|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Well, he was vegan, and his diet is questionable comsidering his mental space. Sane people dont shoot up kids. So I suspect he was B 12 deficient.v,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
You're building a premise to fit your conclusion. Is it possible? Sure. There are a lot of possibilities. Please don't state that he shot up a bunch of children because he ate a vegan diet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Who knows what makes someone snap like that?
They could snap because the weather is crappy ...... or its sunny ...... or they didn't like what they were going to have for lunch ......
Who knows what causes someone to snap to the point where they go kill kindergarten teachers and children? There is no rational explanation. Given that, one irrational excuse is as good as any other.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Im just offering it as a potentential reason. I myself was B12 deficient, and comitted myself temporarily to deal with it.
These things happen. Jusr saying. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I understand. I'm just commenting on the way your posts read, which is that he was vegan so he didn't get B12 which made him insane which is why he shot a bunch of people. I don't believe that the implication was intentional. Like I said, there are plenty of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
j/c
Here's the way I've seen it for years. If I'm wrong in my thinking, I'm willing to take instruction/education:
Given the different classes of firearms available, I have no problem allowing ALL of them, provided that those who have access to them are mentally, socially, and cognitively qualified to own and operate them.
IMHO opinion, therein lies the rub. When a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to a fully-automatic firearm with at the cost of a few hundred doallars and a weekend in the basement shop, I have a problem with that.
Why?
Because of this, alone.
A weapon that fits this description should be in the hands of someone who is engaged in warfare only.
People who fit this description are few and far between. They are authorized to operate such weapons because they are highly trained, constantly supervised for competence, and are part of a "well-regulated militia" that is designed to allow them to operate such machinery under a strict set of guidelines.
In other words- The US Military.
There is a hierarchy of authority, rules of engagement, and specific guidelines under which such weapons can and should be used. There exists checks and balances that (for the most part) enforce discipline in the use of such firepower. Even with such restrictions in place, we still get occasional reports of misuse of force from even the most highly-trained and closely regulated of Our Populace.
Please excuse me for saying this, but I truly don't trust "the guy down the street" to be as well- disciplined as an active duty Marine, who is conditioned from Day One to adhere to an established Code Of Military Conduct. That Marine has it almost burned into his DNA to behave within the code. An un-indoctrinated US citizen does not.
It chills me to my core to think that some person who lacks the training, hierarchical restraints, and mental conditioning of a serviceman could alter his firearm (purchased under the radar at a gun show) by watching a YouTube video... and turn upon us all, what could be the equivalent of machinery designed for use by only the most competent, highly-trained among us.
This is insane... and I can't find ANY avenue of thought that leads me to believe that Our Founding Fathers suggested anything like this. Even the 2nd amendment, which calls for our right to bear arms, frames it under the words: "...a well-regulated miliia.-" which suggests the same level of training as one might find in.... uh- The American Military. Good luck finding a Hutarie backwoods Bunch who can adequately replicate the doctrines and training of the US Army, USMC, Navy, or USAF.
To make my point plain:too many lunatics have too easy access to weapons of mass destruction. Fight with me all you want about the difference between what Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did in Oklahoma City, and what this deranged person did at Sandy Hook Elementary, but the results are still the same- a shocking, appalling number of innocent people lost their lives, because one person chose to end them.
20 little kids will never have the chance to live out their lives. Parents will never have the chance to become Grandparents from these fallen. An entire town's psyche has been forever altered.
I've purged the shooter's name from my mind, because I won't give him that power over me. I couldn't do it with the OK City bombers, because I was younger and more impressionable when that happened. (Maybe it was easier this time, because it's happened so many times since then.... which says something about me- )
All I really know, in my soul- is that we can't keep burying American children, year after year. the pain of this is too much to bear.
Mental health issues must be addressed. Restrictions/restraints should be on the table. Gun-control loopholes should be in the discussion, as well. This must be addressed- and right now.
It's Thursday, 12/20... 6 days removed from this tragedy. Babies are being buried. Something is (fundamentally) wrong with the way we're living... and we won't begin to fix it until we start talking about what has infected us.
IMHO, we can start by insisting that those who are armed among us have the mental capacity to handle the responsibility.
It's been almost a week, now. I can;t believe that this much crying hasn't yet exhausted my supply of tears.
America needs to fix this.
,
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Again though, it's the "slippery slope" that people worry about.
It's like abortion rights activists refusing to give an inch on partial birth abortion, and/or late term abortions. They see giving an inch on this jeopardizes their overall rights to abortions.
Same thing with gun rights. Supporters of the right to own assault rifle and other such guns worry that giving an inch in this regard jeopardizes their overall rights to guns.
I'm sure that there are other examples, like taxes, and other items that would also work, but abortion os probably the closest because of the life and death aspects. Both are heavily emotional issues, both have opponents who see deaths as the result of allowing abortions or selling assault weapons or other guns ... and both have well entrenched defensive groups who are not going to budge, and who will use their well financed resources to combat any infringement into their rights.
Personally I don't see any need to own an assault rifle .... but I also don't know if there is a need to prevent a law abiding and responsible person from doing so.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Nice reply I can see your points and they are sound.
I also think this experment of lets not disipline our kids has now come to roost and the kids are (which most these crimes have been committed by people under 25) now showing why that mind set of lets just talk out stuff is being proven wrong. Totally wrong.
it's alot like people running from the cops. If they didnt run it wouldnt be a problem so lets correct it by making the police stop chasing them. Makes no sense to me what so ever.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
To make my point plain:too many lunatics have too easy access to weapons of mass destruction. Fight with me all you want about the difference between what Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did in Oklahoma City, and what this deranged person did at Sandy Hook Elementary, but the results are still the same- a shocking, appalling number of innocent people lost their lives, because one person chose to end them.
Just an aside from this, but if McVeigh didn't have a gun with him that day he never would have been arrested and he might today be free.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
11-12K people, young and old, die to gun violence every year. This happens in ones and twos. When it happens like it did in Newton or Aurora people have the understandable reaction of wanting to do something to reduce gun violence. So our fearless, courageous leaders in Washington and the national media will fixate on mental health issues and guns with high capacity magazines and scopes. Meanwhile, next year, another 11-12K will die in ones and twos and no one will give a crap.
Drugs, gangs, a culture of youth growing up with ZERO regard for authority or life, adults with little or no compunction or common sense.
Sorry, but I have no faith that this number will decrease whatever the yahoo's in Washington will do.
And by the way, this kid is being reported as having Aspergers and they are using the phrase "mental illness" to describe him and his condition. Aspergers' is NOT a mental illness, it is a development disorder. Depression is a mental illness, Aspergers is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Time to ban knives, bows, rocks, bombs, chainsaws, hammers, pickaxes, pipes, baseball bats, screwdrivers, razor blades, pitchforks, cars, swords, nail guns, corkscrews, toilet tank lids, oh I could go on and on 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Clem, there are major problems with your concept. First and foremost, the average military person IS the average Joe down the street.
One of them, my neighbor's son, his name is Anthony, came home with all that training and all those rules he learned and shot his wife to death. He is now in prison for the rest of his life.
Police officers get less training than he did.
We have no certain method to weed out those who may, at some future point, become seriously disturbed enough to do something like this. What we can do is understand that the vast, overwhelming majority of us will not, and also realize that if any one of us is ever confronted with such an individual, whether we, or our families, Live or Die in that moment will depend on No One Else's actions but our own, and quite possibly the tools we have at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It also forces people to recognize the fact that there is generally NOTHING you can do to prevent this sort of thing....
Then can somebody please explain to me why this happens in the United States at a much greater rate and with much greater frequency than pretty much any place else in the civilized world?
You are the 4,239th person that has said there is nothing that can be done to stop these things because some people are just insane... Let me tell you that that sounds remarkably like a cop out..... other countries seem to be able to stop it because it just doesn't happen everywhere the way it happens here.
So whether you are a person that abhors guns, even toy ones, or whether you are a person that wants to hunt deer with an RPG or protect your wife and kids with a tank, I don't really give a crap. It's time to put away the pettiness of the whole debate, stop with the bumper sticker slogans, and for adults to put their big boy pants on and admit that we have a violent cultural problem that very few other affluent first world countries have and set about fixing it....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I'd like to look into those other countries because I think some other factors besides the gun issue would be interesting. I think to blindly point to other countries without looking into those other factors is also a bit of a cop out.
I will say this, we have a large population, we have lots of freedoms, and those two things together can lead to more danger. It can also lead to more joy, more sense of purpose, etc.
While I think there are things we can do, and I'm certainly not ruling out some weapon reform, I'm also getting a little tired of the prevailing thought that we are all crap and a horrible society because a mentally deranged person did a very horrible thing. This kind of self-loathing will do nothing to solve this. This includes attacking people who have a different opinion on this than you do. Nobody loves guns more than children, nobody wants innocent people killed, and you do not have the market on compassion just because you believe a certain way. That kind of attitude stifles any discussion and I'm so tired of it and the rest of the tactics.
Good people will try and do the right things, although they will have different opinions of what the right things are, and I hope to God we have some success.
This person is in no way a reflection of the vast majority of the people in this country, he doesn't make us awful, evil people. We can try to make things better, but we cannot make everyone safe, that's not how life works. I think people have a warped concept of that now because we generally live long and pretty healthy lives. Back in the day people dropped liked flies from many, many different things. Nowadays we EXPECT to live until we are sipping our food through a straw and we expect our government to keep us safe from everything. That is an odd expectation. I think a lot of people find it much easier to blame something, anything, in order to not feel vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Quote:
Clem, there are major problems with your concept. First and foremost, the average military person IS the average Joe down the street.
One of them, my neighbor's son, his name is Anthony, came home with all that training and all those rules he learned and shot his wife to death. He is now in prison for the rest of his life.
Police officers get less training than he did.
We have no certain method to weed out those who may, at some future point, become seriously disturbed enough to do something like this. What we can do is understand that the vast, overwhelming majority of us will not, and also realize that if any one of us is ever confronted with such an individual, whether we, or our families, Live or Die in that moment will depend on No One Else's actions but our own, and quite possibly the tools we have at hand.
You contradict yourself, they start as average Joe, but through training become more skilled, and hence are no longer an average Joe when guns are concerned.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Quote:
Time to ban knives, bows, rocks, bombs, chainsaws, hammers, pickaxes, pipes, baseball bats, screwdrivers, razor blades, pitchforks, cars, swords, nail guns, corkscrews, toilet tank lids, oh I could go on and on
When those items are used to kill 20 children and 7 adults in a matter of seconds, maybe you will have the point. The other weapon argument just does not hold because of time. The time it takes to kill 20 children.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Quote:
Quote:
Time to ban knives, bows, rocks, bombs, chainsaws, hammers, pickaxes, pipes, baseball bats, screwdrivers, razor blades, pitchforks, cars, swords, nail guns, corkscrews, toilet tank lids, oh I could go on and on
When those items are used to kill 20 children and 7 adults in a matter of seconds, maybe you will have the point. The other weapon argument just does not hold because of time. The time it takes to kill 20 children.
We havent banned fertilizer and diesel yet... (OKC)
Airplanes killed thousands in the 9-11 attacks...(NYC)
Lets not forget the Bath School bombing in Michigan...plain old dynamite
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I'd like to look into those other countries because I think some other factors besides the gun issue would be interesting.
I never compared us to them based on guns. I specifically said we have similar western cultures in a lot of ways and we have significantly more murders... I also specifically stated the the gun laws between these countries vary greatly, so gun laws are obviously NOT the only indicator.
Quote:
I think to blindly point to other countries without looking into those other factors is also a bit of a cop out.
I have said repeatedly that I am interested in looking at all factors from violence in video games and movies to guns to education to families and social influences to social media to artificial hormones in food, to better diagnosing and treating mental illness... hell look at all of it... if you can name it, I'm willing to consider its impact on the violent nature of our culture and then discuss what, if anything, we can do to improve it. What I'm not willing to do is just accept that there will be some number of shootings at schools with an ever increasing number of fatalities and throw my hands up in the air and say, "Well, not much we can do about it." And I know you are not either...
Quote:
I'm also getting a little tired of the prevailing thought that we are all crap and a horrible society because a mentally deranged person did a very horrible thing. This kind of self-loathing will do nothing to solve this.
Quite the contrary, I think Americans largely are among the most sincere, charitable, giving people on the face of the planet. We also have our share of deranged lunatics, mental health issues, etc... But by percentage, whatever issues we have, manifest themselves through violence more than other similar countries....
Quote:
This includes attacking people who have a different opinion on this than you do. Nobody loves guns more than children, nobody wants innocent people killed, and you do not have the market on compassion just because you believe a certain way. That kind of attitude stifles any discussion and I'm so tired of it and the rest of the tactics.
All you have to do is look at what happens in the aftermath of one of these events to see the compassion most people have... Unfortunately 2 months from now most people will have largely forgotten about it until it happens again... then after a couple years go by, one time it will happen and most people will say, "This is a lot like that other thing.. you remember, that one in Rhode Island or Connecticut or wherever it happened." The list of towns to remember from Columbine to Peducha to Blacksburg is getting longer.....
And it is precisely because of the goodness and compassion of most Americans that I want to see what we can do...
Quote:
This person is in no way a reflection of the vast majority of the people in this country, he doesn't make us awful, evil people.
I never said he did. If anywhere close to a majority of the people in this country were like this guy, the streets would look like a combat zone.
Quote:
We can try to make things better, but we cannot make everyone safe, that's not how life works.
I understand that. I've never been attacked so much in my life for trying to take a balanced approach that considers all aspects of a problem specifically to avoid a knee-jerk reaction that will likely not solve the problem. I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I have asked questions to gather information about different types of guns, I made some assumptions about guns and was corrected because I'm not a big gun guy and I was factually incorrect. I have just called for an open dialogue on how to fix the problem where all possible solutions are on the table for discussion, much like I think you are doing, and have been blasted by a few select people for even wanting to consider changing our approach to guns as some small part of the solution... then we get silly analogies stating that if we want to discuss banning/restricting automatic or semi-automatic weapons that we might as well ban box cutters and toilet seats presumably because you can beat somebody to death with one... If toilet seats or box cutters are the equivalent of auto and semi-auto weapons, then people should be perfectly happy to hunt with one and defend themselves from tyranny with one.  ... Let's see, what else, then you get pictures of Soviet Russia destroying all of the guns they have confiscated from people before committing mass genocide because you want to consider reforming our gun laws in some way to keep weapons out of the hands of deranged lunatics....
So you can single me out if you like, there are knee-jerk zealots on both sides of this debate... I'm not one of them. I talked to my wife recently about getting a gun and honestly, the biggest reason I don't have one is because she is scared to death of them so out of respect for her, I've never bought one... I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GUNS.... I also cannot ignore the statistics.... we need to figure out whats behind the statistics and figure out how to improve it....
Love you Jules. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
Time to ban knives, bows, rocks, bombs, chainsaws, hammers, pickaxes, pipes, baseball bats, screwdrivers, razor blades, pitchforks, cars, swords, nail guns, corkscrews, toilet tank lids, oh I could go on and on
When those items are used to kill 20 children and 7 adults in a matter of seconds, maybe you will have the point. The other weapon argument just does not hold because of time. The time it takes to kill 20 children.
Please, tell me how much good the banning of marijuana, heroine, meth, cocaine, and LSD has done to keep them off the streets.
Furthermore - read you statement and think about it for a second. You want to ban the item because a PERSON used it to kill. That's like banning tires to stop DUI's. You can't have a DUI without a car, and if the car doesn't have tires, then they won't be out on the road. The problem is that is does absolutely NOTHING for the root cause. Neither does attempting to ban guns. The gun simply did what it was told to. IT is not the problem. It is simply a symptom.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Annual number of deaths in the US from guns: approximately 30,000.
Number of those that are suicides: 17,500
Number of annual deaths from intentional homicide with a gun: 12,500
Number of annual alcohol-related deaths: 75,000
Everyone should go have a drink and ponder the above.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Annual number of deaths in the US from guns: approximately 30,000.
Number of those that are suicides: 17,500
Number of annual deaths from intentional homicide with a gun: 12,500
Number of annual alcohol-related deaths: 75,000
Everyone should go have a drink and ponder the above.
I think, to make a fair comparison, you have to remove the number of "alcohol-related self-deaths" since that's what you did for homicide.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
You want to ban the item because a PERSON used it to kill.
I'm not calling for a ban of anything but this is flawed logic.. Do you know why you can't go buy a suitcase bomb or many military grade weapons? Because of the damage they can do, that's why the Army Surplus Store by the mall doesn't sell uranium, live grenades and Patriot missiles... A patriot missile locked in your garage would never hurt anybody, right? So we can debate where that line should be drawn with respect to certain weapons, but don't act like it's absolutely silly to ban the item from the public when it requires a person to actually use it to harm others.. There are probably only a handful of nutjobs in this country that would release a suitcase bomb in a crowded area and the suitcase bomb cannot, by itself, hurt anybody... so therefore since the number of people who would use it for ill is small, and the fact that it's pretty inert without a person using it and the fact that it could be highly effective defending yourself against tyranny... are we calling for uranium suitcase bombs to be legal? For most rational people, the answer is no. So why are suitcase bombs illegal? I would argue that it's because they serve no other practical purpose other than to kill large numbers of people.. and that is the fight that the auto/semi auto gun folks have to prepare for... does the practical purpose of you owning that gun, outweigh the potential damage it can cause when used for harm...
Quote:
That's like banning tires to stop DUI's. You can't have a DUI without a car, and if the car doesn't have tires, then they won't be out on the road. The problem is that is does absolutely NOTHING for the root cause. Neither does attempting to ban guns. The gun simply did what it was told to. IT is not the problem. It is simply a symptom.
I can agree with this in theory, here is where I have a practical problem with it. We have spent decades and billions of dollars making tires safer, we have invented air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, better seatbelts, back-up cameras and tempered glass. We have voice activation so you don't have to take your eyes from the road or your hands off the wheel to change radio stations.. We build wider and straighter roads than we used to, we have more traffic signals and signs per intersection to improve visibility, we have reflectors on the streets and some cars even have a thing that buzzes if your head dips below a certain level... We have strict DUI limits and most places have restrictions on texting and/or talking on the phone while driving... Most areas have phased in teen drivers licenses so they can get used to driving in more optimal conditions... All in the name of making people safer.. the drunk driver and the potential victim as well.
All the while we have made guns more accurate, smaller and lighter, more powerful, less likely to jam... Equipped them with larger capacity for ammunition, etc.. all in the name of one thing.. being able to put a bullet in something more efficiently and more effectively... then we HOPE that the only thing on the receiving end is a bail of hay, a tin can, a deer or a really bad person...
I'm sorry, I'm not buying the analogies that common household items are the same as guns because people use them and sometimes people get hurt or die in using them...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
You left out number of annual deaths from intentional homicide with alcohol.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I think 100% of people here would agree that you can't buy a Patriot Missile as a private citizen, despite the fact that we have a right to bear arms under the second amendment. The reason? It serves no defensive purpose, and can only be used to hurt others.
I think 98% of the people here would agree you can't buy a grenade, for the same reason.
I think 60% of people here would agree you can't buy a fully automatic assault rifle for the same reason.
I think 40% of the people here (52% of americans from the last study I've seen) agree you can't buy a semi-automatic assault rifle for the same reason.
I think 30% of the people here believe you can't buy other types of constrained weapons (ones with bayonets, ones with silencers, ones with high capacity rounds) for the same reason
I think 10% of people here believe you shouldn't buy any handguns for the same reason.
I think about 2% of people here believe you shouldn't be able to have rifles for hunting, for the same reason.
Now, these are all equally protected under the second amendment, the framers didn't know what types of armaments would be available in 250 years, they allowed all of them. The questions at stake are proceedural ones "what is the offensive/defensive value of this weapon", "at what point can one crazy person kill too many citizens with a weapon to justify it's freedom under the second amendment"
You draw the line, it's not so easy. All I see on this board, is a lot of people pushing for more restrictions, or not wanting to give an inch on the status quo because they fear everything will go away. But what we need is a rational discussion of where that line should be drawn.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
j/c
My thoughts are all over the place, so this will seem like a screwed up post, sorry in advance.
There are some schools that allow licensed concealed carry holders to carry in school I believe there are 6 states that allow it, as long as the school is aware of it and grants permission.
Look up Nick Meli. Haven't heard much about him. But, he was in the mall - the one that got shot up a few weeks ago. He's also a ccw license holder. He never fired a shot - but when the shooter saw him with his gun out, he shot himself. (why didn't he shoot? He was ready to, but saw movement behind the shooter and he had the restraint to realize if he missed, he might hit an innocent person)
Part of me thinks teachers should be allowed to be armed. Part of me thinks that is a huge, huge responsibility, with the added liability the teacher/s and school district would face if, God forbid, at attack happened, and a teacher fired a shot, and missed and hit a kid......just imagine that.
Schools have emergency plans.........unfortunately, to use them, there has to be an emergency. Schools lock their doors, and, at least here, during the school day, to get in to the school, you have to buzz in - they check you out on video camera, and if they know you, they let you in. They call that a "safety" thing.......I've been to our schools many times during the day..........I get buzzed in instantly. They know me. What if........?
Regardless - schools also have glass doors. If someone is in a mood to shoot people up - a locked glass door isn't going to stop them.
We also can't make our schools impenetrable prisons.
What about having schools hire armed guards? Trained professionals? We have a boat load of military people that aren't finding jobs - what about hiring some of them? They are as trained, actually, more trained, than our police. Just a thought.
I have no answer. Banning guns won't work. Banning assault rifles won't work (think Columbine) Un armed "security" doesn't deter armed lunatics (again, Columbine). Banning magazines with capacity of over 10 rounds, or 15, or whatever number - won't work. Shoot, even a revolver can be reloaded in seconds with a speed loader.
I don't like what has happened, no one does. The problem is, what's the answer?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
DC you are bringing up some good points and to your credit you are doing so in a very common sense manner so for that I applaud you ( even if we don't agree ) . I am surprised that aside from a poster mentioning a possible B-12 deficiency that SSRI drugs aren't being looked at closer . A very quick search for me turned up information that SSRI drugs were involved in over 60 school shootings or like incidents . To me that is a little scary no ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
Annual number of deaths in the US from guns: approximately 30,000.
Number of those that are suicides: 17,500
Number of annual deaths from intentional homicide with a gun: 12,500
Number of annual alcohol-related deaths: 75,000
Everyone should go have a drink and ponder the above.
I think, to make a fair comparison, you have to remove the number of "alcohol-related self-deaths" since that's what you did for homicide.
Sorry....
According to the CDC, approximately 1/3 of all suicides involve alcohol. Can't find any specific number, however.
Alcohol related deaths by cirrhosis of the liver: 34,000 (CDC, 2001)
Approximately 40,000 die from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.
-- numbers from a 2005 MSNBC article
From the CDC (2009 numbers):
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 15,183
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 24,518
PDF on 2009 Mortality: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
Of the top 15 causes of death, homicide barely makes the list. Suicide is WAY further up the list, as are accidents and liver diseases.
According to this article, a University of Toronto study says that 1 in 25 deaths worldwide are linked to alcohol; unless you're in Europe, then it skyrockets to 1 in 10 directly attributable. In the former Soviet Union, it is 1 in 7.
Citing this 1998 document (if you can find something more current, please do) from the US DoJ, of the nearly 5.3 million convicted offenders, nearly 2 million had been drinking at the time of their offense. Nearly two-thirds of all violent crimes involve alcohol. For the time being reported on, there were just over 17,000 traffic fatalities due to alcohol (for those following along, that is WAY higher than gun related deaths).... this accounted for 40% of all traffic fatalities that year.
So, where is the outrage? Where are the cries for Prohibition?
Don't go telling me stories about how most people can handle it responsibly and those cases are just the exceptions....
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I was including things like cirrhosis as a self-death. I support the usage of drugs, even if it causes self harm. You were looking at the statistics of "intentional homicides", which only includes times where you kill another person.
I think most people here (being right wing or libertarian) would agree that there's a huge moral difference between doing something that kills yourself, and doing something that kills somebody else.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
With stricter control and increased mental health funding (for things such as AA) the drunk driving statistics look like this over the last 2 decades:  Big difference between semi-automatic weapons and alcohol? One is designed for the purpose of killing large groups of people, and the other - while it can - is not designed to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Not to mention there is plenty of moral outrage and stigma that comes with drunk driving.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
IMO it had very little to do with increased funding for AA and much more to do with much more harsh, strict, speedy, and severe punishments for DUI. These things happened because people stopped making excuses for the criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
With stricter control and increased mental health funding (for things such as AA) the drunk driving statistics look like this over the last 2 decades:
Big difference between semi-automatic weapons and alcohol? One is designed for the purpose of killing large groups of people, and the other - while it can - is not designed to do so.
What stricter controls? The drinking age is what it has been since the mid-80's. What there is is harsher penalties for improper/irresponsible use. Alcohol is not tougher to get, the laws are simply harsher for those that abuse it. The exact opposite of what most people proclaim we should do with guns.
Also, there is no such thing as "funding for AA". None. It is completely self-supporting. The members of AA are all that gets to take credit for its existence.
There is no difference between drinking and weapons of any kind... they are simply things used by people that have the capacity to result in deaths. The one and ONLY difference between them being harmless and them being lethal is Intent of the Individual, except, with alcohol intent doesn't even get to matter. So.... punish the Individual.
But no.... with alcohol, we accept that the individual is at fault and it is not the fault of the alcohol. We stopped making excuses.
With guns, however, we still point to the gun and say that it is bad, even though it can't be. It can only be what the person holding it makes it, and people don't like the idea that you just cannot predict when some jackwad is going to snap and do bad things with one.... this leaves them powerless, but people feel the need to do something, so they go after the one tangible, controllable thing - even though it will have no damned affect on anything except the people that responsibly own the things.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I hope you don't think I was attacking you, that is not my intent at all. When I say "you" in many of my posts I mean the collective "you" not just YOU.  Neither side of this argument does anybody any good when they go to the extreme to make their point, just as with any other topic. That's all we seem to get lately.  Love you back.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
.... with alcohol, we accept that the individual is at fault and it is not the fault of the alcohol. We stopped making excuses.
With guns, however, we still point to the gun and say that it is bad, even though it can't be. It can only be what the person holding it makes it, and people don't like the idea that you just cannot predict when some jackwad is going to snap and do bad things with one.... this leaves them powerless, but people feel the need to do something, so they go after the one tangible, controllable thing - even though it will have no damned affect on anything except the people that responsibly own the things.
Exactly. The only people hampered by anti gun legislation are the law abiding citizens who accept the fact that they are solely responsible for the protection of themselves and their loved ones. The supreme court has ruled that law enforcement does not have a duty to protect citizens, even if they have a protection order against the perpetrator.
NYT
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
But no.... with alcohol, we accept that the individual is at fault and it is not the fault of the alcohol. We stopped making excuses.
With guns, however, we still point to the gun and say that it is bad, even though it can't be. It can only be what the person holding it makes it, and people don't like the idea that you just cannot predict when some jackwad is going to snap and do bad things with one.... this leaves them powerless, but people feel the need to do something, so they go after the one tangible, controllable thing - even though it will have no damned affect on anything except the people that responsibly own the things.
Wow! I've read a lot of strong points on here (some on both sides) but what you wrote is damn near perfect. Well said, Purp!
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,681
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,681 |
Quote:
You may have shot dozens of hogs with your handgun.
Doesn't change the fact that handguns where made with one purpose in mind. To quickly put down another human being.
I really don't see how anyone can argue that point.
I don't argue the point. I would say I don't see how you can argue the point we have a people problem.
A gun is a tool. You use it as you wish. You can shoot people or you can shoot targets.
You wish to address the result of the problem where I wish to address the real problem.
That is the difference between the way you think and I think.
Just saying.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Honestly, from what I've written how would you presume to know what I think? Other than that I'm not a fan of handguns.
Obviously, a gun does not fire itself. But that old bromide that guns don't kill people, people kill people neglects to mention how freakin' easy it is to buy a weapon that SWAT team members would be proud of.
Simply put, if all the weapons that most reasonable people would call an assault weapon disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow your 2nd amendment rights wouldn't even be bruised. And a lot of people might live another day because of that.
Now, do I think there will be any meaningful headway made towards an assault weapon free world? Nope. There aren't enough politicians with balls enough to do something like that. That and the gun lobby has too many people on the payroll to let that happen.
Is there a people problem? Sure there is .But there will always be a people problem. Even if we spend 10 times what we spend now on helping people with mental illnesses. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to help those people. Or try to eradicate or at least control mental illnesses. But which solution to prevent another mass murder scenario do you think would have a more realistic chance of succeeding; keeping a mentally ill person on their meds constantly or making it extremely difficult for a person like that to get his hands on a weapon?
I don't begrudge you your hog killing. I used to go trap shooting all the time when I was a little more spry. I don't hate guns. I just don't see any realistic need for the average person to have access to a weapon that can roll through a 30 round magazine in less time than it takes me to type Ballpeen.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513 |
Quote:
Also, I would like, if possible, in their toxology report if they could determine the amount of B12 in his system. He was reportedly a vegan because he didnt want to hurt animals. Vegans have a high risk of being deficient in certain vitamins and minerals, especially B12 because it mainly comes from animal products. If you are even slightly deficient in B12 it will render you psychotic and or have mental illness like depression or bipolar or dementia. It screws your brain up.
There is a chance you can become depressed and a chance you can become demented but that is after long time deficiency... in the majority of cases you are extremely fatigued, weak, and lightheaded...
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
j/c
My thoughts are all over the place, so this will seem like a screwed up post, sorry in advance.
There are some schools that allow licensed concealed carry holders to carry in school I believe there are 6 states that allow it, as long as the school is aware of it and grants permission.
Look up Nick Meli. Haven't heard much about him. But, he was in the mall - the one that got shot up a few weeks ago. He's also a ccw license holder. He never fired a shot - but when the shooter saw him with his gun out, he shot himself. (why didn't he shoot? He was ready to, but saw movement behind the shooter and he had the restraint to realize if he missed, he might hit an innocent person)
Part of me thinks teachers should be allowed to be armed. Part of me thinks that is a huge, huge responsibility, with the added liability the teacher/s and school district would face if, God forbid, at attack happened, and a teacher fired a shot, and missed and hit a kid......just imagine that.
Schools have emergency plans.........unfortunately, to use them, there has to be an emergency. Schools lock their doors, and, at least here, during the school day, to get in to the school, you have to buzz in - they check you out on video camera, and if they know you, they let you in. They call that a "safety" thing.......I've been to our schools many times during the day..........I get buzzed in instantly. They know me. What if........?
Regardless - schools also have glass doors. If someone is in a mood to shoot people up - a locked glass door isn't going to stop them.
We also can't make our schools impenetrable prisons.
What about having schools hire armed guards? Trained professionals? We have a boat load of military people that aren't finding jobs - what about hiring some of them? They are as trained, actually, more trained, than our police. Just a thought.
I have no answer. Banning guns won't work. Banning assault rifles won't work (think Columbine) Un armed "security" doesn't deter armed lunatics (again, Columbine). Banning magazines with capacity of over 10 rounds, or 15, or whatever number - won't work. Shoot, even a revolver can be reloaded in seconds with a speed loader.
I don't like what has happened, no one does. The problem is, what's the answer?
You make a good point. I went to an inner city high school. You know, the stereotyped "bad schools" with drugs, and gangs, a bunch of people of color and white trash.
Anyways, we had security guards, and a on duty, armed policeman in the school at all time. As did all the high schools in the district. How many of these shooting sprees have happened in inner city schools? No they happen at nicer suburb schools where there is not as much protection.
I wish someone had come in my school shooting with the arsenal that came in that school everyday.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,681
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,681 |
Quote:
Honestly, from what I've written how would you presume to know what I think? Other than that I'm not a fan of handguns.
Obviously, a gun does not fire itself. But that old bromide that guns don't kill people, people kill people neglects to mention how freakin' easy it is to buy a weapon that SWAT team members would be proud of.
Simply put, if all the weapons that most reasonable people would call an assault weapon disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow your 2nd amendment rights wouldn't even be bruised. And a lot of people might live another day because of that.
Now, do I think there will be any meaningful headway made towards an assault weapon free world? Nope. There aren't enough politicians with balls enough to do something like that. That and the gun lobby has too many people on the payroll to let that happen.
Is there a people problem? Sure there is .But there will always be a people problem. Even if we spend 10 times what we spend now on helping people with mental illnesses. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to help those people. Or try to eradicate or at least control mental illnesses. But which solution to prevent another mass murder scenario do you think would have a more realistic chance of succeeding; keeping a mentally ill person on their meds constantly or making it extremely difficult for a person like that to get his hands on a weapon?
I don't begrudge you your hog killing. I used to go trap shooting all the time when I was a little more spry. I don't hate guns. I just don't see any realistic need for the average person to have access to a weapon that can roll through a 30 round magazine in less time than it takes me to type Ballpeen.
On one end you proclaim you aren't a fan of handguns and on the other end you are talking about guns that discharge faster then you can type my name, so you are right, I don't know what you are talking about.
Focus on the problem my friend, not the symptom.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Another School Shooting !!!
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
