The Smiley Smile Message Board

RIP to all the lives lost.
26 people, including 20 children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting_n_2300831.html

Atrocious.  I want to puke.  I'm praying for the families and the kids and teachers that will have to deal with these horrible scars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

This is just sick. Innocent children whose lives are taken away by two psychos. Parents should be buying presents for their kids not planning their funeral!

This pic is just sad

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/16178_298330803612173_1386911041_n.jpg)

.

A guy in Japan slashed 20 kids with a knife today as well!

WTF???

This sh*t has to end at some point....

evil exists.

So messed up. It's just a parents worst nightmare.... Hell it's everyone's. My heart goes out to them.


Erik - no one died in that China attack, thank god.

American culture is addicted to tragedies. We're like a depressed person who cuts himself in order to feel something. We want to feel grief, we want to feel some type of release, we want to react, we want to be outraged, and at this point it's really the hysteria, the vigils, the media coverage, and the political crocodile tears that most contribute to the environment in which this type of thing so frequently happens.

The weird sense of excitement that I saw in so many people's eyes today was really unnerving.

Well, I think it's key that these people generally kill themselves basically in the act itself.

It's amazing to think of how evil the world can be...

I can't even believe a mentally disabled person would do THIS. This is just disgusting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EZCK-QtBY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EZCK-QtBY)

.

I keep reading about this in the news and welling up. Just before Christmas, goddammit.

Tragic :( And since Newtown's so close to us, my school is taking security precautions. Some people were even afraid to go to school today.

I'm terrified for my 4 year old nephew who just started school today.

This puts your video in more perspective!!
Pull your head in!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk

Repeal second amendment.  Start again from there.  Some drastic changes need to take place.  I say this as a parent, a professional school employee, and as military veteran.   Other western countries do fine without having the right to arm bears.  Hope this is not seen as an offensive opinion but if so, so be it.   At this point in my life, I must speak out regardless of what others think.   Perks of being older. Peace to you all.

Yeah...if you want a civil war, go ahead and push for the repeal of the Second Amendment. See how far you get. Good to know that the liberal community is loving the political push this tragedy has led to. You're despicable...lower than whale sh*t. See, I also must speak out regardless of what others think. Not an illusory perk of age, but I'm gonna goshdarn well say it.

And in between your crocodile tears why don't you show compassion for the thousands of innocent children that have been murdered abroad by the same regime whose leader "weeps for the dead"?

A civil war also erupted when they tried to end slavery. I'm not for repealing the Second Amendment, but that's hardly an argument in favour of it.


Come off it. Let me ask you this: do you think that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that it was inappropriate to find out why the attacks happened?

Let me ask you another question: Do you seriously believe that it is strictly "the liberal community" that has made this event political, particularly when faced with the fact that the opposite has been the case on this thread?

Whose crocodile tears?

It wasn't inappropriate to find out why the attacks happened. What was inappropriate was blaming the attacks on a false issue. 9/11 was blamed on "radical Muslims who hate freedom", not the failures of foreign policy. This tragedy is being blamed on guns, not the failures of people around this deranged psychopath to find help for him.

Considering we already have a big prison problem in the US, an overabundance of tragic conflicts between innocent citizens and brazen police officers, and a systemic inequality within our legal system where laws are abused by the state to punish the poorest and weakest members of our society simply for being poor and weak, it seems misguided to want to enforce a ban on the hundreds of millions of guns in the United States considering the increase in police power such a prohibition would undoubtedly entail.

I think we should stop ignoring the "school" part of "school shootings", maybe it's the environment created by public schools that we should take a second look at, our desire to "socialize" children institutionally via Government controlled schools. Maybe the role that these places play in the lives of young people is what needs to be reexamined.

I completely agree with you on your points regarding 9/11 but I would say that even noting that 9/11 was, in part, a consequence of "the failures of foreign policy" would have been widely considered and understood and condemned as politicking. It is impossible to address why things happen (whether you are addressing them correctly or incorrectly) without being political, yet addressing why things happen is necessary if we ever hope to actually prevent these things from happening again. This is why I reject your (and many others') condemnation of "the political push this tragedy has led to" on premise.

But furthermore, yes, this tragedy should be blamed on guns, since we know that a society that has larger access to guns will lead to greater gun-related fatalities. To me, at this point, to continue to support the gun laws as they stand demands an overwhelming amount of self-delusion. Now, of course, I expect those who are deluded to refuse to accept that they are deluded - just as those who believe the Moon landings were fake believe what they believe with utter certainty and will probably reinforce their argument with what they believe is evidence - but they are deluded nevertheless. Now are American gun laws solely responsible for the utterly inhuman acts that occurred a few days ago? No. However, to pretend as if they don't bear a significant amount of responsibility is to, in my opinion, only work to ensure that horrific incidents like these continue to be a mainstay in the country and that's an unfortunate reality that those who do operate on this pretense will either have to confront or ignore.

Except that this does not happen to such a degree in other countries with "Government controlled schools." So that can't be it. I will say, intriguingly, that it is in the United States where hatred of government institutions is fostered. I am not blaming that culture for school shootings but it makes more sense as an argument.

The US has a higher rate of college enrolment than other nations, a lower rate of graduation, spends more money per-capita on education than most, if not at all other nations, and ranks near the bottom in terms of pupil-to-teacher ratio. Our educational system has become more about affecting political and social outcomes while deemphasizing actual education.

.....

Public school education = certain psychopathic killer? Sure. I take it your lovely parents sent you to a sheltered private school.

Contemporary public schooling in the United States, don't generalize. Given that all "School Shootings", generally have two things in common, it would be doing a disservice to society to pretend like such a major commonality is irrelevant. Public schools are a traumatic place psychologically for developing children, not always, but the role the American public school system is playing in the development of these spree killers can't be ignored, and perhaps our instance that all children be filtered through this system and no child be spared is playing a role here worth investigating.

Oh ok, I won't if you -



You are still saying the public school system is fostering mass murderers. You are a very understanding young man.

Let's Be Friends
Let's Be Friends
Let's Be Friends

It is irrelevant when you consider that other public school systems don't have such problems. Schooling in Finland is almost entirely government funded and it is one of the best in the world, with students finishing first in math and science test scores and only second to Australia in terms of school life expectancy. According to the Education Index, Finland is tied for first for education in the world. Since 1996, there have been two school (one of them a college) shootings in Finland, lumping Finland in with the sort of numbers recorded by most industrialized countries as opposed to the 55 school shootings in the United States during the same time frame. I  agree with you that there are problems with the US school system though given the overt success of other public systems the problem is not simply that it's a public system. And to say that school shootings come down to the fact that it is a public system is absurd, given the comparisons with other countries with government funded education.

I just gotta do it ....... + 1

I agree.  Perhaps I should say repeal and reword the second amendment to bring it into the 21st century where free roaming  psychotic or homicidal people have ready access to modern military weapons with 50 round clips.

This argument doesn't stand up I think, after all Finland has a population of under six million and the US over three hundred million. On a percapita basis then Finland would actually have a higher incidence of school shootings than the United States. But as I already suggested earlier the attitudes of the United States towards education aren't uniform with the attitudes assumed by the politicians and public of other nations. You're attempting to refute a position I simply haven't taken, that school shootings are a phenomena inherent to all public education, when really my issue is with the political dimension of education in the United States, and how the inflexibility of that system, it's justification on the grounds of "socialization", and the pipedream that all children can and must receive a idealized liberal education contribute to the general resentment and dissatisfaction that manifests in young people singling out schools for acts of violence.

Keep in mind that my response to the first part is in keeping with my misunderstanding of your overall premise though I figure I'd keep the answer just for the heck of it.


Regardless of population size, the number of school shootings seem to be similar across the board, usually between one and five. Take, for example, India, who have a little less than 4 times more the population size of the US and have about 80% of the schools publicly funded, but still manage to fall into this category, having only 1 school shooting since the mid-90s as opposed to the 55 in the US. It seems, then, that despite differences in population size, the United States is in a unique category.
 

My apologies for my confusion - glad it was cleared up. I think I would probably agree with you about the nature of the school system and could probably add more issues to your list!  :)

I still think that's spurious. I also think out of all you could find in this - the freedom to form your well-organised militia, the nature of mental health care for young people, I think you're backing the wrong horse.

A perfect school system is not going to take away people's guns or cure these kids illnesses, you know?

Why would you want to take away people's guns?

So mentally ill people don't get their hands on assault rifles and kill 20 kids? Or is that the price of liberty to go shoot a sheet of paper down the range? Or go hunting?

Sub that for 'incredibly strict gun laws', then, Since I will never get my head around the fact the pro 2nd amendment crowd is the norm in the states. Guns are terrifying to everyone else, you know!

My dad collects guns, and my family, my sister, mother and myself would go out on nice days in the spring and summer to shoot and compete with one another in some friendly target practice. There's nothing terrifying about guns, and you shouldn't trivialize a hobby and a sport that means so much to so many rural families and has been such an important touchstone in the relationship between fathers with their sons. Being pro-gun rights does not make you backwards or stupid or mean that you just don't understand how terrible and scary and dangerous guns are, the pro-2nd amendment crowd you're talking about respects guns and actually has a better understanding of the danger and responsibility that comes with them than you'd try and have us believe.

I have no doubt - guns are just viewed far differently over here. I don't think even the kids I knew who grew up on farms and similar had guns around the house. (I don't know anyone posh enough to go proper country hunting, mind  ;D). But hunters use shot, not live ammunition in UK hunts, as far as I get it. And I've lived in East London (where the tabloid press love to decry it as a crimeladen hovel) for going on five years and never seen a gun wielded by the 'yoofs' or whatever. Plenty by the cops! I'm digressing, though.

No-one needs an assault rifle to go hunting, anyway. Arguably, no-one needs a handgun to do the same. Wouldn't you at least agree on stronger checks, restrictions and regulations to avoid people strapping on body armour, two rifles, teargas cannisters and a shotgun and going into a cinema? I mean, what your family do (which is fine, just completely foreign to a Brit city boy) and what's entirely possible for a driven individual to do are entirely different! Legislation should reflect that so, you know, people don't die needlessly. Or kids start bringing guns to school - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_AT_SCHOOL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-18-19-51-15

Wonder what The Big O is going to propose, in all seriousness. Just reinstating that 1994 Assault Weapons ban seems the safe money.

God, f*** these people.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/nra-to-push-back-soon-sources-say/

""If we're going to have a conversation, then let's have a comprehensive conversation," said one industry source.  "If we're going to talk about the Second Amendment, then let's also talk about the First Amendment, and Hollywood, and the video games that teach young kids how to shoot heads."

OK, let's talk about that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

"Looking at the world’s 10 largest video game markets yields no evident, statistical correlation between video game consumption and gun-related killings."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-hypothetical-notation.jpg)

My two cents: The US needs limited gun control along with greater mental health treatment. 30 round clips for pistols and 100 round clips for m16s shouldn't be legal, the military doesn't even use those. The real problems is mental illness, and the US should screen better for these problems.

Banning the sale of guns won't make them go away.  First of all, there are probably already as many guns in the US as people.  Second, gun parts are readily available to assemble an automatic weapon.  These were available seperately  from various legal sources to be assembled by the purchaser DURING the assault weapons ban period.  Many, many guns are unregistered so even if people were forced to turn in all of their guns, there would be no way to tell how many guns were still out there and who would have them.  We could begin change by banning automatic weapons and large clips.  We could also create stiffer penalties for those who don't secure their guns to prevent theft.   We could insist on rigid background checks tio ensure that those who are mentally unstable can never purchase a weapon.  Remember, felons are not allowed to have guns.  Why should the mentally ill be permitted to have guns?  And finally, we have to have legislation that will allow doctors and courts to enforce treatment or residential placement of the chronically mentally ill. Some of you might remember a few years back when state mental hospitals were scaled back and laws were changed to protect the mentally ill from being detained unless they were an immediate threat to self or others.  Nice idea.  But, these folks often stop taking medication and refuse further treatment after discharge and the system makes it very difficult for families to get help even when they know their family member has once again become a danger.  The solution, if one is to be found, will be very complex and will be years inthe making.
 

Our education system is a scam.  You nailed it.  Total garbage.  I want nothing more than to bring down and expose this festering Goliath.

I was appalled to learn my kids are being tested about solar energy and energy conservation.  Turn off the heat and lights, blah, blah.  In third grade?  Excuse me school system, tell me why are you're so damn worried about my electric bill.  Do you jive turkeys want to pay the electric bill in my house?  Cuz you can.  How about you teach them how to get a job so they can be lucky enough to have an electric bill.  Maybe teach them how to build an electric company -- or sh**t, teach them how to read the damn electric bill.  Maybe they wouldn't have so much f***ing homework, if you taught during the day rather than mind raped.

The Left is so blatant and emboldened right now.  It's time to bring the hammer down, people.  Bring the hammer DOWN!!!   :rock

Your petition to God should perhaps be directed a little further south.   :lol

So... ok, ok.  If there's absolutely no link between video games violence and murders ( :lol, sorry this is funny to me) ...aren't you making their point?  Think about it.  If there is no influence in what one sees and hears and does... even fantasies about, virtually acts out, ...than how can you make your case, so passionately against your one narrow little targeted object?

Now... I don't want to call anyone a hypocrite... well, I do ... but I won't, because, that's not what's going on here.  But I will suggest a limited logical scope of one's argument, and the inability for one to resist in sharing said argument to achieve, perhaps some personal goal. Care to share it?

I took NRA sources statement to mean that, if you want to have a discussion on preventing gun violence in America, you should be looking at a whole raft of other things first, including the ludicrous argument that video games influence these things (which gets trotted out EVERY TIME). They are not blaming relaxed gun laws, a lapsed assault rifle ban (lapsed under intense pressure from the NRA, natch) or any thing to do with the gun industry or their toxic organisation (last seen driving up sales by going 'Obama's GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND FREEDOM'). They're blaming Hollywood movies and a 'culture of violence'.


They have no evidence, as the graph shows. They are simply deflecting the issue, which as they have a wide range of influence, is grim. Would hardly expect such a deranged gang of sh*ts to be anything but panicked in light of this event, mind.  


That's my point. Hit your bong and get back to me as to why I'm a hypocrite. Please.

sh*t happens. Hundreds of thousands die of drunk driving around the world every year - yet NO ONE is crying out wanting to ban/regulate alcohol or the use of cars.

Even if you take away guns, humans will always find a way to kill...You can EASILY kill/harm loads of people with a combination of cleaning supplies and a lighter (all available at your local grocery store) - are we supposed to ban that stuff too?

I sleep well at night knowing that if a burglar enters my home I have a means of self defense other than calling 9-1-1 and waiting 10 minutes for them to arrive (and burglaries are actually quite common here).

I am ALL for stricter regulation of gun laws: regulated clip size, deeper background checks, etc. But I'm also for my right to self defense in a nation where even if you destroyed 99% of the guns you'd still have tens of thousands of guns floating around somewhere.

You know I love u dude but c'mon.

I don't think 'people are going to kill anyway' is a suitable brush off. That shouldn't mean it should be easy for them to gun down a school in a bulletproof vest.... a gun is also a lot different than homebrew biological warfare!

I think we're just cultural differences - I mean when I got burgled my presence alone scared the guy off! I must look like hell when I first wake up....  :lol

You know, in the inner cities in the United States, hundreds of people are murdered every year. The general public doesn't really bat an eyelash. Is it because the victims aren't children or because the victims aren't white, middle class folks? That's why liberals are up in arms about the gun control thing again...to them, the NIMBY principle (not in MY back yard!) was broken. They don't mind if angry kids in the inner cities kill each other but if it happens to white people, we're gonna goshdarn go after the guns!

 :lol  No, no, no... you're not a hyprocrite!   :lol  I thought I made that clear... you're not a hypocrite.  You're just wrong and you're making their point, to boot!  The NRA said... "fine, let's talk about guns.  But let's also talk about other things that also have nothing to do with what happened.  And you scream: "no!!! those had nothing to do with what happened!"

 :lol

Let's talk about guns, baby
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the shootings and massacres
That may be!

ie - saying 'guns don't kill people, video games do' is diversionary. Guns kill people.

Sung to the tune of "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone..."

I can see clearly now
I should live in fear.
There's a gun stalking me and his name is Charlie.

Yes...Charlie the gun.  Charlie's only intent is to shoot.  Bang! Bang! is all he can say.  He has no eyes, but wears sunglasses.  Well... he has eyes, but they do not see.  Well they see... but only targets.  He can't see anything else... including video games.  So no need to pull out a graph.  He can't even see the TV.

He has no arms... or legs.  So he can't walk.  He's a gun.  He's Charlie the gun.  He just sort of hops along... with each hop, he goes off.   BANG! BANG BANG!! BANG!!! -- he goes down the avenue.  This is actually quite helpful in alerting me to his presence ... and precisely the reason I've averted all his previous attempts thus far.



How this is not a diversionary tactic, brother... I can not say.   :lol  But, I'll play.  I've got a great imagination, so I can go all day.

So... what's the name of the gun following you?  Is it Spanky?

If you want to have a fucking discussion, I'm ready when you are.

Your move...

I'm not brushing it off, that's just the world we live in. I admit, guns are an easy way for people to kill - but even if we somehow made every gun disappear, criminals/psychotics and their actions wouldn't magically disappear - they'd find other ways of harming others in mass.

:lol sorry to hear about your breakin! I've had some close calls myself, heck, I've been shot at before - it's not at all a fun experience, and it's still shakes me up to this day...all the more reason I support the right to bear arms: criminals will always have access to firearms, and I should have the right to not feel afraid...especially in my own home.

And I love you too though Hypehat! Gah, I do wish we lived in a world where guns didn't exist and we could just chill out and listen to The Beach Boys all day ;D :thewilsons

*edit for spelling

Excellent point.  I've always thought it was because it is they, the leftist DemoRats, who are running the inner cities.  So they don't talk about the never ending rot and violence there.  But ...you're right.  It could be racial.  They are the party totally fixated on race, gender... hey... maybe there's a new thread topic there... hmm.

Either way... it could be the whole assorted rainbow of sick human behavior guiding these Statists' reactions (or lack there of) with these types of awful events.  Taste the rainbow.   :brian

I mean, shoot... look at the O-man's latest attack...

Obama: Conn. shooting should prod GOP on ‘fiscal cliff’ deal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/obama-vows-veto-gop-tax-plan/

WHAT?!?!  Oh my!   :lol  Sicko!!  I know better than to speak ill of a tyrant in a public forum... so I'll just let that chestnut speak for itself.  Ties in nicely with my "bully" discussion in the Socialism In France thread.  Bully.  Thugs.  Punks.  It's all there... just sit back and watch it unfold!

Can we please just start a permanent "Right-Wingers" thread? Because that's really what it is around here. The nauseating group-think is simply rancid. If there were such a thread, posters could chime in and donate topics at their own risk. Because pretending there is actual well-rounded and diverse discourse going on around here is complete dishonesty. It's just a big circle jerk and I don't know why anyone bothers....

I'm not joking about this. I think it's a necessary thing to create.

And Bean Bag, your completely putrid lack of understanding of the causes of inner cities violence, or the inner cities as we know them is indicative of the laziness of the right and their giddiness at laying blame on the feet of those who attempt solutions while they themselves happily do nothing. You'll keep doing it without shame and it is disgusting. To take a complex issue and whittle it down to a simplicity that suits your selfish and psychopathic world view is the worst of the worst.

Interesting, well shaded article....

http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol3num3/article3.pdf

What, again with the lecturing?   ::) :lol    Hey "Pinder," c'mon bro!  These are big issues.  It takes balls and brains.  Do leftists Demorats not run the inner cities?  I mean c'mon bro!!  What are you afraid of?  Why can't you take it?!  You can hang!  You can do it!  I know you can!  What did I say that was so, lacking?!  Are people not getting mowed down in the inner cities?  Yes they are.  And yes... I do lay blame.  You think these socialists, leftist, demoRats are "attempting solutions..." I say "present them."  Present these solutions.

Yeah... you want my solution to be simple?  You want me to "whittle it down" for you?  I don't know how you knew my solution was simple, since I hadn't presented it yet... but bravo, you win a gold star.  I'll make it simple.  Just for you, I'll bring it.  What you don't think I can do it?  Have you no faith?  Waaaalaa!!  Shabizz!  Simple it shall be.  Just for you.  And here it is:  Let my people go, bro.  Leftists -- vacate our cities.  Return them to us.  Vacate your positions of power.  Release DeTroit!  Release Los Angeles!  Release Chicago!  Let my people go!



As for the "right-wingers" thread... wouldn't that be segregation? 

Segregation? Nah! It will just be THE place for balls and brains! Naturally!

Please tell me how the inner cities are supposed to be released and how that will work? I'm not asking this as a baiting tactic. I'm honestly asking. Because I'll give any possible solution a listen.

And stop with the "bro" thing please or I'll start calling you Beeen Bahg!

And there are no such things as leftists or liberals. Hate to break it to you....

There are only corporatists/fascists/right-wingers...... and then there are the rest of us....

Everyone (not actually everyone) knows that guns aren't really the problem, people are the problem. Therefore, the easiest way to sort this out is to simply eradicate all people, preferably using guns. No people = no shootings, I'm a frickin' genius.

WE NEED MORE OSD TALK AROUND HERE!!!! ;D

Finally a man of action with some real solutions around here! :)

But wait! Who will take care of our guns when we're all eradicated? Won't they be sad and lonely?

I say they enforce the 2nd amendment as it was written, Muskets for everybody! :hat

The primates can look after them? Imagine a Tarsier packing heat!

Interesting.  I've always said Leftist, Socialists... Statists seems most appropriate.  I hate labels, because it just enables some childish tool to change one thing in their manifesto, and go "I'm not a liberal... I- I- I'm a progressive now!  See how stupid you are!"

 :lol  That kind of debate is a snoooooooze fest.

But... yes it would be segregation to have a "right-winger" thread.  Balls and brains would abound, true... but I think, ideas should compete.  In the open.  At least at the pro level.  Hacks like you guys should stay home!   :p :lol  Kidding.  But you know something... rarely do these things get debated.  They don't.  We don't debate like this.  People say... we need to dialogue on this... the nation needs to debate.  Sh-t let's do it.  Pick your guy, we'll pick our guy.  No f----king moderator!!  Wouldn't you love to see Left and Right collide?  I think you guys would get slaughtered.  I think Gingrich was onto something by challenging Obama to Lincoln/Douglas style debates.  Ah well... it's happen at some point.

OK... so how do you "release the inner cities?"  Simple... resign.  For example... Rahm Emanual... take you and all your a**face clowns and go.  Clean out your desk.  All of em.  Since we're playing in the Sandbox... and it's my idea -- I'll appoint someone to run it.  But no more liberals... or whatever they're calling themselves.

This sounds like a plausible plot for the next Planet of the Apes movie.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I like this.

I wonder if our cats and dogs would "evolve" and start walking on their hind legs and packing our guns!!!!

Also staff the NRA...

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we be good liberals and start a Meals-On-Wheels type program where we'll deliver SmileySmile posts and threads to OSD who's been segregated to the Hoffman Board and he can ferry his responses back over through us?

This is something Jesus would do, right?

OSD needs some Holiday cheer! We need to start a protest movement to get OSD back on smiley smile.

Yeah, we can't have the powers that be on this board behaving like common politicians allowing corporate power to influence policy ;)

I say Pinder for president with each moody running different parts of the government.

Oh wait...if guns are inherently evil and the means used to accomplish everything the government does is by threat of a gun, doesn't that make government evil?

Check and mate, statists. Come back tomorrow with another one.

Let's all just agree to disagree. Everyone already has their mind made up. Let's Be Friends!

Well... they've done it a'gin, skeeter.  Our forum friends done up and changed directions a'gin.  Just like that!

Now, instead of banning the guns, they're entertaining the idea of killing the people.  You know... guns don't kill people -- people kill people.  What now!?  They want to eradicate 'em all.  Even themselves!

Why... they're just too fast for us, pa!  :lol  :lol  :lol

You know what? Life is dangerous. Life is a sexually transmitted disease that always results in death. It has no other purpose except to kill people. BAN IT!

Whenever there's some hot button political issue like this, these, I don't know what you'd call them, little, diplomatically phrased, sound-bite friendly "plans" are floated by pundits and spread like wild-fire among the people. "infrastructure improvement", "improve social safety nets", stuff like that, in this case it's about banning "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips" coupled with talk about "improving access to mental health treatment". But these dogmatic, un-nuanced, designed for public consumption proposals are so empty and meaningless.

It's not at all clear how any of these carefully engineered sentiments would translate into legislation, and when the government finally gets enough people thoughtlessly echoing them the resulting bill will be written and agreed upon behind closed doors and will ultimately be completely ineffective in accomplishing the sorts of reforms the public actually had in mind with their charming little politically-correct phrases.

Sure, ban assault weapons, though no-one is really sure what exactly an assault weapon is, and any definition will (and has) easily be circumvented by vendors and manufacturers. Ban "high capacity clips" (which, by the way, is a nonsense statement that confuses clips and magazines as interchangeable...) but how exactly does that work? There are millions of these things floating around, and banning just their manufacture for instance, does nothing to take the existing ones of the market or prevent their manufacture abroad. So to actually do anything you'd likely have to outright ban the possession of such magazines, a policy which is next to impossible to unilaterally enforce and which undoubtedly be used selective by the federal government to target specific groups of people for political ends. And of course, at the end of the day, converting many rifles to fully-automatic is next to child's play, and can be done by anyone without the government's consent using simple materials.

And when you point all this out, that there's absolutely no logistically adequate course of action to meaningfully accomplish any of this, the counter argument is essentially little more than "so what? we might as well try", which in my mind is completely absurd. There will be fallout, trying is not harmless. People's lives will be affected, people will go to jail, billions of dollars will be spent, hundreds of thousands of man-hours hours will be consumed in litigation, and when a sniper takes his bolt action rifle and climbs to the top of a clock tower and murders a dozen innocent people, and we realize that it was all a naive pipe dream and watch as the law lapses into oblivion or is overturned by the supreme court, we'll have done worse for ourselves than if we had simply done nothing.

If you can't promise a statistically significant effect resulting from proposed legislation, if you can't demonstrate, through reasoned analysis, that the social and economic costs will be fully offset by the benefits, 'we might as well try' is not a convincing argument for doing anything.

Then we'll all just do as you would do and do absolutely nothing...... Whew, that was easy..... The world is chock full of big talkers and who know best from the comfort of the basement chair they're sitting on. But, hey: this IS a  message board which exists for that very purpose, so I guess the problem is really mine.


But TTBB is right (not with his "checkmate" bluster) .... Life is inherently dangerous and bad things/bad people will happen and it's best to just hug your kids, hug your friends, and try to enjoy what you can of it....

Considering the only person to blame for this, the person who actually did it, is dead, I really don't know what people believe we should be doing.

Maybe if there had been some Beach Boys records in this kid's house rather than guns...... Seriously..... Or at least more Beach Boys records THAN guns....

Fantastic post, Fishmonk.  Totally indisputable.  Let me tell you, Pinder... perhaps this will help...

I understand people's need to cry out and seek answers -- it's natural and part of our logical mind.  Our brains are wired to seek logic and reason.  Attempting to digest completely illogical and reason-less events, probably fries people's noodles.  Perhaps emotion kicks in, to fill the gap.  One or the other.

Either way... many are left susceptible (or start out that way, for all I know.)  Half-baked ideas, spur of the moment, emotional decisions get made.   Don't read the fine print! Just buy the car, this deal ain't gonna last forever!!!!  (Think algore and his "must act now! the debate is over!" pitch.)  Yes...sadly, there's "vultures" out there to pray on the susceptible.  Exploit them.  I hope that's not a shock to anyone.

Still with me?

But here's the deal.  Here's why they do it.  In addition to building up the leftist coalition and directing hatred towards the right... eh hmm ...don't you know, these events are great ways for bills to get bounced around (in both chambers) pickin' up some "amendments."  Yessir!  Pork!  When it's all said and done... the original purpose is long forgotten and gadzooks! -- billions are missing!  Which is the whole point from the start.  This is why they do it, folks.  Their only objective is to steal money.  I don't know how else to put it.  This is the system they have.  Period.  Let me say that again... this is the system they have, this! is! how! they! do!! it!!!!!!!  Watch them and call me a liar!!!!

Disarming the populace is just a plus.  A big plus, yes... absolutely.  I'd rather rob unarmed people if I were a cowardly schmuck too.  I know I'd feel better if I were a thief and I knew that the people were unarmed.  Wouldn't you?  Be honest...

 :police:

So yeah... I know it's inconceivable to many... this is how we've been trained (which was one of my last points in the Four More Years thread).  We've been trained to think "NOTHING good can happen without a BILL! Someone, please pass a f**king bill!!!  Ban something!!! Please!!"  But, yes for nothing to come out of Washington, would be ideal in this case.  Laugh all you want.  Hate me.  It's the truth, br--- I mean, pal.

Feel empty now?  I'm sorry...

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

I'm strongly against Republican policies and have been critical of Republican politicians throughout these threads, as have many of the other more conservative posters.

Indeed Fishmonk, but a lot gets lost in the translation with various threads and responses flying about and emotions causing fingers and keys to rattle!!!

Sorry to interject but we as in Australians find it almost laughable that you feel that "carrying" a weapon is for protection.. I feel almost sick having to say this and as much as I hate to over generalise, why do you (Americans) have such a thirst for guns/violence? Why do you think it is normal to walk the streets with a gun? I think it is so in-fused into your psyche that you honestly know no better. You seem to have no rational concept of how the rest of the world percieves your Country anymore!

Maybe because I lived through a summer where a guy was going around slithering into houses, shooting the male in the head and raping the woman next to his convulsing body and then either killing her or dragging her around the house by her hair and sometimes raping her young child in front of her...... Yeah, isn't America wonderful? But you should be asking your question to anyone but me. I was just trying to find a way to somehow relate on some level and I did. But the idea of a bunch of anti-government yahoos with assault weapons scares me just as much as anything the government or any random criminal might do.

BTW, I spent a year in your country as a teenager and I miss it every day.

 * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

This country is FULL of disgusting violence (rapes, murders, break-ins, kidnappings, beatings, etc). I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of a gang ass kicking? It sucks. I'm sure you've heard bullets whiz over your head and plink on the ground next to you? That sucks too. I'm sure you've had friends nearly die because of people trying to carjack them with guns? It doesn't happen everyday, but it happens.

I'd feel pretty damn vulnerable if I didn't have a weapon to protect myself with in this country.  

America is FULL of guns. Of course it is inane that we have so many. Of course I find it disgusting that we feel we need to carry them around. But don't laugh at it. Don't put us all in one boat of violent ignorant assholes. Most of us who own guns keep them in a closet or in a nightstand hoping we never have to use them.

*sorry for sounding so harsh haha. I'm tired and a little worn out. America is just a different culture than most countries....On the flip side it completely baffles me that European countries and Australia ban weapons - I can't imagine living in a country without that right! But like I say, we're just of different cultures.

Apologies for the psych 101 tutorial.  :lol But in true 101 fashion, it applies to everyone.  That was my point -- I too understand that basic concept, the need to do something in the face of these tragedies.  That applies to all of us.  I meant no offense by making that clear.

That's why I put "still with me?" in there, since I assumed you'd bail on my post after said clarification.  If you haven't already, please read after "Still with me?" cuz that's the whole deal, right there... in black and white.   ;D

I think you and I do agree on a lot of this.  I hope everyone reads that section... cuz it really does explain what's actually going on.

So when exactly did you go past the "tipping point" where fear breads fear and that in turn breads violence? You live in a paradox where the very protection you seek only enforces the fear you wish to be protected from. I feel for our American cousins, I had no idea a land so "free" is so full of fear!

This is why the gun issue often falls along class lines, which is why I think the gun issue is more of a distraction from the more important class discussion. But, yes, you are correct, the United States is ultimately a more violent country than just about every other industrialized nation and that mostly comes down to its gun laws - per capita, the United States homicide rate is higher than any other first world country and a large majority (about 2/3rds) of those homicides are from fire arms. So, yes, if you restrict access to guns you ultimately make the country safer, and this is important since obviously real lives are at stake (that is, if one really cares about real lives, rather than participating in some intellectual exercise) but you have to get past the enormous propaganda efforts that have indoctrinated a fairly large part of the population. But again, I do think one runs the risk of being a classist by simply pushing an anti-gun agenda - one has to account, of course, for the reason why guns are used and accessed at the level that they are and much of this comes down to a population that have mostly been left to fend for themselves.

Rather a statist than an 'anarchist'  ::)

I'm guessing your answer to this whole thing would be something along the lines of letting the free-market sort it out. Possibly more de-regulation, because the reason why guns are so dangerous is because of the oppression of the state to possess body armour and an assault rifle or some half-baked bullsh*t like that? In a corporate world (which you frequently point out is a catalyst for your views), that's so very anarchist of you. Never mind that the free-market is out to screw you, it's the X to the Y of the state. Down with government, all that nasty accountability and regulation really gets in the way of corporations commiting gross tax fraud, banks fixing interest rates and driving up mortgage prices. That's what you're repping for, right?

You're a very binary thinker, you know that? You should try a shade of grey some time, it might help you out.


To try and meet you halfway, I'm utterly disgusted on a daily basis by what my government does too, but the way things are today is a direct result of neo-liberal policy running from the 1980's, and to cut off the entire political spectrum as useless due to one ideological strain that gained credence (and has waxed and waned in popularity this century as the effects have sunk in especially among the working class, who now have  no mainstream political representation thanks to it) seems rash. There is more to government than the last thirty years, and things will change again. But abolishing government in favour of a total corporate free-market state would seal the deal for the neo-liberalism which I guess you despise as much as I do.

Interesting points all around.

I need to mention something which is the core of some thoughts I added to the Depardieu tax thread this week.

Hypocrisy.

I think there is something valid which can be nuanced out of what TRBB posted. Taking it to a level where we can discuss actual people doing actual things rather than a concept named "government", which can be used to represent many things, can we look at a few like Mayor Bloomberg in New York?

I heard someone mention this the other day: If Bloomberg were standing strong on his convictions, why does he not remove the guns from his armed bodyguards? That person's belief was that in theory, Bloomberg saying what he says about guns in private hands while arming his own security details might suggest Bloomberg feels he as a person is more important or more worthy of protection than the average resident of New York whose legal right to own a gun for protection might be questioned.

I personally feel that theory isn't realistic or logical, but it does hit on some very important questions which people have a right to ask. Bloomberg invites a lot of these questions on himself by promoting himself as he has done, as some kind of a moral authority who seeks to "regulate" behaviors, people, or activities which *he* feels would make the lives of the general public in New York City somehow better.

Witness his absurd high per-pack taxes on cigarettes, his banning of large sodas, his regulations on how and where restaurants in NYC need to list menu items, his recent attempts to gather groups of city workers and agents into a "task force" in order to eventually eliminate someone's right to smoke in their own apartment, etc. One of his key issues is in fact gun control, and it's difficult not to think he feels someone who owns a gun legally and is responsible in doing so is morally equivalent to those criminals who own guns illegally and use those guns to commit crimes.

So if someone were to ask him "Mr. Mayor, would you advocate the same gun regulations on your staff and your security as you would advocate for the general public?", it would be a fair question. And in doing so, is he placing his own self-worth and value as a person above that of the average NYC resident, and suggesting using guns for protection or having those around you protect you by the use of firearms...as a deterrent and as a means of reacting to an immediate threat...is a right more deserving of those in government than the public at large?

I can think of one example that got me thinking about these issues years ago, and it came from listening to the Howard Stern show in the 80's and 90's. Rosie O'Donnell was a major gun control advocate and outspoken de facto public spokesperson of the movement at that time. She was involved in the "Million Mom March" which was advocating strict gun laws, and she was also seen a public rallies and protests at various corporate offices and locations for companies like K-Mart, whose store policies on selling ammunition were being called out.

Then on Stern's show one day - and he may have gotten this info elsewhere - they revealed that Rosie is going around making this much noise against guns and advocating more regulations against legal guns while employing the services of an *armed bodyguard* whose daily job involved carrying a firearm as both a deterrent and protection for her family.

The case was made, even beyond the apparent hypocrisy of the situation, did Rosie genuinely feel that she had more of a right to armed protection than a citizen who might be affected in his or her own right to that same protection if the kinds of laws O'Donnell and the groups she was working with and for were advocating?

Same with the dust-up Bob Costas stepped into when making a commentary on guns during an Eagles football game televised nationally in the wake of a murder-suicide carried out with a gun by an NFL player. Some of the reactions from athletes themselves - including Charles Barkley - was "Yeah, but...you know many if not most of us carry or own guns for protection..." or some variation of that sentiment. I don't know if any prominent stars actually came out and said it, but the sentiment to Costas seemed to hint at avoiding a case of hypocrisy when the sports world he inhabits with very high-paid athletes actively uses guns and armed security for personal protection.

It's a tough call, I know where I stand and the notion of calling out hypocrisy is one which I use often in forming opinions on politics and world affairs (that list could be very long, if not impossible...), but I would ask what other opinions may be there in terms of those strong gun control advocates like Bloomberg and O'Donnell saying one thing is in the common good, yet employing versions of that very same thing they suggest isn't good for the common good in the cause of their own personal safety.

Tu quoque

Nice try. Try harder.

No, seriously. It's valid to call out hypocrisy unless it's your own? Is that what you are suggesting?

It's valid for anyone to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and to use that hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Bloomberg, Buffett, Al Gore, Romney, etc. to question any moral authority or "bully pulpit" they may try to assume when advocating public policy which has direct consequences on private lives. Or specifically, when they advocate a law or a regulation or a ban which may directly affect your life in some way while continuing to do the very same thing they advocate against in public in order to protect or enrich themselves or their own families.

Perfectly valid. And applicable to Bloomberg and Rosie regarding their anti-gun advocacy, in my opinion.

And just so the main topic of my post doesn't get lost in a sea of debating the nature of judging hypocrisy, I suppose it's easier to do that than confront the actual points being made, I'll bump it to the top of the page, free of charge.

(Special notice: If you live in New York City, you may want to check on Bloomberg's city tax codes to see if you'll owe anything as the recipient of this gift...)  ;D

In that case I'm calling you out on your own hypocrisy since you have previously suggested than an "appeal to hypoocrisy" is an invalid argument, quoting from the definition that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position." However, at that point, the "position" in question was your own, not one you disagreed with.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.msg336873.html#msg336873 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.msg336873.html#msg336873)

Now you're just grasping at straws, and in the process holding nothing. And still not directly addressing the main points...are they hitting too close to the bone, or touching on issues that may jeopardize some position which is crucial to the overall issue? Interesting.

As far as hypocrisy, Buffett calling on people to pay higher taxes or their "fair share" of taxes while employing teams of lawyers to find creative ways to lower his own taxes is blatant hypocrisy. As a taxpayer I will always shine the flashlight on that brand of political bullshit.

Al Gore - enough said
Romney - ditto.

Bloomberg - You find *nothing at all* hypocritical about a man advocating strict gun laws which potentially could directly affect a citizen's right in New York to legally carry a sidearm for personal protection while the Mayor himself navigates the same city flanked by a team of armed guards?

It's akin to the smoking issue: A smoker saying smoking is unhealthy and suggesting other smokers quit is different than that same smoker being a public or government official who would create a law or regulation designed to punish smokers while he himself continues to smoke. Or how about a hypothetical prosecuting attorney in a county who is known for throwing the book at people busted with marijuana while he actively takes bong hits in his own home?

We're talking about the difference between people who potentially have the power and ability as government officials to enact laws versus private citizens who elect and pay these people. In that case, I admit the examples of Rosie O'Donnell falls short as a result, because ultimately as an entertainer with a bullhorn at Million Mom rallies, she has no real power to affect change as Bloomberg holds as mayor.

No, I am suggesting that it is impossible to have an honest conversation with someone who clearly attempts to have it both ways. You insist that we must address the issue of hypocrisy if we are going to have a conversation about gun control (to the extent that you entirely re-paste your point) but when you perceive that someone is calling out your own hypocrisy you argue that appeals to hypocrisy are illegitimate, citing "tu quoque" as a logical fallacy and presenting a quotation which stated that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position."  

Whether I find "*nothing at all* hypocritical about a man advocating strict gun laws" is hardly the point since the tu quoque fallacy that you previously held dear de-legitimizes arguments that make an appeal to hypocrisy. So when one allegedly "appeals to hypocrisy" when critiquing your argument, it's illegitimate, but when an appeal to hypocrisy bolsters your argument, it is "perfectly valid." Well, that's just having it both ways and it seems to me pretty clear that you will simply say anything to win an argument or to avoid looking like you are losing an argument even if that means insisting that we apply standards to others that you refuse for yourself. And I suppose this is why you are now trying to suggest that I'm "grasping at straws" since I'm calling out a very irrefutable example of your own hypocrisy (unfortunately, at this point, you are unable to drop the ol' tu quoque like you did the last time, given the very nature of the discussion).

No, the reality of this is that whenever a more involved opinion piece is posted here that goes more in-depth than the usual reactionary flame-throwing two-sentence insult posts, and would serve to effectively present points which could contradict in some people's minds the kind of ideology and philosophy that you seek to convince others to agree or find solidarity with you on those points, you instead counter with personal throw-downs designed to turn the debate into a challenge to the validity of that person disagreeing rather than confront those points offered which counter your own philosophy or opinions on the matter.

I wasn't even going to engage you at all in any discussions, honestly it's Christmas and I didn't want to go negative at all. But your unwillingness to do anything but seek to go after the person posting what challenges your opinions instead of addressing the opinions themselves is why I will no longer engage in direct politically charged debates with or about you unless my name is directly mentioned.

I tried to be civil and nice about it by not engaging, and tried to sit it out, but to be honest, your schtick has grown too old at this point. A debate on the issues is one thing - don't go around re-posting a litany of perceived insults other posters had made, don't go around asking that threads be locked, don't go around offering yourself as a martyr when you turn a debate about gun control laws and my pointing out the hypocrisy of public officials and "entertainers" into a challenge of my own hypocrisy, according to what must be your very high standards for judging such things.

f*** this sh*t, it's Christmas and I'm going to be happy. Taking a cue from the RockAndRoll playbook of political opinion, the interaction ends here, I will continue to actively debate and discuss but will no longer personally respond to your posts. I'm happier that way.

If you want to question someone's character and their ability to call out hypocrisy, at this point I'd suggest buying a full-length mirror and staring at it. You could be using your abilities with the written word to do much more satisfying things than trying to win political arguments by trying to make others who disagree with you look inferior.

Good day, sir.

Quite surprised that no-one has posted anything about the NRA press conference today, armed police officers in every school, what a great idea! I think I prefer the Gun Owners Of America's idea of having armed teachers a little more though.

My personal preference would to have one of these in each class room in every school in the US.

(http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/robocop/ed209.jpg)

An ED-209 in every school. A way better idea than that "other" robocop option. ;)

The most interesting news that I discovered today was a page of research summaries challenging the idea that an armed populace is an effective deterrent to violent crime. Turns out, many people who claim to have used guns in self defense pull them out in illegal and undesirable situations, and guns in a home are more likely to be used to intimidate family members than to defend against intruders.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html)

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah.  I mean... that's really where we're at guys.  GuitarFool's Point nails it -- Bloomberg's armed.  Isn't he?  Guys?  Is Bloomberg armed?  Yes.

Is it overkill to arm every school?  Probably... sure, but they're getting more heat than Michael-f**kin-Bloomberg is.  Am I missing something?  Are my pants on backwards?  Perhaps the media should be asking if Bloomberg needs armed guards -- not the schools.  The media should be asking if Obama really needs that stupid suped-up bullet-proof Cadillaic.  F**k no.  No one gives a sh*t about Obama!!  Are you kidding me?!!!  He's useless!!

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7JZkFRe4RVNhFnk6TkFwPl3qQzRlS5p_CoaePVCJSTFO20ikPsg)

I wouldn't be laughing at the NRA's obvious conclusion that the schools need to arm.  Sh*t, I want a tank in front of every school.  That's how I roll.  That's the folks I want to protect.  Because the last time I checked, Sand Hook was a school. not a politician.  Give me tanks.  Just because something sounds crazy ...perhaps, maybe it's because the situation is crazy.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/34371/original.jpg)

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

I can understand your point but I feel like when placing schools under constant police surveillance appears like a good idea that that suggests just how deep the problems really run.

But there are two things that need to be done when disaster strikes. There is calming down the ensuing paranoia/panic by doing....... something..... Whatever this something is tends to get heavily politicized by both sides and some good ideas tend to get either insanely embraced by some and the insanely fought off others.... There should always be a short term response while the bigger picture is worked out.... Too often, like right now, we just fight and fight amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers just get richer and our kids are no safer....If parents and gun freaks are happy some cops patrol schools or whatever, I can't see it hurting. It's better than some armed yahoo militia doing it..... My high school was on lock down back in the late 80's in case we got bold and wandered to 7-11 during break or lunch. They had these 7ft tall local college basketball guys n gals who would chase you down and get you in a headlock and drag you to the principle's office (not kidding) .... The world is sadly not free......

I agree that something should be done, even if it is a short term solution. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about keeping "gun freaks" happy. Even before this tragedy, they had no credible position.

A. Many high schools already have a permanent police presence. It's nothing new.
B. Enforcing sweeping gun reform would require a greater enlargement of police powers than that.

Whether or not it is new doesn't make the idea any less stupid.


Not necessarily. As David Frum recently pointed out, if you're going to arm police at schools, you could likewise justify placing federal agents at rural churches, nail parlors, bus stations, brothels, casinos, parking lots, grocery stores, dental clinics, dog groomers, strip clubs, public swimming pools, gas stations, taxi cabs, zoos, libraries, etc. What gun reform would be doing ultiamtely would be saving lives including those who are outside of schools, without placing constant police presence in every area where shootings have occurred.

Wait, don't most schools have an armed officer already?

I went to a fairly poor, almost backcountry school, and we had a designated resource officer who carried around a piece (he was a real nice guy who would help you if you were lost, break up nasty brawls in the cafeteria, kick smokers out of the bathroom, etc). Seems like all the schools in my area have this. Besides, I really don't see the problem with an officer guarding every school...as our resource officer proved: they don't just sit around and eat donuts all day.

I'm not from the States - I've never heard of such a thing and quite frankly find it tragic that anyone considers it the norm or even considers that it should be the norm.

I find it weird that neither you nor hypehat are from America yet have so much to say about it.

Having armed officers in school is very normal, to call it tragic is a little bit of an overstatement considering they serve very little purpose. They mostly give anti-drug talks and focus most of their attention on the at-risk students who are getting into criminal activities early on.

This is really what I was talking about though. Our schools are slowly but surely turning into prisons or at least pipelines that funnel young people into the prison system. Again, it seems like a better solution would be to loosen our grip on education and deemphasize the current compulsory, universal model.

I 100% agree with you there.

I'll also say this: Teachers think of these resource officers as a blessing for basically one reason alone: they are trained and equipped to break up fights (I've witnessed fights in school hallways where blood was in pools across the floor - and our school was one of the least violent in the area :o). Teachers are afraid to break up fights lest it turn into a lawsuit (happened to a friend of mine who is a teacher), they're also afraid for their lives (I've seen teachers being picked up and slammed into walls by fellow students during fights). Thus they are more at ease knowing there's a resource officer is standing by to quickly diffuse any fight. It's sad it has to be this way, but it is.

I hate seeing more policing and more government spending, so it is tragic when I feel more policing and more spending is necessary to keep our schools safe.

The root of the problem varies from racism, jealousy (about relationships/flings), to drugs, bullying, lack of direction, poor education, etc. Find the solution to those problems and your level of homicides (and even school brawls) around the world will drop immensely, methinks.

@RockandRoll: What is your stance on gun laws in America? Do you think all guns should be outlawed for regular civilians? Do you support the use of hunting rifles? (apologies if you've answered this before).

I guess that's what happens when you criticize socialized medicine.

Honestly, I'd just let the morons fight and destroy each other. If they agree on it, what's the problem?

I appreciate the questions. I might address both paragraphs with one response. I'm of the belief that you solve a great deal of problems when you solve what tends to be the fundamental issue, which is class. So you note in your first paragraph that it is necessary to "Find the solution to the problems" of racism, jealousy, drugs, bulling, lack of direction, education (and I would add alienation and lack of proper health care) and it seems to me that the root problem is class. This is why I ultimately find the gun control issue to be somewhat of a diversion (though occasionally, like in the wake of this tragedy, an important diversion) from the more important issue of class. So it seems to me that that issue needs to addressed above all else because otherwise you run the risk of getting into a useless New England vs. Texas debate or urban vs. rural debate. That being said, I do not accept the pro-gun arguments - guns neither make the population safer, nor do they protect the population from possible state tyranny. It seems to me that the UK gun policy offers a pretty good model for specifically targeting gun-related homicides but if you're going to solve the other problems that you mentioned and the problem of crime in general, then you're going to have to target the issue of class and it is telling that you simply don't get that argument being presented at all from either the hawk or dove camp in the US.

Maybe it's time we leave the sociopaths alone to do the same....

If a behavior  can be reduced in termS of frequency and intensity the result is sometimes considered a success.  This in lieu of perfection.   If we have a society where we have the right to bear arms, how do we achieve a realistic goal of reducing mass murder in public places?     Sadly, that is probably the best we can expect to achieve in a free society where the people are in agreement that they will continue to own guns.

How do we reduce the frequency and iintensity of  horrific occurances such as what we have been seeing?

What are the top 3 things we,as a society could do immediately that would be acceptable to all?  ( lets say we agree that arming everyone with M16'sand grenades is not the answer)

Nothing. The ideological opponents of any party or political figure that proposes anything whatsoever will immediately decry whatever was proposed, no matter what it was, and whip the masses into a frenzy over it. Agreement is impossible because agreement is based in understanding and respect, and it's easier to to be confrontational and dismissive than it is to listen to what anyone has to say.

Interesting game.  I don't think anyone will ever agree on anything though.  But... I have an idea...

May I introduce something else?  Let's pretend that it's not America "today" but America circa 1800.  Let's pretend it's not even Americans that we're trying to "fix" with some new gun laws.  Sh*t, let's pretend it's the Indians.  Native Americans!

Yeah... what should we do guys!?  Should we disarm the Native Americans?  Yeah!  What should we take away?  Bows?  Arrows?  Hatchets?  What can we all agree on -- as a society -- IMMEDIATELY -- that would be acceptable to all, to deal with the Native Americans?

Unlike the above posters, I do believe that there is a possibility for some kind of real compromise that will foster real material results – history demonstrates this. But I will admit that it is a daunting task, given that one has to first cut through an enormous amount of ideological obfuscation. That is not to say that the people that you encounter in day-to-day life are being purposefully disingenuous, in fact quite the contrary. But, rather, they are heavily caught up in a system of deception and indoctrination that functions largely to misinform the population and as long as the public is misinformed it is difficult to imagine that there could ever be a reasonable debate that has productive results.

Keep in mind that in the United States, 90% of the media that the people receive is controlled by six corporations. The result, of course, is a very narrow spectrum of the kind of opinion, information, and point of view expressed. This is not just because of the consolidated nature of the media – though, that’s certainly a major factor – but also due to just who are the small amount of people that control information and public knowledge. Because they are all major corporations, the already narrow information that the public receives all largely expresses the likewise narrow point of view of both the cultural and political elite. The ideology at work in media ownership is the same ideology that controls the country’s investments, production, distribution and for the most part, staff the major executive positions in the government, since it is impossible to gain an important role in a major election without an enormous amount of capital and that typically comes from the same corporate power that own the media. In effect, the elite members of society who design day-to-day existence in their own favour, also dominate in giving the public most of the information that informs the way they understand the country, the things that it does, and what their place is in it.  Moreover, the central market for the media is not the public – the media is largely unaccountable to them. Rather, the market is mostly advertisers, which means their audience is other companies.

The results of this are staggering. A recent study done on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CBS’ “Face the Nation, and “Fox News Sunday” showed the following:


While this report was done specifically on the Sunday shows, the results naturally generalize and demonstrate that the information given typically reflects a particular segment of the population – namely the ownership class.

What happens as a result is that the public is by and large convinced (because they are not given any other information) that the needs of the ownership class match their own needs. This is why the public is often misguided into believing that, say, Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 in the days leading up to the US attack on Iraq; or, that it is debatable whether or not climate change is a human responsibility, which happens to now be the standard thought once the Information Council on the Environment (a lobby group mostly made up of corporate representatives from the oil and steel industries) made it their goal to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” It’s why some people (albeit a very small contingent) believed in the outrageous claims regarding health care and death panels. People believe these things because it is so difficult to access information that reflects reality, rather than simply the interests of an obscenely small percentage of the population.

And the same can be said for the current conversation on gun control. Remember that the NRA is largely just the mouthpiece for the firearms industry, which is where about 3/4ths of their funding comes from. They may say a lot of nonsense about protecting 2nd Amendment rights, but of course, we know that’s a lot of nonsense, particularly when the verge on impinging on 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the needs of their financial backers. So the NRA largely and quite disingenuously spreads a lot of misinformation around and they carry a lot of weight and are treated quite seriously by the mainstream media, though the major cultural and political elite are not too concerned with the issue so here there is allowed some critique.

Now I think that ultimately there is an area that people can begin to find some common ground. So, for example, for the vast swaths of the public who are relentlessly indoctrinated by the media, they nevertheless have very real criticisms that ought to be taken seriously. Underneath the gloss of the grossly inaccurate and staggeringly uninformed criticisms that one often sees coming from the public, is a very real grievance that should be taken seriously because it, in fact, comes from a very sensible place. Take, for just one example, taxation. Now people despise the idea of taxation and there are compelling arguments to be made for despising them.

The American people do not need to be taxed the way that they are – and they could very well make the kind of demands that would substantially reduce taxes or at least alter in a very significant and crucial way what they are paying taxes for. Largely, the American public pays for a bloated military, as the US spends as much as the rest of the world combined on their military. As far back as the mid-90s, only 30% of the population knew that military was the largest item in the budget, with most believing it was foreign aid. In actual fact, US foreign aid is paltry in comparison to other countries – per capita. And, furthermore, what money the country does spend on foreign aid typically goes to assist countries in their oppression of a population. The US taxpayer also pays more for health care than any person in any other industrialized country, despite the fact that in those country every citizen is entitled to health care.

And finally, perhaps most strikingly, the United States has recorded unparalleled wealth yet has an enormous disparity between the rick and the poor. In fact, in recent history, studies showed that there were two areas of the world where hunger was increasing – Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States. That’s a remarkable achievement in depravity but what’s worse is the fact that the public has largely subsidized the ownership class by providing a social welfare net that helped develop the economy as we know it. Now, these are all justifiable arguments against the system of taxation – but none of them can be made because to change any of those things would be to undermine the authority of the elite interests who run the country. Therefore it becomes necessary to divert the conversation towards something less harmful – like, the government has too much control, that they want to give away everything you work for, and they’re going to come after you with a gun if you don’t pay your taxes and this all must mean that the government is evil, and so forth. I mean, the fact that this is the argument that people make about taxation is a real testament to the strength of ideological control. After all, remember that it is in the interests of the corprate world that the public is kept largely suspicious of government because it is through using the instruments of government that people can actually attain some genuine form of liberation. But that’s not supposed to happen, since that means undercutting the power of corporate control.

But it makes sense why this happens – people do things right – they live right, do all the right things and yet don’t get what is promised them. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where if you work hard enough you get to enjoy the spoils but in reality that doesn’t happen as wages stagnate and services decline and people want answers to the very real and serious problems that are affecting their lives. However, as it turns out the only place that gives them answers are the central factor in creating these problems. So people end up receiving crazy answers but they don’t hear any others. So, they think that it’s Obama’s socialism, or foreigners taking jobs, or whatever the scapegoat is that prevents them from seeing what the real problems are, in a time honored tradition. And it’s not their fault for believing it since they’re probably working too hard to be able to have the kind of access to resources and information that might allow them to see through the deceit that informs their lives.

Is there a common ground to be found on this gun issue? Absolutely – I think there’s a rational, legitimate common ground to be found on any issue but people have to know what the actual options are, and why these are the options. This in itself, though, can be a difficult task. When people have been used to receiving information that reflects only a very narrow spectrum of ideas (and a difference of opinion is already built into that narrow spectrum, such as Democrats vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative) then their immediate reaction when confronted with a point of view that exists outside of that spectrum is that it must be wrong, since it violates the very standard of what considered to be legitimate opinion. So, for example, a card-carrying Republican may hate what a Democrat says and may consider it to be full of lies, but at least they expect to hear it and in many ways hold the Democrat position to be so legitimate that they often craft their own beliefs in opposition to it (and the same holds true if you switch “Democrat” and “Republican” in this sentence). However present a point of view that falls outside of the ones given  by mainstream media and you might as well be from planet Mars. Your views are so illegitimate that even the most vulgar and deceitful response to it can be praised and deemed acceptable since any opposition to the illegitimate argument must be, by its very nature, correct. So the task is extremely difficult but I believe do-able and the stakes are so large that I believe it is also necessary.

Happy New Year.

What I find interesting...  ;)  ... is that the NRA hasn't become the target.  Everyone's blaming this crazy guy or video games or movies... but no one is blaming the NRA.  WTF!  They're the ones who put guns in the hands of madmen, not video games.  Not hollywood.  How does a movie put a gun in your hand?  Exactly.  Not only that... but get this:  that school, as is every school in the country, was a gun-free zone.  Hello?  Gun?  Free?  Who talks about guns -- the NRA.  And who always talks about "freedom" and being "free" -- the right-wingers.  Exactly.  Gun-free zones built by freedom spewing right-wingers -- all powered by Corporations.  Wake up people.

Of course the NRA and the Right Wing is blaming mental illness.  Don't be fooled.  Of course this person wasn't mentally healthy.  That's what they want!  Mental health is a simple diversion.  Brains don't kill people, last time I checked anyway.  How can a thought lead to killing anybody?  It doesn't.  Studies have proven this time and time again.  It's the gun.  Only guns and the NRA and the right-wing corporations kill people -- who if anything, put the thought in his head!  Not movies or video games.  For example... NBC reported that George Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic."  Remember that?  He was not an Hispanic -- but a white Hispanic.  I know the media is owned by evil corporations, but they're right about this because it's exposing what's really going on.  White Hispanic simply means white racism.  It was white racism, folks which is synonymous with what?  That's right -- the Right Wing.  They're the killers, America.  I mean, why are they called the NRA anyway?  The first letter is "N."  N-word?  Hello?  Why is no one looking at that?

We can't have an honest debate in this country until we all agree on this.  Let's start negotiating from there.

Just like blaming "mental health" (pfft, yeah right!) they also blame "individuals."  Seriously...WTF!?  This is the most egregious attack yet.  Individuals?  That doesn't make any sense.  Think about it.  This act was not done by an individual or mental illness.  He didn't make the gun.  A corporation made the gun.  Am I wrong?  No!  It's IMPOSSIBLE for ANY individual to do this.  It's totally the NRA.  And the 2nd Amendment.  It's right there in the Constitution people!!!!!!  The 2nd Amendment TELLS YOU TO OWN A GUN.  Hello?  What am I missing here?  Nothing.  And that's what nobody is talking about.  The right to have a gun -- the "right."  It's not a "left" to have a gun.  But a right.  Right wing.  Someone slap me 5!



Ok... the only question is why.  Why are white racists and corporations doing this?  Well if you understand anything... you'd know that the right-wing capitalists want guns because they want everyone to get shot.  It's simple.  It's simple math.  Corporations long ago figured out that they CANNOT take over the world if people are "unarmed" and defenseless.  Because, stupid... if they're unarmed they rely on Government.  And government is the only thing that protects people.  Because the Government is the only thing that can stop corporations.  Come on people!!!

Corporations long ago figured this out.  The only way they could truly take over the world was to actually arm the people they wanted to control.  I know it sounds ironic... but it's true.  Studies.  And they use their corporations like Wal-mart (which sells the guns) to deliver them.  And they use their media to tell people about the Constitution, which tells you to own a gun.  And that's how they did it -- people get all armed up, thinking it's their right to do so!  And once people are all armed up with guns and ammo -- the corporations knew that they would then start to get all shot.  By themselves.  The people will take themselves out!!  It's devilishly brilliant but makes total sense if you do the research.

There's no debating anything I said.  Studies and research and intelligence has locked that down.  The only thing left to do is -- as a society -- let's figure out how to stop them.  We must start with disarming the people -- slowly and overtime, so they don't get suspicious.  And then, as a society, we can collectively figure out how to dismantle the military industrial complex and their bosses at the Corporation headquarters, deep underground.  Of course, once disarmed, the stupid overfed populace will naturally rely on the Police state and their Government superiors for protection -- which is good and natural.  And with them relying on us intelligent superiors, we can tell them where and when to shop... thus taking the power away from corporations.

But we'll need to take over foxnews.  Because FoxNews still reports a fair amount of the right-wing corporate garbage... and that's not good.  We'll want ONE MEDIA, in-line with the Government.  So... we'll have to strong arm advertisers, who own the media, to get them to report what we want.  If another Glenn Beck pops up... put the pressure on their corporate sponsors.  If that doesn't work... use our existing media to ridicule them.  We must stop the corporations and their evil plan to take over the world by arming people with guns.  Let's disarm people, empower Government and buyout all the corporations like Fidel Castro so we can stop global warming by ending our dependency on fossil fuels so people can stop getting wealthy and using air conditioning and no longer have access to cheap, affordable products (like light bulbs) made by evil corporations so we can get back to nature and living like we did 500 years ago, when the King and his Government men ruled over all the muddy serfs who had no air conditioning and SUVs and had to poop in the street --- Let's do it!  Let's live just like it was 1199!!  http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/ (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/)

Did I say too much?  Is everyone still with me?  Great... let's regroup in 8 days.  Excelsior!

(http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/uOi7If0zW9s/mqdefault.jpg)
(http://gregcookland.com/journal/uploaded_images/picGoreAl-769476.jpg)
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/napoleon-600_9173.jpg)

Now this man's absolutely brilliant right here....  "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer..." proclaimed the gigantic, genius Andrew Cuomo.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/09/cuomos-state-of-the-state-to-include-gun-control/

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment isn't about "hunting deer" you inbred tool!!!  :lol  Hell, maybe someone does need ten bullets to kill a deer!  Dick Cheney missed a few times!   :drumroll But seriously... how sad is this.  It's not for "huntin'" you douchebag!  It's for protection against rapists, murderers, robbers, tyrants and you know... self-protection!  Duuuuh.  Hunting deer... good grief.  Is this guy for real?

He's a Governor by the way.  Yeah.  How about that, New York.  Now...you would think... just maybe (??) "assume" that someone elected to represent the citizens of an entire state would understand how to read.  Right?  No?  But he should know the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, correct?  It is the basis for our entire country's laws.  I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment doesn't talk about hunting.  At all.   ;)  I'm sure he's heard of it... I mean, he is a Governor.  Hey... wait.  Perhaps he's not a "governor" for real... maybe it's just a stage name.  The Governor!  Like a pro-wrestler.

so... just who is Andrew Cuomo? Well... let's play!  Here's all the conceivable options...

A:  Mentally challenged man with access to TV cameras
B:  Pro Wrestler
C:  A tyrant, statist and hypocrite.  (I'm sure HE gets keep his armed guards!  What an a55hole!)

I vote A and C.

EDIT:  Oh wait... "The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..."  It must mean the arms of bear.  Sorry.  You have the right to keep (something... it's not clear what you have the right to "keep") AND the right to "bear arms."  My bad.  Cuomo is a genius.

With sociopaths like Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg living in the same fucking state...New York is irremediably f***ed.

You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5

I vote for the right to arm bears!

Alex Jones is a fringe conspiracy theorist...take your John Bull paper elsewhere. :P

dammit... do you know how hard I just worked to talk Governor Cuomo outta arming deer?

If there was a British politics thread, I'd spend most of my time on that! But iirc I'm the only Britisher involved in these discussions and it would just be TRBB finding various ways to work 'John Bull' into tired zings.

Actually it would be the most one sided civil war in history, as one side would not be carrying any guns.  :p

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

:brow Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

If you advocate gun rights, your main line of defence should not be 'If you try and take my guns away the gun owning public of America will kill you'. It's kind of admitting you want to kill people. Which, as we all know, is a very reasonable argument and doesn't sound insane.

Haha - not only insane but stupidly insane. To act as if even a well-armed public could defeat the United States after it goes (or as it is going) fully tyannical is so beyond rationality and is so far outside reality, it is difficult to know whether one should react to the argument with laughter or tears.

The modern military has tanks, cannons, planes, and helicopters to enforce the laws of the land. The American revolution wasn't solely won by a militia of the people either, the Americans had to form a real army and have the military help of nations like France.

Exactly. And don't forget about nuclear weapons. There's nothing a well-armed public could do to stop the power of the United States government if they wanted to tyrannize the public that way. But of course, this isn't the third world and power does not operate that way in high-tech countries. The powerful people who run the country know that the public can be largely subordinated even with arms because the wealthy elite typically control the population and indoctrinate them. This isn't the 1700s - the way that people are rendered powerless has changed entirely. And the fact that people are led to believe that guns will protect them from the tyranny of the state is only further proof of just how powerless people have become as a result of a system of indoctrination.

Sam Harris, outspoken atheist whose books deal with topics from free will to the ridiculousness of religion, wrote a good FAQ the other day on his views of guns in America: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence)

"Many readers do not seem to understand how difficult it would be for the U.S. to follow the example of the U.K. or Australia, both of which stiffened their gun laws in response to atrocities similar to Newtown. Neither the U.K. nor Australia had anything like the level of gun ownership—or the political, legal, and historical commitment to it—that we have in the U.S. And the results of their own experiments with stricter laws have been ambiguous.

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this. The pressing question, however, is not how we can get rid of these guns—because the barriers to doing so seem insuperable. The question is what should we do in light of the fact that dangerous people are guaranteed to have access to firearms in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

Even if all the good citizens turned their guns in, the criminals sure as hell wouldn't follow suit (and it's irrational and ignorant to think they would).

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

I particularly like here how the last two sentences nullify the first one.


But that, of course, is not what guns are typically used for. Guns, I think, typically give one the illusion of self-defense which is probably a comfortable illusion in a country where so many people have guns. Again, I refer you to the recent research findings which illustrated that many people who claim to have used guns in self defense pull them out in illegal and undesirable situations, and guns in a home are more likely to be used to intimidate family members than to defend against intruders.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/)

EDIT: Found the right link. The initial one I gave was incorrect.

It seems to me that in just about every scenario, then, access to guns works to threaten one's security rather than reinforce it. And I think it is ultimately extremely unfair tat 80+ people are dying per day just so you can live out some fantasy that you are safer when in reality you are more than likely reinforcing a danger to your life.

Good points about defense, sounds like you had a scary break-in. :(  The gun store near my house has so many cool surplus military bolt action rifles gathering dust because the assault rifles have been selling like hot cakes since sandy hook.

I'm unconvinced. When the research shows that "the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid" and that "Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime" and that "Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense" then I do believe that this notion that guns increase self-defense to be nothing other than a fairy tale, more than likely concocted by the weapons industry.

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

"Guns, I think, typically give one the illusion of self-defense which is probably a comfortable illusion in a country where so many people have guns."

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

Probably not, actually. The United States is about on par with most other industrialized countries when it comes to crime with one exception - they are off the charts when it comes to gun violence. Otherwise, crime is about the same.


I'm glad that was the case for you - of course, if people in the country didn't have the kind of access to guns you support, you wouldn't need to defend yourself with a gun. So I would suggest that it is an illusion. And it is certainly an illusion to believe that people are more likely to use a gun in self-defense rather than to threaten others.


That is a good question and certainly should be asked but in the meantime you could solve a lot of problems by significantly reducing access to guns. The other things will take a lot longer to address and fix.

Not saying those aren't problems either, the real problem is a gun culture that mythologizes guns to the point of obsession. The truth is a firearm is a cold tool that should be kept under lock and key until it is needed to be used for target shooting, hunting, and self defense as a last resort. Hell, I don't understand why people like assault rifles in the USA either.

On your first point: There are over 300 million firearms here in America (I'd suspect more than any other industrialized country)....take away the guns from responsible citizens, and you're left with a slew of criminals with firearms who have the knowledge that they have the upperhand in most confrontations (whether home breakins, robberies, etc).

Second point: Couldn't agree with you more. However, the damage has been done (300 million firearms on our streets now) and criminals won't magically hand over their firearms to the police (this is why even if strict gun control were to take place, Obama, Pelosi, and Justin Bieber would still have armed guards because they're not idealistic enough to believe that because the laws are in place everyone will follow those laws).

Third point: I've agreed that stricter guns laws should be put in place....stricter background checks, hell even psych evaluations. But to ban guns completely would be a foolish endeavor in America (what with the amount of guns (illegally or legally obtained) on our streets already).

You may misunderstand my point, then. It's a difficult process but gun control does not in itself mean that you immediately "ban guns completely." I mean, yes, that would make for a good end goal but I can't imagine that you could ever do that right away.  So, on this count, I think we could largely agree or at least come to an agreement. I do think that this bit about how if you ban guns then only criminals would have access to guns is pretty misleading. That simply doesn't happen to any serious degree in countries where access to guns is minimal because the access is restricted to criminals as well. So one could say theoretically that the criminal element in England could have the upperhand but the fact is that typically they don't and it's probably because they can't.

Another problem that faces the United States is controlling the black-market of weapons to and from Mexico right now.

It might be less of a problem if the Justice Department didn't themselves aid and abet illegal gun trafficking using taxpayer money:

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Furious-Bloodiest-Shameless-Cover-Up/dp/1596983213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357933167&sr=1-1&keywords=Fast+%26+Furious

Crime is an industry in this country - and criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns (heck, our government was giving guns to criminals not but a few years ago (fast and furious))...even if you were to ban guns (in a transition that lasted a while), with the amount already here in the country criminals would be hard-pressed not to find a gun somehow.

And as Mr. Harris pointed out in that article, it is silly to compare the US to the UK in regards to gun control - the UK never had the amount of firearms that we have...they never had the gun culture that we have here.

Guns aren't the actual problem here. From the war on drugs, inner-city life, abusive spouses, etc...The fact that government is unwilling to solve the primary problems make me wary of their motivations for gun control in the first place.

Once the government/society starts solving these problems, the more inclined I will be to giving up my firearms.

Again, there's nothing I can see that makes the United States substantively different in terms of crime, other than gun-related deaths. Also, I don't mean to be too dismissive but I think that Sam Harris is a vulgar charlatan and place very little stock in anything he says. I do agree that you cannot compare the US to the UK which is why gun control should be a long process in the United States.


Well, the government is typically not that motivated in terms of gun control and haven't been for a long time. But to pretend as if guns aren't a problem is to be living in a dream world and it's ok to live in a dream world until you are putting 80+ people to death a day precisely because you're living in a dream world.  As far as I'm concerned there is one element that puts out the notion that guns aren't a problem - namely gun manufacturers who proceed to fund a major lobby group called the NRA that works to largely brainwash people into believing that guns aren't a problem. It's an effective campaign given just how transparent the problem really is.


Why can't we solve several problems at once?

No guns = No Republic. Nothing complicated there. If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means. A man is being prosecuted in the U.K. now because the family dog might have injured a burglar who was breaking into his home. That's the kind of America that I've been longing for. Personal property rights and individual self-defense are all so "20th Century".

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/603355_10151197962765773_1019857783_n.jpg)

On your first point: If you take guns away these criminals won't magically stop killing nor committing crime. A man can just as easily intimidate his wife with a steak-knife as he can with a gun (and as you say, a lot of gun related deaths are not out of self defense, but intimidation in the home environment). Taking guns away won't solve the problem of domestic violence - it will just force people to resort to other measures of violence.

On your second point: guns in the hands of criminals are a problem. Guns in the hands of a hunter, a concerned citizen who is afraid of burglary is not a problem, in my opinion. Make people take mandatory gun safety classes, psych evaluations, have clip-size regulation, mandatory gun-safes, etc - but to take away all guns is utterly ridiculous. There are ways to regulate guns that could deter crime as well as keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens.

On your third point: I don't see firearms in the hands of responsible citizens a problem. I see firearms in the hands of criminals as a problem. Solving what makes criminals tick may be a start to curve the gun-related deaths in this country. Get guns out of the hands of criminals, and people in America will be more than happy to give up their firearms.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.


I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

You're on the right track.

I've got the solution to all this.  We don't want bad guys to have guns... or really -- to do bad things with guns.  I mean, who knows who the bad guys are right?  Right.  So, what I'm proposing we do to get the guns out of bad guy's hands is this:  We put guns in the hands of good guys.  And as the bad guy tries to do something bad with the guns in his hands, the good guys unload on the bad guy before another school shooting can be completed.

It's gonna be tough.  But it's fool proof... even with all the fools 'round here.

Allow me to explain.  Studies and research has shown, these school shootings only end when the assailant is dead.  And they end up dead when they realize that the good guys are on their way.  And it's then and only then that they end their cowardly assault and take their own cowardly life.  But... what if the good guys are already there?  It would only end that much quicker!  Eventually, it might even stop for good!

This is a positive solution that is inarguable.  And I'm being genuine... I have no evil, crackpot agenda like all the Leftist.  No theories.  No laws.  No loss of freedom.  No mistrust and disdain for human independence!  Only REAL SECURITY.  Like the kind all the rich liberals have for their rich politician kids.  REAL solutions.  No phony bologna, Bill Clinton style "feel good" laws... like "gun free zones."  Oh... sleep easy tonight parents...your child is safely packed into a GUN FREE CLASSROOM!   :lol

I laugh... well, because our adversaries on this topic actually think they're smart.  They're not smart.  Show me how they are smart!  You can't!  No one can!  They're failures!  They only present vague, feel-good sissy theories.  They NEVER WORK!  "let's limit the amount of bullets.  and... and.. let's only allow this gun." Poo on that!  Poo on them!!  I present strong, bold solutions that work!  Solutions that take their little baby ideas and crush them like the doo-doo they are.

Run home to your mommies liberals. Your disingenuous, lame-o ideas stink on ice.  Quit boring people with your stupidity.  Lick your wounds and come back MEN!

 :pirate

Next topic.


 ;D

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Can we have an honest debate here without yelling out soundbites and claiming the other political side is "evil" ::)

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

"Good guys with guns"?  I love this line of bullsh*t..... A good guy with a gun is a guy I don't want to get into an argument around the dinner table with.... I've actually seen people threatened with guns and shot this way... No joke!

The good guys you're talking about who motivated these school shooters to take themselves out weren't a posse of overweight, wheezing white guys with assault rifles, they were cops, swat teams, etc etc.... I hate the police state this country has become, but I'd be far more scared of a bunch of hicks patrolling the streets "keepin dem bad guys off my property, dammit"!!! ... First off, they'd probably shoot me on site for being "some kind of a Mexican or Arab" and they'd be little more than a less intelligent and less agile version of the lowest squad of SS thugs.... and with far worse taste in beer.

Oh, the endless entertainment you folk provide due to a cursory (to be generous) understanding of the word "liberal" ....

Bean Bag, you are Wayne LaPierre and I claim my £5

That's impossible.  An illogical impossibility, what you just described.

Sure, the "We'll just become Dodge City" maneuver.  That's a good one.  Would you like me to show you what's wrong with this?

What's impossible? And a moron with a gun is supposed to be logical? Tell this to my friend Pat who got into an argument with a friend at a BBQ (held in honor of him enlisting in the Marines) and this friend went in the house and came back, held a gun to Pat's head before it was taken away from him by a "responsible gun owner" .... Oh, but the gun went off as he was showing off how to safely unload it and hit
Pat in the leg severing an artery. He was dead before he made it to the hospital.

You are a fucking idiot.

This is...

This is illogical, Pinder.  It's impossible!  Why would one fear a good guy with a gun?  Totally ridiculous!  Unless... (wait for it...)

:lol  You're words not mine.

Ok... I really don't think you're an idiot.  Just emotional.  But, I do find it rich that you're calling me an idiot.  Especially after relaying a story that likely involved people calling people idiots.  (This is called irony.)  Actually, much of your rhetoric pertaining to this issue points to a self-fulfilling prophecy thing.  Shall I explain?  Well... since you admitted to owning a gun in an earlier post -- and given that you've just attacked me personally ("You are a f***ing idiot.") -- by your own "rationale" you are the hot-tempered idiot with a gun that you fear.  And you need to hand'em over.   :lol

Clearly... you're at an intellectual disadvantage on this issue now.  Your south wall has been severely comprised.  Would you like to forfeit?  Cuz it's gonna get worse.   ;D

I don't presently own a gun and you are an absolute moron. Just a lummox with a keyboard. You are at an intellectual disadvantage in general.
You are a completely cool aid drunk indoctrinated scoundrel who thinks this fact makes you some sort of great intellectual but all you can do us put other people. Yes, I am putting you down at the moment, but you deserve it.

What I meant is there so no such thing as a good guy with a gun. We all have the potential for losing control. Every single one of us. This is not some sort of emotional video game with points and scores. You are a complete idiot.

And the guy who accidentally (but stupidly) shot and killed my friend was an off-duty police officer. Good guys make mistakes too.

if you fast forward to the end of my presentation... it says that you can't legislate away evil.  Your story is a testament to my point.

On that point, we can certainly agree.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

Since you have yet again neglected to engage with the substance of my post, I'm afraid I am unable to take this conversation further.

The rest of us shouldn't be asked to forfeit freedom just because you have stupid, irresponsible friends.

Typical Commie dodge. Adios, coward.

What am I dodging exactly? You were the one who neglected to engage with any of my points. There was nothing to dodge. Your third last response was simply a quotation from someone else, and your second last response was just a couple of insults. I'm simply not willing to talk to someone who is throwing a hissy fit. When I do the same with my two year old daughter, it's not a dodge, I'm simply illustrating to her that throwing a tantrum is not going to lead to productive results.

Ha ha!  you called me an idiot, so you agree with an idiot!   :-D
You must forgive me... after being called "a moron" and a "lumox with a keyboard" (that was a good one! :-D) I always like to exercise the license I've been granted.

So with that... here's some more moron thinking...

Raise taxes on guns.  I just solved the issue.  Like cigarettes, if we crank up the taxes, morons will be less able to afford them.  It's "natural selection?"  Har-har.  Pip-pip.  We all know morons are stupid and stupid hicks don't make a lot of money.  We also need more gun free zones, too.  Take away certain guns.... assault weapons.  And let's limit the number of bullets.  How about just 7?


....how'd I do, Pinder?  This moron-thinking is pretty tough -- I'm exhausted!  I'll leave it to the pros...

NY Has Tentative Deal on Gun Control: AP
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html
Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders have a tentative deal to enact the nation's first gun control measure following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.  The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons and limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, rather than the current 10.

we're all morons on occasion. I am certainly not letting myself off the hook...

There really is no solution here.... people will do bad things and continue to do bad things no matter what laws we pass... I mean, how long has murder been illegal???

We're just talking and talking. Fair enough. On this topic, however, I can't help but relate it somehow to watching one of my very best friends die from being shot on accident by a reckless asshole who was trying to do the right thing when an even more restless asshole was waving a gun around.... For all you message board basement lurkers: this is called personal experience.... It's a bitch... You should try it...

I'm not anti gun at all, I just can't stomach hypocritical right wingers dismissing any/all opinions contrary to their rabid own as "liberals" this and that... I understand the predisposition to laziness of thought and action, but c'mon, life is shaded.... I also laugh when these right wing gun felaters are so scared and angry at the Government, but when you try and suggest shaving a single dollar off the military or defense and God forbid, HELP SOMEONE: they get their gun barrels all in knots.... So, you are all for over-funding the very same implements of death and destruction that you hope (yes, let's be honest) you'll have to do battle against sooner than later????

Idiots.

I'm not talking about any of you guys here, mind you, but these folks certainly do exist.

Right wingers aren't the problem, though.  They're not the ones trying to f*ck you over.

Here's my point:  I don't think many people understand tyranny.  How tyrants like to work.  They don't just rule -- they lust for absolute power waved in the face of a cowering, begging woman.  The Statist fantasy is this:  to have every man and woman be at the mercy of the Government.  

Their attempt to de-fang us, humiliate us, and make us all subservient, should not be taken lightly and brushed aside.  They need to be shamed.  Prosecuted.  They took an oath to defend us and the Constitution.  But... not only have they failed, they sat and waited for the perfect opportunity to f*ck us.  While Americans wept at the loss of those innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary -- those animals were preparing legislation.  They're horny for it.

They must not only be defeated -- but ridiculed.  Laughed at.  They know it.  Nobody wanted nationalized medicine.  Nobody wanted them in their homes... their bedrooms... or their doctor's office.  They don't care.  Blame your fellow Americans all you want, call'em ignorant right wingers... but understand who the Statists are.  Understand tyranny.  Tyranny doesn't care.

(http://www.abcportal.info/thumb.ashx?i=obama_1.jpg&f=~/Slike/2013/1/&w=440&h=250)



Do I care?  No... no...
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012913-05-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg)

I dislike tyranny more than I simply dislike Obama.... In four more years we'll likely have a Republucan in there who's every move you can applaud..... Single issue thinkers interest me little.... Goodbye.

Beanbag, the funny thing about these debates and this board is that I actually agree with a lot of your BBs opinions. ;D

I don't know what you mean by "single issue thinkers."  I'm a conservative -- the opposite of tyranny.  I think we're in an age of soft tyranny.  A slowly rising dirty water.  Each day, I ask "was the water this high yesterday?"  If you think that's "one issue" you're not connecting the dots.

Thanks man!

...just heard that Obama/Biden will be delivering their totally illegal 2nd Amendment usurpation - aka:  "executive orders" on guns with... children.  Gross.

Yes, that means they will be using props.  Children.


Taking over health care...
(http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/06/news/photos_galleries/obama/obama_doctors_health_care3084847--500x380.jpg)

Nothing like exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The United States government commits a Sandy Hook daily and no one cares, or they don't care because of that bastard in the White House who can apparently do no wrong.

Alcohol should have a worldwide ban placed on it as well. It's a legal drug that people obviously can't handle responsibly.

Alcohol kills more people in America than guns each year (appx 8,000 murders due to guns vs 12,000 deaths due to drunk driving in 2011 - also, some 350,000 were injured in drunk driving accidents in 2011). It's time Obama stepped up that fight - if it's numbers we're talking about...If it's human lives we're talking about. The modern culture REVOLVES around this LEGAL drug (Half the commercials for football games are for beer, most people can't wait to go out and drink on Friday evening). It has impacted countless innocent lives. People die tragically, car accidents to domestic abuse, from its influences. I know many people who drive drunk on a regular basis. I had my life flash before me because a drunk didn't see his red light while I was crossing an intersection. A good friend of mine back from school died just last year because she was out driving while intoxicated...she had an entire life ahead of her, thrown away because she was brought up in a culture that revolves around this drug.

If we're talking human lives, then ban alcohol along with guns. THIS coming from a person who drinks nearly every day. But it's not about numbers of lives. Gun control/eradication is total bullshit if we're talking numbers.

Well put, but what is Obama supposed to do when you're talking about huge corporations which subsist on government subsidies? ..... Who would this supposed ban affect? Micro-breweries only? .... How many of them are left which are not owned by Anheuser-Bush? And are they just going to roll over?

+ 1

All I'm saying is it's not a simple "right" "left" situation no matter how intense your hatred for Obama is..... I say this same thing to folks who yelled and screamed about GWB all day but who then went to sleep with a smile the minute Obama got in there.... But I get it, you hate the guy..... I'll leave it alone.

I was being facetious. I think banning alcohol is ridiculous as much as I think banning guns is ridiculous. My point was more: If you're going to bitch about a real killer - go after the biggest killer in the room - not the one that is sociably acceptable to go after. But these liberal gun advocates won't do that (hell, a lot of them drink and thus support the alcohol industry! Many people on this board who detest guns are probably drinking at this moment) because it's not about the biggest killer in the room.

I accept the risks of alcohol (and accept living in a society that glorifies it) much like I accept the risks of guns. Yes, one day I'll be walking out of the bar, flagging a cab, when someone mugs me and I get shot (or I'll make it to the cab without incident, and get plowed into by a drunk): I'll eat my words. But until then, carpe diem. You can't put a safety lock on every little thing in life: otherwise, what would be our purpose in living?

Damn straight.....

It would be lovely if your words could close this thread out once and for all....

Correct! Not a left/right issue.  7 bullets per clip is safer than 10... I mean, c'mon!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hating Obama is a diversion... my bad.  Not the issue.

Right on! :thumbsup

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/180553_203127699697755_5930875_n.jpg)
Do not focus on me.  I just want your weapons.

Is anybody offended that Democrats never stir up this level of attention when 10 kids get shot -- probably daily -- in places like Chicago?  I think I would be awfully offended if it were my neighborhood.  

I understand there's numbness to routine and utter shock when something so unexpected and awful happens, but this is supreme.  In this day n' age?  I mean, if criticizing Obama is "racist!!!" -- this would be genocide.  At best, is this not a classic case of selective outrage?  Is it just because Democrats are typically in charge (for decades on end) of the inner cities and don't want to shine a light on it?  Maybe.  Or is it something more dark?

Let's be honest.  Democrats have enjoyed, perhaps more than any institution in history, consistent unwavering support from its cities.  Look at the election map.  Do you guys think something like this may cause many of the "bus 'em in" lever-pullers on the left to wake up and think about their votes going forward?  Or are they too caught up in the media swirl?  What do you guys think?

What offends me is that democrats will wage war on guns (especially in inner-cities (Chicago, New York City)) but they don't go after the real problem.

Why are kids picking up guns in the first place? Because their home life sucks, because their education was a sham, because they finally woke up and realized that selling drugs was the only realistic way they could make money. How do we solve this problem? Give our society a goal. Give children hope: let them peer into a beautiful/realistic future. Put the money we put towards wars into NASA and watch the benefits come soaring in. Stop regulating school curriculum (to a point, I agree that standards need to be met, but many teachers can't properly do their job because of these ridiculous guidelines). Don't push kids through school (and in America, it is looked down upon (and pretty much impossible) to fail a student, especially in inner-cities). Legalize marijuana (a drug that is virtually harmless - far less harmful than alcohol - yet the city streets in Mexico and America are filled with blood every day because of the underground market).

BUT. Politicians (Republican or democrat) don't want a free-thinking society. They want idiots: the more idiots roaming the streets the more easily they'll gain their votes.

 :rock

These gun control measures seem to imply that the Obama regime wants the entire United States to be as broken down and dangerous as Chicago or Detroit.

On Rab's point about education - I agree, but get the government out of education. Government is not made up of teachers; therefore government has no business dictating curriculum in schools. Schools need to be regulated by themselves or by the school districts; this means parents and teachers working together to ensure their children are properly educated.

The space program should be privatized.

All drugs should be legalized in order to put the black market down.

I don't want to live in a society full of idiots. I know a lot of parents who would gladly have teachers teach creationism to their kids :angry. A friend of mine was taught nothing but creationism and you can't have a rational discussion with him about science he is so far gone. I think the government overseeing education is a good thing (especially when many citizens are still living under a rock).

If we're looking at the benefits for mankind, let NASA keep doing its job with taxpayer money. Many everyday items you use, TRBB, have originated at NASA. Just because it's a taxpayer funded program doesn't make it bad. I'm not putting down privatized space companies (and many of them are revolutionizing the way our future in space will look), but NASA is a great way for fast funding and great results, as the past has shown.

It's been a couple of tough years for NASA .

Excellent points.  Gun control.  Eduction control.  Drug control.  Overbearing parents.  No faith, no trust.  And the "results graph" usually responds in the opposite direction as intended.  Prediction?  By virtue of their increased "action" on guns shouldn't we expect gun violence to grow?  I personally guarantee it.  Let me guess... Chicago has the MOST gun laws.  Right?  I'm just guessing... 

Be afraid.  The Government's here to save us.  Or pour gas on the fire... I forget which.  :p



Speaking of "results graph"...what about the election map?  Democrats own it -- they own the inner cities.  Pretty much all of them.  Overtime, those maps have always changed.  Might change be coming?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_maps

Indeed. It's sad that every president since Kennedy has snubbed NASA for the most part. Every president since has been controlled, more or less, by the military industrial complex. A politician doesn't want astronauts, he wants soldiers. He doesn't want scientists creating life-finding robots, he wants them creating life-killing robots.

We have so much hope as a society, but the stupidity of the masses and the corruption of the few make space exploration a near-impossible endeavor.

I completely agree.....

Speaking of space program...


White House: NRA ad 'repugnant,' 'cowardly'
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html

Jay Carney:  "...the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

What planet are they on?  Is this the f*cking twilight zone?!
(http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T182853Z_2_CBRE90F1CVL00_RTROPTP_2_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPG)


You can't make this stuff up!   :lol

Well, he doesn't want anyone to be able to protect their children while his own have no such worry.

Apparently, that's an awfully "repugnant" thing to say, TRBB.  And it's "cowardly."  No one is allowed to say the Presidents kids are safely guarded!  That's cowardly repugnant!!  :lol

Yet (here's where I'm stuck, please help me) this man is allowed to use the unsafely guarded children in his political theater.  Where -- get this -- the outcome of said theater makes them less SAFE!*  That's some BIGAZZ balls right there, America!!  Right before your eyes!!!!


Do I care about your kids?  No, no...
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012913-05-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg)


*As stated earlier, by me ;)  the size of government involvement is directly related to the opposite outcomes.  EXAMPLE:  Chicago.  More gun laws = more gun violence.

Dont want to inflame things but if you Americans think that having an Automatic weapon in your house will protect your children your all f***ed in the head. You guys just dont get it!

The land of the "free" so ingrained with fear perpetrated by their "rights".

It's not about protecting their kids. If "danger" visits their house, these guys will probably accidentally shoot their own kids while trying to load their guns.... It's about being into guns..... Fair enough. I have no issue with being really into guns, but they should be honest about it.

We're definitely F***ed in the head.  But if not guns, what do you suggest?  Tanks?  You're a tank guy aren't you.

So... wait... my rights are perpetrating fear?  Damn.  Sh-t, take them away... I don't want no rights!  Get them away from me!!!!!   :ahh

Didn't the military blast AC/DC to drive Noriega out of his compound?

Have we finally stumbled upon a practical use for Summer In Paradise???

You're Piers Morgan and I claim my Mickey Mouse bills of British pounds.

America runs on paranoia now, I am really pissed off that some people believe sandy hook was a hoax for more gun control.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/sandy-hook-ripdonation-webpages-created-before-the-massacre/

I don't believe that at all, I think it is insulting to the parents of the victims that people think it was hoax.

!!! How do I become a professional crisis actor? I'd imagine the pay must be off the hook in order for me to keep my mouth shut. Not to mention my super powers of making sure no one will know it's the same guy in several pictures!

I don't think Sandy Hook was a hoax, but if that Facebook page creation date is true...it's suspect. But I don't think it was a false flag.

It  probably had been an unrelated page created before the event and changed to a sandy hook theme.

But hey! Never discount ANYTHING completely. And everyone has the right to believe what they want. I've certainly gone to bat for some seriously nutty lefty stuff in my time.

Agreed, I am just pissed that people I know rambled about it all day on facebook and claimed obama planned it for gun control. This paranoia is creeping me out....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rick-perry-claims-prayer-not-gun-control-keep-children-safe_n_2490672.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

f***ed in the head.

Just how free are you guys? Free to "CARRY"??? Becasue you fear a violent attack.

Your country is f***ed in the head!!

Cor blimey guv'nor...don't much reckon that prayer is anything other than feel-good bollocks, much like that gun control malarkey. Your country PROSECUTES people (especially the Irish) who defend themselves against violent psychopaths. Highest violent crime rate in the world but NO GUNS! But that's ok! People now use knives and now John Bull wants to ban them as well! Because if we ban everything, the criminals will eventually follow the law!

Bloody hell, what's this world coming to? I wish to register a complaint with the British Ministry of Feel-Good Baloney and tell them that your country's violent crime rate is through the bleeding roof and over the f***ing cliff. You Brits have NO BUSINESS telling anyone that their country is f***ed in the head. Keep on hanging on to that dead Empire of yours...

If there is one country in the world that is singlehandedly responsible for fucking up this world, it's the United Kingdom. Own it. Deal with it.

18th of May, We have the right to arm and defend ourselves.  So do you... your country/state just may not recognize it, perhaps?

It's a simple truth -- a natural law.  Go ask the animals  :).  Squirrels have the right to defend themselves from a bear.  Do they not?  And with whatever is available and it is able to manipulate.  Does it not?  Stick, coconut.  Grenade.  Claws.  If the squirrel can figure out how to use it -- it will happen.  ("Claws" are the most logical answer.)  Because it can.  It's real.  It's a truth.  Natural law.  Right.

It's also a Constitutional Law.  An Amendment, added to the Constitutional to make sure days like this -- in all their surreal horror and misguided debate -- do not blind us to emotion, bullies or fear of ridicule on internet forums.

Ya know, I hate arguing with you guys and will be making a serious attempt at being more polite.... There are some very severe psychopaths out there on other boards (well, one in particular, not having to do with music, and which I will not name) but it's none of us. The last people I want to be in fisticuffs with are fellow Beach Boys fans....... But these are still good discussions and I think we all take away something valuable from either side whether we admit it or not.... If I start calling people blankety-blank idiots again, please call me on it.

I love you Erik...ya fuckin' idiot! :)

18th of May is Australian. Carry on, though.

Like, sure, no-one ever said that the UK was some kind of utopian paradise. But y'know, no-one my side of the pond walks into a school and shoots children with a military grade assault rifle. We're going round in circles here, but Don't Tread On Me, right?

Again I'll say, with this logic we need to ban alcohol as well. If we're talking the number of human lives that could be saved, ban alcohol along with guns.

I know FAR more people impacted by the stupid choices made under the influence of alcohol, than I do impacted because of guns. What's difference? Guns can be dangerous in the hands of a madman, but alcohol can be dangerous in pretty much anyone. As I said before I had an old friend die in a drunk driving crash, I've seen alcohol tear WAY too many families apart, I've seen it cripple people for life. And the numbers show: Alcohol kills more people, in America, than guns per year.

Do the math: if you libs want to ban guns, ban alcohol as well.

It's all good!  Trust me!!  Allow me to explain...  ;D

It's interesting, the two sides.  On one side... Conservatives/Libertarians have not had the luxury of pop culture support.  The world's been programed to think they are rednecks, racists, homophobes, poor-haters, sexists, bigots... and most importantly -- that it's OKAY to ridicule them.  One must have a sense of humor and a thick skin to survive on this side.  But don't shed a tear... this is to their advantage.

The other side... Liberals/Leftist/Communists even (yes, even Communists) have ironically been portrayed as the victims.  Victimology is their bread and butter.  They're also granted the sheen of being hip and rational -- through all channels of media and entertainment as well as education -- from Kindergarten to Harvard.  They have a lock-down on education.  Movies, media, Hollywood stars.  You name it!!  As a result of all this... they don't have the adapted ability to take too much challenge to their ideas.  Even with all their Big Education.  It means nothing if it's just theoretical.  Faculty lounge tripe.  Doodles on the chalkboard!

I know you shrug when I pick on Obama... but, man oh man  :-D... he is the crown JEWEL to us!  Of all the things I just spoke of.  He's the baby of decades of collegiate massaging and pop culture coddling.  He's a professor from HARVARD!!! (His grades are sealed, by the way!!!  :lol)

That's what I mean when I say:  "I don't hate Obama, it's not about Obama"  But then.... I go and zing him again.  It's sooooo fun.  He's a total twit.  It's everything... even the way he responds to it.  You can see he can't handle ANY criticism.  He's gets soooo angry, but he tries not to show it, because he feels he has to maintain the facade that he's smarter than us!  I'm not strong enough to resist, I suppose.  It's like a total wedgey-fest every time this guy walks out on stage.  It's "prank the dean" time.

Which brings me to why I don't mind, at all, if you lose your cool.  You should.  You're better than Obama.   :smokin

Funny, a lot of the conservatives I know ARE rednecks, racists, homophobes, bigots (they aren't all, but many of them are). Whereas most of the liberals I know are tolerant, rational, open-minded, you can have a discussion with them without them blowing their top. I don't agree with them on several issues (as this thread proves), but I find them to be the most open to listen. To me, the stereotypes ring true.

What I find funny is that we've all been indoctrinated into a world where you can only be conservative or liberal, you can only be communist or libertarian. Somewhere we lost the ability to imagine newer/better political/economic structures that could help advance our society to a higher echelon of civility.

When people are told constantly that they're losers, there's a human tendency to believe it.  As well, a human desire to have a place in society.  Stockholm syndrome, battered-wife syndrome.  It's something like -- it's actually easier to fulfill than it is to constantly battle.  A very physiological/psycho-mechanical stress relief phenomenon.  Or something...

I bet if you put said folks into a private situation they would reveal themselves to be better.  I don't know them, etc. but I just generally hold that view of people.

That's true.  The right/left thing are the boundaries -- constructs of the debate -- so I just accept it and work with it.  Battered-wife am I?  :-D  No, no... it's just a common ground thing.  But in reality... it's doing the right thing... or not.  Touching the hot stove, or realizing... "hey... what for?"

The illusion of opinion.  Which is why I take no offense... it's not my opinion...if I'm just realizing stuff.  Or trying to anyway.

I'm a guy from the UK and I'm very glad we don't have the gun culture the US does. BUT if I did live in America I would no doubt own a handgun for my own protection simply because there are so many whackjobs there. But a handgun is one thing but there is no need for a citizen to have access to a semi automatic weapon. They are not designed for self protection, they are for taking out every last mutherfucka in the room. Big difference and that is how these massacres keep happening.

The USA is stuck in a total catch 22 situation. It's pointless to ban guns outright because the criminals will still hold onto theirs, thus making normal law abiding citizens helpless against them. Make every registered gun owner take a yearly psychological test and if they fail revoke their licence. That is by no means a foolproof scheme but it should help weed out many of the nutters who are not safe to carry arms.

That's so evasive, though.  Psychological "exams."  Will there be probing?  I would just stick a damned armed guard in the school and call it a day.  Why in Obama's $5 billion "safety fest" is there nothing in there about armed guards?  There's training for grief counseling and I don't know... what else.  Training films?  Good grief.  Why no armed good guys in the school?  Stupid...

by the way.. I'm pretty sure the "exams" are in there.  He (Obama) is going to use his newly federalized medical force (aka your doctor) to report on you.  Socialized, brown-shirt medicine.

Listen ... Gun or not... nuts should get capped fast if they doddle around campus hurling life-threatening objects at innocent people.  That's how you play chess.  Protect the king.  Block the move.  No probes.  They'll go away.

On your first point: I think there's a heavy dose of contradiction there, or I just don't get what you're saying.

On your second point: I realize that the left and right are boundaries, but within those confines probably lies numerous ways to create a transparent, uncorrupt, political system that doesn't exploit people. Yet our society tells us we can only be on one side of those boundaries - there's no room for give and take - which is ridiculous. We live in a world where mathematics have solved world trade problems, medical, and technological problems. I'd love to see a political system that adds the chaos theory to the equation. I'd love to see a political system that is empathetic and looks at all facets of human tendencies, cultures, and needs (without exploiting those people).

Great points, I don't hate firearms for the most part, its the nutty gun culture around in the US that creeps me out. Edit:  I mean by nutty those people are hate the government for trying to ban barrett 50 cal. or 100 round drum mags. for assault weapons.

Ah, but you'll find handguns are used in most murders in the US. Only the tiniest fraction of murders occur with assault rifles (or even the AR-15 - a weapon that the liberals demonize, yet going by the numbers it really hasn't been used in that many murders). Does that mean we should get rid of handguns?

And, let's say that there was peaceful and smooth transition in America when it came to a gunban - and EVERYONE was without a gun. What is stopping 4 people from breaking into my home and overpowering me with just their fists? Am I supposed to taser one and hope the other three don't come after me? Am I supposed to use pepper-spray and possibly injure myself in the process? You're right: guns are a Catch 22 here. You need them for self-defense (or the "illusion of self defense" as rockandroll puts it), but then criminals will find a way to get a hold of them.

ALSO: I will say that if there is ever a device that can stun/demobilize multiple people quickly, without harming them in the long-term, I would get rid of any firearms I own and use that for self-defense....but then you have to ask yourself "Couldn't criminals just as easily take advantage of that device and use it for evil?"

It's an all-around crappy world...and sadly, getting rid of guns won't solve the problem.

Edit: I do agree with you that assault rifles, or even the AR-15 (a gun which I've shot numerous times and loved), are virtually pointless...Do I think they should be banned? Perhaps. But if you ban those, you're not at all dropping the number of gun-related murders in America by much at all.

 I'm guessing many handgun related deaths are caused by "heat of the moment" behavior or accidents? Assault rifles seem to be the weapon of choice when some loon wants to climb a tower and start picking people off or when they wish to open fire in a cinema.

BTW  here's a pretty good story. Quite a few years ago I remember reading an interview with the actor Kurt Russell. The interviewer was giving him a hard time because he is pro guns. Kurt replied "You know what, many of my anti guns friends would give me a hard time for owning many guns and for enjoying going hunting, and then the LA Riots happened and suddenly the same people are calling me up and asking 'um you don't have a spare gun I could borrow do you'"?

I just don't believe that most people are inclined to hateful and/or other draining and unproductive mindsets.  I don't think it's in our DNA.  I think people naturally want and crave positive relationships.  For selfish reasons, that may be.  But human beings, I think, have an inclination towards joy over say, listening to Obama lecture us on how bad we are.  :-D

So... you said all/most of the conservatives you know are those stereotypical things.  I would surmise that so too are liberals.  Racist/sexist/bigoted, etc.  Furthermore, and most importantly, I don't believe that people want to be.


Interesting (bolded statement.)  Chaos theory.

Well, first let me say there is a system that addresses all the beauty and uniqueness of each human spirit.  It's Conservatism.  The premise being exactly that - the supremacy of the individual.  That's what builds a better collective society.  Unleash individuals.  Let what naturally compels them, guide how they serve their fellow man.  Let them fail, let them win... naturally.  Do not let a bunch of intellectual elites "figure it all out" -- who wins, who loses -- all from their comfy leather chairs -- and become "rulers."  That's the opposite of individualism.  That's why TRUE conservatives despise racism -- it diminishes individualism.  It's completely at odds with the premise.  "You're black... you're white... you're Hispanic."  Ok... whatever.  That's why the folks you describe could not be conservative, but rather isolationists.


The problem is this.  We have "the planners."  The authoritarians.  Intellectual liberal elites.  Tired of wasting their talents inside a bubble, they want to rule others -- from inside their bubble.  They're high on themselves and LUST to control others.  Being smart, they realized they can plan and control everything from a Capital or an Ivy League tower.  They could be using their intellect to serve (just like everyone else who is working their butts off).  But no... they're content to spank it and decree what is a "human right" and what isn't.


They despise individualism.  Crush it.  "If you're poor -- you're trailer trash.  Stay there.  If you're rich, come here and give me some.  Blacks over here and think this way...you're angry.  Whites, just sit over there, think about what you did.  Women, you angry about this AND that.  Hispanics, when your done getting your REAL minimum wage... this is your political concern.  And if you're middle class... knock it off!  Forget your stupid 'Leave it to Beaver' fantasy of a better life... just how the hell did you get out anyway!? Guards!!!"

That's why you feel like society decrees you must be this or that.  With Conservatism, it's up to you.  Big bang.  Chaos -- with self desire as your guide.  Pursue happiness.  That's not where our leaders are taking us today.  And that's why Conservatives are the enemy.  Not Republicans... please.  It's Conservatives that seek to end the rule.

Yeah, they are primarily used in those cases - thus I personally have no qualms in banning them. But again I'll say, banning those weapons won't put a dent in the gun-related murder tally.

Haha, good story...when it hits close to home, it is almost necessary for one to own a gun just to feel peace of mind. I honestly don't expect most UK, Australian, etc friends to see this side of the story, but after you've been shot at, burglarized, etc - it's kinda difficult to live without a firearm for protection.

I'm glad there are people like you who can see this though! Believe me, I'd love to live in a world/country where I could sleep soundly without a weapon of self-defense nearby, but after living in this country for my entire life it's very hard not to.

Ya know, it's OK to remove this conversation from all the forced sociological weight and just look at as: hey, some people just get off on the idea of guns and shooting and killing and others ...... don't..... I find a lot of gun nuts rhetoric disingenuous and that's what I have a problem with.... Just admit you get off on guns for the simple pleasure of it alone... And that's OK.... But it should be also understood that for just about everyone else in the world, gun are simply machines that fire high speed projectiles that will tear into your body and likely kill you if you happen to be in it's path.... Not a fun idea to most people...

This idea of defending against tyranny of the government is ridiculous. First off, the government has no need to violently confront it's populace or take it over. They already have us right where they want us: working sh*tty jobs for decreasing pay, accepting barbaric health care where any pathetic attempts at change is scoffed at as socialist, while we argue amongst ourselves over these induced notions of left/right.... You can't battle it out with your guns against the Government and then head down to wal-mart afterward for big savings on pork rinds: it's all or nothing and the US is VERY VERY good at death and destruction. We've been training death squads all over the globe for much longer than any of us have been alive. We run a school in Georgie to train guys on putting down revolts with firepower as a first resort and with wanton rape and torture just for the fun of it... Just ask David Koresh who stocking up on weapons and taking on Uncle Sam usually turns out.... And he only got to meet the nice guys of the bunch....

@Beanbag:

On your first point: People are genetically inclined to survive. Most humans have empathy, but their instincts for survival override this trait most times. We are just creatures of the universe, no more and no less, following the laws of nature that are passed down in our DNA. We can see this by watching animals in a zoo. And, in the big picture, we are no different than animals.

On your second point: In this Darwinian world, people are ruthless - you see it everyday: from the CEO of AIG, to your street-corner drug dealer. People will do anything to survive. History has shown that man can't be trusted (it's in our DNA to survive by pretty much any means necessary). This country was a proving ground as to why conservatism could never work: People are easily persuaded, people are easily conned. Private corporations, with enough power, can easily sway the vote, con the regular-joe, etc. Your average CEO cares more about profit than his fellow man...he'll dump toxic chemicals into a river without a single thought, he'll start wars merely because the sales of his F/A-18 Hornet's are down.

The individual (in the private sector or politically) has proven time and time again that he can not be trusted with power.

BTW, I think you misunderstand my inclusion of chaos: basically the smallest actions in a set condition have drastic consequences on the 'final' output. I was merely stating that this needs to be a factor in political systems.

There's no historical consistency (where it matters) in these silly "brand names" anyhow... Left/Right are only relevant to who's pushing each brand at any given time.... They need to be dropped.

In fact, dropping/refusing these terms would be one non-violent or gun related way to push-back at the "tyranny of government"

I only hope Bean Bag has a giant Obama bobble-head affixed to the top of his monitor  :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr1bz877zE0

Thanks mate and my name is Nathan.

I'm not sure that's the issue though.  For example, I don't like guns.


That's my concern. Because...


... you said it!  Hitler worked his way up into the government.  No need to violently taking over his own nation.  Then you disarm them.

I agree with that concern.  Likewise to trust an all powerful individual, federal government is bad.  At the federal level, earthly power is complete.  You'd have to escape the union if you don't agree.  It's not a matter of moving to Texas, like 60,000 Californians did.

Okay....then you understand that conservatism, by your definition, does not work.

Wow.. Really  maybe get Bush back and illegally invade another country.

No, it works.

You pick the country this time.

 :-D

... I did.  But sold it on ebay for this...

(http://media.heavy.com/media/2012/11/article-2239581-163E8B1C000005DC-420_634x374.jpg)