Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 18515 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2827


« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2012, 12:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The number that really counts is how many would have killed only if a gun was available...

You understand people -- mostly we're impulsive and we take the easy option.

It is possible to commit suicide in all kinds of ways, but without a quick and easy way the impulse may pass.

It is possible to kill people with our bare hands but it isn't easy -- and I've yet to see a news report of a drive-by knife-attack.

Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill.
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2012, 01:02:50 PM »
ReplyReply

^^There was a knife attack in China at a school a couple of days ago where a reported 22 kids were injured.

The recurrence of kind of horror isnít going to be solved by banning weapons, Iím sorry to say.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2012, 01:33:29 PM »
ReplyReply

^^There was a knife attack in China at a school a couple of days ago where a reported 22 kids were injured.

The recurrence of kind of horror isnít going to be solved by banning weapons, Iím sorry to say.


Isn't that an extremely telling example?

Those children, while injured, are still alive, right? A knife attack can kill, of course, but it is much more difficult to inflict mass and deadly casualties with it. It is also much easier to fight off or subdue the assailant with even bare hands.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535


« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2012, 02:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

... the Westboro Baptist Church might have something to say too - something none too delicate & wholly inappropriate, no doubt.

Oh dear. Prophetic or what? - Westboro Baptist Church to protest Newtown when Obama visits on Sunday
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2012, 02:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing that tends to get overlooked as a factor in mass murders is the media coverage. We all know who is getting the most of it in cases like this. Their names and mugshots are everywhere, what they wrote, what they said, their life stories, etc. There is no doubt who is the "hero" of the day. And being famous, including infamous, is at the top of the social values in our society.

Now imagine if the media would somehow, miraculously, agree to the one and the same treatment of events like this: no mentioning of the perp's name, no photos, no stories about. Instead, the media would be plastered with stories about those who lost their lives, their most beautiful photographs, etc. So that any idiot out there planning to become famous by copying or outdoing the last one would know that the only fame he would create is for his victims and a total anonymity for himself.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2012, 02:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, I find this offensive. 
Steve, I sincerely regret offending you, particularly in a context like this, but Rob is right, that part of my post was caricaturing the simplistic reactions of some on the "left wing" of the gun control argument rather than advocating mass murder. Irony is tricky on line - often gets missed - I guess because facial expression and tone of voice are taken out of the equation. I do think, however, that you might have picked up a clue from the fact that I was running an "one the one hand - on the other hand" argument in which both sides were presented as mistaken extremes.

And I certainly have nothing against the American South myself. What you say in praise of it is exactly right.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2012, 02:49:38 PM »
ReplyReply



Steve, either you or I have absolutely misunderstood what Ken was writing. I read his line as in no way advocating that action, but highlightig it as a reaction/thought quite common to many people in many countries about many groups, either ethnic or social.

Rob C
If that's the case my response was inappropriate and I apologize.  It's a bit hard to read, but when you put it that way I can see that too.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2012, 02:55:13 PM »
ReplyReply


If you have dead-locks on your doors and security mesh on your windows, you pay less insurance. Likewise, the fewer the guns in circulation, and the greater the difficulties in acquiring a gun for any private purpose, as a result of stringent legislation, the less likely that massacres, such as the recent Connecticut massacre, will occur.

I don't see it.  Locking your doors has a "direct" effect on your own problem.  Making guns difficult to obtain for "any" citizen is more of a shotgun approach (pardon the analogy/pun) with no direct link.

Also, the number of guns in circulation has no "direct" impact on the problem.  The more people we have in the world, the more will die.  So?   Passing legislation TARGETING (again, pardon the analogy/pun) problem areas will directly affect things.  Targeting the problem areas will be far more effective, something we can say with just about any subject.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2012, 02:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply


Thank goodness I live in a society where I don't live in fear of guns.

Jim

Where is this?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2012, 02:57:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ, if I wouldn't know you, I would be tempted to respond with something like this:

"Dear RSL, your contribution to this discussion, otherwise quite serious and reasonable, has been nothing short of flippant so far. Please grow up!"

But since I know you, I would never even dream of saying such a thing, let alone post it.

In other words you don't dare answer the question.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2012, 03:08:05 PM »
ReplyReply

You understand people -- mostly we're impulsive and we take the easy option.

It is possible to commit suicide in all kinds of ways, but without a quick and easy way the impulse may pass.

It is possible to kill people with our bare hands but it isn't easy -- and I've yet to see a news report of a drive-by knife-attack.

Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill.
I don't believe the vast majority of suicides are impulsive.  Studies show most victims of suicide have long considered it and most have family who can now place several to many ideation's once they recognized what they were.. but I do think you would be right a fair number of time..

If you study the UK (something I've had a passing interest in for years, watching how gun control really works in the first year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc, post.. )they've had issues with bats (cricket bats), bows and arrows, kitchen knives, big hammers (all these have either been written into legislation or talked about on the floor), and the list goes on. The society remains extremely violent so they're finding new ways.  Roving gangs attacking now defenceless old people and even the young have become a problem.   If the society is violent in nature evil will find a way.  It always does.

An odd ball emerging weapon of choice they're trying hard not to talk about, popular with young gangs especially.. are battery operated power tools.  Nail guns with battery packs are easily modified to have what is effectively a gun that shoots nails.  Battery powered saws and drills have been used to threaten and in some cases maim.   We need to fix society.. the minute we take one potential weapon off the market, they'll just move on to a new one.  Meanwhile, the one weapon (handguns) which allow the weak, elderly, and infirm protect themselves is the first go.. with the violence still a problem, they're really left in a bad spot.

When will we start addressing violent video games and targeting violence in society as a solution?  We should start soon or it won't be long before all we find to eat with is plastic utensils.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2012, 03:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that an extremely telling example?

Those children, while injured, are still alive, right? A knife attack can kill, of course, but it is much more difficult to inflict mass and deadly casualties with it. It is also much easier to fight off or subdue the assailant with even bare hands.

I read this article and was happy to see they were still alive.  If you follow it up, this guys goal wasn't to kill, it was to make a point.  Knives are a lot more dangerous than people think.. We recently had several airplanes flown into buildings because they gave in to box knifes with one inch cutting blades.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2012, 03:13:22 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing that tends to get overlooked as a factor in mass murders is the media coverage. We all know who is getting the most of it in cases like this. Their names and mugshots are everywhere, what they wrote, what they said, their life stories, etc. There is no doubt who is the "hero" of the day. And being famous, including infamous, is at the top of the social values in our society.

Now imagine if the media would somehow, miraculously, agree to the one and the same treatment of events like this: no mentioning of the perp's name, no photos, no stories about. Instead, the media would be plastered with stories about those who lost their lives, their most beautiful photographs, etc. So that any idiot out there planning to become famous by copying or outdoing the last one would know that the only fame he would create is for his victims and a total anonymity for himself.

+1
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2012, 03:14:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, I sincerely regret offending you, particularly in a context like this, but Rob is right, that part of my post was caricaturing the simplistic reactions of some on the "left wing" of the gun control argument rather than advocating mass murder. Irony is tricky on line - often gets missed - I guess because facial expression and tone of voice are taken out of the equation. I do think, however, that you might have picked up a clue from the fact that I was running an "one the one hand - on the other hand" argument in which both sides were presented as mistaken extremes.

And I certainly have nothing against the American South myself. What you say in praise of it is exactly right.
I'm so glad I misread this.  I apologize and will be more careful in the future.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2827


« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2012, 03:30:41 PM »
ReplyReply

... have long considered it ...

To have long considered and yet not to have acted -- the impulse to act passed.


If you study the UK... The society remains extremely violent...

Compared to the US?

In any case, as I said -- it is possible to kill people with our bare hands but it isn't easy; while guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill.


... the minute we take one potential weapon off the market, they'll just move on to a new one.

Guns are not potential weapons. Guns are actual weapons, by design, a quick and easy way to kill.
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2012, 03:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that an extremely telling example?

Those children, while injured, are still alive, right? A knife attack can kill, of course, but it is much more difficult to inflict mass and deadly casualties with it. It is also much easier to fight off or subdue the assailant with even bare hands.

Extremely telling of what?

Those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks used box cutters.  

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 16, 2012, 04:41:58 PM »
ReplyReply

... Those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks used box cutters. 

Ok, you are right... apparently, box cutters are more lethal than knifes and guns taken together.

But aren't we forgetting one even more lethal weapon: buttons? You know, like in nuclear-device controlling button? One push and millions go up in the cloud. Take that, guns!

Imagine how much more horrific the school massacre would be if that last idiot walked into the school with (gasp) a box cutter?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2012, 04:43:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Here we go again: no discussion, no attempted understanding of the opposing view(s), just the scoring of points.

Stamper's first post on this matter was right.

Rob C
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3676


« Reply #58 on: December 16, 2012, 06:40:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Here we go again: no discussion, no attempted understanding of the opposing view(s), just the scoring of points.

Stamper's first post on this matter was right.

Hi Rob,

Yes, but given the course of the discussion (which seems normal given the fact that photographers are humans with emotions which make them do the things they do well (being passionate about their subject/creation) and despite the horriffic tragedy (or rather because of it) I disagree with many of the pro gun apologists. How many semi-automatic(!) firearms does an individual require to feel safe under the US constitution? There is a clearly disproportionate amount of firearms related homicides in the USA ...

If firearms are needed to feel safe, then more firearms would create a sense of more safety. Apparently that is a flawed concept (not only for the sense of security, but also since apparently the objective security is actually reduced!), despite the huge amounts of money that the pro-gun lobby spends to futher their cause, BTW which is that cause exactly and why are they spending those amounts (is it due to a distrust of the Government, or for monetary gain at a tremendous cost of human life)?

Another aspect that puzzles many people not influenced by pro-firearms lobbies, is that the USA constitution declares the right to keep and bear (fire)arms on a grammatically poorly formulated sentence in the 2nd amendment of said Constitution:
"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."

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights, mentions that "a number of States expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficient ends of its institution."

The emphasis in bold italics in the above quote is mine, as I see it as the important part that restricts the transfer of power, in this case the exclusive use of (fire)power to "exectute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". When the Government abuses its powers, the people still have a legal right to oppose, even by the use of firearms. It is not an obligation for the people to keep and bear such arms, let alone use them in other situations, but rather a right to defend against abuse of power by The Government (but not to use against others/civilians or in other situations!).

IMHO, it's that last part that, at least for some, seems unclear. Of course the strange grammar of The Second Amendment doesn't help to make that distinction clear, but its intention should follow from the preable, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers", where "its" refers to the Government.

I disagree with any overall conclusion that the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not allow the government in any way to prohibit or limit the ownership or carrying of any kind of firearm. It 'just' requires a lot of stamina to oppose the pro-gun lobby and, as for today's rethorical question, which electoral benefit would that bring?

I disagree, based on the expressed intent in the preamble of The Bill of Rights. It only allows the people to legally defend themselves against Government abuse, even by using firearms. That implies that people should be allowed to have them at their disposal in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. The Government can full well do anything it wants to prevent the use of firearms by civilians against other civilians. The question becomes what can it, or is it willing to, do.

In dreaded anticipation of the next 'incident', waiting to happen ...,
Bart

« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 06:58:54 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2012, 07:46:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart, like it or not, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is irrelevant.  The U.S. Supreme Courtís interpretation is all that really matters. 

Most of the talk everywhere (including on this forum) about gun control is idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic.  For example, it is undisputed that ordinary handguns account for almost all gun homicides, the last experiment with an assault weapons ban had minimal (at best) effect on gun violence (not surprising since assault weapons are rarely used in homicides), and under the Second Amendment it is not possible to ban or substantially restrict handgun ownership, yet we hear the same old proposals for firearm restrictions as the solution for gun violence.  We hear calls to change the Second Amendment.  Yeah, right; it generally takes a two-thirds supermajority in congress, and three-quarters of the states, to amend the Constitution. You may as well wish for the Tooth Fairy to solve the problem. 

These proposal may be well intentioned, but harmful in that they divert resources from pursuing realistic, effective measures to combat gun violence.  Unfortunately, our politicians and press (with a few exceptions) feed this idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic information to the public, so itís no wonder that we rarely hear informed, rational discussions about what can actually be done to make a real difference.   
Logged

Dean Erger
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad