Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 17025 times)
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1899



« Reply #240 on: December 21, 2012, 08:31:34 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21568739-kals-cartoon
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #241 on: December 21, 2012, 08:32:20 AM »
ReplyReply

You and Slobodan would be more believable

Huh?  

I used the term "military-style".  WTF do you think that means?  It means it LOOKS like a military weapon.

Does the AR-15 look like an M-16?  It does.  Case closed.  You may now "believe" me.   Jeezusss H.

Your "arguments" would be a lot more palatable if you got off your high horse and stopped acting like you were the only person who had something to say.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5724



WWW
« Reply #242 on: December 21, 2012, 08:57:49 AM »
ReplyReply


Amen, brother! Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5724



WWW
« Reply #243 on: December 21, 2012, 09:13:50 AM »
ReplyReply

... But let's imagine we've banned firearms in the US and managed to find and destroy all the previously legal guns in the country. What a terrific subsidy for gun producers in places like North Korea or the Middle East, who'd smuggle guns into the country to illegal dealers at extremely high prices. We've done the same thing with the subsidy we've given drug producers and dealers by having a "war on drugs."...

Is this your way of admitting that a love affair with guns is just as addictive? Goes through the same cycle: I want you - I need you - can't live without you - died for/from you?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


WWW
« Reply #244 on: December 21, 2012, 11:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply


But let's imagine we've banned firearms in the US and managed to find and destroy all the previously legal guns in the country. What a terrific subsidy for gun producers in places like North Korea or the Middle East, who'd smuggle guns into the country to illegal dealers at extremely high prices. We've done the same thing with the subsidy we've given drug producers and dealers by having a "war on drugs."

The point is that if people like Lanza really want guns they're going to find a way to get them, and in a completely disarmed country those guns are going to be unusually effective. I've been really busy lately so I haven't had time to plow all the way through this absurd thread, but I know that somebody from Britain pointed out how few gun crimes they have in England. He didn't mention the fact that gun crimes have climbed by 89% in the past decade and their cops have reached the point where they need to carry full-automatic weapons ("assault weapons" Slobodan) rather than billy- clubs.


But Russ, that first paragraph obviously is not going to come true, because it has not happened in Europe, particularly not the UK.  And our Police are not routinely armed unless they are called out to an incident involving firearms.  Just a few months ago two police officers were gunned down by a lunatic with a gun who had deliberately lured them to their deaths with a hoax call.  But thinking they were just attending a domestic incident even if they had been armed they would not have had their guns drawn and would still have been shot because there was absolutely no warning.  Even after that incident there is no call by either the public or the police for officers to be armed.  And as for gun crime in the UK having climbed by 89% in the last ten years.  If it has then the figure of 139 gun related deaths in 2009, of which 109 were suicides, so 30 homicides by guns of all types, is still rather small compared to the US total for the same year of 31,000 gun deaths of which 12,000 were homicides.  I know the US has a population five times the size but one doesn't need to be a mathematician to see the glaring distinction.

Ok, so we need to allow for the fact that of course in the UK we murder people with other means (like cricket bats etc) and in fact our murder rate, like that in the US is going down and is running at 550 a year of which 30 are by gun.  In the US the respective figures are 15,000 and 12,000.  The murder rate per head of population is 1.4 per 100,000 in the UK and 4.8 in the US.  Does it not seem possible that the huge difference is related to the number of guns in circulation?

Jim
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #245 on: December 21, 2012, 11:23:13 AM »
ReplyReply

If it has then the figure of 139 gun related deaths in 2009, of which 109 were suicides, so 30 homicides by guns of all types.

Thanks, Jim, for a less than hysterical post. And you've hit the nail on the head. When you take away the suicides and gang wars between drug dealers, the threat of guns in the society shrinks to a very low level. Unfortunately such cleaned-up statistics about gun violence in the US seem hard to come by.
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #246 on: December 21, 2012, 11:24:57 AM »
ReplyReply

No doubt we'd all be a lot safer if we banned toys.

No doubt the children and parents of children that have been shot and/or killed while holding overly-realistic toys might favor some regulation.

NYC has had toy gun regulations since 1955.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/838toyguns.pdf
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #247 on: December 21, 2012, 02:02:44 PM »
ReplyReply

No doubt the children and parents of children that have been shot and/or killed while holding overly-realistic toys might favor some regulation.

NYC has had toy gun regulations since 1955.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/838toyguns.pdf




I sort of remember doing a fashion shoot in a Glasgow alley with a couple of guys with very realistic machine gun thinggies: I think that not long afterwards, replicas were banned in the UK. I don't suggest any connection.

Someone here on LuLa advised the keeping of such a 'weapon' for my personal self-defence; my immediate thought was that it would obviously become an interesting, bonus-like acquisition for anyone already holding me up. The moment that I would be found incapable of shoting the thing, the game would be up and the perp even more mad at yours truly. Not a good idea. You shouldn't make a bet you can't cover.

Rob C
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #248 on: December 21, 2012, 02:08:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Until you retract and apologize for your implication our veterans are mass murderers.. I will cease to educate you and point our the multiple errors you've made over your last few posts.  Sir, only your personal ethics score lower than your reading comprehension scores.  Regardless of the shootings, our school systems have failed.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #249 on: December 21, 2012, 02:12:46 PM »
ReplyReply

your implication our veterans are mass murderers

Get over yourself. 

He didn't say that at all and your indignation is petty and trite.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1495


« Reply #250 on: December 21, 2012, 02:19:15 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, as you were. That nice man from the NRA has solved the issue - armed guards at every school. Of course, the mad gunman now simply has to take out the armed guard, & then go on a killing spree. So the revised guidance is to have a company of infantry, with armoured support, Apache helicopters & a Predator drone on stand-by. At each school. Just to be safe.

Having the Predator drones here does two things. 1) makes US school-kids safer, and 2) makes Afghan & Pakistani school-kids safer too. Win-win.


BTW, does that NRA guy sound suspiciously French to you? Does George Dubya know?
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #251 on: December 21, 2012, 02:30:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, I think you might as well give up here.  Let's face it, the two pro-choice posters here are not going to change their minds.  Steve will just keep you going around in circles because he thinks there's a difference between a recreational gun and a killing machine, and he and Russ think that unless you have extensive experience with a variety of automatic weapons then you have no idea what you are talking about.  The fact that you and many other members on this thread have had a lot of life experience, have seen life and death, and can see quite plainly that the good old US way with guns is seriously flawed, is of much less importance than the RIGHT to have a gun handy just in case one wants to use it.  The simple idea that the more guns that are taken out of circulation, the less chance disaffected young men will have their chance to get hold of them passes them by.  

Steve quotes at length the sequence of events leading to the killer in the latest incident getting hold of his mother's guns, and then blames her for not locking them safely away.  So she is fallible.  Under my scheme she would not have been able to own four guns in the first place and neither would the guy next door, or anyone else in the street.  Perhaps the boy would then have strangled his mother or stabbed her to death with a knife.  Tragic, but at least he would not have gunned down a whole class of children in addition.

The idea that a load of old men (and women) are sitting around with such weapons leaves me chilled to the bone.
 We have a lot of old people around us, and a lot of them are our friends and I have huge respect for the older generation.  However many of those in their 80's and above should not be in charge of a car let alone a gun or rifle.  Just to watch them trying to get out of a car park would make you realise that they would not be able to hit anyone with a bullet unless they had a machine gun (ah, I see the flaw in my argument).

The semantics about what constitutes an assault rifle and whether the Bushmaster (makes it sound quite tame compared to the Terminator or similar) or whatever is less dangerous/effective than an M16 is just ridiculous.  It might make a difference against a trained and motivated enemy soldier, but against a class of children would make no difference whatsoever.  It makes me think of the idiots who bang on about how a Canon 1Ds is a 'professional' camera and a 350D is strictly for 'amateurs', as if it makes the slightest difference to the pictures.  True, one is a professional build and a better long term camera, but the end result from both is basically the same.

Isn't it nice to talk about photography again.

Regards

Jim

And as a postscript before anyone questions my credentials, I do have extensive experience with a range of weapons.  My time in the Royal Navy allowed me one full clip from a Stirling sub-machine gun, one clip from a 9mm pistol, and several magazines from a 7.62mm SLR.  Now that last one made me realise that I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.  
And lastly, I do have a .22 Relum Tornado air-rifle.  A couple of Magpies were harassing our pet rabbit the other day and I fired a shot over their heads to scare them off - couldn't bring myself to kill them even though I am a great shot!

It's good that this has been a civilised discussion despite the fact that we have such polarised views - let's face it, there are no easy answers.

1.  There is not a difference between an assault weapon and a recreational weapon?   That would be news to all our politicians and would settle this mess a lot faster.  We have the right to keep and bear arms, if there are no differences between the weapons then gun control is not possible.  Thank you.  You should work for the NRA sir.

But there are differences, functional differences, practical differences, and legal differences.   If you refuse to educate yourself and recognize these differences then discussion becomes pointless.


2.  Under your scheme we wouldn't have the second amendment.. and we'd be as defenceless shall our neighbours choose to attack us as you are.  But that would never happen.  Right?  Eh?  They have?  Multiple times?  And who came to your rescue?   Ahem then.. yes... those gun crazy Americans.  Wait another half century and you could ask the Aussies for help.. by then they'll forget which end the gun the bullet comes out of, but they'll now how to hold it sideways thanks to Hollywood.


3.  Shall I remind you that those "old people" who you think shouldn't be driving are of a generation who fought and died do you would have the freedom to have the viewpoint you do?  Many things are inherently dangerous.. chain saws, hot air balloons, horses, it appears we can through the average spoon into the mix these days.. and gasp.. cars.  Until someone becomes a danger using these things they are still allowed to own them.

4.  You haven't been to a gun range lately have you?  The old guys are good.. and they know what they're doing.  No, not all of them.  Not all go to the range and practice.   Either do young gun owners.  Young or old, if you plan on using a firearm for protection you should practice (a lot) to maintain efficiency.  

5.   No differences in the final product?   Really?   Shall we assume you know as much about photography as you do guns?


6.  Absolutely.  Other than Slobagon insinuating our veterans are mass murderers I think we've done very well.  


Logged

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

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #252 on: December 21, 2012, 02:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply


Tragic don't you think?  Lives ended, and lives that will never be the same.  My three boys have never owned a toy gun in their lives.. I recognized early on that in a child's mind, expecting them to know the difference and even appropriate use of toy guns wasn't possible, much less expect every law enforcement officer to face such choices.   I've never seen a place for toy guns.

You noticed these were all law enforcement officers with training and the like.. ?  It's sad.  But until you walk down that dark alley at night you can't know.. you can think you know, you can imagine, but you can't.


Logged

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

Posts: 5724



WWW
« Reply #253 on: December 21, 2012, 02:43:48 PM »
ReplyReply

.. I will cease to educate you...

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Quote
Until you retract and apologize for your implication our veterans are mass murderers..

To check your own reading comprehension, please see again what I wrote:

Quote
... I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:

"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"

You see, wars have two sides: bad guys and good guys. Thus fatalities are either murders or killings, depending which side you are on and which side ultimately wins. In either case, weapons are designed to kill, legitimately or not, and military weapons are designed to inflict mass fatalities.

Since were are talking about wars, military weapons and school shootings, this reminded me of an event in the history of my country: in 1941, Germans executed, using machine guns, around 2,800 men and children. There were more than 200 children, and among them two whole 5th-grade classes (60 kids). They were taken right out of school, during school classes, together with their teachers.

So, according to you and Rob, given that it was war, the killings were legitimate, not murders? I mean, Rob, if Germans won, you think they would prosecute their own army? Btw, what I described was not a wanton act of drunken soldiers, or an isolated order of a deranged commander, but the official German policy of retaliation against civilians.

EDIT: Correction: around 2,800 plus one - that one was a German soldier who refused the order to shoot at school boys
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 04:45:58 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 686


« Reply #254 on: December 21, 2012, 02:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

That nice man from the NRA has solved the issue - armed guards at every school.

The Republican mantra has been smaller government, less spending, no new taxes.  Now this nice Republican wants to add tens of thousands of new government workers at a staggering cost.  I assume he'd not want to raise tax revenue to pay for it, but instead to put the cost on our credit card, again.
Logged

Dean Erger
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #255 on: December 21, 2012, 02:45:38 PM »
ReplyReply

It isn't simply the right to have a gun.  Most of us in the US are ok with people having a gun.

What is astonishing is the ferocity with which these folks assert their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles" with 30 round magazines full of bullets intended to shred humans ... And must be able to walk into a store and walk out armed to the teeth with no background check.

What is even more astonishing is the insensitive need to ferociously defend such "rights" even as these children are being buried.

For god's sake ... Just give it a rest for one month.



Their speed was only matched by those who sought to get the upper hand in the gun control debate.. The President on down. Shameful behaviour.  As many times as that man put his foot far in his mouth you'd think he'd learn.

Look, we had a 10 year assault weapons ban that did zero good.. didn't save a single life or take a single gun off the streets.  Your side of the aisle was fooled into thinking a bayonet lug, collapsible stock, threaded barrels, etc, were the real dangers.. and you didn't know better because you were ignorant on the facts.  It worked out great for gun owners.  Heck, now we have a ten year assault weapons ban to point to as non-effective.. And if we have another one they still won't learn and will just ban the same things.. which means we really have nothing to fear.  Because of ignorance.

And your side still resists learning..   If you want laws that do what you intend for them to do, then pay attention and try to understand.. or we'll just pull the ol' wool over your eyes again.  And again.  

I'm opposed to this because it does nothing to protect the kids everyone claims to really be concerned about.  Another assault weapons ban will surely make some people 'feel' safer.. but they won't be.  And the kids will still be at risk.  

Logged

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

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #256 on: December 21, 2012, 02:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

A [teacher] who thought the world was coming to an end bought a handful of guns..

sanity prevails obv...
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #257 on: December 21, 2012, 02:50:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Get over yourself. 

He didn't say that at all and your indignation is petty and trite.
What I said is he insinuated it.  And he did.  That's enough. 
Logged

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

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #258 on: December 21, 2012, 02:54:49 PM »
ReplyReply

The Republican mantra has been smaller government, less spending, no new taxes.  Now this nice Republican wants to add tens of thousands of new government workers at a staggering cost.  I assume he'd not want to raise tax revenue to pay for it, but instead to put the cost on our credit card, again.

I think somehow the NRA thinks the public would think this better than arming teachers.  But perhaps they'll work their way to that.

I see by the mornings papers that many Texas counties already do this and five more states are considering it.. so not all hope is lost.  There are still good people out there.
Logged

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

Posts: 1000


WWW
« Reply #259 on: December 21, 2012, 03:08:06 PM »
ReplyReply

The Republican mantra has been smaller government, less spending, no new taxes.  Now this nice Republican wants to add tens of thousands of new government workers at a staggering cost.  I assume he'd not want to raise tax revenue to pay for it, but instead to put the cost on our credit card, again.

I must admit the rushing to hire a load of armed guards for schools seems terminally insane for various reasons, not least of which is that poorly trained and inadequately vetted guards might pose a larger risk to children than the occasional deranged nutter. How many students will be 'accidentally' shot through mistaken identity, trigger happy guards, high school pranks etc before it is realised just what a bad idea it is? The guard will be the first to be sought out and shot by gun toting weirdos anyway, so what are you going to arm him with, another assault rifle so the two can have fun sniping at each other across the playground?

Answering guns with more guns just doesn't seem to be the answer but it's not my country so I'll pipe down again.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad