Connecticut shooting, gun control

[Kim]

But you think they will voluntarily keep fulfilling their duties to you forever when they could be enslaving you?

You mean the government? So far, so good.

[Absurd]

There are also risks to owning a cutlery set, a power drill, table saw, automobile, computer, sports and exercise equipment, a cellular phone, a credit card, or even children's toys (choking hazards, anyone?).

Not for me, shit argument. Let your libertarian freedom of libertarian libertarianism flow, and accept me as a liber Absurd, who can decide for himself...

[Capitalist Pig]

Not for me, shit argument. Let your libertarian freedom of libertarian libertarianism flow, and accept me as a liber Absurd, who can decide for himself...

yeah, thanks. my point exactly, dumbass.

[Absurd]

yeah, thanks. my point exactly, dumbass.

That was mine as well, dumb dumbass, unless you see what you want to see.

[Capitalist Pig]

That was mine as well, dumb dumbass.

here is a wikipedia article related to your condition, since you seem so fond of that site

[Absurd]

here is a wikipedia article related to your condition, since you seem so fond of that site

Seriously, stating I am fond of that particular site without even checking is, well, hilarious to begin with especially coming from a guy who referenced one in his defence. I don't have a bigger problem with wikipedia, some of those articles can be outdated though.

Joke is on me, I take it.

Anyhow, seeing you're so fond of assuming, that is, believing I am, I found something for your kind as well:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-does-it-matte

Stick your dolt shaped rod up yer arse now, please.

My stance is simple, let them kill themselves. Some truck(?) hits Pentagon again, you're going all to be united again, no biggie.

[mu4]

I don't particularly care about gun control, but given some individuals have worked quite hard to doctor elections by making it harder for certain groups to vote. I have no problem with screening individuals for buying guns.

I do want certain groups to have less access to guns. Like felons, lunatics, especially the insane individuals who perpetrate these sort of acts.

The problem with gun nuts and most libertarians nuts is that they hurt other individuals who actually want to continue owning guns by making the regulations so loose that any nutter can pick up a assault rifle. I think with marginal laws on how weapons can be bought and waiting periods on weapons a significant percentage of these crimes can be prevented or the damage reduced. People are pretty lazy and incompetent and they often will give up, these killers had very easy access to these assault weapons and basically no barrier to acquiring the arsenal they used in these attacks. Adding 1-2 barriers such as background checks and even just having to pick it up from a store would keep these deranged shut-ins and generally a-social individuals from acquiring these weapons. These people are so socially awkward and messed up generally that they would have a hard time dealing with the social give and take needed to acquire the equipment. The aurora shooter was rejected at a gun club he tried to join and these sort of social rejection and denial of service would provide a level of difficult to their deranged desires and may provide a significant barrier of entry to these individuals.

The marginal cost of limited laws which would prevent maybe 1/3 of these acts would be of relatively limited effect on legitimate gun ownership, however allowing these acts to happen frequently gives gun control nuts or gun ban nuts the ammunition they need to achieve the political effect of banning guns. I like guns and but still I don't want derange individuals to be able to pick up a semiautomatic shotgun with a 30 round drum off the internet without a background check or any level of scrutiny as one of my friend has just done. I think preventing these acts is desirable for anyone who want to maintain their gun rights because these events generally tip the political consensus towards harsh gun bans which is what is going to happen now.

It's stupid that some people can't see the marginal cost of screening would help to maintain reasonable legitimate ownership of guns, so it ends up that extremists on both sides get mere moral victories such as gun-free zones and/or online acquisition of high firepower weapons.

If a lunatic goes into a movie theater and uses a semi-auto shotgun with a 30 round drum, it'll be a massacre. The fact is, most of these lunatics aren't very competent and given them reasonable barriers of entry to their acquisition of high power weaponry would prevent a significant number of these attacks while allowing legitimate gun owners to keep blowing up watermelons in the woods. ^_^

People talk about revolution and militias and things like this, in any successful revolution, a significant amount of native military forces will defect to the rebellion, arms problems solved. If you don't have native military support, and/or foreign arms supply it's impossible to operate and organize a revolution. People who use revolution as excuse for total absence of gun laws have neither fought or been effected by a real revolution, the Europeans fought revolutions in the 20th century and some are still going on today. Northern Ireland, Basque region of Spain, there are actually real independence movements in Europe, such as Catalan independence. I think the people who talk about Europe here have never been there or experience it. Every time I've set foot on European soil there have been some sort of civil unrest, whether it be a riot in the suburbs, a union strike or protests in the capital. I think Americans are generally complacent, sheepish and politically subservient relative to their European counterparts, especially the right wing and so called libertarians. Conservatives are conservatives are conservatives... same way it's been for the last few thousand years.

Given that I see there will be some heavy handed regulation that will get passed in the next few years due to these attacks, good job of shooting yourself in the face gun nuts of America. Way to imitate Dick Cheney, or that guy who shot his kid accidentally. ^_^

[SyrupDeGem]

It's so very easy to lay blame in one particular place when an incident like this occurs, leaves it nice and tidy, we can all feel better about ourselves too...nothing to do with us, it was them/he/she/it.

These types of incidents have always happened just the weapons have changed as several people have pointed out... so what then can we blame? Music? Video games? A bad crowd? Neglectful mother? etc etc

I think really though it's larger than that, I think the perp here was also a victim and that society let him down too. I doubt he had much grounding in reality if any at all... and i wonder how many people would have looked the other way or mocked him for being unwell.


It's probably already been said anyway *crawls back under duvet*

[Absurd]

I started to actully appreciate Jung and his "synchronicity" seeing a wanker called Cpig bursting in a school and choking people with cutlery, wearing a protective vest saying "kiss the cook", and Ashton storming in exclaiming "don't ban cutlery."

How dumb can you get? Can you shoot live rounds with cutlery, Cpig?

Full metal cutlery jacket starring Cpig and the Gamma quadra.

[Ryan]

so he shot his mom and her students

she was a supporter of gun rights, a collecter of guns and was the one who taught him how to shoot

good riddance

and obligatory lol america

No, it scares them. People don't like being scared, but they are always looking for reasons to be, and when they feel scared, they like to gather round the campfire and hug each other with special group-co-masturbatory words to make it all go away, revealing in sickening fashion exactly how fear perpetuates the things that cause it.

[Absurd]

so he shot his mom and her students

she was a supporter of gun rights, a collecter of guns and was the one who taught him how to shoot

good riddance

Synchronfuckuckingnicity, call Jung, dial crazed rat.

[Scapegrace]

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks its possible special interest people are paying other people to commit atrocious murders so that americans will beg the government to take away their right to bear (bare?) arms.

It's offical. You're "slow."

[Creepy-pikachu]

People die, and then use the deaths to perpetuate their own mind's workings. Yet, those people are still dead, and fear is present -- anger, sorrow. Still yourselves or perpetuate more madness. Either way, the result is the same for everyone but yourselves. We here are powerless. It is as simple as that.

[LauriesCrusador]

That might sound harsh but I find the reaction after such a shooting kinda funny... and interesting. Something like this didn't happen for the first time, it happens over and over again.

What usually follows after such a shooting is people are shocked and make a big fuss about it and yell/cry 'OH MY GOOOD! How could this happen' etc., at the same time debates about gun-control get nipped in the bud immediately with statements like it's not the gun that kills it's just the person who pulls the trigger and/or we do not need less guns we need more guns because if guns are allowed everywhere or everyone carries a gun someone could've shot the guy... or that the root of the problem is just the societal moral decay, not the guns... some even argue their guns will protect them from their government if it should intend to overpower them... others that they need their guns to protect their country... and some think they need to have a gun to protect themselves because of all the guns in the country etc. So "We need our guns! Hands off!"

In any case, let's just assume you wanna do such a shooting, if guns are easily available or you already possess a colletion of arms all you have to do is go out and do it. If you have to "organize" guns first it makes the whole thing much much much harder.

Yes, I'm well-aware that even with gun-control you can't completely prevent such shootings from happening. They even might be smuggled in and then sold on the streets to some gangs where you can buy them then but, nonetheless, the more difficult it is to get guns the less shootings take place. Sure you can also use a sword but it's much less effective (360° shooting isn't possible), plus it's certaily easier to kill someone from the distance than actually getting your hands dirty (inhibition threshold)
And even though one will never be able to confiscate all firearms, not to mention all the guns that are already in circulation illegally... it would decrease shootings in the long term.

However, it's obvious that the American people want to keep things as they are... So what?

[Gilly]

You mean the government? So far, so good.

News flash: people have had guns since the revolution. Taking them away would upset the balance we have.

[Creepy-pikachu]

That might sound harsh but I find the reaction after such a shooting kinda funny... and interesting. Something like this didn't happen for the first time, it happens over and over again.

What usually follows after such a shooting is people are shocked and make a big fuss about it and yell/cry 'OH MY GOOOD! How could this happen' etc., at the same time debates about gun-control get nipped in the bud immediately with statements like it's not the gun that kills it's just the person who pulls the trigger and/or we do not need less guns we need more guns because if guns are allowed everywhere or everyone carries a gun someone could've shot the guy... or that the root of the problem is just the societal moral decay, not the guns... some even argue their guns will protect them from their government if it should intend to overpower them... others that they need their guns to protect their country... and some think they need to have a gun to protect themselves because of all the guns in the country etc. So "We need our guns! Hands off!"

In any case, let's just assume you wanna do such a shooting, if guns are easily available or you already possess a colletion of arms all you have to do is go out and do it. If you have to "organize" guns first it makes the whole thing much much much harder.

Yes, I'm well-aware that even with gun-control you can't completely prevent such shootings from happening. They even might be smuggled in and then sold on the streets to some gangs where you can buy them then but, nonetheless, the more difficult it is to get guns the less shootings take place. Sure you can also use a sword but it's much less effective (360° shooting isn't possible), plus it's certaily easier to kill someone from the distance than actually getting your hands dirty (inhibition threshold)
And even though one will never be able to confiscate all firearms, not to mention all the guns that are already in circulation illegally... it would decrease shootings in the long term.

However, it's obvious that the American people want to keep things as they are... So what?

Part of the hysteria is the holiday season. Its a strong storm, so to speak.

[Beautiful sky]

Did no one read how Cain killed his brother, Abel? They didn't have guns when this happened.

[Ryan]

Did no one read how Cain killed his brother, Abel? They didn't have guns when this happened.

I don't read fiction.

[Kim]

News flash: people have had guns since the revolution. Taking them away would upset the balance we have.

What balance?

[mu4]

I'm pretty sure they didn't have portable weapons with large capacity magazines in the 1700's.

I have no problem with guns, I'm generally around them whenever I'm with my gun loving friends, but some sort of waiting period, background check and approval process would be nice for certain weapons.

[mu4]

Did no one read how Cain killed his brother, Abel? They didn't have guns when this happened.

Cain didn't kill 20 kids when he killed his brother.

Anyways, gun control imo isn't about guns but about comparative firepower. A long bow and arrow could be as deadly, but would require significantly more skill to use. So would a sword. The problem is how do average citizens and police deal with this level of firepower in a reliable fashion. With a handgun, it would be a severe disadvantage still and it would be hard to take this individual out without help.

A skilled group can take on a much larger group given the appropriate tactical situation, see the movie 300. The problem with guns is it can turn a unskilled individual into a killing machine, which is the history of war for the last 100 years.

[Gilly]

What balance?

It's nice not being taxed into poverty, isn't it? Not having a dictator telling you what you will eat for breakfast to ensure your complete mentality of subservience? The lack of government-issued speakers that blurt out advertisements for the regime's latest products?

Those are all things that have been fought for, and they sit atop a pile of loyal corpses, defended only by our rulers' knowledge that they work for us, that the system is held up by our work in collective pursuit of mutual benefit, rather than our fear for them. That's the balance I'm talking about. Ever been in a relationship where you were way too nice to someone, and they took advantage of you? That's how any group of people works: they will take whatever is made available to them, and without an armed populace, our enslavement is theirs for the taking.

[Scapegrace]

Did no one read how Cain killed his brother, Abel? They didn't have guns when this happened.

Prove it.

[Creepy-pikachu]

I own a semi-automatic blow dart gun, and Im packing air.

[ArchonAlarion]

End the war on drugs (another attempt to ban something) and you will see gun-related homicides in America decline. End entitlement spending and public schooling too while we are at it. Do you want to see an even bigger black market for guns, so gangs with guns can kill each other over guns? The motives come first, guns are the tool.

Oh, and the reason the 21st century citizenry needs to have access to automatic weapons is the same reason why the 18th century citizens needed access to muskets. When the police state military-industrial complex bangs out some lasers, pain rays, and drones your hunting rifles and handguns are going to do exactly fuck. Think of the future when you make policies now. I'm not actually a conspiracy nut, but slippery-slopes will aggregate at some point on the horizon. Don't sell future generations off because you were too busy getting caught up in your page rank hive-mind to actually peak at some context.

[mu4]

End the war on drugs (another attempt to ban something) and you will see gun-related homicides in America decline. End entitlement spending and public schooling too while we are at it. Do you want to see an even bigger black market for guns, so gangs with guns can kill each other over guns? The motives come first, guns are the tool.

Oh, and the reason the 21st century citizenry needs to have access to automatic weapons is the same reason why the 18th century citizens needed access to muskets. When the police state military-industrial complex bangs out some lasers, pain rays, and drones your hunting rifles and handguns are going to do exactly fuck. Think of the future when you make policies now. I'm not actually a conspiracy nut, but slippery-slopes will aggregate at some point on the horizon. Don't sell future generations off because you were too busy getting caught up in your page rank hive-mind to actually peak at some context.

Revolutions aren't about guns, it's about people. Winning rebels always have access to foreign arms and the native military will always have turncoats. Real rebels never need to legally own guns, to be a rebel is naturally a unlawful act. Actually to need to own a gun legally, and care deeply about owning a gun legally makes it highly unlikely for that individual to be rebellious. Only a sheep needs it's master to tell it that it's ok to eat.

[ArchonAlarion]

Revolutions aren't about guns, it's about people. Winning rebels always have access to foreign arms and the native military will always have turncoats. Real rebels never need to legally own guns, to be a rebel is naturally a unlawful act. Actually to need to own a gun legally, and care deeply about owning a gun legally makes it highly unlikely for that individual to be rebellious. Only a sheep needs it's master to tell it that it's ok to eat.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, a successful and short revolution may require the sort of popular support that comes from average people, who in the interest of maintaining stable institutional relationships, may forgo ownership and familiarity of firearms in order to stay safely within the bounds of the law of the land, regardless of long term consequences or gradual and intangible losses of sovereignty.

[Kim]

It's nice not being taxed into poverty, isn't it? Not having a dictator telling you what you will eat for breakfast to ensure your complete mentality of subservience? The lack of government-issued speakers that blurt out advertisements for the regime's latest products?

Those are all things that have been fought for, and they sit atop a pile of loyal corpses, defended only by our rulers' knowledge that they work for us, that the system is held up by our work in collective pursuit of mutual benefit, rather than our fear for them. That's the balance I'm talking about. Ever been in a relationship where you were way too nice to someone, and they took advantage of you? That's how any group of people works: they will take whatever is made available to them, and without an armed populace, our enslavement is theirs for the taking.

There are plenty of countries out there that enjoy the same degree of freedom without an armed populace.

And revolution is not always armed. The German Democratic Republic went down because people took to the street in unarmed protest (not because of Reagan like Americans want to believe).

My point is that the gun under your pillow does not maintain the freedom you have.

[Raver]

RIP for those that died at the school shooting. Imo, I see it as a double edged sword because if people have their gun rights stripped then that reduces people's ability to defend themselves against criminals and postals that could of obtained it illegally. However, having easier access to guns enables mentally unstable individuals to use guns for violence. I can understand both points of view in this divided issue so I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other.

[willekeurig]

I don't know many details about the culture over there but I surely know a few important facts. And one of them is that families are far less important there than in other parts of the world. I still can't understand the obsession of youth over there to leave their parent's home early. Or maybe is it the urge of the parents to get rid of their children as fast as possible? Otherwise you can't explain the colonies of retired in other places.

Here in Mexico students go to the university and usually still sleep in their parents house. They are in constant contact with their family. You see, in your family there is an specific reason to treat you well (at least in theory): you're sharing a blood link. But in the US it's very commonto send them to student-only dormitories. This is relevant because, from what I've observed, when you throw a bunch of people of about the same age but who have nothing in common in a place and force them to be together, problems are likely to arise. Such places do not have hard rules in reality and when you allow people to live in anarchy and make their own, they usually end up with some nasty ones product of raw force and competition.

Meh. The Nordic countries generally score low on the homicide per capita- list, and high on the guns per capita-list. However, people here leave thei parents' home roughly 10 years earlier (around the age of 20) than in some other European countries (Bulgary, Greece, Italy..) where the average age of leaving is somewhere around 30. I found a statistic on how many percent of 18-24 year olds still live with their parents in some European countries. The two Nordic countries that are included (Finland & Denmark) are the two lowest ones on the list. (the blue & red represent men&women)


EDIT: A funny fact related to the famiy-focusedness of different countries just came into my mind. My brother went to the US for a year when he was 16, and, since he was supposed to live with a host family, the organization that arranged the exchange gave him a little booklet beforehand that had all sorts of information and advice on how to deal with the decreased liberties (since most people don't have curfews or other rules at that age anymore) & family-focused culture in the USA. I guess having someone else watch after you and control what you do and when and with whom and cooking your meals and doing your laundry can be a bit of a culture shock for someone who's been doing all those things by himself for years.

[Gilly]

There are plenty of countries out there that enjoy the same degree of freedom without an armed populace.

Yeah but they don't have a bigger military than the rest of the world combined. I think there's a little more at stake here.

And revolution is not always armed. The German Democratic Republic went down because people took to the street in unarmed protest (not because of Reagan like Americans want to believe).

I doubt that would be possible in the USA within the next hundred years. I know we're all people and everything, but the culture in Western Europe is very different from the US when it comes to protesting and human rights in general. According to Obama's little bill, we can't even protest near members of the Secret Service. Has Germany had anything like that in the last 40 years? I don't think so. Very different cultures, very different political atmosphere. Oh, and did I mention very different military?

My point is that the gun under your pillow does not maintain the freedom you have.

It would if someone in a government uniform, or anyone else for that matter, was pointing one at me.

[Absurd]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/connecticut...5#.UM4rPDPTM3w

[FDG]

Meh. The Nordic countries generally score low on the homicide per capita- list, and high on the guns per capita-list. However, people here leave thei parents' home roughly 10 years earlier (around the age of 20) than in some other European countries (Bulgary, Greece, Italy..) where the average age of leaving is somewhere around 30. I found a statistic on how many percent of 18-24 year olds still live with their parents in some European countries. The two Nordic countries that are included (Finland & Denmark) are the two lowest ones on the list. (the blue & red represent men&women)

:

What this dataset mostly shows is that in most european countries young people still live with their parents, more so when the per-capita income is low. The reason is only partially "cultural", and it has a lot to do with how much the government gives to young people who don't live at home and, say, go to college (ex. in Italy you do not get anything, you need to work; in Denmark people were getting 700-800 euros a month!!! More than most entry-level jobs in Italy).

[Kim]

Lol… they took to the streets only after it was sufficiently obvious that the USSR was imploding economically/politically.

The protests in of themselves were hardly a world-changing event, but merely an accentuation mark on the inevitable process which had already unfolded.
.

Lol? People went out on the streets knowing they could be shot at any moment, their families arrested by the secret police, etc. The repercussions of acting against the government were life-threatening not just for the people themselves, but for their families. My cousin was in these marches and regularly talked to my dad on the phone and I remember it was tense and frightening.

"Lol" from someone who sits on his ass complaining about his government from the comfort of his computer desk is pretty damn rich.

[Kim]

Shrug, I’m just not convinced. I realize the narrative has sentimental value for you. But if it was so “brave”, why’d they wait until 1989 as the USSR was imploding, and not do it earlier in 1969, or 1949, or what have you?

Who knows, maybe for the same reasons you don't grab your gun and race to the streets to fight the government that steals from and oppresses you?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

u guyz they wanna take ur guns thats what they wanna do

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread907952/pg1

[mu4]

Who knows, maybe for the same reasons you don't grab your gun and race to the streets to fight the government that steals from and oppresses you?

I personally think if you need the government to allow you own a gun legally, you are without a doubt, not rebel material.

Che Guevara certainly didn't give a fuck what the gun laws were when he took his revolution to Cuba and Bolivia. The gun nuts are also typically the most patriotic and red/white/blue of all the Americans, so it's unlikely in any revolution they would be the rebels. The most likely location for these wannabe rebels in a regime change is actually in the military and as a participant in a military coup ala Franco, Pinochet, etc.

American society was founded on things such as civic duty over personal pleasures and freedoms.

There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society.

I think most modern libertarians and conservatives have largely abandoned the concepts of civic duty, and public good and interest for their corrupted version of American values in which private pleasures, passions and interest are a priority and public interest is sacrificed.

Also let's not forget that a unsuccessful protest occured in 1988 with many casualties, including some friends of my family. The fall of the Soviet Union hasn't been bloodless and hundreds of thousands of people died in Chechnya and are still dying.

Also there were civil conflicts in other eastern block countries such as the former Yugoslavia.

[InvisibleJim]

Shrug, I’m just not convinced. I realize the narrative has sentimental value for you. But if it was so “brave”, why’d they wait until 1989 as the USSR was imploding, and not do it earlier in 1969, or 1949, or what have you?

It’s like Americans patting themselves on the back because, by golly ‘we’ ended slavery in 1865. When reality is, aside from a few exceptions nobody really did shit except take credit for a process that was already happening. There was no moral awakening about it; slavery was already being phased out anyway by virtue of the Industrial Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprisin...n_East_Germany

[Creepy-pikachu]

If America never had warfare, Kim would still be speaking German. Oh, wait

/poke lol

[mu4]

I don’t think that’s quite the point anyone's making.

Thomas Jefferson might disagree with your assessment:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

This quote doesn't really have anything to do with civic duty. I don't really see much revolution happening today. Mostly just complaining. Also a revolution is in it's nature a act of civic duty, to sacrifice one's life in the battle for freedom.

Anyways, the assault weapon ban is imo the fault of the gun nuts, they essentially shot themselves in the foot by letting lunatics and such have easy access to these high powered weapons. Now the political trend will be to reinstate the ban. I doubt I will ever have trouble getting access to guns in the US, and the slippery slope fallacies that get throw about are shrill and borderline hysterics.