Gun Control

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I think everyone should be able to have a weapon. Sane people won’t use it as an excuse to kill willy nilly. If guns were outlawed, people bent on killing others will find a way to get a gun no matter what. Plus they’ll be even more inclined to carry out their crime because they know others won’t have weapons on them. That’s why I believe everyone should have a weapon on them. Murderous people will think twice when they shoot up places because they’ll know a significant amount of people will be carrying concealed firearms.

What do you think?[/quote]

I see your point here, but let’s ask ourselves this - crazy with machine guns vs. crazy with pistol. Who does more damage?

You need far stricter controls on what people can purchase - and who can purchase. Outlawing then is not a solution, but sitting around not doing anything will just ensure a repeat of the recent shootings.[/quote]

Who used a machine gun?

Maybe what we need is people who aren’t so fucking stupid to not know the difference in guns deciding what we need to control.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We can debate gun control till we are out of breath, but something else is going on that is simply not a function of the availability of guns. This psycho - and others like him - acted out some massive death fantasy that seems to be occurring with more frequency.

I don’t pretend to psychoanalyze these maniacs, but for some reason, the desire to just go kill someone who wronged you isn’t in vogue - there must be a stage, a huge body count of people unrelated to a narrow personal grudge, and often a blaze of glory.

Guns have nothing to do with this impulse or its troubling increasing frequency. True, more advanced weapons can enable the killer to raise the body count faster, but such an argument is irrelevant to yesterday’s massacre based on the facts we have and the kinds of weapons he used.

I don’t know if we can “cure” these impulses, but we would wise to focus on them. What drives them? Ordinary murderous impulses (which are awful, but let’s face it, “normal” in the human condition) jacked up and enhanced by the need for attention in a world more driven by instantaneous attention than it ever has been? Increasing social atomization? Creeping nihilism?

I don’t have the right answers, and I don’t pretend to, but our time is better spent asking these questions rather than about gun control. The impulse to do this is the true instrument of death here, not a firearm.[/quote]

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

… and HE illegally borrowed (read: stole) them.

The mother did not safely secure the firearms in her home. That’s reckless ownership at best-- ESPECIALLY with a mentally ill person with likely access.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

Exactly, but keep in mind TB that when the left picks up some sort of scent facts are always tossed to the side. They will be ragging on gun control for the next umpteen years. Facts, real circumstances mean nothing to them.

Left’s mantra: “Guns are bad they kill people we must get rid of all guns.”

Nothing will ever change that!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

I had to point this exact thing out in the GAL thread about this topic. These guys are so exacting when it comes to picking apart every gossamer fiber of your defense, but blindly pass right over gaping moth holes like these in their own arguments.

I’m not saying ban guns, I am an owner, however, the debate can’t truly be open unless both sides are willing to address the issue without being guided by bias. You can’t say, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and dismiss the argument that maybe guns do play a part. It’s like there is a fear that any blame on guns themselves will be the end of the world. And obviously, an all out ban on guns won’t end violence and murder so that is not a solution to those problems.

I believe the argument should be about how do we keep the wrong people from getting their hands on guns and just come up with answers and solutions that are not influenced by bias and agendas. Then take it from there but we never get to that point because both sides are afraid of what the truth may be.

Personally, I believe guns themselves contribute to the problem. How much? I don’t know but I can’t believe that the existence of weapons that allow one to kill quickly, efficiently, safely and from a distance, that allow individuals who are disconnected from society and their own humanity to kill in a way that is a manifestation of that disconnect is not a factor. Cervantes, and Ariosto before him, recognized that guns turn cowards into brave killers.

When people say if these individuals couldn’t get guns they would turn to something else, what do they base that on? Has anyone actually studied this subject enough to draw that conclusion? These people are looking to kill as many as they can in the easiest way possible, with as little resistance possible. These are calculated acts in which the killers are aware of who they are up against and what the risks are. They seek to minimize those risks. Walking into a school with a knife is a risk.

People won’t just stand there, or cower helplessly, but will try to run or fight and, they have a chance to succeed. These killers know that and so to say they would turn to less efficient and more risky methods is not some fact. Maybe they would. Maybe some would. No one knows so to say they would is false and does not help us arrive at a solution.

How many drive by shootings committed by 12 year olds would suddenly be replaced by walk up stabbings? All? Some? None? Again, no one knows so to say they would in order to even allow the discussion to examine that doesn’t help us.

I’m a gun owner. I grew up around hunters. I’m a 31B in the CT NG (so I’m close to this latest mass killing) and part of my job description requires that I carry a weapon. I don’t hate guns. I don’t fear guns. In fact, I have to admit that shooting (targets, not people) is fun when you look at it as a skill to be mastered. I don’t love guns however (they are just a tool), and the last thing I want to have to do is shoot someone. I’m just putting that out there as a disclaimer before someone accuses me of having some political agenda when it comes to guns. I don’t see it as a right or left matter.

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
These nuttjob mass murderers are not the church going, pro USA tea party members that go to lots of rallies and Washington DC vacations. These are the anti-Americans, that want the United States to fall on it’s face and collapse.

The reason for mass shootings of people they do not know signifies the need to punish for their culpable “American behavior” that is similar to anti-USA terrorists. They certainly are not right leaning pro gun, pro God, pro American citizens.

They also want to punish an America they believe to be the reason for the world’s problems. That’s in line with Obama bowing and apologizing to world leaders for America’s sins - not right leaning conservatives as some have tried to put blame on here.[/quote]

Arguments like the above are the problem. No facts and the ubiquitous political statement. Did the Columbine shooters do it for political, or personal, reasons?

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

They also want to punish an America they believe to be the reason for the world’s problems. That’s in line with Obama bowing and apologizing to world leaders for America’s sins - not right leaning conservatives as some have tried to put blame on here.[/quote]

Their motivations are not remotely political and their acts of unbelievable violence are met with shock and condemnation by all, political affiliation be damned. Even the ones who commit murder for what they believe to be political principle–McVeigh comes to mind–represent a manifestation of political thought so deranged as to be unrecognizable. There is absolutely nothing liberal or conservative about putting a bullet in a kid. Anyone who says otherwise is the worst kind of partisan that can exist.

smh23
Do you think the incessant coverage influences a larger number of nuts deciding to go out in a blaze of glory.

It would seem, since so many kill themselves, it is not a fear of dying that would prevent the attack in the first place

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
These nuttjob mass murderers are not the church going, pro USA tea party members that go to lots of rallies and Washington DC vacations. These are the anti-Americans, that want the United States to fall on it’s face and collapse.

The reason for mass shootings of people they do not know signifies the need to punish for their culpable “American behavior” that is similar to anti-USA terrorists. They certainly are not right leaning pro gun, pro God, pro American citizens.

They also want to punish an America they believe to be the reason for the world’s problems. That’s in line with Obama bowing and apologizing to world leaders for America’s sins - not right leaning conservatives as some have tried to put blame on here.[/quote]

Arguments like the above are the problem. No facts and the ubiquitous political statement. Did the Columbine shooters do it for political, or personal, reasons?
[/quote]

People blamed Marilyn Mason, and neither the Left, not the ACLU, or any other organization came to his defense in the name of “Free Speech.” And this link was made because the shooters allegedly listened to Marilyn Mason music, how stupid is that ?

In fact, how a 20-yr old White male from Connecticut can be linked to groups like the NRA is beyond me.

Had the shooter been a middle aged White male from the South, the Left would be shouting about redneck-ism all over the place.

[quote]treco wrote:
It would seem, since so many kill themselves, it is not a fear of dying that would prevent the attack in the first place[/quote]

If someone is willing to murder their own mother and kill themselves as well, there is nothing we can do to stop them.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

I had to point this exact thing out in the GAL thread about this topic. These guys are so exacting when it comes to picking apart every gossamer fiber of your defense, but blindly pass right over gaping moth holes like these in their own arguments. [/quote]

Gaping hole? you mean like he “stole” them from his mother? I’m sure he had to fight through security, pick locks, design a sophisticated hacking program to infiltrate top level security to steeaaal them from his Mom. All so that his mom could have the right to shoot at paper. Because everybody knows how important holes in paper is to the world.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
It would seem, since so many kill themselves, it is not a fear of dying that would prevent the attack in the first place[/quote]

If someone is willing to murder their own mother and kill themselves as well, there is nothing we as a society can do to stop them.

[/quote]
I agree, not saying that.
Just wondering if all of the ‘glory’ is pushing more of these people to commit rather than just fantasize.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

I had to point this exact thing out in the GAL thread about this topic. These guys are so exacting when it comes to picking apart every gossamer fiber of your defense, but blindly pass right over gaping moth holes like these in their own arguments. [/quote]

Gaping hole? you mean like he “stole” them from his mother? I’m sure he had to fight through security, pick locks, design a sophisticated hacking program to infiltrate top level security to steeaaal them from his Mom. All so that his mom could have the right to shoot at paper. Because everybody knows how important holes in paper is to the world.

[/quote]

He got his guns from someone who could. End of story. Unless you are suggesting a total ban on all guns. What are you suggesting?

Airtruth -

Did you ever acquire alcohol before you were 21 y.o?

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

I had to point this exact thing out in the GAL thread about this topic. These guys are so exacting when it comes to picking apart every gossamer fiber of your defense, but blindly pass right over gaping moth holes like these in their own arguments. [/quote]

Gaping hole? you mean like he “stole” them from his mother? I’m sure he had to fight through security, pick locks, design a sophisticated hacking program to infiltrate top level security to steeaaal them from his Mom. All so that his mom could have the right to shoot at paper. Because everybody knows how important holes in paper is to the world.

[/quote]

Btw, I don’t know what version of the 2nd Amendment or associated documents you’ve been reading, but it has nothing, nothing to do with “the right to shoot at paper.”

Just what is it you think Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he drafted the 2nd Amendment? Paintball?

[quote]treco wrote:
smh23
Do you think the incessant coverage influences a larger number of nuts deciding to go out in a blaze of glory.

It would seem, since so many kill themselves, it is not a fear of dying that would prevent the attack in the first place[/quote]

I wish I could know what drives people like this. A wide variety of factors are tossed around by “experts” and analysts: the knowledge that the 24-hour news cycle essentially guarantees infamy to anyone willing to do some human damage these days; long-term, incessant bullying made increasingly easier by social media. I’m not big on the violent video games/movies explanation, but it can’t help some burgeoning little nutcase that his only friends are the pixelated soldiers blowing each other to hell at his command as he wastes his years of youth and virility in his parents’ basement.

In the end, though, I don’t think something like this can be explained; I don’t think blame can be apportioned. We may learn of a motive but there will never be a reason.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.[/quote]

So he stole them? Which means that he was willing to break the law to acquire the weapons he used?[/quote]

I had to point this exact thing out in the GAL thread about this topic. These guys are so exacting when it comes to picking apart every gossamer fiber of your defense, but blindly pass right over gaping moth holes like these in their own arguments. [/quote]

Gaping hole? you mean like he “stole” them from his mother? I’m sure he had to fight through security, pick locks, design a sophisticated hacking program to infiltrate top level security to steeaaal them from his Mom. All so that his mom could have the right to shoot at paper. Because everybody knows how important holes in paper is to the world.

[/quote]

Here is someone that just doesn’t understand the principles the country was founded on. You should look at moving to Europe. Good lord you would think on a site dedicated to training that someone would see the stupidity of that statement before hitting enter.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Just what is it you think Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he drafted the 2nd Amendment? Paintball? [/quote]

“If he fhall fhould confider affault on my perfon or effential libertief, he fhall acquire a cap in hif aff”