Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Groups Cancels Plan to Destroy Violent Games
An anonymous reader writes with an update to an earlier story about a group wanting to destroy your violent video games. "Southington, a town in Connecticut, has canceled its plans to collect and destroy violent games, stating that it has already succeeded in raising attention."
Perhaps the real reason: "Backed by the Southington Chamber of Commerce, SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25 gift certificates in exchange for their violent games, films, and CDs, which the group would collect for 'permanent disposal.'"
not helping the mentally ill can be their new top priority.
Well, I guess I'll just have to destroy these copies of Sonic 2006 without getting paid.
not helping the mentally ill can be their new top priority!
$25 to get rid of your old shooters? Man, they're a better trade-in deal than anyone else around. Plus, they're getting rid of e-waste! How thoughtful!
Give them your Call of Madden 2011 and 2012, then go buy Call of Madden 2013.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Where else am I going to get $25 for my copy of Duke Nukem Forever?
Good for them.
I'd be buying every violent movie in the walmart dollar bin to turn in...
Actually we cancelled our "event" because nobody was going to sign up!
I dug them out of that landfill for nothing! Nothing!
Oh well, at least I found Curly's Gold.
Where's Jack Thompson? Shouldn't he be there conducting it?
Damn, missed my chance to kill him. Maybe another day, AR-50.
Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Announce intent to do something attention-gathering.
2. Revel in the reporting.
2. Announce cancelation.
Cost: Zero.
The NRA blamed the recent mass murders on, among other things, violent video games.
On the other hand, the NRA went apeshit nuts when police in Tucson wanted to destroy a couple hundred guns.
Fallen for one of the NRA's diversion tactics huh? At least the "blame them vi'lent vidjergames" thing didn't unfairly demonize a whole swath of the population.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Raise awareness of what, exactly? Violent videogames? That seems... odd, unless you are working for a marketing department. The dangers of violent video games? What dangers? I've seen exactly zero evidence of any such dangers (TFA says there is "ample evidence" but, of course, they don't actually cite what that evidence is, exactly). The only awareness that seems to have been raised is that the group behind this are a bunch of scared people lashing out at what they don't understand, desperately looking for something to blame. They said they wanted to "prompt discussions", but you can't have meaningful discussions without some evidence about how or even if video games have negative effects, and there is no such evidence.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
1. Buy cheap old violent games
2. Sell them to Southington
3. Profit!
Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).
I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media, though they had a point if they'd restricted it to the *news*. Specifically, the making of the shooter into a celebrity, the digging into their life, etc...
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
I don't read AC A human right
> SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25
> gift certificates in exchange for their violent games
which would have caused a spike in sales on cheap old games at GameStop the day before the event and accomplished nothing else.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I can't really take issue with the program as they would have implemented it. It's a voluntary program, the person with the game is reimbursed for the game, and the game is destroyed. It's stated up front, everybody knows what the endgame is. At the end of the day, it sounds just like a sponsored gun buyback program. I wouldn't take my games personally, but at the end of the day it's a good potential resource for concerned parents out there. If the NRA is willing to sponsor a program like this one, I fail to see why they'd be protesting a gun buyback program in Tucson (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns).
COD Black Ops II here I come!
You mean like unfairly demonizing responsible gun owners?
All they wanted in life was attention. They got it. Now they shut the fuck up. Overall, a happy ending... although it would be better if they would get their heads out of their asses and realize what the real problem is: mentally deranged psychopaths who are beyond fucked in the head. Not otherwise inanimate objects such as plastic discs, or even guns on their own without a lunatic wielding them.
That is stereotyping and I don't like it. I'm a young white male. I know other young white males who play very violent video games. They spend their weekends working at a crappy job. Yet, they don't have a single violent tendency.
Statistics are a bitch.
Think they'll be mad if I put Pride and Prejudice up that it causes suicidal thoughts in young women?
There's a local NRA backed gun club/firing range that I frequent for target practice. It has all kinds of targets depicting people... From what I gather, this is not uncommon.
Of course they point at other sources, they'd hate for people to see how much they really promote it, themselves. They glorify killing, thinly veiled under 'self defense' and 'anti-terrorism' motifs.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Gamestop almost had a new revenue source.
Step 1: Buy $5 Lethal Weapon DVD
Step 2: Sell DVD for $25
Step 3: Profit!
If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?
I presume the police also 'glorify killing', since they shoot at human-shaped targets too?
There's a lot of gun control advocates out there who don't demonize responsible gun owners.
And from what I've seen, those that cry 'unfairly picking on/demonizing responsible gun owners.' often require removal of the italicized adjective, when referring it comes to themselves.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
But the fact remains that young males commit most violent crimes. The solution, obviously, is to lock them in the basement until they're forty.
Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).
I am a gun owner, but I would never join the NRA, and I am disgusted that they are so often considered to represent all gun owners. They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", and other issues that are appalling. They may be pro-gun, but they are certainly not pro-freedom. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe in the rest of our constitution as well.
Calm down. I didn't mean to get mad at you. Generalization is not really great and I'm tired of having to be on the shit list on every government-backed promotion that aims to rid the internet, violent games, and violent media.
Sorry if I scared you a bit.
Wait, aren't they already in their parent's basement? Playing violent video games?
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Junk for 25 bucks. ROFLMAO
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre. How about you stop using "self-defense" as the reason gun nuts want assault rifles?
You might also be pissed at the NRA for polarizing the issue so badly. By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns. Hearing them constantly bleat that I'm out to get them makes their side look bad. Were I less logical, I might question the sanity of that whole side of the debate.
Fortunately, I am more logical than that. Unfortunately, many people are not, and many liberals I've talked to are, if anything, driven to be anti-gun because of how ferocious the NRA is.
I would see your point if the majority of the gun control proposals were aimed at promoting responsible gun use/storage or providing disincentives for irresponsible gun use/storage.
But most of what I see is people trying to ban black rifles and external magazines over 10 rounds, which do absolutely nothing to address those issues.
I would be fine with it if someone had to pass a test demonstrating an understanding of gun safety and local self defense laws before buying a firearm, with the option to apply for a license so that he does not have to retake the test every time he buys a gun.
I would be fine with it if background checks were required for personal firearms sales, provided a simple and affordable means of doing so were made publicly available.
I would also be fine with it if they made it a crime (negligence of some kind) if you claimed that a gun was stolen, but did not file a report, and your gun was used in a violent crime.
I would even be fine with a national digital firearms registry, if there was not such a push to ban guns of various types.
Okay, here's a simple one for the editors to fix:
Connecticut is the correct spelling, not Conneticut
.
http://www.ct.gov/ -- official Connecticut state government portal
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut -- wikipedia link
.
Let's see how long it takes to fix it or continue to ignore it. It's 9:45 am PST now. Start counting.
That would have been a better deal than Game Stop would give me, although, I would probably spend the money on a newer violent game.
If they really want to fix the problem they should just donate the money to their local mental health clinic. I have yet to see one that is properly funded.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't worry so much about it. You'll be an old man before you know it, and will no longer have to worry about being part on the dangerous young men demographic.
If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?
Prawns
Those aren't people. They are zombies. They just happen to have very similar profiles.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Given that it is a major pain in the butt to get an assault rifle already ... you do realize this requires an expensive federal permit to even own one? They are effectively already banned.
The current bans being discussed are trying to go further and ban things that are not assault rifles, but merely "look scary".
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
There are two possible theories:
1. Violent games encourage people to be violent in real life, increasing violence
2. Violent games provide catharsis for those with violent tendencies, decreasing violence.
As far as I know, very little research has been done to test which of these is true. I recall seeing one small experiment that pointed in the direction of 2 - violent games reduce real world violence. Apart from anything else, they may keep the potentially violent off the streets.
These campaigns are run by people who loathe violent games - which they are entitled to - judging players of such games as if they were themselves - which is not reasonable. It "makes sense" to them that violent games cause violence. But, when researched, such things that "everybody knows" quite often turn out to be false.
So these people may be doing more harm than good. Or not. We don't know. So why don't we do the research?
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Zombies!
I typically shoot at lined/bullseye targets.
I don't need to get off killing a pretend person, I just want to see how accurate I am.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
If you were going to go by the statistics, the target should look like:
Actually the classic target that looks like a dude with a gun pointed at you is one of the much less likely things the gun's ever going to be discharged at.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre.
Which only goes to prove that we need guns!
(that was a joke)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre
Well first of all, it's not a massacre if it's been stopped.
Second, it's illegal for me as a gun owner to carry a gun on school property, so you've artificially limited the data set.
Third, I don't have enough people in my home to qualify as a "massacre" even if someone killed everybody in the building.
Fourth, you should probably educate yourself on exactly what an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" really are, how they are legally defined, and notice that most people use the terms to mean the same thing when they are not.
As for the actual STORY we're discussing, I've seen kids beat each other up over a game of fucking Tiddley-Winks, so I suspect any link between violence and games has more to do with competition getting out of hand and lack of parental involvement than the actual material in the game.
Without splitting the world into two, and seeing how many people would have been killed on the timeline where the armed/out-of-control gunman were allowed to gun down every one he or she wanted, then we can't say for certain, no.
Our friends at tautology club can tell us that self defense shootings failed to prevent every massacre that actually happened...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
The zombies I don't mind, those are funny, and just generally people being silly. Black shilloutes (lines) are also fine. But there are actual targets of people too, or that look so much like a person, that you would be able to tell unless you looked at just the right spot, right up close.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Had a great conversation with my parents over break about the access little kids have to games like Grand Theft Auto. My 6 and 7 year-old nephews said THEY had played! Parents just don't seem to understand that "video game" doesn't mean Pacman and Asteroids anymore.
Additionally, it would seriously help out with the maturity level on multiplayer maps.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Almost every NRA member is compromising somehow. It's a massive organization and they'll say things you disagree with at some point.
For my part, I was a little aggravated to see them endorse Romney. It's not that I was a bigger fan of Obama, but it seemed dishonest to sponsor a guy that had actually enacted gun bans over a guy that wants to enact gun bans.
But it's not like I'm going to forfeit my membership. They're the best shield we've got against disgusting legislation.
I am one of those
I always practice good gun control.
I use both hands and always hit my target.
I'm for gun rights but it's pointless to cite these stories because you're 22 TIMES more likely to use a gun against someone you know. Throwing more guns into the mix will definitely stop crimes, but you're going to create FAR more inicidents than you stop.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Actually, it has prevented many. But usually they are dismissed. For example, off duty cop, or in the case of the "security guard" at the church. Who was merely a citizen who had a carry permit, and due to some concerns had volunteered at the church. (Essentially, what I used to do.)
No, there are many cases. But you'll almost never hear them in the news, cause they do not fit the agenda.
That, and the perpetrator is usually taken out before it can become a "massacre".
The NRA is a gun industry lobby posing as a gun owner lobby.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...except for the recent shooting in Oregon, where the shooter turned his gun on himself after a civilian with concealed carry pointed his gun at the shooter. (and chose not to shoot due to people behind the shooter) Funny the news never reported it that way.
"They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", "
Please cite an example...
Any campaign to buy back violent games and, especially, movies would be a drop in the ocean.
After I heard about the Newtown shooting, I decided to spend the evening avoiding violence in all media. That meant turning off the news, of course, and looking around for what to do.
What struck me was the shortage of non-violent entertainment in my house. With the exception of baseball, all my Xbox games are violent to some degree. All the DVDs on my shelf had some level of violence -- even the Disney movies and nature documentaries (I can't stand chick flicks, but lots of those are nonviolent). There's violence in TV commercials. I ended up watching some episodes of Through the Wormhole on my DVR.
If you like violent games and movies, I have no problem with that. But since that day, I've been quite amazed by the pervasiveness of violence in games, movies, and TV.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The NRA has compromised many times, and repeatedly.
The Gun Control advocates on the other hand. Not so much. And they won't address basic concerns or look at alternatives.
SO CALLED PROBLEM: Gun Show Loophole (which is pseudo-lie for "private sales", which includes if you sell your old hunting rifle to your brother).
EASY SOLUTION: Allow private citizens who are selling a firearm in a private sale to call and run a background check for free.
All I have to do is scream!
I'll grant you, many people who promote gun control don't have a clue about guns, then again, many who are strongly against it, seem to be in the same line. I'd also argue that many who promote gun control overestimate what the authorities can do to protect them.
However, that doesn't really change that they aren't demonizing these people. They are making ownership of certain types of firearms harder.
At the same point, as the number of rounds your firing in a given timeframe goes up, the less likely you are being responsible/legitimate with your guns.
1) You are either firing at more people, or missing more often.
- The former becomes less and less likely with a legitimate user unless you are seriously in the hood.
- The latter means you shouldn't be using that gun in defense even, because now innocent bystanders are going to need to fire at you in self defense, so you don't hit them while missing your assailant.
2) If you are being targeted by a large number of people, they are going to take you out before you get too many unless you are (a) unarmed, (b) they are all a horrible shot, or (c) you prepared for the incident in advance - i.e. you most likely instigated it. The only exception I can see, is you didn't instigate (c), but rather a large mob decided to break into your house for whatever reason. How many non-instigated breakins of more than 2-3 people in number happen?
Oh, and maybe the government has become volently malevolent towards it's citizens, and wants to take you out. Good luck against heavily armed military units with that little gun of yours.
High round counts serve no legitimate purpose except for ease of target practice and competition (less time reloading).
No, legalizing them does not take them out of the hands of those that would abuse them, but the cases of those that would legitimately use them are pretty close to nonexistent. I can see a few for high-cap semi-automatics (wilderness, wild critters in numbers), but not for autofires.
numbering mine.
1. Seems nice/reasonable, problem is, what kind of test? It could be abused.
2., 3. Pretty sure that required in all states in the US. Outside of the US, YMMV.
4. Like 1., that seems problematic. I'd almost want it to be a ballistic test, where the ballistic profile of the bullet provides a decryption key to who owns the gun.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
on that same logic, Neither has there been any mass shootings using automatic weapons yet they talk about them non stop everytime a crazy person goes crazy.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the movie killer in Colorado rigged his apartment with explosives and they were only not set off because he told the cops. I would much rather focus resources on solutions that prevent all kinds of spree killing attacks, but go ahead and ignore the root problem, the mentally ill are not getting help when they cry out for it.
Did they also explain to you that 61 of the last 62 mass shootings took place in "gun free zones" I know crazy that law abiding citizens would follow the laws that a crazy person would ignore.
so again, how will outlawing XX stop anything when it already is shown that gun free zones are criminal welcome zones?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media
I don't know, they might have a point. I'm in my 30s, I've been playing games for many years now, all kinds of games. It turns out a lot of them are violent. I'm not a violent person by nature, but I admit that after spending several hours playing Far Cry 3, now I really want to go hang gliding.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Doesn't matter how good of a cause or the underlying intentions. Money rules this country.
Well, their latest statements about violent video games and watchlists for the mentally ill cover censorship and "precrime."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's an idiotic statistic in and of itself, without knowing why.
You are significantly more likely to harm/kill someone you know, full stop.
That's simply because, there's usually a trigger event, and that will usually involve people, and you deal more regularly, and have more time to build up animosity (to the tipping point) with people you know.
The only thing that statistic is useful logic for, is preventing anyone from knowing anyone else.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Here. I'll takr $25 for each of these discs:
Quake ...wait, wut? Only recent ones?
Quake II
Quake III
Doom IV
Mecwarrior 2 Mercs
EverQuest
Warcraft III
Diablo II
World of Warcraft
Horizons
Dark Age of Camelot
Ok:
Dragon Age II
Star Trek Online
Star Wars: The Old Republic
City of Heroes (pleasedon'tnotice pleasedon'tnotice)
Champions Online
Eve Online
And, to paraphrase Henny Youngman, "Take my Skyrim...please!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How about you get some straight facts instead of you're idiotic anti-gun propaganda B.S.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp
http://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html
And thats all of 10 seconds of a search, knowing full well there are more.
actually, there's also stuff on carbines.
As far as I can tell, the only reason to have a carbine is that it's easier to hide/pack than a full length rifle barrel, but has almost as much accuracy. Why the fuck do you need to hide your "rifle"? Given the cost of ammo and guns, if you can afford such, you can afford a decent transport solution as well.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
more like concentrate on piling more psychoactive drugs on their children so they can create the next generation of insane murderers. This shit wasn't happening before the explosion of Big Pharma bastards and their doctor shills pushing their drugs on kids.
I'm in Chicago, so shootings are fairly common
I'm jaded to killings. You only notice more because the media is highlighting more of them to get attention because they're vampires that feed off the fear of the populace.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/422728/20130110/sandy-hook-violent-games-biden-southington-censorship.htm
"Ferguson said that destroying games carried a "real risk":
"Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware you are trying to do what you think is best," said Ferguson "but there is real risk in focusing people's attention on the wrong thing, as well as contributing to historical patterns of 'moral panic' that tend to surround new media.
"I'm very appreciative of the sincerity of your group, but at the same time I've been concerned about some of your public statements linking video games to bullying and youth aggression which do not accurately reflect the science," Ferguson continued. "As a scientist, when we see that someone is saying something that isn't scientifically true, ethically we're supposed to take some time to try and speak with them and point that out to them...I've done a number of peer-reviewed articles myself on the topic, and have found no evidence linking video game violence to bullying or any other forms of youth aggression or violence.""
Then I'll be part of the obese demographic. Hooray, I trade one shit for another.
I was kind of hoping that their plans for permanent disposal involved putting all the CDs in a pile and blowing them up with explosives. Or maybe using them for a skeet shoot. They could have sold tickets to that to make up for the gift certificates they were giving out.
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre. How about you stop using "self-defense" as the reason gun nuts want assault rifles?
Considering the fact that such massacres always occur in so called gun-free zones exactly how are firearms to prevent something when they are actively prohibited from being present? The people who would actually use them in self-defense obey the law and the murderers do not. In fact, they count on the law abiding doing just that.
You also fail to observe that no gun ban has prevented a massacre either. Evil people do evil things. How about we start figuring out why these people get to that point and address that instead of blaming what ever inanimate object they decide to do it with?
If you wanted to shoot up a place, which one would you choose: the one where people might be packing heat, or the one where your guaranteed that no one can shoot back at you?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
its the factor of somebody with "Iron" reminding a Whacko that "If You Touch Iron Im going to be faster" im sure that every responsible CCW holder can go into the OODA loop in about 3 seconds (assumes they are not always in a soft OODA loop).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
The NRA has over 4.3 MILLION individual members. I think you're being naive if you think we're joining just for the heck of it.
I was arguing against the person who said guns never prevented a mass murder, and was pointing out how silly his logic was, through a bit of sarcasm. Chill spaz master. Take your medicine if you've missed a dose and/or stop taking the other people's medicine that wasn't prescribed to you.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Texas shooting stopped by an off-duty policewoman - this occurred nearly one month ago:
http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/12-17-12-texas-movie-theater-shooting-creates-chaos-and-fear-but-quick-thinking-security-guard-steps-in/
It could just as easily have been a regular citizen with a CCW permit...
Ken
[BEGIN NRA LOGIC] Well, the solution for this is even more guns! Every person should have at least three guns on them at all times. Every child over three should have a handgun also. Babies can use our new "shotgun pacifier." What? Now there's even more gun violence? Ok, let's try ten guns per adult, seven guns per child, and turning every baby stroller into an armored tank. That should keep us safe. [END NRA LOGIC]
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Also, the gun free zones are a bit of a sketchy subject.
They do make it easier for a mass killing like this, but they can also reduce the number of smaller scale incidents. I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to this one, only "which set of problems are you happier with?"
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Colombine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public. .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK. You see it time and time again on the mainstream media, they're proposing registration, bans on production, bans on transfer, extra taxes, etc. Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
The 2nd amendment says "Shall not be infringed.", not "Your guns shall not be taken away.".
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism.
How exactly do you compromise with people being driven entirely by fear and anger? That's what every gun control debate erupts from: Someone gets a case of the stupids, and people are all like "It's a tragedy! Someone must be made responsible for this!" And then off we go on a whirlwind adventure of accusations, witch hunting, and finger pointing, and the end result is some horrific soul-crushing attack on our civil liberties.
Maybe the NRA is simply tired of having to respond to these mindless lemmings chanting "What do we want? Someone to pay! When do we want it? Right focking now!" You can't compromise with someone in the thrall of group think; The herd must be obeyed. I know I sure as hell am tired of the endless "for the children" arguments; They're always emotionally motivated and no matter how inceptid the ideas that flow out of that emotional reaction is, you'll find people vigorously defending it.
Nothing anyone says can convince them they are not the righteous and chosen few. There's no evidence they'll accept. It's like trying to convince a christian God doesn't exist... it'll never happen.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Yes, but what is the agenda?
In the news, it's media sensationalization, ratings and drama.
One attempted murderer injured/killed with one or two victims. vs. the same but with dozens of victims.
The latter is NEWS, it gets RATINGS. The former is just news, trumped by something that is News because it is more local, or something that is News because it has more people involved.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
So when fascist dictatorships disarm the entire population, and then mass execute people, are you saying that guns would not have prevented that?
Yep. You're presenting a hypothetical that has actually been tested, and found to fail miserably. Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much every cvilian vs government conflict of the past 100 years hinged on air superiority. If you had air superiority, you did well. If you didn't, all the AK-47s and RPGs in the world didn't help you.
Would lack of gun ownership make any difference in these cases?
Possible, though hard to tell, as these are anecdotes, and not scientific experiments. It's impossible to tell how those events would have unfolded without guns at the ready. However, we have some actual statistics to work with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence,http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp, for just a few examples of large scale statistics. At a minimum, they indicate that gun ownership does not correlate with reduced crime, but that instead they are a common response to increased crime rates.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?
Sometimes, shame is a good thing. Your knowledge of statistics would definitely benefit from it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The NRA needs to quit whining and actually use their huge bloody mound of lucre to assist the mental health structure in the US and undo the massive damage Saint Reagan did in the 80s when the mentally ill were pushed out into the streets and made homeless. That and the scary loophole of the law's attitude of 'he has to do something first' - mainly as they have no resources nor money to do anything but clean up the inevitable aftermaths.
1. Seems nice/reasonable, problem is, what kind of test? It could be abused.
then you hard code the test question bank to prevent this
4. Like 1., that seems problematic. I'd almost want it to be a ballistic test, where the ballistic profile of the bullet provides a decryption key to who owns the gun.
the problem with this is all it would take is about 20 seconds in a decent metal shop to "scrub" the gun or a few minutes to replace the firing pin and barrel with an anonymous duplicate.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
List of NRA compromises....
A compromise doesn't mean: A law is passed with the NRA being strongly against it, lobbying from the minute it's passed to get it repealed.
The solution you propose is similar to what I have recommended to my friends. Just some way to call and check to see if the other person holds a valid license. It should be as simple as a call.
For a moment I thought about educating you on firearms. But you are willingly ignorant.
Let's focus on the real killers. Assault Vehicles. Nobody needs a vehicle with more than 50 HP. That is just crazy.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre
But it has prevented ~300,000 individual massacres, rapes, robberies, etc. Per year. That's based on various poll-based research efforts into defensive gun use. (The noteworthy studies seem to range from 80k to 2.6 million, but ~300k or so seemed most credible to me when I was doing some light research into the issue.)
On top of the known cases (which, admittedly, we don't know exactly how they would have turned out in the absence of a firearm), the implicit threat of firearm availability has probably saved many more lives, such as women who fear their violent exes or homeowners in crime-prone areas. And of course, the implicit threat of protracted civil revolt is a deterrent to cases of outright tyranny (i.e., Nazi Germany, communist China, Soviet Russia) that have a habit of killing millions, not just twenty.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
> I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media,
Yeah, let's continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz! That'll show'em !
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
The media IS part of the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPOcNp5OgyY
"They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", "
Please cite an example...
Well the easy one is their recent fingering of violent media/video games. It was not an outright call for censorship, but the implication was there.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Bullshit http://youtu.be/Mm9o3vhKoF8 And in Israel a school shooting was stopped by an armed student that killed the gunman. How about you stop being a fucking idiot and learn some factual information?
Part of the problem is the idiotic definition of anything over 10 as "high". Virtually every duty-sized 9mm sold today comes with a 17 to 18 round magazine. The only ones that come with smaller ones are handguns that are sold in larger calibers so as to do more damage, or handguns that are made physically smaller so as to be easier to conceal.
Though I don't agree with ANY caps on magazine capacity, they'd probably meet a lot less resistance if the definition of high was a little more sane (ie, 20). Calling 10 "high" when 17 is the norm is about the same as a cable modem company adding surcharges for "excessive usage" and then declaring "excessive" as anything over 2GB per month.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Just watch out for the eight-year-old white girl in the middle of the ghetto with quantum physics books.
She's about to start some shit.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Step 1 : Sell old violent video game for $25
Step 2 : Buy new violent video game using $25
Step 3 : Profit!
There's a local NRA backed gun club/firing range that I frequent for target practice. It has all kinds of targets depicting people... From what I gather, this is not uncommon.
I've never been but from what I gather from friends' Facebook pictures, about 87% of these targets are zombies. Say what you will about the NRA, and it's probably true, but we can't be soft on Zombies. Life for the living! Better dead than undead!
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Yeah, I had most of those games too, then went and turned them in for the gift cards, and went out and bought myself an AR-15 on the black market! SCORE!
Your husband or pet in a dark hallway after making too much noise coming in late
Easily mitigated by identifying your target.
The inside of your mouth after a getting fired from your job
Cute.
The next door neighbor kid, after your kid borrows your gun to "scare him."
Yeah, it's impossible to secure a gun against your kid.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Exactly. It is like saying the RIAA represents the artists. The RIAA represents the labels, not the artists. Are their times when the labels' goals and the artists' goals coincide? Sure. But in the end the RIAA is looking out for the labels, not the artists.
Similarly, the NRA is looking out for the gun manufacturers. What do the gun manufacturers want? More sales! So they'll be opposed to banning any kind of weapon or bullet no matter how ridiculous it would be for a civilian to own one. They'd also be against any delay (background checks and the like) in purchasing a gun so as to make sales quicker and easier, but the political climate prevents them from coming out against all background checks. (The NRA head was on a show a few weeks ago and was asked about expanding background checks to all sales, he kept dodging by basically insisting that since background checks already happen on most sales that's good enough.)
Is all this good for gun owners? Some might be, but some is just the gun manufacturers trying to get you to buy their new models and more/deadlier ammo whether you really need it or not.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
[BEGIN NRA LOGIC] Well, the solution for this is even more guns! Every person should have at least three guns on them at all times. Every child over three should have a handgun also. Babies can use our new "shotgun pacifier." What? Now there's even more gun violence? Ok, let's try ten guns per adult, seven guns per child, and turning every baby stroller into an armored tank. That should keep us safe. [END NRA LOGIC]
Correlation does not indicate causation.
What's the statistics for murder without a gun with regard to people you know and strangers.
Which some people seem to think is okay. Yet one reason this right exists is to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. And as our government has no limits on their available firepower, I resent any limitations on what I can have. This applies perpetually. If phasers get invented, the government will have them so I better be able to have them. Otherwise I will be unable to defend myself from the government and eventually that is something they will use against me.
Either your offering below market prices and thus taking only inoperable and stolen weapons off the street, or you are offering above market prices and creating an arbitrage situation where owners and manufacturers can turn over inventory at a profit.
Neither seens to be a good idea, either with video games or with guns.
Quit using TSA logic.
Pull my finger for my public key.
If you want value for money, get Romeo & Juliette.
That is perfect example of confirmation bias. Crimes get reported prevention of crime does not.
Tehy r joinering cos tehy wants teh BIG GUNZZZZ!!!!!
oh I know, I was adding to your comment. I guess you missed it as well
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I don't need to get off killing a pretend person, I just want to see how accurate I am.
Why would it matter wtf the target looks like? You're basically saying the same thing the media is, and that is "violent games cause people to kill people". Perspectives like these leave out the fact that the average mentally healthy person has no problem separating fantasy and reality and is able to deal with their emotional problems in responsible ways. Whether they play Doom for 12 hours straight, or shoot at a torso shaped outline at the firing range.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Most people I think don't mind people owning guns and that the NRA tries to protect the right to own a firearm. What people really want is to prevent disturbed people from owning the guns. When my friend and roommate at the time turned 21 (this was quite a while ago), he wanted to buy a .357 revolver. He laughed at the stupid registration requirements. They asked "Are you insane?" on the sheet and then proceeded to note that they would not be using the information to violate his right to privacy (i.e. they wouldn't be seeing if he was insane).
IMHO, I think most people would like to see assault rifles and the like require a renewable license with a stipulation on the license that the licensee go through a light psychologically evaluation each time period. They would also like each license owner to be properly trained on how to use and secure their valuable weapons.
The biggest argument against registration and training I have heard is that licensing is one step from banning and removal which would lead to a police state. I think that's a false argument. If the government wanted to trample your rights in such a fashion, it would just do it. It wouldn't need a list, it would restrict the sale of ammo and tracked the people who bought the ammo.
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
You might want to read up a bit more on guns in Switzerland. They are heavily regulated, guns are registered almost without exception, ammo is tracked for military rifles stored at home, and the reason you see them in public is because they're unloaded and people are personally responsible for stolen guns.
There is no way the NRA would let any of that regulation pass. In other words, there is no way to turn the US into Switzerland, so the NRA and gun supporters should stop using Swiss gun statistics to support American gun laws.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Of course you are, most of the times a gun is used in self defense it doesn't result in the intruder being killed and hence isn't counted in such studies. And suicides which count in those "against someone you know" make up the majority of such deaths, though suicide rates in the US while pretty high don't scale with gun ownership (Japan has a much higher suicide rate but extremely strict gun control, The US has only a 20% higher suicide rate than Australia a country with strict gun control laws).
So sure the most likely death that will result from your gun is a suicide, but given the experience in other countries those suicides will happen anyway if you didn't own the gun. And of course by "suidices" I mean the 0.00007 suicides that will likely occur each year from it given the number of suicides and the number of guns in the US.
How exactly do you compromise with people being driven entirely by fear and anger?
Wait -- you mean all those people who think they need guns to protect themselves (during the safest time in human history, no less) aren't driven by fear? Because that's sure what it looks like from where I sit. Fucking cowards, the lot of them. And I don't even give a shit about guns.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yeah, I lost out on that joke. Enjoy the Mod points.
Texas shooting still resulted in one wounded victim, with vital organs having been missed by inches. And this from a guy who was shooting his gun into the air. I don't think you're making a good case for more guns among the population.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So if someone points out the obvious (that every shooter is on some kind of psychoactive medication) they are somehow a scientologist?
People think they'll do this, but in real situations casual gun-owners tend to panic.
It's quite possible, it just doesn't happen.
What difference does it make if people tell themselves they'll be responsible, sober, and competent, when they routinely fail in the event? In a city or suburb, there's no evidence whatsoever they're statistically effective for the defense of a home or person by a even a trained civilian. There's always going to be stories about the hero who killed the rapist in the dining room but in exchange you get 20 suicides by people that didn't have the guts to slit their wrists.
And note, this is not a criticism of gun rights per se; just because guns don't work for X doesn't mean they're EVIL or anything. But any effort spent defending the practicality or utility of a P220 under the pillow is utterly wasted.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Perhaps I used the wrong word; I said "media" not meaning "news media", but more "multi media". IE encompassing news, television entertainment, movies, comics, and even video games. I specifically SAID that the news is part of the problem, where I disagree with the NRA is that games/tv/movies might be to blame. I even identified a specific subsection of how the news handles a spree killer that encourages more(paying attention to the killer's life).
To my knowledge, the only time 'media' has been shown to increase violence is when they show live action "cartoons" to pre-teens then let them play unsupervised. Then the kids tend to imitate what they see on the program with each other, and despite this there's generally no serious injuries from such play; much like 'Cowboys and Indians' from the time when I was a young kid. Much like wild animals, "play" in humans often involves enactments of theoretically extremely violent conflict, but toned down to avoid serious injury. Considering how prevalent violence has been in human history, being prepared for it through play makes sense. That doesn't mean that a functional adult, or even child, isn't generally fully capable of knowing the difference between play and an actual fight/carrying out of the threat.
Since the computer age, violence has actually been going down in the USA. From what I've seen, violent computer game play by teens/adults tends to actually lower violence on average. It's not like schools shootings never happened before broadcast TV, cable, internet, etc... It's only know that they reach such a wide audience. Shoot a dozen kids in a school and you'll make the news world wide.
I don't read AC A human right
More than 75% of the mass shootings since I think it was 86 were done with legally purchased guns (may have been taken from a family member but that is not the point here in the view of responsible ownership), so I propose this... If a family member takes the guns and commits a crime, that indicates they were not properly secured, therefore the gun owner was not a responsible gun owner. To prevent further incidences of this happening, we will address it at the genetic level and all blood relatives will be sentenced to either life in prison with no parole or death. No appeals, no court cases, straight to jail or the chair. A registry shall be created that lists mentally unstable people that the family can add to. If you know you have an unstable family member and do not list them on the "do not buy" list, you are sentenced the same as above.
So which fascist dictators are you talking about specifically? Hitler did ban jews from owning guns.... in 1938. Or do you think the problem with the Cultural Revolution was a lack of militias running around with guns?
Remember Equilibrium?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/synopsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_(film)
From my reading of their laws, the ammo is tracked only to make sure they still have it - and was repealed several years ago. Other than that, they actually subsidize ammo purchase for practice purposes.
I'm not saying that we need to go 100% Swiss model, I just said 'more like'. Registration isn't going to stop a potential spree killer/suicide type.
Fix the mental health system. Train everybody on firearm safety. End the war on drugs. Fix the education system, really work on ending poverty.
I don't read AC A human right
Im going to be soo freaking rich!
There's a huge difference between destroying a medium with its owner's consent, and destroying books against their owner's will. Using a newspaper to light a fire doesn't make you a nazi.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not only that. They say "Hunters should have their guns." No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the right to bear arms for hunting shall not be infringed. It very distinctly calls for weapon ownership for a militia. People may disagree on what constitutes a militia, but the very nature of such is meant to be a militant force. Banning semi-automatic weapons or assault weapons should be an infringement regardless since those weapons are more designed for militancy than bolt action rifles.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, let me get this straight: When fascist and/or communist dictatorships disarm the population (which is always step 1 before profit), it's best just to hand your weapons over to them, since they're just going to bomb you from the air, anyway? That's really your stance?
I would recommend reading a history book. Standing down will always land you with a bullet in the back of your head. Leftists don't hate guns; remember that. They only hate guns in the hands of anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't follow the groupthink, they thoroughly enjoy using guns on said opposition.
Really?? Where I live (Georgia) they have them in Walmart! I call shenanigans!!
By mentally ill, you must mean those people who continue to believe that unrestricted gun ownership is a good thing, right?
Or are you referring to the leadership of the NRA who ignore the polls indicating that 69% of their members agree that background checks are a good thing?
Or perhaps you're referring to the Senators and Congressmen who continue to thwart the ATF from employing modern investigation techniques in tracking illegal gun sales or the requirement that gun shops keep accurate inventories of the weapons they buy.
You can't be referring to any of the various right-wing-whacko militia types who hyped notion that Obama was coming to take everyone's guns away and drove ammunition sales at Walmart through the roof during his first administration when Walmart could hardly keep their shelves stocked from week to week in Florida.
And I have to imagine that anyone who even suggests the use of tagents or other gun tracking technologies used to find and incarcerate criminals falls well outside your definition of sane.
Bullseyes are great for testing aim, but silhouettes have the advantage of also training you where to aim. Sure center of mass is likely to disable, but it is better if you can fully incapacitate them with the first shot.
But any effort spent defending the practicality or utility of a P220 under the pillow is utterly wasted.
Under the pillow would be a horrible place for it.
You also seem to be implying that people aren't mentally capable of using firearms safely and/or defensively. That is absurd.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
If violent video games are the reason this stuff is happening then those around me would have cause to worry.
I've been playing games of that type since I was in Jr. High School over 30 years ago. When I play those games yes it's entertaining and fun however in real life I know the difference between defending my life and those around me and taking lives like these crazed shooters we've been reading about in the news.
That said, I guess it boils down to the comments made by Rep. Jason Chaffetz where the real problem isn't with those who are responsible with guns (such as myself). The problem is with those who are mentally unstable having access to guns. Looking at the last few articles about these shooters I have the feeling they definitely have issues which need addressing still. I agree with Rep Chaffetz that to reduce these issues we need to address how these people are handled.
BTW, I am a gun owner and have a CCP and have additional training in the use of my guns. As a private citizen I felt it was irresponsible for me NOT to have a gun especially since in my lifetime my family has had two incidents where they were in mortal danger and the police were not just around the corner. And since SCOTUS said it isn't the responsibility of the police to safeguard my family but to be a deterrent and clean up the mess that it's my responsibility and only mine to protect my family.
So now we have guns, bullets and training. It's the only way to protect us from becoming the next victim on FOX news.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
The problem is that the NRA has compromised multiple times, starting way back in 1934. The problem is that it's like you're meeting in the middle, but then you step backwards and expect us to 'compromise' again, going with the NEW position as the new starting point.
I'm willing to listen to proposed restrictions. It's just that I see 99% of gun control regulation being ineffective or downright stupid and people are unwilling to listen to me explain *WHY* it's going to be effective.
It's like how the response to an assassination attempt with a super short .22 revolver results in an attempt to ban scary black rifles. How, today 99% of the gun-banners seem to be concentrating on 'assault weapons', when rifles are used less to commit murder than blunt instruments.
Then you get into the weird things: The AWB increased the fatality rate in shootings. Why? .40S&W? .22lr is still the preferred caliber for criminals). .40S&W(10 round standard mag) or a .45ACP(7 round!) is deadlier than a .380 or 9mm.
1. The AWB restricted magazine size to 10. Before this, the 9mm was the most popular caliber, called 'wonder 9's'. Standard magazine size was 15 rounds.
2. Unable to economically GET 15 round magazines, suddenly larger caliber handguns were more competitive - if you can only shoot 10 rounds, why not get a
3. Since criminals get their weapons from the legal side; they started trading up.(Note: I believe that
4. The average number of shots fired in a criminal encounter is around 3. Not 15, 10, or even 7. 3.
5. The average number of shots fired didn't decrease during the AWB
6. Being hit with a
A potential spree killer can cause as much damage with 100 round as he can with a thousand. One gun vs a dozen. A hundred rounds is a rather light range visit.
I don't read AC A human right
How do you know? Do you have a parallel universe machine that lets you see what would have happened in all the cases in which someone did use a gun in self defense if they had not done so?
Ten seconds of looking gives me:
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732&nav=menu549_2
- man starts shooting in a bar containing 300 people. 2 people die before he is shot by a civilian. Somehow you know that even though he was reloading when he was shot he wasn't going kill enough more people for you to call it a massacre?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
- man has already killed 4 and is shot by a a lady who was volunteering as security at her church (so not quite a random bystander, but still a civilian carrying their private weapon). You know he wasn't going to kill anyone else, he brought 1000 rounds of ammunition for no reason at all.
That too is somewhat misleading - it seems more plausible that they were targeted for the same reason they were made gun-free zones, namely they have a large concentration of vulnerable potential victims. Schools, malls, etc. have large numbers of people to lash out against, some of which may have mistreated/resemble those who mistreated the killers at some point.
the american culture is broken and not sustainable.
just that simple. really is.
violence everywhere in movies and tv. sports, too. we glorify it. we 'honor' war heros. we encourage unrestricted capitalism. we like 'winner takes all'. we like it when we have to compete fiercely just to survive.
there is no simple fix to this. its not about 'mental patients'. it runs way deeper, into our very culture and what makes us think we are 'leading the world' in this or that.
it won't be fixed. sorry (makes me sad) but it won't and can't be fixed. we are an aggressive nation, we have no plans to change courses and the fallout is what we see now.
its not about god or religion and that won't save us.
as long as we filter nudity while encouraging violence, we have taught our people a value system. a broken one, to be sure, but its a 'value system' of sorts.
to get away from it, you have to leave the american culture. I don't want to do that and most here don't, but there is no way to fix this cancer and not kill the patient. a whole re-write is needed and I just don't see that happening.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4.3M members isn't an astroturf organization. The gun industry plays a part, but a lot of it is that we like our guns, and don't want to see more hassle with enjoying our hobbies.
I don't read AC A human right
There's a lot of shit I bought on Steam that I would love to get $25 for. I'm looking at you DNF.
Did they also explain to you that 61 of the last 62 mass shootings took place in "gun free zones" ?
Citation, please? Given that USA experiences a mass killing once every 10 days (and a mass shooting once every 15 days), I find it difficult to believe that your statistic is current.
So did you post AC because you outright plagiarized this material from John Noveske's last FB post before being killed in a car accident?
"If Jesus had a gun he'd still be alive today!" - Homer Simpson
Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are. This issue sends many liberals into Tea Party levels of hysteria and Free Republic levels of censorship of opposing viewpoints. I am more ashamed of them than I am the NRA, since, after all, the NRA isn't my tribe.
So, let me get this straight: When fascist and/or communist dictatorships disarm the population (which is always step 1 before profit), it's best just to hand your weapons over to them, since they're just going to bomb you from the air, anyway? That's really your stance?
You should read the books you refer to. You'd then find out that the population in question had mostly a few hunting rifles, and that the number of guns involved where a small fraction of the total population. Furthermore, those inclined to resist had squirreled away their guns anyway. In short - the gun bans had zero impact on the evolution of the dictatorship. So the argument is that owning guns means nothing when planning to fight a tyrannical government. On the other hand, convincing the army and law enforcement to not shoot civilians means everything. Quite frankly, I prefer a plan that has a chance to succeed over one that makes me feel good.
Leftists don't hate guns; remember that. They only hate guns in the hands of anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't follow the groupthink, they thoroughly enjoy using guns on said opposition.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people. Nevermind.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ever gone hunting in heavy brush? Every inch makes hauling a rifle more of a pain. A carbine is also handier for home defense, in the sense that "a handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle". It's STILL going to be far larger than a handgun.
Given the cost of ammo and guns, if you can afford such, you can afford a decent transport solution as well.
I'll admit. AR type rifles will run you around a grand starting price, and as with most durable goods ultimately the sky(or your budget) is the limit, but they're premium.
I can pick up a .22LR for ~$200. A box of 500 rounds for ~$50. Or I can get a brand new hunting rifle in .45-70 for $500, and ammunition is ~$1 round for premium hunting rounds. If I'm willing, I can load it with self cast bullets(the caliber is that old...), and probably get the price down to 10 cents a round. In handguns I can pick up a highpoint for $200, and round run about 25 cents a pop today.
How expensive is it again?
I don't read AC A human right
As the amount of ammunition you fire in a given time frame goes up, you become a better shot and effectively more responsible. A person who shoots a thousand rounds a year is much more likely to hit their target than someone who shot one box of ammo 5 years ago then tucked it away in a drawer.
When shooting in defense, you shoot until the threat ends. One bullet may be enough to kill anyone, but one bullet is often not enough to end the immediate threat an attacker poses to you. Depending on a large number of factors, most of them beyond your control, 10 rounds may only be enough to end the threat of 1 or 2 attackers even if all your shots are hits.
Ballistic tests are not unique and reliable enough to work as a decryption key. Guns wear over time, different bullets have different physical qualities that may affect how they are marked, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect match.
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
I think you need to reread my comment, think about who has airplanes, and reconsider what armed revolt against the government looks like. Until then, there's no point in arguing.
So where did I cite a flawed statistic?
When you equated anecdotes with statistics. The Wikipedia and Snopes article link to the actual studies. Enjoy. You also continued your sin by linking to the Daily Fail, which cited no studies, and relied on absolute numbers rather than per capita numbers. Please provide some real research.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So, you're saying you're LESS likely to report shooting at an intruder than at a family member in an argument that gets out of control?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So everyone should be allowed to have a hydrogen nuke? think about your logic...its ass backwards. Your saying to stem the violence from the government we need to increase the capable violence of the citizen. The whole concept makes a need for government pointless.
If the balance of power between elected officials and your right to vote isnt enough, then well you need to move. Somalia is similar to what kind of country you want, why dont you leave us intelligent people alone and move to that crazy place?
If your so paranoid of our government, why don't you use the thing that was truly given to protect from the government. That is, vote, protest and engage. Our government would utterly destroy any armed rebellion from drones, you need to help change the military industrial complex before you can spout of the 2nd there to protect us from the government.
Also, just so you see the error in your logic, and frankly the stupidity of your entire thinking. If everyone could own what the government owns, its quite possible and more likley that some asshole will attempt to overthrow our government to replace it with something else, most likley less free and no need of a constitution. The south rose up, and we barley won that...now if you argue the south was on the right side of history and it was bad they lost, then you truly are a fucking moron.
Tanks are arms. A10 gunships are arms. Chemical and biological weapons are arms. Nuclear weapons are arms. No one seriously disputes the fact that we get to infringe on bearing arms, the question is only where to draw the line. Why do you insist that semi-automatic weapons must not be infringed but not tanks and nukes?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/16/gun-free-zones-larry-pratt/1773473/
What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone. Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Games rated AO and M already aren't supposed to be sold to minors.
If you're planning on banning all violent material, let's start with half of television and the bible.
I must have ten grand sitting on my HDD. =D
Why not be a grown adult, and post as something other than AC.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?
Different AC here. I have no shame in my opinions. I prefer to let my arguments stand on their merits. Also, I prefer to try and avoid personal attacks, and would suggest you do the same in the future if you truly want a "grown adult" conversation.
I see what you did there...
Perhaps you are referring to fully-automatic weapons? Semi-automatic assault rifle style weapons are incredibly easy to purchase throughout the US.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
...in history. No one can realistically deny this.
NRA does have a point though. If you are underage and have certain mental issues you shouldn't be playing COD, serious sam and the like. And if you are a parent with a kid with issues and you have guns then lock them up. Do not expose you mental kid with a poor grip on reality to firearms and COD.
Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are.
That's a terrible way to survey positions on an issue.
An assault rifle by definition has selectable fire, e.g. the ability to go fully automatic. And are already illegal (except for the government and certain gun manufacturers). The federal permit is required to own guns with barrels shorter than 16" that are not a handguns. What the recent proposed legislation wants to ban is things that merely look like assault rifles as the OP said.
All weapons are arms. Tanks, helicopters, nuclear weapons. The constitution is quite clear that they should not be infringed. Whether or not I am personally comfortable with people owning and possessing them has no bearing on whether they can.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If you have no shame in your opinions, then why do you hide your real identity behind a nickname?
How about MPAA and their violent movies? If games are bad then movies are to, then we can also say we have violents in the news. We hear news everyday which has more violent then anything since we first heard this story. We can control the news, guns, movies and games then, right? Again with violent actions are caused usually by people on something like drugs or alcohol, so lets control that as well. Please lets get smart here and stop bitching.
I think you need to reread my comment, think about who has airplanes, and reconsider what armed revolt against the government looks like. Until then, there's no point in arguing.
The government needs to stop restricting our access to owning F-22s and A-10s.
In the general case, the "militia" is a source of infantry. The basic weapon of the infantry is the rifle. A self-loading (the proper term for what is colloquially call "semi-automatic") rifle is a perfectly adequate infantry weapon (automatic fire for anything other than suppressive fire is vastly overrated).
On the other hand, very few infantry have ever used tanks or nukes as their primary weapons - largely because tanks makes you Armour (not Infantry), and nukes makes you Air Force (or Navy or Strategic Rocket Forces or whatever they call the guys who have the nukes in your country of choice).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Burning them would be a violent act.
9. Burning them would create greenhouse gas.
8. They couldn't get a bonfire permit from the government.
7. Fire kills more kiddies every year than guns.
6. Couldn't afford to pay everyone $25 for their game.
5. The game donators were making illegal copies of their games before 'giving them to the fire'
4. In the process of screening the games to see if they were burn-worthy, the screeners became addicted to them and killed the organization's leaders.
3. A suitable ignition method could not be decided upon in committee.
2. Everyone left their lighters at home on the coffee table next to the bong.
1. It was discovered that a digital copy of the Quran is embedded in all video games.
Welcome to the United Sissies of America!
End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
Having lived in both the US and Switzerland, while being a citizen of neither, the differences are far, far greater than having a social support structure. Switzerland has a love of law, order and putting the community before the individual which I can simply cannot see the US ever managing to cope with. There are many strict, and sometimes bizarre, rules you have to follow e.g. don't run a washing machine after 9pm otherwise the police may show up at your door (actually happened to a friend of mine!).
I would argue that it is this mentality which is what keeps the Swiss crime rate so low, not just because they have strong social policies - the rest of Europe has those too but still has a higher crime rate that Switzerland. If even trivial things can be against the law, one which is strictly enforced, then it disuades people from more serious things. Having said that I'd pick living in Switzerland over the US anytime - being part of a society which knows and follows its own rules, even the strange ones, is a lot nicer than the alternative.
Not to mention that high power hunting rifles that can kill from a half a mile away have the potential to kill far more people than a fully automatic rifle that is hard to control. See the Russian snipers during world war 2.
I don't see anyone calling for those to be banned.
That's certainly true, but my point was more that all other things being equal (same types of targets, same numbers of victims, etc), would it be more likely that a gun-free zone would be chosen over one where people are potentially armed, and would these events be more or less deadly when people are prevented from protecting themselves as opposed to when they can? Making them gun-free zones only makes them moreso vulnerable potential victims.
James Holmes didn't choose the nearest theater to him; he chose the one that was a designated gun-free zone over a few other theaters that were showing the same movies, that were closer in proximity, but were not gun-free zones. Was that his only reason for making that decision? I don't know and I don't think anyone knows. I have to imagine that it isn't a coincidence though. Where well-intentioned politicians see gun-free zones as places of safety, many other people see them as easy victim sitting duck zones. That includes criminals that would go to shoot them up.
Would having a few armed citizens have made a difference in the Aurora shooting? We'll never know. Considering the armor he was wearing, the smoke in the theater, it's hard to say what a difference it would have made. Personally, I believe that someone would have been able to stop him much sooner rather than later and had that been the case, we probably would have heard very little about the incident. As someone said elsewhere, you don't hear about massacres that were prevented.
We live in a society where violence is unthinkable and to be prepared for it is just being overly paranoid. And then we're shocked, shocked I tell you! when it actually happens. Then everyone starts the "How could this happen? We have to do something about it so this can never, ever happen again!" That would be a nice world to live in if that could be the case. But it will happen again, inevitably. Taking guns away from people that use them to protect themselves will not take them away from those who want them regardless. Promoting responsible gun ownership will work towards lessening these types of events, but once one is underway, the only thing stopping the bad guy with a gun will be a good guy with a gun. Or you can wait a few minutes for the police to show up.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Murders are committed about twice as often by unarmed people (e.g. strangulation, kicking, punching) as they are with rifles. Murders are committed with blunt objects (hammers, clubs) about 20% more than they are with rifles. Automobile fatalities occur at a rate of three times that of firearms homicides.
Clearly gun control will solve this problem, right?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
The "you're more likely to kill x with a gun" arguments always fall on their face when you take a closer look.
For example, a woman using her weapon against an abusive boyfriend is far more likely to happen than her using it against a robber, mainly because a robber is less likely to attack her than her boyfriend (the robber prefers to wait until nobody is home.) There, she used it against somebody she knew. But is there anything wrong with it? Absolutely not, that scenario goes in FAVOR of owning firearms, but the gun control lobby instead lumps it into a statistic going against owning them.
This would also apply to e.g. a relative or neighbor attempting to abduct one of your kids. Your neighbor is somebody you know. Women and kids are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by somebody they know than a complete stranger. Your house is far more likely to be burglarized by somebody you know than a complete stranger.
Have you ever wondered why that statistic you throw around doesn't say anything about justifiable homicide? It's because the gun control lobby wants people to blindly follow them. Take ALL statistics with a grain of salt because they almost never tell the entire story, they're often thrown out with the sole purpose of persuasion, and therefore are inherently biased.
Even the above statistics I threw up above are biased, because they only include rifles (but to be fair, rifles are what the politicians are trying to ban.)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Ahem: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting[/url].
Prevent, no. Prevent from becoming worse? Yes.
Bah, I suck at linking (and previewing)...
Disclaimer: My wife is a mental health nurse for a state-owned mental hospital.
Most states have already, or are in the process, of massively downscaling their state-owned/state-run mental health facilities. Several states have simple closed them all and dumped everyone on the street. On top of that, the process has shifted from being one of "healing" to "management".
Now patients come in by court order, get drugs, maintain their drugs, show some sign of improvement on paper, get discharged, stop taking drugs, re-commit some sort of crime, come in by court order....and the process repeats.
It is very expensive, but there is a decent section of the population that just don't and shouldn't function in normal society. They need help and there is increasingly few places to turn for help if your family member is in that situation. Even if they are, it's hard to get help unless you are either rich, or the court has mandated it. Many places will not accept patients except through court order.
Tanks are arms. A10 gunships are arms.
And the fact that they can't be privately owned (although, practically speaking, cost is a greater factor than legislation) is why the whole "a well-regulated militia can keep the government in check through threat of rebellion" thingy breaks down these days. The government can be more well-armed than its citizens.
Chemical/bio/nuclear weapons are a different matter, as they're restricted under treaty - technically, the government shouldn't be owning/producing them either.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Wow, starting with Doom and moving forward all the way to Half Life 1, I bet its possible to come up with enough violent video games for a buck each on eBay to turn it around into at least $5000 easy.
Then I get can something even more violent. Seriously, the Asia and Europe have violent video games, violent movies, etc. It's time to grow up and face reality, the main issue is how we've handled guns and that is what must be corrected. The rest is lies, paranoia and bullshit.
Most of what "they" talk about are assault weapons, which are semi-automatics much like the ones used in a number of the mass shootings. Sometimes someone will mistakenly use the term "assault rifle" when they mean "assault weapon", but that doesn't mean they're talking about automatic weapons.
Automatic weapons are fairly well regulated, require background checks, ATF approval and are expensive. It's not a big surprise that they don't get used for mass shootings (and it's also hi-fucking-larious to bring this up when people are arguing that gun control laws don't work, btw).
But won't they take my violent books to burn too?
The US National Guard is today's implementation of the militia, and they most certainly have armor and air force. If they wanted to restrict the right to bear arms to hand held arms then they would have left out canons, which they did not. And so you can own a working canon, if it's old enough, today. If you want to be taken seriously by the US government then you'd better have a nuke.
The right way to do gun control is through Constitutional amendment, but we don't do things the right way anymore.
I cannot speak for the GP author, but I would venture to guess that the implication was that the _media_ is less likely to report the prevention of the crime due to someone other than the perpetrator being in possession of a firearm than it is to sensationalize the tragic events that occur when said perp is not confronted with a similarly armed potential victim.
Which some people seem to think is okay. Yet one reason this right exists is to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. And as our government has no limits on their available firepower, I resent any limitations on what I can have. This applies perpetually. If phasers get invented, the government will have them so I better be able to have them. Otherwise I will be unable to defend myself from the government and eventually that is something they will use against me.
I hear this a lot, and I have all my life, but I still don't know that it's true. The actual text, and the background of how the second amendment was introduced and implemented, it doesn't appear like this is the case.
Minute-men had a huge impact and militias were 100% vital in the USA coming into existence, but the second amendment was written to keep the USA in existence. They wanted a well-regulated milita (a well-trained, armed force) to be able to bear arms to protect the security of a free State (essentially, the ability to train, and be called on, to protect the USA.)
I'm not against the idea that a little rebellion now and again is good for a state, but it doesn't seem to be historically accurate to connect it to the second amendment
I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military.
Also interesting that you would consider yourself and the government as two very separate entities. And the idea that, if the government has a weapon you don't, then they will use it against you. I believe our founding father's believed, above all else in government, that this government would be of the people and that the structure setup would ensure that it would stay that way.
How did air superiority help the Russians in Afghanistan? The Russians were never winning, but once they started losing helicopters and planes they decided they had had enough.
Somebody won in the latest round in Afghanistan, and/or in Iraq? Pretty much, the local population outlasted foreign invaders after much death and now civil wars will continue.
As far as home grown dictators, Hitler disarmed the people first. Mostly it seems they first divide the population and pit their people against another population that needs to be eliminated as a way to build loyalty. If the opposing populous can coalesces as a group, maintain arms and be dispersed in the population, they have a fighting chance. Once you can section off the "enemy" to a region its is much easier to use air power.
Libya and Syria just getting started.
Perhaps you are referring to fully-automatic weapons? Semi-automatic assault rifle style weapons are incredibly easy to purchase throughout the US.
"Semi-automatic assault rifle style weapons" are, by definition, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK. You see it time and time again on the mainstream media, they're proposing registration, bans on production, bans on transfer, extra taxes, etc. Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
The 2nd amendment says "Shall not be infringed.", not "Your guns shall not be taken away.".
The second amendment says
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.
You seem to make the mistake that the writers of the constitution were concerned with unlimited gun rights, when they were really concerned about having a well regulated militia to protect the state
In a different time the same amendment was used to tell people that they were required to buy guns and supplies to arm themselves so they could protect the State if it were threatened, without the State contributing financially to anything.
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants. Perhaps these should be outlawed. Some studies have shown that they may lead to suicide. And shooting spree suicide is just the latest fashion in suicide these days. The media attention they get can't help either, it just leads to copy cat shooting sprees.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
On the other hand, very few infantry have ever used tanks or nukes as their primary weapons - largely because tanks makes you Armour (not Infantry), and nukes makes you Air Force (or Navy or Strategic Rocket Forces or whatever they call the guys who have the nukes in your country of choice).
I sincerely doubt the founding congress considered the impact of what they were writing on what would have been insane nonsensical ideas like tanks, nukes, or the Air Force.
Sigh... Penny wise, pound foolish.
I've read that it costs the government on average a quarter million per year per homeless person. This is between your facilities like your wife's, homeless shelters, police, jail, courts, outreach programs, crimes, etc...
While a state run mental hospital(Asylum) is expensive, is it $250k per person per year expensive?
I'm a 'practical minarchist'. While I tend to eye government spending suspiciously, sometimes spending the money NOW saves more than enough money later to justify it. If having a functional school will cost an additional million, but prevent 10 students from becoming criminals, it's worth it. Without getting into the presumed additional taxes from the extra wages the better educated kids will be able to demand.
Basically, if I got what I wanted government would actually have to expand in the short term as new programs came into being to catch and fix problems before they become problems - but it's going to take a while to deal with the glut of problems our procrastination has allowed to build up. Then, as the glut passes, we could streamline the government and draw down the programs - huge amounts of savings simply by saving prison space, for example. Every person we keep from entering the court system and prison is probably 2 people who can go work something else productive. Green energy or fiber to the home, perhaps.
I don't read AC A human right
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK.
No, I only said that I was not trying to take your guns away. Liberals are not conspiring to disarm gun owners. Plenty of us just don't see the need for them. Plenty of us also wish that democrats would stop wasting political capitol enacting gun control when there are other issues we care a lot more about.
Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
You're suggesting the government is trying to disarm the next generation? I see no indication that anyone in government is looking beyond a few years. Particularly lately, it seems no one is looking past a few MONTHS. So I'm skeptical that there is a conspiracy to disarm the next generation.
I'm sure you can find lots of examples of people who don't know anything about guns saying all kinds of stupid stuff. I have heard many people saying that semi-automatic guns should be banned (because that's what the guy in the mass shooting had) not realizing that almost every gun is semi-automatic.
I think it is perfectly ok to have limited knowledge of guns if your position is that all guns should be banned. But to enter the debate about banning specific guns (e.g. assault weapons ban) should require some basic understanding. It's pretty hard to have a debate when people are not using the same definitions.
Yes, very smart. Instead of promoting 'personal accountability', they think that this will have any durable long term solution. Violence is a fact. But teaching our youth to recognize fiction from fact is the issue. Also, parents who buy their 6 yrs old a game which is rated PG is the issue. Until this world becomes non-violent collectively, kids need to know what violence is, and learn to appreciate peace and grow towards it. But games are games. Just keep it age appropriate, that's really all there is. A game console is not a baby sitter. How do you prepare these kids for the real world of today and the hurdles of tomorrow if you don't teach them what this world really is and then, what they can do to make it better? Geez, worse is.. how will they react if lord forbid, they are faced directly or indirectly with actual violence? You love your kids, nurture them, educate them and prepare them. Don't shield them, achieve a balance. Without negative, there is no positive, and thus, nothing gets done.
It reminded me of that group that bought cases and cases of the Harry Potter books so they could burn them. A publisher's dream...
Having lived in both the US and Switzerland, while being a citizen of neither, the differences are far, far greater than having a social support structure.
Nice post, but I was simply referring to the US becoming 'more like', which as you say, we're pretty different as is, so there would still be huge differences. I certainly didn't mean to imply anything close to 'identical'.
Switzerland has a love of law, order and putting the community before the individual which I can simply cannot see the US ever managing to cope with.
Depends on the region, I guess. The success of some of the more bizarre recycling programs in California and elsewhere indicate that a fair amount of the USA could cope; that's without getting into some of the stricter homeowner's associations, which can get some bizarre rules of their own.
don't run a washing machine after 9pm otherwise the police may show up at your door
Sounds like a noise complaint.
I would argue that it is this mentality which is what keeps the Swiss crime rate so low, not just because they have strong social policies
Consider the differences in social policies if we ended the war on drugs and turned 'law enforcement officers' back into 'peace officers', cleaned up the slums*, gave people prospects, etc...
Outside of the inner cities, most of the USA has crime rates closer to that of Europe. In the bad parts of said cities, it's worse than Somalia. As such, I believe the fix has to be extensive but extremely targeted.
*Inner city black males at one point had a life expectancy of ~30.
I don't read AC A human right
http://www.cloud65.com/ like Christina said I'm surprised that anyone can get paid $5474 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this link
The fact is, if we were to ban guns outright, mass shootings would not happen. Even severely restricting gun sales to those who really want/need it (and are willing to go through the red tape to prove that they will use one responsibly) would have an amazing effect on gun violence in the U.S (proven by how things have changed in other countries, namely the U.K.).
I hate the gun debate in America because so many people think that their right to go to a shooting range and fire off a few rounds is more important than hundreds of thousands of people each year who are killed by guns. It shouldn't even be a discussion. The Bill of Rights also gives us a right to form a militia, but that idea is outdated and no one (in their right mind) cares that this isn't allowed anymore.
If you really want to own a gun, just understand that thousands of people will pay the price with their life each year for your 'right' to own a gun.
For someone claiming to be logical, you are certainly evasive. Why did this suddenly become about taking a survey of positions?
For that matter, can you provide evidence that the NRA believes you are "out to get them"? Because, after all, you know I can find examples of actual advocates of gun confiscation. I don't have to resort to hyperbole.
"You also seem to be implying that people aren't mentally capable of using firearms safely and/or defensively."
Where do you get that?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
;)
What's the bad news?
I was going to say something about the mujahedin doing an ok at harassing the Soviets without air superiority, but then again, the Soviets DID leave once their Hinds started getting shot down. Let's look at others:
The Mexican revolution was going on in 1913, but your "100 years" is probably just too big of a number. Let's skip to the last 50 years.
How about Egypt? In 1952 or 2011.
Fidel's Cuban revolution actually wore down the opposing air-force until it was in tatters without the ability to fix their planes due to lack of parts from the US, who embargoed them. (That worked out well for us, didn't it?)
The Iraqi revolution was successful without air superiority.
Cambodian, Congo, Laos, Iran... Wow, there have been a lot of upset people. I'm really glad we don't have to go through this sort of thing.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that even if a government has an air-force, and air superiority, that doesn't keep them from getting overthrown. Some of this is due to the fact that soldiers and pilots are humans too and don't like carpet bombing their own people. Other times, the support infrastructure that air-forces need falls apart. And a lot of places simply don't have enough missiles to shoot all the revolutionaries.
For someone claiming to be logical, you are certainly evasive. Why did this suddenly become about taking a survey of positions?
Because you said "Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are," in response to my statement that I didn't want to take away my guns. The implication being that although I didn't, there were plenty of people who did. I submit that you can find someone on the internet espousing any position. I could find loons on the internet suggesting that we base our entire economy on bitcoins. Doesn't mean its something you need to take seriously, unless you had data suggesting that MANY people thought we should do that.
Let's take a look at your examples in detail, shall we?
The Mexican Revolution lasted 10 years, degenerated into a three-sided civil war and got its start when some rich and powerful people decided they had enough of the dictatorship, bought some weaponry in the US, and started shooting an equally equipped Mexican army. This wasn't a local rebellion organized by people with hunting rifles and revolvers.
Egypt's first revolution got started as a military coup. In other words, the military started shooting at the military. Nothing about locals using their rifles and handguns to overthrow an unpopular person at the top. Egypt's second revolution had its military explicitly standing aside. In other words, the army took the side of the people, and left Mubarak out to dry.
The Cuban revolution had its start as an uprising by local revolutionaries using their local guns to fight a government they didn't like. But the initial years were failure after failure, until Batista's government lost the support from the US, and more and more people joined the fight. As you point out, Fidel only started to see success when Batista's troops lost the ability to repair and resupply their superior weaponry. That said, this is about as close to a popular revolution toppling a government force as you will get. It's got pretty much everything else: home-grown resistance, local irregulars fighting alongside guerillas, a vastly larger army with better equipment (though not always better trained), and a government that can't kill the guerillas without losing the support of the population.
The Iraqi revolution was also more of a military coup than a populous uprising, especially since it had the support of the political and economical elite of the country.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that even if a government has an air-force, and air superiority, that doesn't keep them from getting overthrown. Some of this is due to the fact that soldiers and pilots are humans too and don't like carpet bombing their own people. Other times, the support infrastructure that air-forces need falls apart. And a lot of places simply don't have enough missiles to shoot all the revolutionaries.
Correct. What happens every time the government loses is two things: it loses the ability to supply its superior weaponry, and it loses control of the army and law-enforcement (or irregulars who perform those roles). Losing air superiority can be achieved through either means. Notice how in every case you listed (Cuba being the closest to being an exception), it never was locals with their local weaponry who succeeded. And if it was locals, they were supplied from the outside with weaponry they didn't have access to internally.
In short, if you want to shoot at the government, you will get weapons, no matter how illegal they are locally. Legal gun ownership has no correlation with successfully overthrowing a government
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
A basic humanish silhouette is one thing (that mildly bowling pin-esque shape), but some people practice on realistic human images and that's fucking disgusting.
By their knee-jerk reactions the good people of Connecticut are beginning to make Adam Lanza look almost normal. What's in the water up there that makes people so damned crazy?!?
Yes, and is that false?
There was a recent Gallup poll that supports my assertion, so I don't have to rely on my experience with left-leaning Internet forums, but since you haven't yet offered any evidence for your hyperbole, I think I'll just hold on to it until you stop evading.
It must suck to feel so powerless to do anything about anything. You know what would make you feel more powerful? A gun. Why not pop out and buy one? You could pick one up at the 7/11 on your way home.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'll give you a nickel if you can find an example in 18th century literature of a person "bearing" a cannon.
How do you define "Depicting people"? I've never shot at a 'person' - mostly bulls-eyes or silhouettes. It's often hard to see the holes with full color targets.
Then again, what do you mean "it has"? Some ranges sell supplies - ammunition, targets and such, but most of the ones I've shot at don't, you have to bring in your targets. Many people print their own; at which point you're opening the floodgates. Most ranges have banned shooting at 'realistic depictions of people'. Rangemasters were generally fine when people were shooting at images of 'generic' criminals(paid models for professionally printed targets like what the cops shoot at during target/threat discrimination training), Bin Laden, when a few idiots switched to shooting at images of presidents(and candidates) that stopped quick. Thus the current rage for shooting at pictures of zombies(and animal zombies).
They glorify killing, thinly veiled under 'self defense' and 'anti-terrorism' motifs.
You missed hunting. You want glorifying killing, look up the 'extremist' gun lobbies like GOA(Gun Owners of America). The NRA-ILA is reasonably reasonable in comparison.
Just remember that the lines were set back in 1954, the last major agreement in '68(I think), thus more restrictions is a bit like you giving your ex-wife half ownership of your small business then her coming for alimony - in the form of half the profits from said business(including her half).
I don't read AC A human right
a $25 gift certificate? That is better then selling them at Gamestop!
Be seeing you...
Source on the Aurora shooting. I'm not going to give him a name. As noted in the article, the theater he chose was not the closest. It was not the largest. It was the only one that banned handguns(at the time).
I've heard about lots of prevented massacres; but you have to look for them, unlike successful ones - the successful ones make the national/world news; you're lucky if a successful one makes the regional newspaper.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.
Start? The columbine kids had a huge bomb. Maybe if they hadn't had guns they'd have put the extra effort into making sure it worked.
I don't read AC A human right
You're replying to someone who is making the stand that assault rifles are fully automatic weapons and that what Walmart has are "scary looking guns"
Right -
Because Assad is doing *so well* in syria with his air superiority over the rebels,
just as the afghanistan conflict is so terribly solved in favor of the US backed interests,
and Iraq was a 'piece of cake'.
And lets just conveniently not even mention vietnam, or any one of a huge number of
successful armed rebellions in latin america, or africa, etc. in the last 50 years.
Since when are facist dictatorships leftist?
Not that I agree with the whole left-right false dichotomy, preferring a 2 axis left-right social .. if you're going to use the false dichotomy,
orientation and authoritarian-egalitarian axis 'grid', but
at least be accurate about it.
> If the government wanted to trample your rights in such a fashion, it would just do it.
Assuming your government doesn't support the notion of 'rights' at all, at least in theory.
In the US, you still need to at least have some sort of convoluted argument which fits
into the notion of the existing legal framework.
Also - ammunition is just as much 'arms' as the 'arms' themselves - If the 'arms' I'm
bearing don't contain any ammunition, I just have a wooden/plastic/metal stick shaped
like a gun.
Really don't know what point you are trying to make here:
"
Mark 15:29-30
King James Version (KJV)
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
"
not 'saving' himself from the death by crucifiction is *the entire point*
I believe our founding father's believed, above all else in government, that this government would be of the people and that the structure setup would ensure that it would stay that way.
Don't be daft. The founding fathers knew full well why independence from England was wanted, and they knew full well that those same reasons could arise again. It's not like England was a lawless wasteland that wouldn't be around for much longer because they didn't have the magic words that were in the US constitution.
Really?
The NRA doesn't compromise on anything at all?
Then why doesn't the NRA support the repeal of bans against 'real' assault weapons
(the 1986 ban against fully automatic aka class III weapons), laws promoting gun locks, etc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America
http://jpfo.org/
etc.
"
I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military.
"
Based on what? how you want it to read?
Speaking of connecticut - how about community organized militias melting statues of king george for bullets?
http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/king_georges_head.htm
This was very clearly a non-draft, citizen-organized, non-government 'militia' populated by
self-armed citizens, who themselves were the very people using the term 'militia' when drafting
the same document to which you refer.
On what basis can you claim that their conception of 'militia' drastically changed from the first context to the second? Would it not be a more natural assumption to assume these terms apply equally to both contexts?
As for the 'structure being setup ensuring' - part of the structure is the second amendment itself, for
this very reason.
As for government using against citizens - based on their own historical context of a percieved downslide
of the english monarchy into corruption and direct experience of government directly using weapons and
force against its own unarmed subjects, why would they magically assume that this would not happen
again?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
or maybe you think he meant:
"The price of freedom is being vigilant one time and transmuting that into some other representation
but referring to this one time event as magically transcending time and therefore eternally"
It is 'the *right* to bear arms' - not 'the legal basis to use a government issued license to bear arms'
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact
the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is not a subjective argument - it is a clear cut line of logical reasoning.
Apply the same to some other legal right which you do not take issue with - and you just said:
"
The solution you propose is similar to what I have recommended to my friends. Just some way to call and check to see if the other person holds a valid license (to protest, vote, publish an article). It should be as simple as a call.
"
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Imaginary Land - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
Fixed that for you.
Switzerland actually has tough gun laws. Most weapons kept at home are kept as part of their military obligations (hence most weapons are SIG 550 and SIG-Sauer P220's, the standard issue for Swiss milita), ammunition is also issued to them and every round is expected to be returned although most of this ammunition has been recalled since 2007. The Swiss are very tough on any misconduct with firearms, such as travelling (transported) with a loaded firearm.
In order for the US to become like Switzerland, it would need to become very tough on any tiny misuse of firearms and more than willing to remove firearms from anyone who even looks at their guns funny.
Not that I disagree with your other point. Treating the mentally ill rather than ignoring them until the situation blows up and then blaming games/movies/rock music will do wonders for a society.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
By that line of reasoning, since 'tanks' are essentially the direct descendents of horse mounted infantry
from a weaponry and even army terminology (Armored Cavalry), and since there is no mention at all
of horses, we can either conclude via similitude:
a) we should now ban horses because people cannot own tanks, and these are both cavalry
b) the omission of horses from the constitution is proof that people *should* be allowed to own tanks
or other equally absurd lines of reasoning.
Tanks didn't exist at the time. The only major improvement in individual combat warfare for ~10000+ years from the bow and arrow is a single shot manually loaded gun, which is basically only slightly more effective (witness relative success of native americans vs colonists until the arrival of the repeating rifle & revolver)
I see no mention of cannons or catapults in the constitution, and both were 'non personal' 'artillery style'
arms of the time which by this logic should be explicitly mentioned as not included.
Also - since you are referring to arms in the militia context, is not (full auto) suppresive fire a useful requirement of a modern militia by the same argument, if facing other combatants with that capability?
Oh I know all about how the misrepresent the weapons. But they do bring up automatic weapons as an excuse almost every time
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Definition of BEAR
transitive verb
1
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)
You can keep the nickel though.
People think they'll do this, but in real situations casual gun-owners tend to panic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/
Panic. Target not chosen. Right. The linked scenario happens unfortunately more times than it should. And in a case like that, with a convicted felon ripping down your door with a crowbar and threatening to rip your face off and the face of your children off, police are minutes away when seconds count.
Responsible (read as: the majority of) gun owners are trained in the use of their firearms. I attend low/no-light, CQB, controlled pair firing and from-cover training courses once a quarter, each. Each of those courses are taught using computer-controlled reactionary targets. My capability with my firearms meets and far exceeds what most armed Brinks security guards go through to get their job. Yet those men are allowed select-fire military and police style firearms capable of burst fire. Their training amounts to hitting a 10-inch target at twenty yards once a month. I was doing that when I was twelve with an M1911.
Yeah, it's impossible to secure a gun against your kid.
It's quite possible, it just doesn't happen.
I call BS. There are 310 million non-military firearms in the United States. Or were, as of 2009 according to FAS.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
If it didn't happen, kids would be dying by the millions.
Or you could, you know, actually bother being a parent and doing this novel thing known as 'teaching' with your kid. Teach them to respect and understand the destructive power of a firearm, that they are not toys by any stretch of the imagination, and that a gun is an absolute last resort. You know, the same kind of thing kids knew for decades, if not a full century before parents decided to stop being parents, and start trying to be their kids' friends.
That's not a replacement for a good trigger lock, gun safe, and common sense. But it helps.
Are you seriously contending that shooting a robber in your home in self defense isn't something you'd report? How is that, exactly?
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is the most important... the only important argument in this thread. There is no honest reading of the constitution that allows banning firearms. The only way to restrict gun ownership without a constitutional amendment is to simply ignore the constitution.
And that is honestly worth many, many deaths to prevent. A Civil War magnitude of deaths to prevent. Losing our constitution, is condemning ourselves and our descendents to tyranny.
If you want to amend the constitution to ban guns... let's talk. There's reasonable arguments on both sides.
They aren't personal infantry weapons. If at some point we arm our soldiers with wrist-mounted laser guided mini-nukes, yes, citizens should be allowed to own them.
Most weapons kept at home are kept as part of their military obligations (hence most weapons are SIG 550 and SIG-Sauer P220's, the standard issue for Swiss milita),
The Sig 550 modified to be semi-automatic only in militia hands is still a 5.56mm weapon of essentially identical functionality as the AR-15. The P220 is a 9mm handgun of essentially identical functionality as the M9 used by the US Military.
They're very nice weapons, but they're still military weapons kept at the home. IE the household has full access to them unless the family is different enough to keep different safes. Even then, most gun safes only stand up to a crowbar for a very limited period of time, to say nothing of what can happen with power tools. If a Swiss militia member broke in the specific fashion of most spree killers, they have everything they need to go on a very comprehensive rampage.
Then again, because so many other people have the exact same training and weapons, return fire will generally cut the problem short. Plus, well, functional health care system, including mental health.
So no, you didn't 'fix that'. Just implementing a UHC system would 'make us more like Switzerland'(and England, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc....)
ammunition is also issued to them and every round is expected to be returned although most of this ammunition has been recalled since 2007. The Swiss are very tough on any misconduct with firearms, such as travelling (transported) with a loaded firearm.
That's their war pack. It's issued in case of invasion so that the soldiers have a guaranteed amount of ammunition in order to be able to fight their way to the bases/resupply points. Or put up guerrilla resistance. As such, it's still the government's ammunition and only to be used in case of war; thus the accounting method. What you don't mention is that it's quite easy to buy ammunition(though you have to show your card for that), with the government actually subsidizing the military calibers/rounds for practice use.
Do you really think that rules against traveling with a loaded firearm would really deter somebody bent on murder? Heck, somebody like the Aurora shooter would be able to transport their arsenal, perhaps in a gym bag, breaking into their warpack for the necessary ammunition(assuming they don't just buy some), then 'lock and load' at the planned location, perhaps in private spot like a bathroom.
But that doesn't happen there. Still, I think there's good merit in the militia system. How about we allow people to obtain AR type weapons upon passage of a military training course? The rough draft rules are:
1. Can be no more difficult than passing any branch's basic training. IE it'd be a race between the Navy and the Air Force for minimum standards on weapon training. Honestly, I'm picturing about a week. That's long enough for most of the nuts to be spotted and washed out.
2. The person must pass the background check, same as entering recruits
3. Physical capability requirements are to be relaxed. Basically, you can't fail on PT performance.
4. All of this is paid for by the federal government. Including a credit equal to a bog standard M-4/16 or whatever replaces it. Or the trainee can just get the gun.
5. Each year, in exchange for membership in the 'registered militia', the individual gets to attend a military qualification course. It's about a day, and ammunition is provided.
6. Gun Safe purchases will be subsidized.
In order for the US to become like Switzerland, it would need to become very tough on any tiny misuse of firearms and more than willing to remove firearms from anyone who even looks at their guns funny.
Like I said to another poster - I'm not actually calling for the US to actually become identical to the USA. At least in my mind, 'Like' still allows for a LOT of differences.
The vast majority of murders in the USA are ac
I don't read AC A human right
People can, and do, own tanks. It's not ever going to be practical for anyone to own a nuclear weapon. Something like a dirty bomb only has use in terrorism, so that's illegal.
It's not complicated.
By military personnel, All Swiss men undertake military training at age 20 and remain in the military until at least 30. This is why Switzerland has no standing army, they rely on a civilian militia (that has received military training). These people have gun safety drilled into them.
Here your credibility goes through the window. A proper gun safe is difficult to open without explosives, it's also bolted to a houses foundations (this is the kind of safe my guns are stored in). You do not store firearms in a $20 safe you purchased from a hardware store.
You clearly don't know anything about how guns are kept in switzerland.
And in Switzerland that would be more than enough to prevent you from possessing a firearm ever again. "Endangering your life or the life of others" will permanently disqualify you from owning a firearm in Switzerland. Also, gun and ammunition sales are controlled (you failed to mention this when you said bullets were subsidies, you also failed to mention that ammunition purchased at ranges must be used there). The "imaginary land" you call Switzerland does not exist. The Swiss are very strict on firearm usage, this is why sports shooting is so common over there but without a lot of gun crime, because if you do anything stupid with guns (like walk around the streets with a loaded firearm) they will take them off you. I did just fix that, you're making stuff up to support a point that is patently wrong.
I think you really need to live in Switzerland before commenting on them as you clearly have no idea what gun culture is like there.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I don't suppose it's occurred to you that you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the reason kids are on drugs is because they have an actual medical/psychiatric condition that needs treating?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
actually combat poverty
That's socialism, so good luck doing anything about it in the US.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Untrained morons carrying lethal weapons around with them isn't a hobby, it's a sign of mental illness.
It's like the Constitutional fundamentalists who still moan about the abolition of slavery and call Lincoln a traitor. Well, fuck them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Tanks are arms. A10 gunships are arms. Chemical and biological weapons are arms. Nuclear weapons are arms. No one seriously disputes the fact that we get to infringe on bearing arms, the question is only where to draw the line. Why do you insist that semi-automatic weapons must not be infringed but not tanks and nukes?
Gun fanboys generally try to wriggle out of by saying that "arms" are anything you can carry. I think they're confusing a term for weaponry with the word for human upper limbs.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If the government created a law that necessarily ended up with the creation of concentration/extermination camps, then there would be something flawed about that law.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They were waiting to destroy the stuff until they had collected enough, and started playing with it in the meantime. Bob was like "This is fun!", and they all got addicted to Mortal Kombat, Doom, etc.
They aren't personal infantry weapons. If at some point we arm our soldiers with wrist-mounted laser guided mini-nukes, yes, citizens should be allowed to own them.
The definition of "arms" is NOT "personal infantry weapons."
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
How exactly do you compromise with people being driven entirely by fear and anger?
Well, you could start by not saying thy're driven entirely by fear and anger.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Then again, because so many other people have the exact same training and weapons, return fire will generally cut the problem short.
What bollocks. Civilians in Switzerland don't walk around with loaded weapons in public. The only return fire would be from on-duty police.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Even the above statistics I threw up above are biased, because they only include rifles
Excluding handguns from a discussion about gun control is about as biased as you can get.
The rifle/school shooting issue is really a red herring, the elephant in the room is the enormous number of semi-automatic handguns in the US. If you're shooting people from relatively close range (in somewhere like a classroom) there isn't that much difference in effectiveness between a rifle and a handgun.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
No, the point was that without air superiority, you lose. If you start an armed uprising against the government, you don't get to decide to limit it to local infantry skirmishes with your personal choice of weapons. If the government has air superiority (and in the US it certainly does) you are stuffed from the beginning.
If you think that you and your friends with guns can have a quick firefight with the army and then everything will be forgiven and forgotten, you're living in dreamland.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
CDs are quite cheap these days. Just buy a bunch of blank CDs, burn your favorite violent video game to them and hand them in for $25 per disk.
You describe your shitty culture, talk about getting away from it, then say you don't want to leave it.
I'm confused.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Too bad regular folks can't do anything when a thug shows up at their door.
That's why we have a police force. It's called civilisation.
Anyway, do you always answer the door with a drawn weapon? If not, what are you going to do? Ask them to wait while you go and get your gun?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
At that stage, your only choice is to build a sufficiently large mass opposition movement. Individual martyrdom won't change anything.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not to mention that high power hunting rifles that can kill from a half a mile away have the potential to kill far more people than a fully automatic rifle that is hard to control. See the Russian snipers during world war 2. I don't see anyone calling for those to be banned.
Most mass murderers don't have the self control and organisational ability to conduct a sniping campaign. Also, sniping is somewhat impersonal, and from what I've read most of the shooting spree type events involve someone killing people they know, up close and personal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants.
That'll be because they're clinically depressed, which is to say mentally ill. You really shouldn't be surprised what happens if you let mentally ill people get their hands on lethal weapons that are easy to kill dozens of people with in a few minutes
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The noteworthy studies seem to range from 80k to 2.6 million, but ~300k or so seemed most credible to me
You can't argue with solid facts like that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Doesn't it go the other way, too?
How many violent rapes, robberies, etc. per year are caused because of permits of firearms?
How many ex-wifes and ex-girlfriends are in fear of their husband or ex because he can carry a firearm?
How many house-owners are in fear to be shot because the robber assumes that anybody have a firearm and will just shoot anybody down before the other have the chance for defence?
And of course, the implicit threat of protracted civil revolt is a deterrent to cases of outright tyranny (i.e., Nazi Germany, communist China, Soviet Russia) that have a habit of killing millions, not just twenty.
That is totally BS. I saw how much of an "implicit threat" it was in the Occupy Wallstreet movement. If one protester was carrying a gun he or she will be just detained as a terrorist.
But the definition of "bear" is "to carry".
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
I wasn't saying or implying that. I was mearly bringing up in a somewhat snarky way the fact that these drugs may not be as safe as the manufacturers claim. I do understand that there are many people who ewly on them for help and that these people don't all go on shooting sprees. But if the witch hunters want to go after games, then I can play that also and find plenty of other targets. Perhaps it's the witch hunters themselves and we need to pile them up and destroy them. I guess it's worth a try.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Not only did you fail,
is the best you could come up with? Who equips themselves with a tank? You drive a tank. You pilot a plane. You steer a boat. You don't wear giant machines.
The word derives from an Old English word that means to carry. The phrase "bear arms" derives from a Latin phrase, "arma ferre", from "fero", which means to carry.
All meanings of "bear" that don't mean to carry are metaphors derived from that meaning - to endure, to produce, to bring forth, to support, etc.
You obviously haven't read the history available about the second. Or at least a very selective version of it.
While militias were important, there was no question that the right to keep and bear arms was to be more about the people, than the militia. You had founders writing it into their basic lists for human rights.
By your argument though, the federal government really should do more about keeping the militias relevant - such as by subsidizing ranges, training, and competition more.
You seem to make the mistake that the writers of the constitution were concerned with unlimited gun rights, when they were really concerned about having a well regulated militia to protect the state
Did you know that the original was more:
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.
One of the preparers was rather fond of the use of commas, placing one whenever you would pause while speaking the phrase.
I don't read AC A human right
Out in public, perhaps. In a residential area? There's been shootings here in the USA where citizens had time to go retrieve their firearms.
I don't read AC A human right
By military personnel, All Swiss men undertake military training at age 20 and remain in the military until at least 30. This is why Switzerland has no standing army, they rely on a civilian militia (that has received military training). These people have gun safety drilled into them.
So didn't the Fort Hood shooter.
Here your credibility goes through the window. A proper gun safe is difficult to open without explosives, it's also bolted to a houses foundations (this is the kind of safe my guns are stored in). You do not store firearms in a $20 safe you purchased from a hardware store.
You're into 'No true Scottsman' fallacy, so I believe my credibility is just fine. I was saying 'Gun Safe' in the sense of what 'most' people buy - the ones available from sporting goods stores and even Walmart. Yes, it's a very good idea to bolt it down, which drastically increases the security, but I remember a survey showing that 90% of them aren't bolted down properly. I'm NOT including ones sold as 'Gun Locker/Cabinet' - which will stop up to a young teenager, and is built so lightly it'll flex during movement, costing up to around a couple hundred. Gun Safes start at around $600, have far more rigid construction and are generally fire rated to some level. Still, there's plenty of youtube videos of people getting them open. Heck, my GSA vault door is only rated to stand up to hand tools for several hours.
I don't read AC A human right
The youngest generation of Americans simply do not own guns at anywhere near the rates of prior generations. Grouping people in the NORC's General Social Survey by date of birth shows that gun ownership rates have fallen by an absolute 10% for each generation after what Pew Research calls the "Silents," people who became adults between 1946 and 1963. For the "Millennial" generation of people born after 1980, only about 20% report the presence of a gun in the household, down from 50% among the "Silents."
Personally I favor strict licensing provisions for gun ownership with background checks, testing, and liability insurance. It should be at least as difficult to own and use a gun as it is to own and drive a car.
And in Switzerland that would be more than enough to prevent you from possessing a firearm ever again.
Didn't specify that because it's the situation in the USA as well.
Also, gun and ammunition sales are controlled (you failed to mention this when you said bullets were subsidies, you also failed to mention that ammunition purchased at ranges must be used there).
If you can buy it anywhere but the range or the range doesn't have extensive controls to prevent you from simply not shooting all your ammo and taking some home, it's an ineffective control.
The "imaginary land" you call Switzerland does not exist.
Not helping your cause. I may not be 100% up on how Switzerland does things, but most of the stuff you're bringing up simply doesn't matter.
because if you do anything stupid with guns (like walk around the streets with a loaded firearm) they will take them off you.
Again, the situation in the states unless you have the relevant permits, thus I view it as irrelevant.
I did just fix that, you're making stuff up to support a point that is patently wrong.
I'm not making stuff up, you're not reading well. Again, I'm not trying to make the USA into a clone of Switzerland. I'm talking about taking us closer to them in a few ways. That's sufficient for 'more like'. I didn't say 'copy', 'identical', or even 'mimic'.
I think you really need to live in Switzerland before commenting on them as you clearly have no idea what gun culture is like there.
Maybe. I think the opportunities for me to be stationed there are very limited though.
I don't read AC A human right
seriously, you actually would think low crime rate is related to low poverty rate? how quaint, sir, what a revolutionary idea if the eu gets its way with switzerland completely they might sink a little though, lots of pressure to open up bank secrets could lead to lots of people withdrawing lots of money to somewhere far away effectively reducint the gross capital we have here ...
all in the name of fairness ofcourse, reality does not exist on paper committees i suppose
i dont know how much the average american knows about europe and how it is since the united states were unified on a battlefield, it's quite different here
the major players, apart from germany and potential france if it can keep sailing straight, the major players aren't actually in the union as such
then i'm talking the U.K. who doesnt really like all that regulating (might the london stock have something to do with it, or the fact that they have their own economy going on), Norway and ofcourse Switzerland
they'd do better to forge a strong economic union before trying to look good controlling a political union
but who are we drones to speak like that
crime related to poverty tsss... what a bold and daring thought :)
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
I'm saying that if someone is sneaking around a back yard, the homeowner steps onto their back porch cocking their gun, and the criminal runs for the nearest exit, there will be no report of it. There is also a lower likelihood that that individual will come back for a second try.
All of the "your more likely to shoot a family member" statistics come from police reports. If you look at police reports, sex is an incredibly bad thing too, since their reports will virtually always report it as rape. Not because all sex is rape, but because that is what gets reported.
In something like 90% of self defense cases with a firearm no shots are fired. Given the perception(and reality) of the police in many areas, people don't feel it's worth the risk to contact them. After all, when the cops come and don't have an obvious bad guy to arrest, they might just find something to arrest you for.
I don't read AC A human right
Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).
I am a gun owner, but I would never join the NRA, and I am disgusted that they are so often considered to represent all gun owners. They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", and other issues that are appalling. They may be pro-gun, but they are certainly not pro-freedom. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe in the rest of our constitution as well.
And what part of the Constitution would you be in disagreement with NRA on?
No, I mean that crime prevention frequently doesn't get reported by the victims and if it is reported, they report that someone was trying to get in their window. They leave out the part where they stuck a gun in the burglar's face to scare them off. The media issue is real, but it is completely separate from the fact that the 'statistics' that get trotted out about guns creating more danger to family members than safety is nothing more than anecdotes with a confirmation bias against guns.
I have personally seen almost a dozen crimes prevented with a gun and I have seen no family members shot. Not one of the crime preventions was reported to the police. If a family member gets shot, they will go to the hospital, and it will get reported, if not by the family, but by the hospital.
In the general case, the "militia" is a source of infantry. The basic weapon of the infantry is the rifle. A self-loading (the proper term for what is colloquially call "semi-automatic") rifle is a perfectly adequate infantry weapon (automatic fire for anything other than suppressive fire is vastly overrated).
On the other hand, very few infantry have ever used tanks or nukes as their primary weapons - largely because tanks makes you Armour (not Infantry), and nukes makes you Air Force (or Navy or Strategic Rocket Forces or whatever they call the guys who have the nukes in your country of choice).
Were speaking of America here, unless there is another Conneticut you know of? And though they may have many names for Tanks, A-10's, and different branches of service they are still "Classified" under Arms. As in Armed...
The NRA compromises - or compromised - plenty. Problem is, they're asked to compromise away something new every year. The pro-gun types are asked to meet the anti-gun types halfway, and as far as I can tell many of the anti-gun groups with clout actually really do want to disarm civilians entirely.
The phrase I use to describe this sort of plan is "asymptotically approaching disarmament". The NRA figured out the rules of this game a while ago, and don't want to play any more - and I can't really blame them.
That's why we have a police force. It's called civilization.
And the police are going to protect you? That's not their job and it never will be they're there to clean up the mess after you're already dead.
Interestingly enough though in the time of the founding of this country an awful lot of artillery and ships with cannon were privately owned. Militias didn't just have muskets they practiced with......
A common misconception is that rifles are more dangerous than handguns, and this is quite simply false. A rifle is difficult to conceal, and isn't exactly inconspicuous. If you do conceal it, at least somebody has ample warning before you use it.
Yet this point goes right over the heads of politicians and the gun control lobby. These same people also believe violent video games lead to homicide. Both of these ideas are equally stupid. Chicago has some of the strictest restrictions on firearms in the US, yet it is also one of the highest for firearms related crimes. The gun control lobby is pretty damn clueless. Further, I've seen semi-automatics made out of plumbing parts; how the hell is banning firearms going to prevent that?
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
1) bulleye
2) yes, yes they do
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
And which fascist dictator was overthrown because the citizens were armed and attacked? And which dictator was worried about killing citizens because they were armed?
Be careful with your arguments, you are arguing from anecdote on Slashdot, and that is a cyanide pill for you (or should I say a "headshot to your argument").
But you don't care, you've drunk the kool-aid, decided on your faith and nothing will change that for you.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
You still don't see how one wounded victim is better than 10 wounded or dead victims, had there not been someone there to stop the shooter? I think that's a damn good case for a better armed population.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
And in Singapore, an school shooting never occurred because the potential gunman did not have open and easy access to firearms and a potential armed student didn't have to stop the said potential gunman because the potential armed student also didn't have open and easy access to firearms.
How about you being open minded and look at other parts of the world where there are no rights to bear arms? I'm curious if we take a similar sized population from a country that have no open access to firearms and compare the history of firearms violence and mortality against a population in the U.S. with similar traits, what picture it will show.
I personally haven't done that, but have lived in quite a few countries that prohibits firearms for quite a number of years, apart of organized crimes (they gonna what they gonna do, but don't typically involve civvies if you're smart enough to stay away from them) and small time muggings and your common day robberies, the frequency of mass killings or even potential mass killings have been pretty much nil.
If I were to choose this peace of mind over my rights to raise arms against an oppressive government, I'd happily choose the former. I'm not a U.S citizen, but I would think the first option against an oppressive government is your democracy system isn't it? Isn't that what democracy is for? Isn't the U.S. government founded by the people and for the people? If it is not working, fix it, rather than rely on the fail safe of an armed rebellion.
Hello!!! everybody, Fashion,low price,the good shoping place, click in. ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach,Armaini )$16, Watches(Rolex BREITLING IWC) New era cap $12, Discount (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys, free shipping, Accept credit card payment! ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) =====
Hello!!! everybody, Fashion,low price,the good shoping place, click in. ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach,Armaini )$16, Watches(Rolex BREITLING IWC) New era cap $12, Discount (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys, free shipping, Accept credit card payment! ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) =====