.

That is two for two telling you that you are using the word CIVILLIAN incorrectly.

Here is a third from Meriam-Webster

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\

Definition of CIVILIAN

1
: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b : outsider 1
— civilian adjective
See civilian defined for English-language learners »
See civilian defined for kids »
Examples of CIVILIAN

The bomb injured 12 civilians.
First Known Use of CIVILIAN

14th century

And the Second Amendment has not a damn thing to do with it.

That is why your line of 'reasoning' utterly fails and is the worst sort of attempted intellectual fraud. Putting it politely, you are starting from a FALSE PREMISE.

btw - could you explain to us how a police officer has a right to use a weapon if he is not possessing it? That I want to to hear.

All of this is pure malarkey and is an attempted smokescreen for the paranoia of the rabid right wing who wallow in the delusion that somehow someday they will need big time weaponry to go toe to toe in a war with the government. That is the underpinning of your demand for having the same weaponry and it is painfully obvious.

So now all you have to do is sell the American people that we should continue to allow technology to be the only limit on the weaponry Americans should have.

 

[blackjack50]

To my knowledge convicted criminals are not the ones committing mass murders, the people committing mass murders are apparently unstable but without or even with background and with or without long waiting periods they will obtain the weapon they want, given that any thing and every thing reasonable needs to done to decrease mass murders be it stricter gun control, better "free" mental health care, secure entry ways to public and private places, ect.

What news would be alright in your opinion for others to watch? You have suggested better mental health care I agree, do you think the taxpayer should foot the bill? Do you think that we "the public" should hide our heads in the sand? look the other way? How long should we just accept that mass murders are just part of life? I think we can do better, that if instead of arguing we put every suggestion on the table and develop a plan to reduce the potential for mass murder. Mass murderers do not pick just liberal or conservatives or independents or libertarians to attack, mane or kill, so the problem effects all of us and the solutions should come from all of us.

The problem here is that people blabber on about guns and how we need to control them. We need people control. As has been stated a million times, we have proper legislation now. We dot enforce it though. How good are gun laws if you can even enforce the most basic legislation? Maybe we should make it a requirement to report someone who attempts to purchase a firearm, when they cannot pass a background check. That isn't gun control, that is fixing current legislation and giving it some backbone.

People scream about this stuff even though they can't tell you what is restricted and where it is restricted. That tells me that people who talk about gun control don't know anything about owning them. Calling a .223 a "high powered rifle" is a joke to me and pretty much anyone else who hunts anything bigger than a squirrel. My deer rifle can shoot a 168 gr bullet...the .223s I see are like 55gr. So as I said it is a joke.

What news? I don't care. They all suck and are irresponsible sensationalist garbage channels. I'd go with the weather channel....but even they suck. The information on firearms is so blatantly incorrect nearly 100% of the time even on Fox...the supposed conservative network. If you watch the news...take it with a grain of salt and read up on a subject before you start talking about it.

So pony up for mental health care? I think it is more than psychiatrists that we need. We need detection, and that starts with education. Parents need to be educated on at risk signs, teachers need to be as well, and basically anyone who is around kids. Then workplace behavior and stuff like that. There are a host of people who need to be made aware. Hell if we can just get the stigma off therapy that is a start. You are right that there is no specific victim, and that we should all pitch in. I think the left needs to pitch in by talking facts, and the right by talking about mental health care. The NRA shut down their website and to my knowledge hasn't made a comment. That seems like a start doesn't it? Maybe MSNBC will get on board? But so far that is a pipe dream.

 

[Catawba]

Well clearly we are. It wasn't until this massacre that half the country even gave a half a crap about guns. It was political suicide for liberals, and so it was a no go for politicians. Nope. Not a journalist, and not a politician.

I think you forgot the purpose of a representative is to represent the people.

 

[EarlzP]

The problem here is that people blabber on about guns and how we need to control them. We need people control. As has been stated a million times, we have proper legislation now. We dot enforce it though. How good are gun laws if you can even enforce the most basic legislation? Maybe we should make it a requirement to report someone who attempts to purchase a firearm, when they cannot pass a background check. That isn't gun control, that is fixing current legislation and giving it some backbone.

People scream about this stuff even though they can't tell you what is restricted and where it is restricted. That tells me that people who talk about gun control don't know anything about owning them. Calling a .223 a "high powered rifle" is a joke to me and pretty much anyone else who hunts anything bigger than a squirrel. My deer rifle can shoot a 168 gr bullet...the .223s I see are like 55gr. So as I said it is a joke.

What news? I don't care. They all suck and are irresponsible sensationalist garbage channels. I'd go with the weather channel....but even they suck. The information on firearms is so blatantly incorrect nearly 100% of the time even on Fox...the supposed conservative network. If you watch the news...take it with a grain of salt and read up on a subject before you start talking about it.

So pony up for mental health care? I think it is more than psychiatrists that we need. We need detection, and that starts with education. Parents need to be educated on at risk signs, teachers need to be as well, and basically anyone who is around kids. Then workplace behavior and stuff like that. There are a host of people who need to be made aware. Hell if we can just get the stigma off therapy that is a start. You are right that there is no specific victim, and that we should all pitch in. I think the left needs to pitch in by talking facts, and the right by talking about mental health care. The NRA shut down their website and to my knowledge hasn't made a comment. That seems like a start doesn't it? Maybe MSNBC will get on board? But so far that is a pipe dream.

I will just skip by the part where you state that the opinions of those who disagree with you is " babble " it's probably that attitude that made it hard for Columbus to prove that the world was not flat. I think that just about every thing that I have heard whether I agree with it or not was offered with good intentions. In my opinion any suggestion has value and there is no need for anyone to be a weapons expert to make a valid suggestion. The TV has well most TV's have a remote with a on/off switch. I have not seen any thing that will absolutely prevent another massacre, if guns are not used explosives can be, there are a number of ways that a disturbed individual can cause multiple injures and deaths without using a weapon that does not mean that we should abandon some improvements to current gun control laws. Lets face it we can build a free mental health clinic on every corner and it won't prevent every mentally disturbed person from becoming a mass murderer. Until we can find a way to prevent a another mass murder every opinion has value, every suggestion is valid.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree however I feel I should point out that should the killer in the recent school shootings have chosen a knife instead, there would have been a reasonable chance to overwhelm him before he was able to kill any children or at least fewer of them.

Don't you agree that the choice of weapon is a relevant consideration in regard to a killer's success?

I guess that would depend on how proficient he was with a knife. Also, criminals will still get weapons. I would be willing to bet that if guns were banned, that the incidences of violent home invasions and deaths due to those circumstances (as well as many others involving criminal elements) would rise significantly because they would have confidence that the average citizen would not be armed.

 

[H. Lee White]

I will just skip by the part where you state that the opinions of those who disagree with you is " babble "

Your exception to the term notwithstanding, it is an effective descritption of the reactionary, irrational and unthinking "we need more gun control" response to this tragedy.

In my opinion any suggestion has value and there is no need for anyone to be a weapons expert to make a valid suggestion.

If you arent familiar with the subject, then, necessarily, you cannot have an informed opinion on it.

 

[EarlzP]

Your exception to the term notwithstanding, it is an effective descritption of the reactionary, irrational and unthinking "we need more gun control" response to this tragedy.


If you arent familiar with the subject, then, necessarily, you cannot have an informed opinion on it.

This thread conversation reminds me of what we have been witnessing in our government for the pass four years plus two sides more interested in their own agenda then in finding a solution to the problem, it's apparent to me that you have little to no idea of how the team concept works to resolve problems. The problem here is how do WE find an action or a combination of actions to address a COMMON problem. This problem is important enough that every thing every idea should be put on the table. Informed opinions are still opinions

 

[H. Lee White]

This thread conversation reminds me of what we have been witnessing in our government for the pass four years plus two sides more interested in their own agenda then in finding a solution to the problem....

"Solutions" that have no effect on the problem are not "solutions" and therefore need not be considered.
None of the gun control items put forth in relation to this tragedy would have stopped this tragedy, and thus, are not solutions.

 

[Federalist]

"Solutions" that have no effect on the problem are not "solutions" and therefore need not be considered.
None of the gun control items put forth in relation to this tragedy would have stopped this tragedy, and thus, are not solutions.

Perhaps the government regards gun control as a solution to some other problem that concerns them.

 

[H. Lee White]

Perhaps the government regards gun control as a solution to some other problem that concerns them.

Like.... the people holding ultimate sovereignty, and being the source of all governmental power?

 

[blackjack50]

I think you forgot the purpose of a representative is to represent the people.

I know darn well what a representative is supposed to do. Just like that I know what a Judiciary branch is supposed to do. Do you know how many prosecutions for felony purgery have occured when people lie on their background check? Do you know how big of a joke gun legislation is to the criminal community? Prosection for gun violations is a joke. A bad one too.

http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

Check it out. Pretty unsavory stuff in there. It certainly doesn't make those nice neat little laws look so nice anymore. Make as many laws as you want. Nobody will enforce them and we will keep having Newtowns, VA Techs, and Columbines. The only people who won't be buying guns will be you or me.

 

[blackjack50]

I will just skip by the part where you state that the opinions of those who disagree with you is " babble " it's probably that attitude that made it hard for Columbus to prove that the world was not flat. I think that just about every thing that I have heard whether I agree with it or not was offered with good intentions. In my opinion any suggestion has value and there is no need for anyone to be a weapons expert to make a valid suggestion. The TV has well most TV's have a remote with a on/off switch. I have not seen any thing that will absolutely prevent another massacre, if guns are not used explosives can be, there are a number of ways that a disturbed individual can cause multiple injures and deaths without using a weapon that does not mean that we should abandon some improvements to current gun control laws. Lets face it we can build a free mental health clinic on every corner and it won't prevent every mentally disturbed person from becoming a mass murderer. Until we can find a way to prevent a another mass murder every opinion has value, every suggestion is valid.

Do you get what I am saying here? I am not JUST saying that disagreeing with me is wrong, I am saying that it doesn't make any logical sense to disagree with me. Isn't that the point of having an opinion? That you think it is right? Give me a break and stop trying to be humble.

I am dismissing the idea of gun legislation because it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked because it never goes beyond making it a law. The only people who give a crap about laws are you and me...aka...the rule followers (assuming you follow the law like I do). The other people will just skirt the rules, and maybe take the slap on the wrist punishments for them if they do. I will provide this website to you, and you can start making the logical leaps now.

http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

Again. Do you think the problem is that we don't have enough gun laws? I would say it is that we don't enforce our current ones. Our gun laws are like those "backpockets on Sunday" laws that just give some probable cause for arrest for something else. They don't mean didly squat. I mean perjury has to be committed to FAIL a background check...why isn't that prosecuted? Have you ever purchased a firearm? Go look up the form. Tell me that you don't have to commit perjury to even get to a background check?

 

[Saboteur]

I guess that would depend on how proficient he was with a knife. Also, criminals will still get weapons. I would be willing to bet that if guns were banned, that the incidences of violent home invasions and deaths due to those circumstances (as well as many others involving criminal elements) would rise significantly because they would have confidence that the average citizen would not be armed.

It's a moot point anyway, someone here (Ikra? wrong spelling) mentioned that owning a gun is a right not a privlige (I'm taking that out of context). Anyway it got me thinking that driving a car is a privlige and not a right (at least that's what they taught me in driver's ed 23 years ago). And that led me to realize that the Conn. gunman could have just as easily stole his mother's car and ran over as many people as he could pretty much anywhere...

 

[EarlzP]

Do you get what I am saying here? I am not JUST saying that disagreeing with me is wrong, I am saying that it doesn't make any logical sense to disagree with me. Isn't that the point of having an opinion? That you think it is right? Give me a break and stop trying to be humble.

It's appears apparent that you know nothing about the team concept and are intent only on having your opinion heard. Unfortunately you are not the only one that this problem "mass murder" has the potential to effect so every one has a stake in the out come. With that being the case and our first amendment rights to free speech which "to me" is the most important amendment every person has a right to their own opinion whether you and I agree with it or not.You may or may not be an expert on gun control, I do not make any claim to being an expert on gun control, but I am an expert on the way the team concept works and why it is an important tool in problem solving.

http://content.thirdway.org/publications/10/AGS_Report_-_The_Enforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf[/url]

I am reading what you are typing so the problem according to you is that present gun control laws are not important and your solution appears to be to dismiss gun legislation as a solution to mass murder, one of my my uniformed uneducated opinions would be to enforce the present gun laws not to dismiss them, maybe you and I could agree on the enforcement of the gun laws we have?

[QUOTE = Again. Do you think the problem is that we don't have enough gun laws? I would say it is that we don't enforce our current ones. Our gun laws are like those "backpockets on Sunday" laws that just give some probable cause for arrest for something else. They don't mean didly squat. I mean perjury has to be committed to FAIL a background check...why isn't that prosecuted? Have you ever purchased a firearm? Go look up the form. Tell me that you don't have to commit perjury to even get to a background check?[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with you that the present gun laws even if enforced would be enough to deter a mass murderer and we have to go further to increase the effectiveness of gun control and look at other solutions that will work along with gun control to reduce the incidence of mass murder. I am a member at another site it is not a site that deals with mass murder so I am going to quote one members experience with gun control.

My being humble to you, Not that your personal opinion of me matters but I do want you and anyone reading this to know I am not humble, I do not own a gun because I do not hunt nor do I shoot targets, the fact is I never owned a gun "dangerous toy"in my opinion. I did own a number of weapons and was very proficient in the intended use of those weapons proven by my existence. A m-16, m-60, AR15 and any other automatic or semi automatic has a primary purpose and that is to injure, mane or kill another or group of human beings unless you are so poorly trained that you need a 10,20,50 or more shots to kill a rabbit. If a person wants to own a semi automatic or automatic weapon the licensing procedure should be much more stringent including security background checks like I had when I was in a position that required a secret clearance, a lot more should be involved in the licensing of a weapon then if a person is applying for a hunting license for a shot gun. There is a difference between a gun and a weapon.

Where no single solution will stop a deranged person a combination of solutions may prove to be an effective determent and save lives

I don't believe "my opinion" that a person should have to become loud and offensive to state their opinion and it is not up to you or me to determine who should be part of this conversation

 

[Diogenes]

... it's probably that attitude that made it hard for Columbus to prove that the world was not flat...

Interesting metaphor. By the time of Columbus, everyone who had been to sea for the last 2500 years knew the earth was round. Eratosthenes even measured the diameter ca. 340 BC, 1800 years before Columbus. The only folks in Columbus' time who believed the world was flat were a group called the Schoolmen who lived in ivory towers at the universities -- kinda like those who think the answer to crazy people going off the rails is a total gun ban.

 

[ChrisL]

It's a moot point anyway, someone here (Ikra? wrong spelling) mentioned that owning a gun is a right not a privlige (I'm taking that out of context). Anyway it got me thinking that driving a car is a privlige and not a right (at least that's what they taught me in driver's ed 23 years ago). And that led me to realize that the Conn. gunman could have just as easily stole his mother's car and ran over as many people as he could pretty much anywhere...

Very true.

 

[H. Lee White]

It's a moot point anyway, someone here (Ikra? wrong spelling) mentioned that owning a gun is a right not a privlige (I'm taking that out of context). Anyway it got me thinking that driving a car is a privlige and not a right (at least that's what they taught me in driver's ed 23 years ago). And that led me to realize that the Conn. gunman could have just as easily stole his mother's car and ran over as many people as he could pretty much anywhere...

Or rented a Ryder tuck, and filled it with diesel and fertilizer.

 

[Capster78]

Or rented a Ryder tuck, and filled it with diesel and fertilizer.

Or assembled a nuclear bomb in his garage...
Or taped babies to his face and wore 80lbs of unpenatrable body armor.
Or taped lasers to cats and let them roam freely.

I am really tired of hearing this nonsensical what if scenario garbage. The reason people don't do these things is because it is not easy to do. It is also to easy to get caught doing it. With as sensitive as we are to terrorist plots, the mass purchase of such items will have FBI and other agencies on your tail much quicker than the purchase of a firearm. In fact, you can purchase all the firearms you want and you wont even show up as a blip on anyones watch list. But you buy large quantities of fertilizer along with other key components to assemble a large enough bomb that would do anything, you would be hard pressed not to be questioned by somebody. Not to mention, having a keen enough understanding on how to properly mix these components and rig up the proper devises to trigger an explosion. It's nothing like the purchase of a gun where you have to have literally no understanding of how it would kill someone, just insert bullet and pull trigger.

Stop trying to divert the water rushing thru the hole in your damn. The what if's are irrelevant.

 

[H. Lee White]

Stop trying to divert the water rushing thru the hole in your damn. The what if's are irrelevant.

Like "what if this guy had not been able to buy an 'assault weapon'?"
I agree. Irrelevant.

 

[Capster78]

Like "what if this guy had not been able to buy an 'assault weapon'?"
I agree. Irrelevant.

Certainly is Irrelevant, because he was easily able to obtain one without even having to go thru the menial task of having to buy one. THERE ARE SO MANY WEAPONS THIS GUY DID NOT EVEN HAVE TO LIFT A FINGER. Guns are everywhere. Not only that, it is so common that no one even thought twice to ask, beyond the person who purchased them, is there anyone that YOU LIVE WITH that could possibly get ahold of them and do some harm. You can rant and rave about proper storage of firearms all you want, but the reality is, people are idiots. You can tell people till you are blue in the face of the dangers of weapons, and they will still manage to kill themselves or someone else due to negligence. The only thing that makes sense is a complete ban on guns.