URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37896
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 01:56 PM
This one is a school shooting in Connecticut with the latest reports saying 27 are dead, including children and the shooter.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/12/14/20431771.html

Perhaps my perception is off, but it seems to be that there is a greater frequency of mass shootings taking place of late. An elementary school of all places.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by dabo on 12-14-12 at 02:03 PM
Horrible, just horrible. The news-sites are still gathering facts and updating, at least 27 dead maybe more, including 18 children.

http://news.msn.com/us/at-least-27-dead-in-shooting-at-conn-elementary-school?gt1=51501

Two suspects now from what I'm hearing on CNN, one dead and one taken away by police.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 02:17 PM
Waiting on the police briefing now. At one point, the victim count was a single man shot in the foot: it took hours before the reports of targeted children came in. I wish they never had.

Initially, I thought this was backyard: there's a Sandy Hook in New Jersey.

News is now discussing the school's security policy: sounds like nearly all doors were locked during the day and visitors had to sign in and show ID at the office. Which just means the first round of fire may have been in the office.

Parents rushing towards the school to find their children. To find out if they have to bury them.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 02:25 PM
One report I saw said that three adults (parents?) rushed toward the school to check on things and two of them were shot.

I really don't understand using young children as a pawn to carry through whatever vendetta a shooter might have. This is the worst fear possible for a parent - you send your kids to school thinking they're in the safest possible place for them to spend a quality day of learning while in the care of school staff.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-14-12 at 02:30 PM
I just heard a report that there was a volunteer parent at the school. She was in a meeting with 7 others. They heard a pop, pop, pop in the hall. Three people went into the hall from that room, and only one returned.

She and others called 911. She never saw the shooter. Says she heard at least 100 rounds.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-14-12 at 02:27 PM
This is absolutely heartbreaking and devastating. I just don't understand how something like this can happen.

I have friends in CT. None are affected directly by this. One friend lives 20 minutes from this site.

At my son's school, you have to be buzzed in. I don't know if there is a camera at the door. Most parents are recognized by the staff early on. I can't tell you how many times I've gone and seen a parent come to pick up a child, and the staff just knows you. There is also a police officer stationed in the office of our school. He is armed.

These are only small comforts. You never really know what is going on in the mind of another person.


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by dabo on 12-14-12 at 02:41 PM
Even though both my children are now at college, this seems like an odd situation to me as well. Every time I had to pick them up or drop something off for them at their public schools during the school day, doors were locked and the only place I could go was the front office, where I always had to pass by an armed police officer on duty.

Anyway, CNN is now reporting a 20-year-old shooter dead at the scene and another suspect taken away in custody, as many as 100 rounds fired.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 02:43 PM
My daughter's school is also locked during the day and parents need to buzz in with a video-camera at the door. However, there is no police presence in the school. I can imagine how costly that would be, to have police at each school, every day.

I manage security lockdown drills here at my university and we're conducting our next drill on Monday, perhaps not a day too soon with the kind of deranged people who could do anything, anytime, without any warning.

My heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all of the families and children affected by this. It is indeed heartbreaking news.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-14-12 at 03:29 PM
I don't know the cost. Whatever it is, it's more than worth it. I don't know if it is even standard policy everywhere here. I think it is in our county. In all of our schools.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 03:45 PM
Here in my area, there's no police presence whatsoever, there's no security systems to pass by at our kids' schools, nothing is locked down. When I go to drop off the boys at daycare in the school's gym, I just walk in and go through the halls past the office to the gym with nothing but 'hellos' to the school custodian and the usual gaggle of teachers getting ready for their classes. It's *that* easy for someone to just stroll in and decide to take over a classroom if their whims dictated just so.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-14-12 at 09:22 PM
So do our schools need to be max security prisons now?


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 10:04 PM
No, I was just comparing the differences between our schools up here and the ones being mentioned on here so far - a real sobering thought for me how easy it is for someone to just stroll into my kids' school if I can do it so easily myself without being seen.

It's a much larger societal problem than just making access to schools easier or tougher.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by michel on 12-15-12 at 04:06 PM
it is a societal problem and there is only one solution: REMOVE THE GUNS!
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by zombiebaby on 12-14-12 at 02:40 PM
I just want to go get my kids right now. Like Boo we have to be buzzed in. I was listening to the early reports and it did not seem so bad. Once the reports of the toll came in I just sobbed. Tears are still streaming.

How do you talk to your kids about this? I have 3 in elementary school right now. I know chances are so slim that it can happen to your school but you want them to listen to adults in drill situations yet you want them to feel safe at school.

I feel so deeply for those poor parents. They sent their babies off to a place they thought was safe, where they could be kids. How many of them had typical early morning struggles like we all do getting them off to school today? This morning my 4th grader was complaining he was tired and did not want to go. After much bickering he was on his way. How many in CT did that this morning and now they won't see them again?

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-14-12 at 03:22 PM
I have the same thoughts and emotions right now. I am just a mess. All I can think is that these are someone's babies, and it crushes my heart.

Talking to your kids. I am saddened when Conner comes home and tells me they had an "intruder drill" at school.

I am simply waiting for him to get off of the bus.

"Two home so far"
Posted by zombiebaby on 12-14-12 at 03:58 PM
My 4th and 5th grader off the bus. Talking non-stop about I don't know what. I could not stop the tears welling up and thinking of the parents that don't get this today or ever again.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Sunny_Bunny on 12-14-12 at 03:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-14-12 AT 03:07 PM (EST)

I was crying too. I was remembering when I was in school and there were no fences, 2 bouncers and nothing to be frightened about other than the bullies. Then I thought of my sons when we lived in a small mountain community where no one locked the doors and having them walk to school didn't phase any of us in the least. (keep in mind, both my sons are under 30, so this wasn't all that long ago.)

Then I think of my two grandchildren - who have to grow up in this messed up world where there doesn't seem to be anywhere that they can feel safe.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Molaholic on 12-14-12 at 03:16 PM
There are no words for this. I have cousin living in CT, not sure how close he is to this. He's got a couple of kids in this age group so I'm sure this is an anxious time for him.

Best thoughts to all involved -- parents, friends and families forced to endure the unendurable.

Kids will be getting some extra tight hugs tonight all across the country.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 03:18 PM
CNN has tentatively identified the murderer as Ryan Lanza.

There are more Ryan Lanzas in the world than I ever would have suspected.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by zombiebaby on 12-14-12 at 03:23 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-14-12 AT 03:24 PM (EST)

Just heard that his mother(or father) in Hoboken is dead in their home. She was a kindergarten teacher in this school. Shot in the office then went to his mom's classroom and opened fire.

He took out a kindergarten class. 5 year olds.

Those poor angels.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by WyoGuy44 on 12-14-12 at 03:38 PM
Horrible just horrible! *thoughts and prayers to the families*
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by frodis on 12-14-12 at 04:05 PM
At what point does it stop being paranoia and start being just good sense to never want to leave my house (or let my children out of it) ever again?


I pick up my 5 year old from kindergarten in 10 minutes. Tears for those who can't do that today. Gah. It's stifling to even think about.


"Mis-identification"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 07:46 PM
Looks like Ryan is the older brother, taken to be questioned (as well as the Dad).

Adam, the younger brother, appears to be the one that did the shooting.

*sigh*

"RE: Mis-identification"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 07:58 PM
On one of those wrong ID articles, there was commentary by -- a man claiming to be Ryan Lanza, complete with Facebook photo ID. He was protesting that it wasn't him, he'd been at work, he was on his way home right now. And I dismissed it as Yet Another Internet Troll trying to make people bleed by assuming the identity of a killer.

*sigh*

And now he's a man who just lost his mother and sibling while taking on a taint he'll never be able to shake.

"RE: Mis-identification"
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 08:21 PM
Apparently, the shooter carried his brother's ID and the ID was intially leaked to the media. Also, according to the brother, he hadn't seen him in years, so how did he acquire the ID? And (with enough motives already in question), why carry the ID other than to mislead law enforcement? Did he have a vendetta against his brother too?

*sigh* indeed.

"RE: Mis-identification"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 08:27 PM
We have differing stories here: the one I just saw claimed the police accidentally transposed the first names in a report and that's what got out -- no ID involved at all. If there was paperwork being carried, it could easily make the older Lanza look like he was involved to some degree -- or it could have been as easy as 'I think my place was broken into last night'. Still -- you're twenty-four, your brother is twenty, and you haven't seen him in years? Maybe something to do with the divorce, but the bell ringing on that one doesn't sound right.

Or he might have seen what was inside and gotten out of the blast radius.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by VisionQuest on 12-14-12 at 03:50 PM
I don't know what to say. It's horrible. I feel so bad for those families. I don't understand how this happens and it makes me angry.
"President orders all flags lowered to half-staff."
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 04:22 PM
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 04:29 PM
More details shifting. Lanza's mother is still among the dead, but it now appears he killed her in the classroom. The body in Hoboken is now being reported as that of his brother. Sources say the family is divorced and the father resides somewhere in CT. The police won't comment on that last -- they're likely trying to track the father down and make sure he's alive.

No victim names released as the state is still trying to contact all the families. The principal and school psychologist are known to be among the adult dead. No word from the hospitals on the condition of wounded.

"At the school: twenty children, six adults."
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 04:56 PM
This count does not include Lanza. It also does not include a second crime scene in the town, which the police officer leading the briefing suggested is connected to the attack -- the father? -- and it also doesn't take in the brother. Only one wounded has been mentioned, which is probably the vice-principal. The police say the shooting was confined to one part of the school, two rooms: based on what's come out, that's the kindergarten class and wherever those meetings were taking place, which had to be nearby.

Earlier, one CNN reporter mentioned the teacher-class ratio as roughly 1:22 or so across all five grades. (It's a K-4th school, about six hundred students.) The new implication came quickly.

Principal has just been identified: Dawn Hochsprung.

CNN interviewing someone who said he saw a child come out with 'a bloody face'. Maybe someone in the class did get out.

'Maybe' is all we've got.

"RE: At the school: twenty children, six adults."
Posted by Tummy on 12-14-12 at 05:27 PM
I keep hearing that his brother, Ryan Lanza, is being held for questioning.
"RE: At the school: twenty children, six adults."
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 05:34 PM
I'm getting that his brother is dead and his roommates are being held for questioning. (They are not suspects: this is a 'What did you know?' interrogation.) But I don't know how many siblings are in the family. There may be a third male who happens to be one of the roommates.

People are claiming to have found Lanza's Facebook page. Most of the pictures seem to be coming from there. Naturally, there was at least one misfire first and somewhere, there's a man with the same name wondering why the world is wishing him brimstone.

Three weapons now. One rumor (claimed to have begun with an investigator) says the number of expended shells is incredibly high.

"RE: At the school: twenty children, six adults."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 07:47 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-14-12 AT 07:49 PM (EST)

Yeah, CNN is now saying that the gunman is Adam Lanza, age 20. Ryan Lanza has been questioned, but no status of where he's at the moment.

Update: They just said that "it is believed that Ryan Lanza will be released some time soon."

"RE: At the school: twenty children, six adults."
Posted by Tummy on 12-15-12 at 10:29 AM
Same report I heard yesterday. We never did get a report that his brother was dead. Just his mother and early on they didn't know if she was dead at the school or was the person at the house. And that they couldn't locate his father.
"Question to other parents:"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 05:25 PM
How do you go about discussing this kind of thing with your children? Do we bring it up or wait and see if they say anything? Pippy will be 10 next month, he's at the age where he'll recognize a discussion going on in other places such as the news or through a link somewhere on the net, so he's bound to wonder about what's going on here.

One hour until I go get Poppy and him from the after-school daycare. I'm already thinking of how easy it could be for anyone to just walk into their school. Fortunately, each of the daycare units have a system to ensure that kids are going home with the right people and there is a sign-in, sign-out system, but obviously all that would be useless in stopping someone who is brandishing a gun.

"RE: Question to other parents:"
Posted by frodis on 12-14-12 at 05:39 PM
Here's one resource, Pepe:

http://www.fci.org/new-site/par-tragic-events.html

"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping." To this day, especially in times of "disaster," I remember my mother's words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world." - Fred Rogers


"RE: Question to other parents:"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 06:34 PM
Boys home now ... within two minutes of picking them up from the gym, Pippy brought it up and said he heard about the shooting and that the teachers and daycare workers were all discussing it. More parents than usual there to get their kids after school as well.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Max Headroom on 12-14-12 at 05:41 PM
I have no words.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 07:42 PM
Not only that, there are not enough curse words in all the languages of the world to even begin expressing how eff-ed up this is.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 08:27 PM
And there are no words for the sick feeling deep inside that comes from realizing the stark, bloody horror those teachers and children must have been experiencing in their own minds and hearts during this incident. I feel ill.

No words at all.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-12 at 08:32 PM
Agreed, and this has just made the lives of the parents of the surviving children that much more difficult - these kids are at an age where it's now going to be exceedingly difficult to get them to school with terrifying memories and fears that school is now a dangerous place for them.
"Just heard about this"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-14-12 at 06:31 PM
was out all day and heard the radio reports driving back from mom's house. Started crying right away. Just DAMN what is WRONG with people? Stopped crying enough to get in and I'm crying again. Those poor babies. Awful.
"RE: Just heard about this"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 07:44 PM
I was working where there wasn't TV/radio just occasional quick internet checks.

Heard about one of the teachers who got all the kids in the classroom bathroom and the kids kept saying, "I just want Christmas". *sobs*

"More details sort out."
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 07:54 PM
So now it's the mother dead at the CT home. No word yet on the timeline for her death. (I'd assumed he'd gotten in by telling the office he had to see his parent, but there would have been a substitute...) There is now no body in Hoboken and as stated above, the brother is confirmed alive: he's been in police questioning. The father has also been found and the police are speaking to him as well.

There has been no other story on CNN for nearly nine hours.

"Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 08:10 PM
in the first public figure to make an incredibly insensitive remark pool?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mike-huckabee-school-shooting_n_2303792.html

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 08:18 PM
So. Contract renewal and a raise?

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 08:24 PM
As much as I don't like him, Bloomberg also said his piece fairly quickly, too. At least he made a bit more sense.
"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 08:32 PM
But if the weapons were in fact acquired legally by and registered to his mother, then preventing their use would basically require a built-in fingerprint scanner. And the instant that happens, there will be someone out there building a scanner shortout.

Making guns harder to get doesn't stop anything. It just changes the channels. And what can anyone do when the paperwork is clean, triplicate, and in someone else's name?

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 08:38 PM
Yeah. Note that I said a 'bit' more sense.

I think it goes well beyond gun control which, with the genie already out of the bottle, isn't likely to be effective in our ingrained culture of violence. This isn't a discussion I want to get into at the moment, maybe later in a separate thresd.

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by michel on 12-15-12 at 04:21 PM
"But if the weapons were in fact acquired legally"

Then change the law.

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by dabo on 12-14-12 at 09:40 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/video-president-obama-cries-wipes-tears-speech-on-ct-school-shooting

I thought President Obama addressed the matter in a perfectly appropriate manner and was correct to not take this as an opportunity to put forth a political debate.

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by VisionQuest on 12-14-12 at 08:24 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-14-12 AT 08:33 PM (EST)

AFA spokesman said children died in shooting because school did not embrace God. Why does anyone do this when there are families out there that are ruined because of this? This can't be the Christian way. And if it is, I am glad I am not a part of it.

Edit - I know it's not the Christian way. It just peeves me that it's more believable to some people that a lack of faith is more to blame than something like mental illness. Not one of my Christian friends would endorse what these folks said. I was not fair in my above comment. Sorry, if I offended anyone.

"RE: Who Had Mick Huckabee"
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 08:35 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-14-12 AT 08:37 PM (EST)

Because their idea of Christianity centers around fear. And if fear of divine retribution makes you do what they say? Mission accomplished.

I'm waiting for them or @#$%abee to explain how the children had sinned on a level that deserved that kind of punishment. But then, their deity is one who appears to enjoy killing innocents without reason. And having been made in their own image...

You know what? I'm glad the AFA opened its mouth. This is the sort of thing which might finally make a few of its own members realize exactly what they signed on with. It's going to cost them numbers, money, public support, and some percentage of the credibility shred they were pretending to have left. Of course, those who remain will just push farther out to the extreme, but that was going to happen anyway, (extreme) right?

In @#$%abee's case, his ratings will just go up.

"More AFA fun."
Posted by Estee on 01-02-13 at 08:18 PM
I didn't want to start a separate thread for this, but the hysterical prediction/fundraising plea in this letter makes me wonder if they did lose some members from what they claimed about the shooting. If they're trying this hard to panic their membership, then there may be less people to frighten.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-org-warns-that-christians-will-soon-be-second-class-citizens-like-blacks-under-jim-crow/

I have yet to look for THE STATEMENT. I'm not sure I want to see what it SAYS ABOUT THE CURE. I'm pretty certain KILLING THE LIBERALS will be Stage One...

"Good God"
Posted by dabo on 01-02-13 at 08:46 PM
Just substitute "white" for "Christian" and it is pretty much the same alarmist racist tripe that's been making the rounds since, well, the late '60s or early '70s.

(But at least one thing should be pointed out, the government does not own the broadcast airwaves. They are public airwaves. At least in theory.)

"RE: Good God"
Posted by Estee on 01-03-13 at 00:06 AM
Which given the mention of Afrimericans and second-class citizenship, turns this towards "Do you want to risk becoming what we've tried to make everyone else into?""

Besides, don't we have an Islamic president right now? The first sign!

"RE: Good God"
Posted by dabo on 01-03-13 at 01:20 AM
LOL! The premise of the opening, that "Conservative Christians" will become second-class citizens simply for virtue of being outnumbered in the future, is exactly the same as the fear-mongering "America won't be a white (WASP) country anymore in (however many decades in) the future --" dire warning that sometimes still crops up from various quarters. Because the idea is, I guess, it isn't really our country if we aren't in the majority or at least still in charge, or whatever. Inclusiveness just seems unfathomable to so many.

I lvoe this letter, though, as it is so paranoid and over the top. It's practically a blueprint for a dystopian sci-fi for the Christian market, with a bit of work it could be made into something perhaps worthwhile. I mean, if there was a logical point that could be made out of it somehow; as it is it is just meaningless alarmism and virtually ignorant.

Anything to raise a buck.

"RE: More AFA fun."
Posted by Snidget on 01-02-13 at 10:36 PM
Best as I can tell, it's the we aren't a hate group, you are for calling us a hate group petition.

But I could be wrong.

"RE: More AFA fun."
Posted by Estee on 01-03-13 at 00:02 AM
*nods* Oh, right: one of those petitions which only hate groups put up.
"It Gets Worse"
Posted by kidflash212 on 12-16-12 at 01:00 PM
Everything I try to type about this makes me sound deranged so I'll just post the link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/westboro-baptist-church-to-protest-newtown-when-obama-visits-on-sunday


'Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment. - Shirley Phelps-Roper


And I thought I was angry enough already.

"RE: It Gets Worse"
Posted by Snidget on 12-16-12 at 01:25 PM
Where do I contribute to the fund to build a special circle of hell just for that *censored* *censored again* "church"?

not to mention I now need to replace some logic circuits for the brief moment I tried to understand how this particular event is all Carrie Underwood's fault.

"RE: It Gets Worse"
Posted by Karchita on 12-16-12 at 06:11 PM
I don't really see how the Westboro gang is very different from Hucklebee. They are both trying to use this tragedy for their own selfish ends and are far, far beyond reprehensible.
"RE: It Gets Worse"
Posted by agman on 12-17-12 at 04:53 PM
If those bleeping idiots are dumb enough to picket the school, they may find it to be hazardous for their health!

They have about 40 members now but I think they will be missing some members real soon.

"Anonymous attacks."
Posted by Estee on 12-18-12 at 05:33 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anonymous-wages-war-westboro-baptist-church-article-1.1222014

If you don't have the computer skills to join in, consider heading to the White House's website and signing the petition asking Westboro to be officially labeled as a hate group.

No pity. No mercy. No backing off.

"At least two of the weapons registered to the mother."
Posted by Estee on 12-14-12 at 08:11 PM
That just broke. No word on which two and it could potentially become all three. There's a report which has her dead from a gunshot to the face: the same article says it was in fact her classroom Lanza went to.

The 'why' will go on forever.

"RE: At least two of the weapons registered to the mother."
Posted by cahaya on 12-14-12 at 08:34 PM
There's a report which has her dead from a gunshot to the face

Given the unusually high fatality to injury ratio, she probably isn't the only one.

"Odd timing Chinese School Attack"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 09:32 PM
Heard about this on the BBC news hour this morning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

Two mass attacks on schools, same day, just seems so weird.

"RE: Odd timing Chinese School Attack"
Posted by kidflash212 on 12-16-12 at 02:54 PM
Zero deaths in China's attack. Crazy man armed with a knife.

30 deaths in CT. Crazy man armed with guns.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by VisionQuest on 12-14-12 at 09:37 PM
Saw this posted in a couple of places about Fox grabbing the wrong person's fb pic and saying it was the shooter (in Fox's defense, can't believe I said that, other news orgs did it too) Probably before they got the name right. If this is too big, let me know and I will just post the link.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by cahaya on 12-15-12 at 00:35 AM
And they even got that part wrong, it wasn't even Ryan but his brother instead.
"Syfy pulls Haven Episode"
Posted by Snidget on 12-14-12 at 11:24 PM
Tonight's episode was about school violence, they pulled it from the schedule for tonight. No word on when it will air.
"RE: Syfy pulls Haven Episode"
Posted by dabo on 12-14-12 at 11:58 PM
Thanks! I was wondering why we were getting the animated Christmas "Eureka".

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/haven-episode-pulled-wake-newtown-402738

According to a description of "Reunion," "Nathan (Lucas Bryant) and Duke (Eric Balfour) go back to their high school to help Audrey (Emily Rose) apprehend a troubled killer who is wreaking havoc at a student reunion."

Syfy issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter regarding the decision: "Tonight's scheduled 10 p.m. episode of Haven contained scenes of fictitious violence in a high school. In light of today's tragedy in Newtown, Conn., we have decided not to air it. At this time, no decision has been made as to when the episode will air."

I think they really didn't need to make that call, violence at a reunion that happened to be being held at the school is a different matter, but given people's sensitivities maybe it was the right call.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by CTgirl on 12-15-12 at 10:34 AM
I recently moved to MA but I lived near Newtown for 18 years. It is a bucolic New England town where everyone gives directions in relation to the flagpole in the middle of town. I have friends in Newtown and I have friends and family who teach in many towns in Connecticut. When I first saw the news on TV, I heard Danbury and elementary school shooting. My sister-in-law teaches in Danbury. I was sick to my stomach. Turns out the shooting was in Newtown and they were taken to Danbury Hospital. I was still sick to my stomach. Everyone in that school's life has changed forever.

On a side note, both my old town and Danbury (and I assume other surrounding towns) immediately put all their schools on lock down until they knew what was going on and then had an early dismissal. Between Columbine and 9-11 and other shootings, most school systems have their emergency plans in place and are able to move into them seamlessly. From what I hear on the TV this morning, the teachers in Sandy Hook also had been trained in what to do.

In reference to having a police presence in school, few of the suburban towns in Connecticut have police in the schools. Towns get very little money from the state for education, it's mostly funded by the towns through the property tax. CT is also a blue state. My town had a police officer at the high school for two years and between the cost and the amount of parents complaining that having a cop at the high school was too much of a police state, the position was cut.

IIRC, the reason why our town switched to locking all the doors and having to sign in and go through the front office, was to prevent kidnapping and child custody issues, not to prevent shooters from entering.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by jbug on 12-15-12 at 11:24 AM
IIRC, the reason why our town switched to locking all the doors and having to sign in and go through the front office, was to prevent kidnapping and child custody issues, not to prevent shooters from entering.

I think this is probably the reason for security in most schools.

Even with the best security system, this guy could have still entered the school. He was the son of one of the teachers; he may have been recognized as such; or he might have identified himself as such.
No one doing the "security screening" had any reason to deny him entrance - assuming of course that they couldn't see the guns.

I've been thinking that school officials may be thinking now.....
"do any of our staff or faculty have anyone who is really angry at them & might some to the school to take out their anger there?"

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-15-12 at 03:13 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-15-12 AT 03:26 PM (EST)

In reference to your final sentence, might I add: "How do we know if any of our staff or faculty are having a particularly bad day and won't decide to bring their artillery with them to school and take it out on the others?"

Personally, I think we need to be looking at some form of gun control. I know it's an extremely touchy subject for millions of people with the Second Amendment and all that, but handguns and semi-automatic guns are designed for one purpose only - to kill people. I get why some want to get rifles as they're mainly used for hunting season, but handguns? Semi-automatic guns?

As I read somewhere: In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatics. In the 18 years before, there were 13 mass shootings. Since then, none.

Can't verify that last statement so will need to do some research on that.

ETA: if you (meaning any of you who reads this) feel gun control isn't the answer, then what is the answer to stop mass shootings? Our children should never have to fear going to shopping malls, movie theatres and to school - these three being the sites of recent mass shootings.

"To help stop it"
Posted by zombiebaby on 12-15-12 at 05:13 PM
I think there should be easier access to affordable, decent mental health care.

There should be free screenings at schools, starting with elementary and up through all post -secondary and graduate. Work places should offer them as well. Services should then be provided.

Is it the answer and cure all? Doubt it. But at the least it should be as easy to get help as it is to get automatic weapons.

"RE: To help stop it"
Posted by Starshine on 12-15-12 at 05:54 PM
I agree, although even this won't stop the occasional person either slipping through the net, being untreatable, or not taking their meds.

After a session with a bloody useless counsellor on Monday I am less sanguine than you about any screenings that might take place.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by jbug on 12-15-12 at 07:18 PM
gun control...

while I feel in a way that automatic weapons like those often used in these kids of shootings maybe should be banned....

I can't help but think of the movie Red Dawn.
And I am one who believes that if you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, there will be an invasion on the continental US by another country.

It's not Russia I fear; but the radicals and extremists of Iraq, Iran & Afghanistan and others.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-15-12 at 08:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-15-12 AT 08:11 PM (EST)

That is what the military is for. When the extremists come, I want the well-trained armed forces folks to be handling the security, not a bunch of trigger-happy people who may not realize which are the good guys or the bad guys.

And here's the rub with "law-abiding" citizens ... they're all law-abiding citizens with guns until they snap and decide to break the law. For all we know, the Lanza family didn't break any laws before this incident with Adam apparently being turned down for a gun three days before the shootings. So far, I haven't heard of any sort of a criminal record by anyone in that family.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Snidget on 12-16-12 at 08:24 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-16-12 AT 08:24 AM (EST)

I agree, a large group of heavily armed professionals with computer-guided heavy artillery and weapons of mass destruction is probably a larger deterrent than all the random civilians with shot-guns in the world.

Besides, whoever is serious about invading will just do to us what we did to Japan to avoid having to take the country one house at a time.

"North Korea"
Posted by foonermints on 12-16-12 at 03:02 PM
Wouldn't want to radioactivify Southern California beaches, would they?

Uh Oh! maybe they would. Crazies.

As personal protection goes, I've only shot two people. With bear spray. Does the job and I'm not writing from Sing Sing.

"RE: North Korea"
Posted by Snidget on 12-16-12 at 03:25 PM
Does North Korea even have enough boats to launch an invasion, and if they did wouldn't they starve to death long before they got here to establish a beachhead?

I really don't think your shotgun is going to get a bullet all the way to Pyongyang in order to stop the launch.

One advantage of being in the USA is that we are always going to be rather difficult to invade. Lots of people may be able to get a shot off at us from a distance, but I really don't have fears of foreign armies going door to door through my neighborhood. I'm a bit shocked no one has dropped a nuke on us, yet. But I don't think having a gun in my house is going to stop that, or be what keeps the invasion force at home on another continent.

I still think the "they have enough drones and nukes and other army stuff to kill every last one of us 450X over in our own homes" is more of a factor in the "do we want to invade the USA today" than "they probably have enough bullets spread out between all their homes to kill everyone we send over".

"As Long"
Posted by foonermints on 12-16-12 at 03:52 PM
As we have enough nukes to make the rubble bounce.

Cr@p, I guess The Soviet Union lost a few of those suitcase bombs.
I'd better check my bathroom again.
Too bad the plumbing isn't going to last 24,500 years, but the cast iron is holding up pretty good considering what it has to put up with.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by michel on 12-16-12 at 00:38 AM
Maybe? What possible use do these weapons have except for killing human beings? The right to live should be more important than the right to buy a gun.

As for invasion, you really think that could happen? Even when the US military could destroy any of those countries in minutes?

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by dabo on 12-16-12 at 01:16 AM
You Canadians just want to invade and take over the US. You want all our pennies, admit it you do.

Per specifications the weapon used in this tragedy was a hunting rifle.

There are several different issues which actually should be discussed relevant to this tragedy: school security, mental illness, and gun control which itself is several different issues, what guns should be legal or illegal, who can own guns, who can sell guns, etc.

I agree with you that handguns (or sidearms) in general are a poor choice of weapon for many things, hunting for example, though they are weapons of choice for self-protection, bodyguards, security personnel and so on simply because they can be easilly carried.

Anyway, I don't think a debate now on gun controls will be productive. It's a highly politically charged matter here, the tragedy too recent, people need to calm down not charge up.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Snidget on 12-16-12 at 08:16 AM
Sadly, I fear we will never get a long enough break from the gun violence for it to be time to talk about what to do about the gun violence.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by kidflash212 on 12-16-12 at 11:12 AM
It's been almost completely effective for gun advocates to say "Don't talk about gun control - it's too soon" or "you're politicizing the tragedy". They have intimidated the other side with this tactic so well that we may never have any reasonable debate about finding ways to prevent or limit access to weapons by madmen.
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by dabo on 12-16-12 at 06:44 PM
On the contrary, I think the debate should happen, delaying it a bit over the weekend serves two useful purposes. First, this was a very traumatizing event for everyone, people on both sides of the debate are emotionally charged up and could benefit by dealing first with the trauma and grieving. Second, we need to know as much what really happened, get the facts, in order to have the gun debate. For example, it does little good to talk solely about handguns when it turns out the shooter really used a semi-automatic hunting rifle to kill all his victims. It was also the weapon used by the Beltway sniper. So now we can ask why is this considered a hunting rifle?
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Snidget on 12-17-12 at 09:19 AM
While you say you do want it, at some time, the too soon is used all the time to make sur it never happens.

By the time the funerals are over and the building is repaired or replaced and we've given everyone as much therapy as they can get so they are healed enough to tolerate it and it has been out of the headlines long enough and those people have calmed down enough and. And. And. And.

The next event has happened. There are endless reasons why it is too soon. If not now. When? Because it is never the time. Why would it be time next month when it was never time a month after any other mass shooting. I'm tired of it s not time. It will never be time. I can't see anyone being strong enough to make it time this time.

Deck the Halls with Sigs of Tribe

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by dabo on 12-17-12 at 09:26 AM
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/37898.shtml
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Snidget on 12-17-12 at 10:10 AM
Nice to hear it in a speech, but I am not expecting to see anything happen or anything change.

I mean pretty much after every one of these a few people make a "never again" noise and "this time we will do something, when it time, after things calm down, really we will..." noise.

You really think this time will be different? I like to think this President actually means it. Whether he actually will, I dunno. If he tries, he will most likely be stopped.

I hope he tries, even if he can't get something done, but he didn't do anything about gun violence the last four years even though all the gun fetishists were sure he would do way more than the first set of campaign promises suggested he would.


Deck the Halls with Sigs of Tribe

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-16-12 at 01:31 PM
A friend sent this to me after being involved in a bit of a debate over the causes of violence, and some guy kept yelling about TV and video games being the root of crime. I didn't believe it at first but here it is:

Detroit homicides in 2010 = 310

Across the river, in Windsor, homicides in 2010 = 0 (zero)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/windsor-ont-goes-murder-free-through-2010-1.591859

Same TV shows, same video games.

Is it gun control laws? We're not permitted to carry guns in public and to get a gun, we must have a PAL permit, undergo a CRFSC training program and be screened with a background check plus a 28 day waiting period. Guns must be locked up if there is a need to transport it in a vehicle.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-17-12 at 08:46 AM
While I would mostly agree....the social and economics of Windsor and Detroit are not a fair comparison. Maybe if you were looking at some of the suburbs around Detroit then it would be more apples to apples.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by Estee on 12-16-12 at 01:49 PM
What are you more afraid of, their ability to walk or their natural talent for swimming?
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by bullzeye on 12-15-12 at 10:41 AM
Beyond tragic. Thoughts with all at this very sad time.
"H.S. kid in OK arrested in bomb/shooting plot"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-15-12 at 05:30 PM
Just heard this....so I'm looking for details. I guess he tried to get help getting people into the gym/auditorium and then was going to shoot the place up and blow it up when the cops got there.

Even if we arm teachers or make schools max security prisons the crazies will just up their ways to do what they want to do. We must get to the root of the cause that push these people over the edge.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-15-12 at 05:42 PM
This is tough... From the principal's twitter, this picture of the first grade class was apparently taken the day before the shooting (date on the whiteboard is Thurs Dec 13).

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by kingfish on 12-16-12 at 04:28 PM
Heartbreaking.
"The dead."
Posted by Estee on 12-16-12 at 06:51 PM
Children

Charlotte Bacon
Daniel Barden
Olivia Engel
Josephine Gay
Ana Marquez-Green
Dylan Hockley
Madeleine Hsu
Catherine Hubbard
Chase Kowalski
Jesse Lewis
James Mattioli
Grace McDonnell
Emilie Parker
Jack Pinto
Noah Pozner
Caroline Previdi
Jessica Rekos
Avielle Richman
Benjamin Wheeler
Allison Wyatt

Adults

Rachel Davino
Dawn Hochsprung
Nancy Lanza
Anne Marie Murphy
Mary Sherlach
Victoria Soto
Lauren Rousseau

"Hunger Games"
Posted by trigirl on 12-17-12 at 02:47 AM
I know this could be off base, but how strange is it that the author of an extremely popular trilogy about children in a violent world lives in Newtown, Conn. It's a pretty small town isn't it?
"RE: Another mass shooting ... this "
Posted by zombiebaby on 12-17-12 at 09:50 AM
I've mentioned above that we talked to our kids about the shooting on Friday and answered any questions over the weekend. All seemed to be taking it in stride. Normal concerns and sadness.

Last night while watching Wipeout it was interrupted by the President's speech at the vigil. Usually when something like this happens my son(4th grade) gets angry and feels like it is a personal ploy at him to take away his show. Instead he started to cry. Not cry a little, he sobbed. I held him. He said he was so sad for those kids who won't see Christmas. He said if it happened at his school he would create a protective shield around his friends. My husband came in to see what was going on. He hugged him and we sobbed together.

My son is on the autism spectrum. "High fuctioning", he has PDD-NOS/ADHD. He probably comes across as "quirky". He can talk your ear off about the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade.

My point is please don't associate Aspergers/Autism with violence as a lot of the media is suggesting. It is not mental illness. You can be mentally ill and have autism but autism will not cause you to shoot up a school. Right now the media is behaving very irresponsibly with trying to show the killer was a weirdo and that he may have Aspergers.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this "
Posted by CTgirl on 12-17-12 at 10:46 AM
The media is doing more harm than good by focusing on the Asperger's part of Adam Lanza's personality. So many people don't understand autism and this is making is worse. I winced when I heard a reporter describing him as weird, talking about his quietness and the fact he carried a briefcase to school instead of a back pack when he was younger. So what? That didn't cause him to shoot 26 people.

I was shocked to hear Obama say this was the 4th mass shooting of his presidency. That averages out to one a year. That is a horrible statistic that our country needs to do something to change.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this "
Posted by dabo on 12-17-12 at 02:57 PM
I agree, the media did a poor job in some respects, and while the focus on mental illness as part of the issue was understandable, once Asperger's was brought into the discussion they connected dot 1 to dot we're still not checking our facts just going with whatever comes up.

Fortunately, particularly in respect to the mental health aspect of the problem, the president is not focussing singly on this one case but on the big picture. So the mental health aspect can redirect to include the Aurora shooter, the "Gabby" Giffords shooter, and so on.

"I liked this article..."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-17-12 at 04:48 PM
Really good viewpoint on what parents go through with undiagnosed children who obviously have 'some' kind of an issue:

"I am Adam Lanza's mother"

This should be required reading for all media personnel.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this "
Posted by agman on 12-17-12 at 05:02 PM

My point is please don't associate Aspergers/Autism with violence as a lot of the media is suggesting. It is not mental illness. You can be mentally ill and have autism but autism will not cause you to shoot up a school. Right now the media is behaving very irresponsibly with trying to show the killer was a weirdo and that he may have Aspergers

Well said! My son is autistic and I just cringe everytime the media plays that up!

"If it were up to me. "
Posted by Karchita on 12-17-12 at 03:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To4XiBEACSQ&feature=player_embedded
"RE: If it were up to me. "
Posted by byoffer on 12-17-12 at 04:15 PM
*like*
"Swoop Block!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-17-12 at 07:07 PM

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman
"Logistical question"
Posted by Snidget on 12-17-12 at 11:50 PM
How would you go about arming all the teachers.

Loaded guns in every room, do they have to be armed at all times, or can they lock them in their drawer?

If they have a behaviorally dangerous student that can't be placed for a few months into a special school do you force that teacher to have the loaded gun in the room and how much will it effect their teaching to be constantly monitoring the gun and the student to keep them separate.

And after we build enough schools for the kids we need to keep away from guns, do we arm all those teachers?

Do you keep all the ammo in the main office? Do you want teachers running for the guns or ammo through the line of fire or getting the kids to safety as best as can be done in any given situation?

Will the SWAT team know who the shooter is if every adult in the school has a gun in their hand?

Is it really worth the risk of having a small number of students shot nationwide every month or two to try to prevent that one nutcase ever few years in one school?

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-18-12 at 03:24 AM
Good thing you used the word 'logistical' instead of 'logical'.

I simply don't see the logic in arming teachers. This is not their profession, they didn't sign on to be an armed cop as well as an educator. So a new qualification to teach includes certification in handling and shooting firearms?

Keep the guns out of school, there have already been too many in them.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Snidget on 12-18-12 at 08:03 AM
I saw a few people making well if schools weren't gun free zones then there wouldn't be shootings at schools noises. So we must arm all the teachers. Just the guns being in the schools magically makes them safe from crazy people who wanna kill a bunch of people.

After all (haven't seen a mainstream media report of this). The word on some of the blogs is that the Clackamas shooter very clearly saw a man at the mall pull out the concealed carry gun he has a permit for. The response to this "confrontation" was instead of shooting a person he had a clear view of because of the gun the man was unable to be shot at and the Clackamas guy immediate knew he must commit suicide in just that moment.

Who knew guns were shields and you can't be shot at when you are holding one and they have mind-control properties over the crazies and induce instant suicide? No wonder gun sales go through the roof after a mass shooting incident.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by aethelstan on 12-18-12 at 10:17 AM
I knew that one of the reactions to this tragedy would be that we need to have more guns, not less guns. I think it's ludicrous. The same day as the Newtown, CT, shootings, someone in China also flipped and went crazy. The difference? The guy in China didn't have a gun nearby, or know where there was one, so he grabbed a knife and the damaged he caused was nothing compared to Newtown, CT.
That statistic that Pepe put up from Australia is really telling.
I'm sure the founders and the authors of the second amendment are turning over in their graves to see what is happening. The goal was to have an armed militia in case of an invasion (by the Brits) but there hasn't been one in the history of the United States and yet how many Americans have been killed by guns during 'peace times' in the past 200 years? I'm guessing the number would be close to the total US WWII casualties.
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 02:15 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-12 AT 02:19 AM (EST)

I'm sure the founders and the authors of the second amendment are turning over in their graves to see what is happening.

Agreed. Historically during that time, many nations had militias with armed citizens to helped defend their countries in conjunction with national armies. Those times are long past, with the 'militia' role now delegated to the National Guard in support of the U.S. Armed Forces.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-09-13 at 00:22 AM
I disagree. The second amendment was not intended as a protection of the country from outside forces. It wasn't directed to hunters and it wasn't even devised for personal protection. But rather, in a government based on checks and balances, it is to be the final check and the ultimate balance. It is the final source of the people's authority over their government.

James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by dabo on 01-09-13 at 00:31 AM
Welcome back. How'd you manage to avoid the search parties?
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-09-13 at 00:39 AM
To answer that, I'll refer you to a section of the East Tennesee National Anthem:

Once two strangers climbed on rocky top,
Lookin' for a moonshine still.
Strangers ain't come back from rocky top,
REckon' they never will.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-09-13 at 05:27 AM
Just because some old dead dudes thought something was so doesn't make it so.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-09-13 at 10:27 PM
Not liking what they knew doesn't make it not so.
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by AyaK on 01-10-13 at 02:16 AM
The interesting thing about the 2nd Amendement is that its language is so clear, and yet people don't like it conclusion, so they want to misread it. The idea that its language is somehow mystifying is a total fantasy.

Here's what the Second Amendment says in the version sent to the states for ratification and authenticated by Secretary of State Jefferson (yes, authenticating the wording of bills was part of TJ's duties back in the early days). Note that the extraneous comma after "militia" was removed, showing that it was, well, extraneous:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If this was about setting up militias, the right to bear arms would have been given to the states. After all, militias were generally armed by their organizing state (for example, look at the Civil War, which was 90% fought by militias). But the right to bear arms was given to the people. So, as the Supreme Court correctly found, this amendment really doesn't have anything to do with militias.

So why is the militia clause there? For one simple reason: because the right to bear arms wasn't any more popular with certain groups back then than it is now.

In other words, whining about guns is as old as the Constitution. But it was a minority view then and it's a minority view now.

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg: waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-10-13 at 05:27 AM
OK, they also knew that Black people were inferior. I believe that to be not so.

They knew guns could fire at most nine shots a minute, I also believe this to be not so.

They believed that the only way to protest was violently. Gandhi and Bayard Rustin have shown us that is not so.


If you have arguments and beliefs then by all means state them but don't say oh some bloke who died 300 years ago said x therefore it must be true.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Estee on 01-10-13 at 01:13 PM
He's just being consistent. His other political positions are generally based on the idea that things some blokes who died two to six thousand years ago said must be true.

Hanging curveball.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by AyaK on 01-10-13 at 09:28 PM
>OK, they also knew that Black people were inferior. I believe
>that to be not so.

Thomas Jefferson, who was a slaveholder, wrote the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, which prohibited both slavery and involuntary servitude in the Northwest Territories. The Congress of the Conferderation passed it. So I wouldn't be so certain that the Founding Fathers "knew" black people were inferior, because if they really believed this to be so, they wouldn't have banned the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territories.

It also appears that the reason the Continental Congress changed John Locke's declaration about "life, liberty and property" being sacrosanct into "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration was due to unease over people being property.

>They knew guns could fire at most nine shots a minute,
>I also believe this to be not so.

A gun that could have fired nine rounds in a minute in that day would have been such a huge advance . . . I think firing two rounds in a minute was as good as could be envisioned. And rifling was only available in gun barrels as long as George Washington was tall, which is why so few people died from gunfire. (N.B. A Revolutionary War general named Benedict Arnold figured out how to use the rebels' one company of backwoodsmen equipped with long rifles to crush a superior British army at Saratoga. Mind you, he was never given credit for this huge tactical breakthrough because of other events that happened in his life shortly thereafter.)

>They believed that the only way to protest was violently.
>Gandhi and Bayard Rustin have shown us that is not so.

Had Gandhi tried to do nonviolent protest in the 1700s, he would have been dead as a doorknob. Nonviolent protest can only succeed when mainstream violence becomes unacceptable.

>If you have arguments and beliefs then by all means state
>them but don't say oh some bloke who died 300
>years ago said x therefore it must be true.

Is there anything that "must be true"? Even despite my belief in the Christian writings, this discussion makes me think of that to which Estee alluded:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 01-10-13 at 11:38 PM
A gun that could have fired nine rounds in a minute in that day would have been such a huge advance . . . I think firing two rounds in a minute was as good as could be envisioned.

Even that is far too quick for the time. Until the invention of the Minié ball with the paper cartridge for use in the civil war, loading and firing a flintlock was a tedious 12-step process (Interesting post there, by the way.) Even the "advanced" Civil War era Minie ball allowed for only four rounds a minute.

In either case, a crazed idiot would would only get one (presumably) pre-loaded round off being being subdued.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by dabo on 01-10-13 at 11:47 PM
But you could do a lot of damage with a fully loaded baby cart.


"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 01-11-13 at 00:24 AM
And then we have a modern-day weapon capable of firing, would you believe it, one million rounds per minute, courtesy of history.com.
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by foonermints on 01-11-13 at 00:46 AM
I wonder if they are at the Shot Show next week in Las Vegas?

Anyrate, the poor version would just be making a zip gun out of a few plumbing parts, anything from a .22 to a 12ga. Not to mention the oil filter silencer. Shh!

tiny little devil: familiar with more mayhem than big clumsy devils.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 01-11-13 at 02:07 AM
Shot row? One round a minute would put anyone under the table!


Ragtop Ride by foonermints

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by foonermints on 01-11-13 at 02:50 AM
tiny little devil: word-on-the-street has it that's how Grit captured Newsome.
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 01-11-13 at 09:52 AM
I want one of those guns. I need someone else to buy the ammo and load clips for me. Million round clips are kinda tedious, plus I don't think I have room in my underground Doomsday bunker for that much ammo.

But I could kill a lot of pesky neighbors. And deer, and elk, and birdies.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-11-13 at 03:41 AM
>>OK, they also knew that Black people were inferior. I believe
>>that to be not so.

>Thomas Jefferson, who was a slaveholder, wrote the Northwest Ordinance in
>1787, which prohibited both slavery and involuntary servitude in the
>Northwest Territories. The Congress of the Conferderation passed it.
> So I wouldn't be so certain that the Founding
>Fathers "knew" black people were inferior, because if they really
>believed this to be so, they wouldn't have banned the
>expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territories.

Just because people said they were anti slavery doesn't mean that they felt that all peoples are equal ( White man's burden).

Thomas Jefferson also proposed laws that severely restricted free blacks from entering or living in Virginia, which would have banished children whose father was of African origin and exiled any white woman who had a child with a black man.

The facts that he didn't follow the instructions in the Kościuszko will, didn't interfere with the 1806 change to the Virginia emancipation law, and formally freed only two slaves during his life (although he did allow two slaves to "walk away" in 1822, and freed five more in his will, 130 of his slaves were sold after his death) suggest to me that he wasn't anti slavery for himself.

He also said The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life Notes on the State of Virginia

Which for some reason makes me think that he felt that Blacks were inferior.


>It also appears that the reason the Continental Congress changed John
>Locke's declaration about "life, liberty and property" being sacrosanct into
>"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration
>was due to unease over people being property.

I accept that there was a lot of ambivalence about slavery and the treatment of slaves, however I don't see that this contradicts my comment on perceptions of inferiority.

>>They knew guns could fire at most nine shots a minute,
>>I also believe this to be not so.

>A gun that could have fired nine rounds in a minute
>in that day would have been such a huge advance
>. . . I think firing two rounds in
>a minute was as good as could be envisioned.
>And rifling was only available in gun barrels as long
>as George Washington was tall, which is why so few
>people died from gunfire.
(N.B. A Revolutionary War general named Benedict Arnold figured out
>how to use the rebels' one company of backwoodsmen equipped
>with long rifles to crush a superior British army at
>Saratoga. Mind you, he was never given credit for
>this huge tactical breakthrough because of other events that happened in his life shortly thereafter.)

The Puckle gun which fired nine shots a minute was patented and had been demonstrated by 1718

>>They believed that the only way to protest was violently.
>>Gandhi and Bayard Rustin have shown us that is not so.

>Had Gandhi tried to do nonviolent protest in the 1700s, he
>would have been dead as a doorknob. Nonviolent protest
>can only succeed when mainstream violence becomes unacceptable.

I would argue that institutional violence towards unarmed groups will nearly always spark an outcry, unless the unarmed group has been demonised.

>>If you have arguments and beliefs then by all means state
>>them but don't say oh some bloke who died 300
>>years ago said x therefore it must be true.

>Is there anything that "must be
>true"? Even despite my
>belief in the Christian writings,
>this discussion makes me think
>of that to which Estee
>alluded:

>Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked
>him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

>“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk
>to you about me?”

>“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and
>your chief priests who handed you over to me. What
>is it you have done?”


>Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it
>were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by
>the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”


>“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

>Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king.
>In fact, for this reason I was born, and for
>this I came into the world, to testify to the
>truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”


>“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

>With this he went out again to the Jews and said,
>“I find no basis for a charge against him."

My point was that just because someone you respect said something it doesn't make it true, as to what must be true I would say Cogito ergo sum however it appears that the holographic view of the universe suggests that even that may not be so.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 01-11-13 at 09:46 AM
LAST EDITED ON 01-11-13 AT 09:48 AM (EST)

Just to stick my nose in: To discuss what blokes said/wrote 200+ years ago is apropos when what they said/wrote became law, as the second amendment to the US constitution did.

They may or may mot have been misled, correct, or moral, but it is part of the legal code under which we live, and is certainly an apt subject for discussion.

Nose back out.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-11-13 at 10:29 AM
I see what you mean, however as I understand it intent is not generally applicable in law, so they may intended the amendment to do x or y but the law is

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And those are the only words that matter, interpretation down to the courts as and when issues come up.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 01-11-13 at 11:53 AM
Once again I’ll opine on a subject on which I have no special knowledge.

You are correct. However it's not that black and white. The words you refer to are the basis for discussion, and the leaping off point for interpretation by the courts.

There are those that understand it and feel as you do, and there are those that insist on reading between the lines, and trying to over-interpret what seems (to me) to be perfectly clear language.

"..right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That could not be more clearly stated. IMO.

That word "shall" is an absolute, and shouldn't be (and normally isn't) subject to interpretation.

And courts and legal scholars will often refer to the "context of the times", or what the writers "really" meant.

Sometimes constructionist views are handy (civil rights, abortion, etc) and sometimes literalist views hold sway. It's so difficult to amend the US Constitution that sometimes those shortcuts are the only way to introduce what some see as contemporary legal fairness.

My feeling is that in regard to gun laws, the constitutional language is so direct and clear that the only course we have for change is an amendment to change the actual wording of the second amendment. An amendment to amend an amendment, as it were.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 01-11-13 at 04:01 PM
"..right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Which leaves out the preamble to it... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

I read this as "Because A, then B." What happens if A is no longer relevant? Is B still relevant?

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 01-11-13 at 05:44 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-11-13 AT 05:46 PM (EST)

Well, Starshine included it, so I didn't feel that it was left out at all.

But of course that's what causes the confusion.

But the fact is that it isn't a "because A, then B", statement, that's an inference, a reading of something into it that technically isn't there.

But what is indisputable is that the absolute "shall” is there, and that means (IMO) the preamble clause is just that, a preamble, not a conditional clause, the import of the sentence would be the same if the preamble was omitted.

There will be those who disagree, but to me, no matter how one feels about the gun control debate, that phrase is clear as a bell, and the only legal way to nullify that as a right of a US Citizen is to amend the US Constitution, despite Biden's bluster.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by dabo on 01-12-13 at 02:20 AM
LAST EDITED ON 01-12-13 AT 09:19 PM (EST)

It is well established that the militia preamble has no import in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That doesn't mean it was without purpose.

The militia clause establishes nothing, but it refers back to language in the body of the Constitution itself (Article 1, Section 8) and the model for U.S. military forces defined in the previous Articles of Confederation, which the founders believed was a better model for the U. s. than the European examples of the time with which they were familiar.

Basically that model was that during peacetime the United States would maintain small military forces, as many as were needed for domestic and readiness purposes, relying on volunteers to swell the ranks as needed when war was necessary. They understood that a standing army was necessary to garrison forts for defensive purposes, for example: that the navy had to maintain a certain number of ships for readiness purposes, and deal with piracy, not to mention their diplomatic usefulness: that specialty areas like engineers and quartermasters and so on couldn't just magically appear when needed: that there had to be officers schooled for war: that a certain number of arsenals would have to be maintained -- stuff like that.

But basically no U.S. administration could just decide to go to war, the people had to support that war through popular agreement by volunteering to fight that war. Conscription, a draft, was the last thing the founders wanted, the absolute last resort.

Unfortunately, that model pretty much ceased to exist after World War 2 when the U.S. initially had to maintain high numbers of military forces occupying much of Europe, Asia, and Pacific areas, and then got involved in a Cold War with the USSR and some proxy wars by extention. Though the post-Vietnam step back to all volunteer militaries did restore it partially.

And Americans still maintain a tradition of volunteering when they see an actual need to go to war. After 9/11/01, even when the actual enemy was still unknown, the recruitment centers were flooded with volunteers. Same as after the Pearl Harbor attack on 12/7/41 and other examples throughout U.S. history.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kidflash212 on 01-12-13 at 03:36 PM
That could not be more clearly stated. IMO.

That word "shall" is an absolute, and shouldn't be (and normally isn't) subject to interpretation.

Well the First Amendment reads like this:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'

Doesn't mean you can yell "Fire" in a crowed theatre. So even the Freedom of Speech is not an absolute.

Under an absolute interpretation you could say a drunken, angry man storming into a gun store demanding a gun "NOW!" is a person whose right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. I think a waiting period serves the greater good.


"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 01-12-13 at 07:52 PM
Good point, esp. in regard to laws that affect religion. The wording of that phrase is a bit murky, but the word "shall" is there, and should carry more weight that the courts have afforded it. IMO.

I don't equate a prohibition to create panic in a crowd to the abridgment of free speech, but the courts do sometimes forget that "shall" is an absolute.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-11-13 at 00:40 AM
Ayak did a pretty good job showing the silliness of your assumptions about what was at the time, so I'll skip to what you asked for. My argument is the reason for my quotes, and that is to show that the same fears of a too powerful government are the same today as they were then.

The second amendment is not about hunters or personal protection from criminals, though it does a fine job in that regard. The second amendment is about protection of the people from the potential of government.

Our government functions only at the consent of the governed. The government must be afraid of its people, not the opposite. Without that fear, a government is free to grant itself any power it chooses. And without our weapons, what is left to instill that fear in our government? It was said then, because it was true then. It's said again today, because it is still just as true.

BTW, it's less than 250 years, not 300 since these things were said, let alone since the blokes who said them died. But you've been showing less than accurate historical knowledge on other things, so I guess that is to be expected.

Besides, I think your opinion is a little biased and untrustworthy in this regard. If our founding fathers hadn't had these beliefs and other similar rebellious ideals, it could be most of us would have to be calling you Lord or Duke or something right now, eh, Redcoat?

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-11-13 at 04:43 AM
LAST EDITED ON 01-11-13 AT 04:51 AM (EST)

And I believe that I have refuted AyaKs points.

The government must be afraid of its people, not the opposite. Without that fear, a government is free to grant itself any power it chooses. And without our weapons, what is left to instill that fear in our government? It was said then, because it was true then. It's said again today, because it is still just as true.

OK this then is your point.

I disagree, I don't want my government to be afraid of me, I want it to represent and respect me, however I have to respect the fact that it should also represent and respect everyone in the country (inasmuch as that is possible).

The problem for me is that if people have an expectation that they can take up arms against the government (and Bill Bryson tells me that this is only legal in New Hampshire) then at what point do they do so?

A lot of Americans (Including my Great-Aunt who lives in Virginia) seem to feel that "Obamacare" is a strike against individual freedom, in general it appears that Republicans feel that the economy should be rescued by reducing the cost of government and that taxes should not be increased, whereas again in general Democrats feel that there should be a balance between taxes and cost cutting. A lot of Democrats appear to feel disenfranchised regarding the House of Representatives because of the way the constituencies have been drawn.

None of these have yet caused an insurrection, despite the words that are being thrown about. At what point do you and your neighbours decide enough is enough?

Another issue is that with your country being so large and so diverse it is very unlikely that there would be a mass rising against the government, instead any rising would cause the governments supporters to rise as well and there would be a civil war.

Also if one overthrows a government who takes their place? With the Arab spring there has been an amount of pressure from the West regarding democracy and freedom, but if it is the west doing the revolting then how can you be sure that the solution isn't worse than the problem?

Besides, I think your opinion is a little biased and untrustworthy in this regard. If our founding fathers hadn't had these beliefs and other similar rebellious ideals, it could be most of us would have to be calling you Lord or Duke or something right now, eh, Redcoat?

Haven't you heard? The Empire ended quite a while ago, generally without gunfire.

ed. Sorry I meant 200 years not 300, I think my fingers are playing up

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-11-13 at 03:59 PM
Haven't you heard? The Empire ended quite a while ago, generally without gunfire.

Okay, so that part was a little tongue-in-cheek. But at the same time, I've got to say that while the empire may have died with little gunfire, the fall began with a lot of gunfire from us.

And I believe that I have refuted AyaKs points.

I'll let you two debate those points, if you wish. I wouldn't have gone the way Ayak did. Since your argument was to invalidate a person's stance on one issue based on their stance or belief for a completely separate issue, I had planned to bring a list of smart, influential people who also believed in dumb or disproven ideas and ask if we should ignore everything they did, as well. When Ayak responded, I abandoned the list, but two I were going to use were Aristotle and Einstein. But in the end, it doesn't matter because your objections are irrelevant. Case in point, I think Samuel L. Jackson is a racist thug, but I can completely enjoy his movies and give him credit on his thespian skills and knowledge. I can separate the two issues.

Now, on to more important matters.

I disagree, I don't want my government to be afraid of me, I want it to represent and respect me

An admirable desire, but ultimately a wish for Fantasyland politics. The government is only as good as the people who run it. Call me cynical, but I feel the people in the federal government who respect the people they supposedly serve are too few and far between. There is no carrot to move the mule of government and, without an armed populace, there is certainly no stick. The argument will never be framed this way, but gun control is not about safety or justice. It is about authority and power. "The People" can "march" from here to Timbuktu, but when the power of the people is surrendered to the government, then the authority of the people is soon to be surrendered to the government, as well. More on this below.

The problem for me is that ...at what point do they {take up arms against the government}?

An unanswerable question. That's only something that each individual can answer for hirself. I suppose that when one reaches that point, one hopes that others are at that point as well, or they can find some who have already reached that point. And as for what happens if such actions were successful, I think that has no bearing on such a decision to take action. If what you have is unacceptable, fear of what might be is a cowardly reason to remain. If you don't believe me, go visit a battered women's shelter. Should they have stayed just to avoid an unknown future?

Now that we've addressed your objections, let's look at some of mine. Are these bans, laws and confiscations necessary or even a worthy endeavor?

I decided to look at some murder statistics and see what they have to say about it. I found this:

First, from the Dept. of Justice, a list of murder weapons used from 1965 to 2009. As you'd expect, guns account for the majority of murders committed. Something I did notice was that regardless of total murders committed, the % by guns hovers around the 67% mark.

In this article that calls out Rahm "never let a good crises go to waste" Emanuel for his stance on victim disarmament, it is said that from 1965 to 2010, "Some 2,956 people have been killed in 646 mass shootings over this 35-year period, with a mass shooting defined by the FBI as one in which four or more people (not including the shooter) are killed in a single incident and typically in a single location. FBI homicide data show no discernible trend in the number of mass shootings or victims during that time." This is equal to 85 people a year killed in mass killings. Now, the true tragedy in murder is the loss of life. Assuming all lives have an equal right to exist, can you say that 85 murders at one time are more tragic than murder of one 85 times? Or 30 at once over 30 separately?

Something else to glean from these numbers is the practicality and effect of proposed bans. The call for this action stems from the high visibility of the mass murders. But the <3000 killed over this 35 year period is less than 1% of all murders during that time. Way less. Visible, yes. Tragic, yes. A major contributor to murder statistics, arguably, no. So why go to all the trouble of gun control future victim disarmament? To make ourselves feel better. To ease our guilt, even when that guilt is misguided. It's an emotional response. Emotions are great for motivation. They are terrible for judgment.

Another set of data I find interesting is from the FBI. This huge call-to-arms (pun intended) by the left is for ridding ourselves of "assault rifles" and automatic weapons (which already are banned). Again, the question is will this have an real effect? This data from 2011 shows state by state the total murders and by which type of weapon. Out of 58 50 states, one territory, and D.C., in only two cases do we find murders by rifle or shotgun exceeds murders by knife or blade. West Virginia and Michigan. And tons more are committed by handguns. So shouldn't we be looking to ban handguns? I'm sure this mother would disagree. And banning knives? Only a certifiable moron would propose that, right?

And as an exercise in logic, let's ask when did most of these mass murderers stop their rampage? When they realized what they were doing was wrong? When someone asked them to stop? No. They stopped when someone with a gun showed up. When someone had the means and desire to oppose them, they stopped.

Now all of that is based on my objections based on the reaction of the proggies. But let's go back to my objections based on the potential abuses of a government. Any government. Any. Government. En. knee. Government.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Starshine on 01-12-13 at 09:21 PM
My comment on the Empire was intended as tongue in cheek as well, as I hope was your suggestion that the American Revolution had any impact on the Empire.

By merely quoting people and not interpreting their quotes you are implying And X said that so it must be correct I think that pointing out that X was not perfect and therefore we cannot take their words as an end to an argument is valid.

The government is only as good as the people who run it.

A valid point, however if one lives in a democracy then one decides who runs it. If you don't like it join the party and change it. This is what the Tea-Party people have done.


I must admit that this debate always makes me think of old joke about the Irishman who when asked for directions said "Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here."


On Murder weapons for some reason this took me to who does the murdering? And the UK (p17) and US figures look (to me) surprisingly different




UK US
Spouse 21.30% 5.49%
Family 15.65% 8.25%
Known 25.25% 29.71%
Stranger 24.29% 12.45%
Unknown 13.50% 44.11%

Which seems to suggest don't marry a Brit! Or more seriously if we assume that most of the unknown killers are also strangers to the victim then the US stranger rate is quite a bit higher, more analysis is needed to determine if this is because of cultural differences or firearm availability (or both).

I haven't said (because in instances when it would be appropriate it would be rather inappropriate) but I do get frustrated by concentrations on mass killings, any parent whose child has died is going to feel as bad as they possibly can, I don't think there are degrees of grief in this. The difference will probably be survivors guilt. However whilst each death is no more tragic than any other death of a similar individual in the case of mass killings there is an additional horror that each death is an extra death caused by someone choosing to kill individuals.

The practicality of a ban is where any restriction on gun ownership falls down, we can compare murder rates, however again we have cultural differences to take into account, if a genie were to remove guns from the US does that mean that the murder rate would drop to that of Japan or China? We will never know, and we have to start from where we are.

I would generally agree that the previous UK Government were certifiable morons, however I happen to agree with them that if someone is carrying a knife (not including a penknife) they should have a damned good reason for doing so.

My impression has been that a lot of these rampages have stopped when the killers main gun has jammed, and that they then use a secondary weapon to kill themselves, however I have not looked at that.

1) Pravda - Sorry but Stanislav Mishin idolises the US right wing to such a degree I cannot take his opinion seriously, if you want a good laugh read his articles on why the USA is a Marxist state.

2) PRC - I read the article, and whilst it does cherrypick facts the main suggestion is that the more guns there are the more people get shot, which seems reasonable to me.

3) Fox News - Sorry, cannot watch the video, however this Executive Order thing seems odd to me. There is no real basis for it in your constitution but it can only be overturned by a supermajority in Congress? It appears that Executive Orders have been issued since 1785 so I would suggest that if the people who agreed with the 2nd Amendment had no issues with them then it must be OK for the President to do this.

I think that we will never reach a point where the populace being armed or unarmed will make a difference in a popular uprising, my understanding is that you feel that the populace being armed is a check on a government becoming too totalitarian, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-14-13 at 11:27 PM
By merely quoting people and not interpreting their quotes you are implying And X said that so it must be correct

No, I am saying this is what people who wrote the 2nd amendment said and I agree with them.

however if one lives in a democracy then one decides who runs it. If you don't like it join the party and change it.

No, not one. Every.one. Everyone decides who runs it. And unfortunately, not everyone is as smart as me.

however I happen to agree with them that if someone is carrying a knife (not including a penknife) they should have a damned good reason for doing so.

This is off topic, but if I want to carry a knife, it's nobodys business but my own.

Pravda

You have me at an advantage on what this guy's opinions are, but it was his take on how guns were removed from the citizenry after the Communist takeover that interested me.

PRC

Really? One of the world's most stringent totalitarian government and biggest violator of human rights says that our citizens have too many guns (with which to resist our government should they follow the same path as China's) and you bypass all that absurdity to go with fewer guns means fewer dead? Wow.

As I was showing in the preivous post, once you get past the shock and the emotions, there is no sound, logical reasoning for the types of bans and confiscations that are being talked about. There are plenty of good reasons to continue to allow citizens to keep them. This isn't about saving lives, it's about power. Murders by handgun astronomically outweigh murders by other weapons. If it were about saving lives, the discussion would be about 100% removal of all guns, no matter the style, caliber, or purpose.

One last thing, here is an article about Piers Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro about this very issue. It includes video of the whole interview. I hope you can watch this video. Ben argues many of the same points I have.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/11/cnn-host-obliterated-during-interview-malfunction/

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by dabo on 01-15-13 at 02:50 AM
LAST EDITED ON 01-15-13 AT 09:57 PM (EST)

No, I am saying this is what people who wrote the 2nd amendment said ...

Rep. Fisher Ames
Rep. John Baptista Ashe
Rep. Abraham Baldwin
Sen. Richard Bassett
Rep. Egbert Benson
Rep. Theodorick Bland
Rep. Timothy Bloodworth
Rep. Elias Boudinot
Rep. Benjamin Bourne
Rep. John Brown
Rep. Aedanus Burke
Sen. Pierce Butler
Rep. Lambert Cadwalader
Sen. Charles Carroll
Rep. Daniel Carroll
Rep. George Clymer
Rep. Isaac Coles
Rep. Benjamin Contee
Sen. Tristram Dalton
Sen. Philemon Dickinson
Sen. Oliver Ellsworth
Sen. Jonathan Elmer
Sen. William Few
Rep. Thomas Fitzsimons
Rep. William Floyd
Rep. Abiel Foster
Sen. Theodore Foster
Rep. George Gale
Rep. Elbridge Gerry
Rep. William B. Giles
Rep. Nicholas Gilman
Rep. Benjamin Goodhue
Sen. William Grayson
Rep. Samuel Griffin
Rep. Jonathan Grout
Sen. James Gunn
Rep. Thomas Hartley
Rep. John Hathorn
Sen. Benjamin Hawkins
Sen. John Henry
Rep. Daniel Hiester
Rep. Daniel Huger
Rep. Benjamin Huntington
Sen. Ralph Izard
Rep. James Jackson
Sen. William S. Johnson
Sen. Samuel Johnston
Sen. Rufus King
Sen. John Langdon
Rep. John Laurance
Rep. Richard Bland Lee
Sen. Richard Henry Lee
Rep. George Leonard
Rep. Samuel Livermore
Sen. William Maclay
Rep. James Madison
Rep. George Mathews
Sen. James Monroe
Rep. Andrew Moore
Sen. Robert Morris
Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg
Rep. Peter Muhlenberg
Rep. John Page
Rep. Josiah Parker
Rep. George Partridge
Sen. William Paterson
Sen. George Read
Rep. James Schureman
Sen. Philip Schuyler
Rep. Thomas Scott
Rep. Theodore Sedgwick
Rep. Joshua Seney
Rep. John Sevier
Rep. Roger Sherman
Rep. Peter Silvester
Rep. Thomas Sinnickson
Rep. William Smith
Rep. William L. Smith
Sen. Joseph Stanton, Jr
Rep. John Steele
Rep. Michael J. Stone
Sen. Caleb Strong
Rep. Jonathan Sturges
Rep. Thomas Sumter
Rep. George Thatcher
Rep. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr.
Rep. Thomas Tudor Tucker
Rep. Jeremiah Van Rensselaer
Rep. John Vining
Rep. Jeremiah Wadsworth
Sen. John Walker
Rep. Alexander White
Rep. Hugh Williamson
Sen. Paine Wingate
Rep. Henry Wynkoop

"In the interests of saving time."
Posted by Estee on 01-12-13 at 12:30 PM
Can we just pretend we already went from the 'The government has guns, so I need guns to feel as if I have a true voice' argument all the way to 'The government has nukes, so I need someone to refine some uranium for me' one and got about as far as usual?
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-18-12 at 06:13 PM
From what I've read about the mall shooter was his AR-15 was jammed and he was trying to clear it and the CCW guy pulled out his weapon but was behind a pillar. He doesn't know if he saw him or not and never called out to the shooter. Then he took his own life but we don't know if he saw this guy or "heard or feared" the cops were coming like the Conn. shooter did and so he ended his own life.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by Snidget on 12-18-12 at 10:09 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-18-12 AT 10:10 PM (EST)

My problem is a lot of the pro-gun, more guns, need way more guns blogs are promoting this as a "confrontation".

Sounds like this guy is a responsible guy who would have done pretty much the same thing without the gun.

1. Take Cover
2. Stay Covered
3. If you can peek out to assess the situation, peek, but mostly
4. Remain in the safe spot you got yourself into unless there is a clear way to escape.

Now I can see the point that if the gunman had come around the pillar looking for him he could have defended himself.

I just worry about the ones who have any tendency to feel invincible because they have a gun and hear repeatedly that crazed gun-men will back down and kill themselves if anyone shows them a gun.

Usually it seems to me the killing themselves comes the second they are certain that living out their fantasy of killing as many people as possible is about to end. The big gun jams too much, the cops are coming, too many people are hiding so no more easy targets.

Now some have a post-shooting scenario they want to play out like that Norwegian guy where the whole speaking his views to the court system seems almost to be the point of the plan.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 01:48 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-12 AT 02:02 AM (EST)

Yes, in most of the cases we've seen so far in the last few years, suicide follows what is meant to be a personal, not a political, statement. The last thing those shooters wanted was to go through the whole trial of what would follow and rot (and face the uncertainty and dangers) behind bars or drugged out in mental institution. For them it was literally, finis. The Norwegian, on the other hand, had a political agenda that he wanted to continue to propagate even afterwards.

I get the pro-gun position, but I don't agree with it. I know for certain that, as a skilled rifle and pistol target shooter on the range, I'd far rather have a firearm in my possession in this kind of situation than not. It gives me options I otherwise wouldn't have in a situation that I hope I would never have to face. Having to either try to stay safe or try to take down a gunman in attempting to save others with my bare hands is certainly reducing my own chances at helping myself and others survive. On the other hand, I think that introducing firearms into schools (apart from a trained law enforcement officer, which is a costly solution) creates more risks than it mitigates.

Either way, "defending schools and malls" is just a band-aid. We need to address the accessibility to weapons of mass destruction (i.e., semi-auto large mag weapons), mental health treatment, and perhaps most of all, the culture of gun violence which is prevalent in every facet of our society, web, media, film, music, print, and on the streets.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by kingfish on 12-19-12 at 10:50 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-12 AT 11:39 AM (EST)

Rookie mistakes.

"The last thing those shooters wanted was to go through the whole trial of what would follow and rot (and face the uncertainty and dangers) behind bars or drugged out in mental institution."

You are evaluating their thinking on a rational basis. I mean, who really knows what they're thinking? If they were anything close to rational, I believe that they would opt for death by police. Running out the front door with guns blazing into a police cross fire is bound to be easier than pulling the trigger on your own self. Would be for me. But then again, I can't put myself in their place either.

"I get the pro-gun position,..."

There are a myriad of pro-gun positions, some are not so disagreeable, and some are off the wall insane. If I understand you correctly, I agree with the rest of your statement, it would be unthinkable to have pistols in teacher's desks. Just insane. Children (especially IMO boy children), are far too curious and clever for that to not end in tragedy.

I partially disagree with your last statement, though. I think what we need to do is work this problem from the outside in. Identify those things that we can most easily agree on and get them accomplished, then identify the next practical steps to be taken. Right now, it seems that the availability of large capacity clips is a low hanging fruit, so let's ban them. Also Teflon coated bullets. Maybe tightening access to powerful ammo in general is an idea to explore.

Let's focus on specific and attainable goals in a stair step fashion, and quit positing wide ranging unspecific and impractical solutions. They just muddle up the situation and are more divisive than useful. And at this time, IMO, a semi-automatic weapons ban or a ban on rifle/pistol type weapons that have a military heritage might be an exercise in futility. The assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 wasn't IMO very useful, but it did expose the futility of that approach. Lesson learned, I hope.

This needs a systems engineering approach.

ETA: Here's a utopian gun control goal. Whith our present constitution this is unattainable, but as something to shoot (oops) for...

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/?hpt=hp_c4

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 11:39 AM
You are evaluating their thinking on a rational basis.

No, neither mass murder nor suicide are rational, although in their mental illness it may seem rational to the person doing it.

When someone goes through the steps to plan a premeditated mass murder, there's an ending to that script in their minds. In many of these cases, the ending includes their own death, whether it's by self-inflicted suicide or suicide by cop. The first of those may be more difficult to do, but it is the most reliable. Attempting suicide by cop could easily end up in being captured (which could be the least desired outcome). In addition to this, self-inflicted suicide leaves the method and timing of one's death within one's own control, and the desire to control the whole situation is one of the motivations that lead to these kind of actions.

Let's focus on specific and attainable goals in a stair step fashion

I agree with the basic idea of achieving what it attainable, the "low hanging fruit" as you put it. This may mitigate the damage caused in terms of the number of lives lost, but it does not get to the source of the problem, that being mental health of youth in an increasingly demanding society which condones violence in its arts and media, combined with ready access to highly lethal weapons. It's like a match and a container of gasoline. By themselves, they're harmless, but all it takes is for the match to get lit (a mentally ill person to go off) and tossed in to make a big bang with nothing left.

Even if you remove guns from the equation, there are still other means to inflict harm if anyone is desperate enough (explosives, knives, poison gas, etc. have all been used).

And there's a part of me that says that there will always be people on the fringe with mental health issues that don't get properly addressed, and some of them are going to fall through the cracks, no matter what we do. It's a problem that is not going to ever be fully solved, although we can lessen the problem and/or its impact.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by byoffer on 12-19-12 at 12:39 PM
Cahaya - I have a question for you. You mentioned in another recent thread about being held up some number of years ago by knife. Given your comment above about being skilled with a gun, would you have wanted to be carrying a gun to protect yourself? I suspect you were in a "non-carry location", but just wonder if that would have made you feel safer.

I am not a skilled gun person, and definitely would not have felt safer having one (and having to dig it out to try to protect myself).

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 02:21 PM
Good question, and you have to take in context to where I lived at the time, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where private ownership of firearms is prohibited except through special permits.

Even if I did have a firearm and permit there to carry, I wouldn't have been carrying a firearm the night we were held up (close to the front gate of our house). So few criminals in Malaysia use firearms and the few that do are into far more serious crimes than street holdups.

Having said that, I certainly would have preferred to have a firearm in that situation. Just showing it would have been enough for them to want to flee while I would take down their motorcycle plate number and their descriptions. I'm not sure they would have willingly surrendered themselves to me holding a firearm, knowing they'd certainly be facing jail time in a Malaysian prison and they almost certainly would have fled anyway (in which case I wouldn't fire a shot, only in actual self-defense).

After the incident, I spoke with the police chief in the district that we lived in. He wanted to speak with me personally, given that I was a foreign national and I had done computer systems work with the Malaysian police in the past. I have a permanent residence visa there, so technically I'm eligible to apply for a permit. He strongly advised against the idea of people carrying firearms, because that might even make you a target (to steal your gun and ammunition) instead of protecting you. We had our house broken into by professional thieves once in the 20 years we lived there, and I'm glad I didn't have a gun on the premises to be stolen too.

And this goes back to what I posted some time earlier. In a country like Malaysia or Singapore where private ownership of firearms is banned (apart from very hard to get special permits), I feel much safer there than in many other countries in the world. Armed robbery and murder with firearms are almost non-existent, and if someone does attempt to harm you, you have a fighting chance or can make a run for it.

"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by jbug on 12-19-12 at 03:33 PM
and for the criminals who are caught with firearms?
I'll bet they get more than a nice cozy cell w/ internet tv to spend their time in, right?
"RE: Logistical question"
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 03:45 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-12 AT 03:50 PM (EST)

Jbug, illegal possession and use of a firearm in the conduct of a crime is a capital crime in Malaysia and Singapore. They hang. That is, if they aren't shot dead by the police first.

Death penalty: Possession of firearms - Section 57 Internal Security Act (1960), Malaysia. Death sentences are carried out by hanging as provided in Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"RE: Another mass shooting ... this time in CT"
Posted by jbug on 12-19-12 at 03:34 PM
take your pick....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/utah-sixth-grader-found-with-unloaded-gun-in-class-reportedly-says-parents/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/sixth-grader-gun-school-utah.html

"More idiots, more agendas."
Posted by Estee on 12-19-12 at 07:28 PM
These two have one major thing in common.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/are-too-many-women-to-blame-for-sandy-hook-death-toll-one-national-review-contributor-thinks-so/

http://www.mediaite.com/print/ny-times-best-selling-religious-author-blames-ct-shootings-on-jon-stewart/

If more people died, they'd just argue it proved their point.

Any bets that they're both rooting for it?

"RE: More idiots, more agendas."
Posted by Snidget on 12-19-12 at 08:43 PM
Um, so, um there should have been a whole lot more school shootings when I was a kid because...um. Well I think there was a time it was so unmanly to be an elementary school teacher you never saw a single one. I didn't have any male teachers until jr. high and there weren't even all that common in high school. We had a fair number but not all that many.

Not that they are plenty of male elementary school teachers today, but teaching is girly work, especially in the lower grades. How do you get members of the he-man club to be girly teacher types? What is he going to do? Raise the salaries to the amount that will be manly enough? Manly enough to wipe noses?

"RE: More idiots, more agendas."
Posted by cahaya on 12-19-12 at 09:10 PM
And this quote: “The Lord God Almighty is a gentleman...”

But apparently not manly enough.

"RE: More idiots, more agendas."
Posted by Snidget on 12-19-12 at 10:59 PM
Besides, if a school has a lot of husky 12 year old boys in the fourth grade, they may have bigger problems than wondering if there happens to be a crazy in their town.

Funny how the husky adult males at Fort Bragg still ended up dying from bullets. I mean they aren't too husky, they have to be physically fit, but surely they are husky enough to throw a decent tackle at someone, right?

"Join the Army, see the world..."
Posted by Estee on 12-20-12 at 08:51 PM
...join the National Guard, see P.S. 43.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sen-barbara-boxer-proposes-using-national-guardsman-to-protect-schools/

Oh, AyaK...

"NRA press conference"
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 12:31 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-21-12 AT 12:33 PM (EST)

I tried to listen but it made me feel all stabby.

I did not know that the gun industry makes no money what so ever off the manufacture and sales of guns. Only the entertainment industry does. Only mentally ill people kill good guys with guns. Not one incidence of gun violence could ever be committed by the sane. It's all the mentally ill people. Gee you mean that since the vast majority of Australia is a gun free zone they mus have a school shooting this bad every single month.

I'm really not anti gun but to pretend that the gun industry and those who protect and defend it can't in any way have anything to do with our love affair with the power of the gun.

At least I hope when this becomes a police state with an armed guard on every corner and in every class room we won't lose too many people from friendly fire. I better start working on some upper body endurance so I can keep my hands out and up every minute of every day so no one mistakes me for the bad guy every time the shooting starts.

And I couldn't listen long enough to hear if we need every gun to be equipped with high capacity magazines. After all you never know how many bad guys you will see each day and you can't risk running out of good guy bullets. After all no legally bought gun or magazine ever gets into the hands of a monster.

And yet I do want gun ownership by civilians. I just wanna see that well regulated part of the second ammedment get a tiny tiny bit of respect.

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-21-12 at 01:43 PM
Quote from the NRA press conference. "This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking any questions."
"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 01:57 PM
You mean one side talks while the other side is in their room, making no noise and pretending they are not there, isn't a conversation?
"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by kingfish on 12-21-12 at 03:43 PM
THat's how it is in Washington.

It's a new world.

"Translation"
Posted by cahaya on 12-21-12 at 04:55 PM
"This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking any questions."

Translation in gun-speak:

A serious conversation piece, with a silencer.

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Starshine on 12-21-12 at 04:00 PM
Please tell me that was a sick form of satire.


"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 04:14 PM
No, and this wasn't either.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/santa-suspended-for-sandy-hook-comment-1032158.php

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 04:38 PM
Sadly, no.

But it made a bit more sense when I read that a fair percentage of the NRA board are gun and ammo manufacturers and some feel the point of the NRA isn't to protect the rights of gun owners so much as to make sure the gun industry makes more money.

See the more you scare people that everyone else is a bad guy and the only way you will be safe is to be a good guy that is always armed to the teeth at all times and in all places...well the more guns and ammo you sell, especially of ammo and guns bigger and badder than the last gun you saw anyone with.

If your point is to sell more guns then you are going to blame everything but the number of guns sold every year and try to scare everyone into needing one.

And in the "please tell me this is satire news"...Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/37722.shtml#139 for the trope on that.

See the government sold the kids into sexual slavery and this is all just a ploy to steal your guns from you. And if you wanna see the logic that gets you there, you will have to google it yourself. I just can't go back to find the links.

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 04:49 PM
Start looking around the Honey Boo-Boo fan sites, right?

Same as the alcohol and tobacco industries: deaths are just part of the profit line.

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by cahaya on 12-21-12 at 05:04 PM
Please tell me that was a sick form of satire.

No, but there was an element of Estire in it.

Estire (n., org.: conjugation of a board name and a word): The stark, naked truth which many people willingly choose to be blind to, because it's too ugly.

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-21-12 at 04:57 PM
What about at the bus stops? on the bus? off the bus until in the school? outdoor recess? after school to the bus? off the bus to home? after school activities?

Do we really want to make our schools an armed prison camp like?


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: NRA press conference"
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 05:19 PM
Too bad he was calling for all the cops to be volunteers. I mean just think how many people you could put back to work with all the armed guards we need for all the schools and buses as well as one at every intersection in America.

I mean would you want your kid to ride his bike two blocks to a friends house without at least a couple of snipers along the way ready to take out any bad guys.

"Guess Who"
Posted by cahaya on 12-22-12 at 04:29 AM
An old song from my teens, with a rubber duck.

American hunter, bring ‘em up the north side
Guns, guns, guns
Run, take the money, here’s a bullet for your boyfriend
Guns, guns, guns
Eagle all gone, and no more caribou
Guns, guns, guns
You be the red king, I’ll be the yellow pawn

God speed Mother Nature
Never really wanted to say good-bye

Shoot a few, knock ‘em down, cost you half a buck now
Guns, guns, guns
Babe give you kisses if you hit a rubber duck now
Guns, guns, guns
You be the red king, I’ll be the yellow pawn
Guns, guns, guns
Eagle all gone, and no more caribou

God speed Mother Nature
Never really wanted to say good-bye

"Tabloid reactions."
Posted by Estee on 12-22-12 at 09:50 AM
Post: Gun Nut!

Daily News: Craziest Man On Earth

Of course, the Post had to go ruin the conjunction by having a columnist compare it to 'pro-abortion' extremists refusing to compromise their 'values' by passing mandatory parental consent laws, but for one whole front page...

"The National Enquirer article."
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 05:36 PM
...well, that was odious.

I refuse to quote, link, or summarize. Someone else can sue.

"RE: The National Enquirer article."
Posted by cahaya on 12-21-12 at 10:25 PM
Try as I may, I couldn't find what you might be referencing to. The last Enquirer blurb on the CT shooting goes back to 12/14. Maybe they pulled it?

Give me a word or two to throw into the Google lottery bin to see what comes up.

"RE: The National Enquirer article."
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 10:49 PM
Found this
Story about one of the stories

and they have the cover on their facebook page
Cover

"RE: The National Enquirer article."
Posted by cahaya on 12-21-12 at 11:53 PM
Woah! It seems like perhaps he found out mom wanted to have him committed. And apparently not only did he have a site, he also posted some of his intentions on some message boards.

Yikes.

"Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 07:03 PM
And thus the NRA's dream sales environment begins to take shape. Plus we all know there's absolutely no way any kid could get their hands on a gun that just happens to be moving up and down the hallways at nearly all times, right?

Next up: detention tasers!

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 07:15 PM
Well, a lot of schools have had armed guards (Columbine, for instance) and a fair number more have an unarmed officer for various reasons.

I just want to know what they are cutting out of the budget. I know they are less common these days as I think they haven't been all that effective for the amount of money they cost.

Just because people are madmen doesn't mean they are incapable of planning and no one officer can be in all places at all times so it wouldn't be all that hard to make sure you take them out first (and get their gun) or they won't have time to get to you with what you have planned.

I know if they are a trained officer they are trained to know how to prevent most gun grabs and every so often you do hear about a police officer killed with his own gun.

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 07:53 PM
I brought it up because they claim to be doing it specifically because of Newtown. Our governor doesn't think it's going to have a particularly positive effect on the learning environment. As for who's going to pay for this -- well, given that the White House is raking in all the cash from the child slavery trade, I'm sure they can spare a few dollars for protecting the merchandise.

No word on just how many officers will be present or how they'll be armed, but no argument that any planner will just put something together that removes them first. When your job is to respond to any potential emergency, you're generally pretty easy to distract.

I keep picturing Hollywood standard issue night shift warehouse guards. Who hate children.

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 09:07 PM
I suspect most schools that have gone this route in the past did it as a response to some event or threat.

I'm not clear on why some have and some haven't over the years, but I suspect it is usually a "we must appear to be doing something" move. After all there is no need to do something effective, usually something obvious and showy will get people off your back.

What about Marine Corps drop outs who lie on tape about their military experience?

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Estee on 12-21-12 at 09:14 PM
I suspect many of the schools went that route because the principal's offspring needed a job.

What about Marine Corps drop outs who lie on tape about their military experience?

And to help pay their salaries, we'll omit the psych evaluation!

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 12-21-12 at 10:23 PM
They've had cops in the Detroit Public Schools for a long time but mostly to protect the teachers from the students.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by Snidget on 12-21-12 at 10:34 PM
*nods* There are schools where teachers need the back up. Aren't most of those the high schools? Or has it devolved to the point where you need an armed policeman keeping the kindergarteners from destroying their teachers knees?
"RE: Marlton NJ to place armed guards in schools."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-21-12 at 10:40 PM
Or perhaps it's needed in areas where there is a high concentration of Japanese kindergarteners who like to practice Kancho on teachers (or Korean kids doing dong chim)?
"Charlotte Allen"
Posted by Snidget on 12-22-12 at 10:28 PM
So feminism is the cause of a man gunning down a bunch of little kid.

Charlotte Allen of the National Review, doubled down on her it is because elementary schools have suddenly become some girly girl he-man hating job sites.

Hey, you remember when all your elementary school teachers were men and all the wimen folk forced them out of their jobs? Me neither.

I see two differences in personnel between my "good Old Macho Days" and today's feminist take over. Sandy Hook actually had one male teacher, and the principal was female. Otherwise the staff looks exactly like it did back in the 1960's.

Am I confused, because I know it wasn't but a few years before my time when the main career paths for women were nurse and school teacher, and mostly the elementary schools.

Does she really think all these macho men want these traditionally female jobs but are being stopped because of feminism?

Oh, they finally got the traditional women's jobs to be on the same pay scale as what the men who were smart enough to teach high school got.

I'd love to see men not get glanced at sideways if they are pursuing a more traditionally female job. If anything the only reason there was a male teacher in the school was because of feminism and opening up all career paths to all people. *sigh*.

So when were these mythical mostly male elementary schools the norm? When exactly did feminism change all that?

"Firefighters shot at home fire, Webster NY."
Posted by Snidget on 12-24-12 at 10:57 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/

Live Report from WHAM says 2 dead 2 wounded, shot when they arrived to fight a house fire that spread to three houses because SWAT had to clear the scene first.

Arsonist/Mass shooter setting up the Fire Department or did someone's meth lab blow up and they want to make sure all the evidence of the lab is destroyed?

*sigh*

"RE: Firefighters shot at home fire, Webster NY."
Posted by Estee on 12-25-12 at 03:00 PM
As it turns out, shooter setting up to kill first responders. He took the usual route to avoid providing explanations.

Oh, and dear NRA: he was a convinced felon. Manslaughter, killed his grandmother with a claw hammer.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

I guess those extant laws really did a good job of preventing him from buying any more claw hammers.

"RE: Firefighters shot at home fire, Webster NY."
Posted by cahaya on 12-25-12 at 09:04 PM
Police recovered a military-style .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber weapon used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26, including 20 young children, Pickering said.

And from the Washington Times...

Customers are buying Bushmasters so fast that stores have trouble stocking it. "We sold 14 yesterday," says Ross Meyer of Gunworld & Archery in Elko, Nev. "That's way up. All of our suppliers are out of them."

Says Andrew Molchan, director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers (NAFLFD): "Naturally, when something's a lot in the news, it has increased sales. I doubt there's much inventory left at this point. There are no discounts, that's for sure."

It makes you wonder who's the one paying the heavy price and who's profiting from it.


"RE: Firefighters shot at home fire, Webster NY."
Posted by Snidget on 12-25-12 at 09:10 PM
From a strictly profit motive worldview the gun manufacturers certainly don't want to get in the way of the mass shootings that are apparently the most effective ads for their wares known to man.

*sigh*


Deck the Halls with Sigs of Tribe

"NY paper publishes hand gun permit map"
Posted by Snidget on 12-26-12 at 10:29 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-26-12 AT 10:44 AM (EST)

Um, many places I've lived the newspaper lists new handgun permit applications every single week. I know they had the names, I think they had the addresses as well. Now my local paper doesn't have it on the web, but I remember when I used to get the hard copy I usually looked at it as it was with the police roundup blurb.

Is the problem that they compiled the information so it is easy to access rather than having to go through all the papers for the last several years at the library?

Or is this something that most papers don't publish every single week of the year? Or do people just not notice that there is a public announcement for those things when it is a couple of them every week in the paper?

ETA: I found WRAL had a map of how many people had concealed carry permits that they published a few months ago. Now it didn't give names or exact addresses but if you live in their viewing area you can find out how many people on your street have the permits. http://www.wral.com/news/state/page/11228410/ So is the problem that this information is publicly available, or is the problem that this one paper made it easy for anyone to get at it.

"RE: NY paper publishes hand gun permit map"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-26-12 at 11:02 AM
It might also help home invaders target certain neighbourhoods by knowing which streets might have guns.
"RE: NY paper publishes hand gun permit map"
Posted by Snidget on 12-26-12 at 11:32 AM
Like I said, apparently it was OK for our paper to publish that info in dribs and drabs every single week, week after week, at least it was doing it a few years ago. Year in and year out.

Is it just making it an infographic rather than having to microfiche through to find a handgun in the area you want to target for your robbery?

But then again, our paper has a conservative bent so that probably makes it patriotic rather than a terrible thing.

It isn't like this is the first time any news organization has made this kind of info available. Where was the outrage months ago when WRAL posted the how many people on your street have a concealed permit (although they didn't give the exact address, at least it would help with all your gun stealing needs to know what streets were likely to be the ones to go to) Although they don't track in anyway who has rifles or shotguns, just the handguns and concealed carry which is usually handguns as most people don't go shopping with their rifle shoved down their pant leg. It just is not comfy.

Now maybe NY newspapers don't normally have a police blotter section. And I've noticed in NC not every police blotter (usually just a sentence or two about every major 911 call for the last day) seems to include and Blank at Address got their gun permit, but I know ours used to. I may have to get the hard copy of the paper a few times to see if they still do it.

"Gun control?"
Posted by AyaK on 12-26-12 at 06:00 PM
As Penn Jillette said, "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's insane."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E

"RE: Gun control?"
Posted by Estee on 12-26-12 at 06:11 PM
I'm guessing Donald just fired him for the third time.

(Penn recently published an article and book which took a certain substance out of Donald. And his hair. Which is made from the substance.)

Actually, that line describes portions of the Patriot Act pretty well, but that's a different can of worms... and ultimately, you can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing sane laws either. You can bring the odds down, but you can't eliminate them.

So what drops the probability? And how far do you go to get it?

"Sheriff Arpaio's solution"
Posted by dabo on 12-28-12 at 02:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-28-12 AT 02:08 PM (EST)

Posses!

>sigh<

Well, I suppose it is slightly better than sending in the National Guard. But only slightly.

I'm all for increased security at schools, even if it means more armed security on the premises. But a reasonable approach, not a mass of armed yahoos standing around as sniper bait. At least if you take out a yahoo you can only claim at best an assualt rifle instead of fully functional military hardware.

Increased armed security should be specially trained, as are police, for these school situations. And participate in special drills perhaps annually for the situations they might face in each school under their "protection."

But mainly there needs to be some special help in how to create good full-time security for these buildings; electronics and lock and barriers even -- some specialists. Not that they need to be prisons but they need to be secure, safe. Each building is unique, if the state or federal governments want to start somewhere this is the one preventative area they absolutely should be looking into.

"RE: Sheriff Arpaio's solution"
Posted by Estee on 12-28-12 at 04:36 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-28-12 AT 05:18 PM (EST)

You left out the other option: what's the easiest way for the next shooter to get into the school? Join the posse.

ETA: And given the jerk in charge, not only will those schools take on a distinct prison air, but I'm expecting kids to be snatched out of classes by the posses. Do you look as if you might be illegal? Papers, not even remotely please. This isn't about school security, this is about having one more excuse to tighten control in his fiefdom.

"RE: Sheriff Arpaio's solution"
Posted by Snidget on 12-28-12 at 07:39 PM
Yeah because people hired to be the "good guys" are never bad guys in disguise and no one can ever get the gun off a well trained good guy/gal. </snark>


Deck the Halls with Sigs of Tribe

"Another shooting ... this time in CA"
Posted by jbug on 01-10-13 at 11:06 PM
http://tinyurl.com/azwjccc


Student shot at high school in California’s San Joaquin Valley; student suspect surrenders

No high powered rifle.
No assault weapon.
Now what?

"RE: Another shooting ... this time in CA"
Posted by dabo on 01-10-13 at 11:18 PM
While this gets listed as a school shooting, this is a case where the gunman had a specific target or two in mind, was not intent on claiming multiple and random victims. Had security at the school been sufficient to prevent the shooting from happening at the school (the armed security officer assigned to the school wasn't there because he couldn't get to work) the gunman could have staged the attack elsewhere. Why he didn't go about things that way is something I would like to know.
"Can we please to get the"
Posted by Snidget on 01-12-13 at 12:16 PM
conspiracy theory, arsenal and compound creating, paranoid, rage-filled, explosive, gun fetishists off the airwaves.

Really.

They aren't making anyone feel good about anyone who owns a gun.

I know the media loves to find the most extreme examples to "debate" but it doesn't seem that many people are saying they don't speak for me and they don't represent most gun-owners.

And for the people I really think are reasonable people who own guns, stop parroting the crazy people on TV when trying to explain that you aren't one of the crazy people who shouldn't have guns.

I did ask someone if they really were ready to shoot at American Soldiers and/or Policepersons?

Personally, if real American Soldiers really do uphold the constitution I would rather they be the ones shooting at whatever people the Gov't gives the drones and tanks to. I'll bake cookies for the military coup. Of course my depth perception is so bad I can't aim and shoot at anything in a video came correctly. So I don't think I'm the one to be taking out the snipers on every roof top.

"The other option is a"
Posted by Estee on 01-12-13 at 12:36 PM
I know the media loves to find the most extreme examples to "debate" but it doesn't seem that many people are saying they don't speak for me and they don't represent most gun-owners.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoxNewsLiberal

Although in this case, it would be the noted flipside of MSNBC Conservative.

"Can we also please..."
Posted by kidflash212 on 01-12-13 at 01:58 PM
not use made up quotes from Hitler to make a point?

Two FB friends posted a supposed quote from Hitler - "To Conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens". When did he say this? Where? Outside a bad movie or a Batman comic book, why would any villain publicly announce how he plans to conquer a nation?

"Wasn' that Sun Tzu?"
Posted by foonermints on 01-12-13 at 09:51 PM
"We must drink ALL of their kool-aid. ALL!"

Yah, Grit told me once in a secret message she loved me.

"I hate you and the horse you came in on!" ~ misquote by Grit.

tiny little devil: spreading mayhem throughout the Universe

"Is the next one their fault?"
Posted by Estee on 01-15-13 at 08:57 AM
Less than a month after trying to place much of the blame for the Newtown deaths on video games, the NRA released one of their own which allows kids to fire virtual AK-47s at targets shaped like coffins.

Regardless of where you stand on the gun debates, I hope you'll agree that once a party makes an excuse for something, they should probably try to avoid becoming it.

"An explanation"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-15-13 at 01:50 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/01/15/nbcnewscom-gives-readers-incomplete-misleading-story-new-shooting-rang

Take it or leave it.

Coffins? Not really. The disc targets look like dinner plates. Is the NRA trying to destroy nutrition, too?


Tebow Time is over. We prefer to win games in the 1st quarter.
Trade managed by GM Agman, 2012

"RE: An explanation"
Posted by cahaya on 01-15-13 at 01:56 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-15-13 AT 02:10 PM (EST)

Yes, "coffins" really.

These aren't really coffins, they're torso profiles with the kill shots to the head and heart clearly marked in red.

Without downloading the app and looking at it, I'd say it's probably a choice of outdoor/indoor ranges and targets.

Oh, and if you really want some firepower, tack on another 99˘ to the app price.


"RE: An explanation"
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-15-13 at 06:59 PM
so they're "coffins", not coffins.

But you're right, they are torso shaped targets, just like ones that have been used for decades.

"RE: An explanation"
Posted by Estee on 01-15-13 at 07:16 PM
...you think that's a torso shape?

*considers*

I'd have a really hard time dating in your neighborhood.

"You know they are."
Posted by Estee on 01-15-13 at 03:22 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-15-13 AT 03:43 PM (EST)

They have a history of demanding that people eat lead.

I didn't get the story from any form of NBC (unless I missed a buyout somewhere): it was the front page story for the Daily News. The overall outline shown does have a rough coffin shape to it -- but looking at Cahaya's picture (and currently lacking the original visual reference), I think the area representing the head may have been missing.

It still remains a form of video game, though -- and as such, I'll let that part of the post stand. This isn't exactly a good idea on their part or an intelligent time to release it -- and by their own logic, they finally signed on for a portion of the blame. Unless, of course, it's all other video games. I eagerly await the explanation of how Peggle leads to death. But I see they did take time to directly blame that old standby of Not Our Fault Dears, Mortal Kombat. Perfect. Let me know when you find a massacre site where a martial artist pulled twenty-six people's heads off their bodies and left the entire spine dangling from the neck every time.

If the NRA had been thinking about it, they would have postponed by a couple of months, minimum. As-is, all this can do is make them look worse. And here I thought that would be hard to do.

ETA: I did read your linked article (while considering the source) and will say this: it just raised some major questions about how the industry determines four-and-up ratings. Yeesh. Can you think of a few ways to slide under that defined radar? People are trying right now, and some of them will succeed.

"RE: You know they are."
Posted by cahaya on 01-15-13 at 03:58 PM
"RE: You know they are."
Posted by Estee on 01-15-13 at 04:09 PM
Thankee. (Huh. I have now triggered image postings from both major NYC tabloids across two forums. Bifecta!) Okay, I see my error -- look at the greying-out on the head portion: the image is being used to increase the coffin similarity on a casual glance. Heya, DailyNewsweek!
"RE: You know they are."
Posted by newsomewayne on 01-15-13 at 07:08 PM
I didn't get the story from any form of NBC

Which kind of goes to show how everyone is blowing this out of proportion and, worse, failing to get the truth of the story in favor of sensationalizing their agenda.


The overall outline shown does have a rough coffin shape to it --

Granted. But it also looks like any standard target one would find in a gun store.

It still remains a form of video game, though -- and as such, I'll let that part of the post stand. This isn't exactly a good idea on their part or an intelligent time to release it -

No, it isn't. The timing, to say the least, is poor. But it is also very plausible that this game was made and submitted to Apple weeks or even months before Sandy Hook. If this had been released last June, would anybody have even batted an eye at this?
If the NRA had been thinking about it, they would have postponed by a couple of months, minimum.

It's possible they couldn't. don't know. Just saying.

The timing issue, not-withstanding, I think this is really a mountain out of a molehill. They want to say shooting targets is violent? For crying out loud, Duck Hunt showed more realistic violence than this. Not to mention encouraged more violence by making so many want to shoot the piss out of that damn dog.

"Naturally."
Posted by Estee on 01-16-13 at 07:12 AM
Number of weapons about to be banned under New York's new law, with existing ones requiring registration: lots.

Number of people standing in line at gun shops to buy those weapons before the deadline while angrily swearing they would never register them: lots.

"RE: Naturally."
Posted by kingfish on 01-16-13 at 09:55 AM
Time spent watching the legal battles rise up to and thru the Supreme Court? Lots.

Time spent watching amended laws battle challenges after the initial laws are declared unconstitutional? Till the end of time.

"Second-grader brings gun to school in Rockaway."
Posted by Estee on 01-17-13 at 05:04 PM
Gee, the NRA is pushing to have them licensed early, don'tcha think?
"HuffPo: Father of victim "heckled" by pro-gun activists"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 01-29-13 at 04:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-newtown-victim-heckled_n_2572503.html
"RE: HuffPo: Father of victim "heckled" by pro-gun activists"
Posted by dabo on 01-29-13 at 05:17 PM
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newtown-dad-to-lawmakers-Change-gun-laws-4228992.php#page-2

The sometimes boisterous public hearing -- after nearly four hours of testimony from State Police, parents of slain Newtown first-graders and city mayors -- seemed dominated by gun owners, who railed at more than 90 proposed bills.

"The Second Amendment!" was shouted a couple of times by as many as a dozen gun enthusiasts in the meeting room as Neil Heslin, holding a photo of his slain 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, asked why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state.

"There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened," said Heslin, who said he grew up using guns and was undisturbed by the interruption of his testimony.

"That wasn't just a killing, it was a massacre," said Heslin, who recalled dropping off his son at Sandy Hook Elementary school shortly before Lanza opened fire. "I just hope some good can come out of this." ...

State police chiefs said they support new legislation that would require background checks before every rifle sale in the state, particularly in the so-called secondary market among private owners.

They also suggested eliminating the state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, which reviews cases where the privileges of gun owners are suspended or revoked.

Gun manufacturers, while telling lawmakers they wanted to work with them on ways to address the issue of gun control, offered little in the way of proposals.

"Heckle away"
Posted by AyaK on 01-29-13 at 05:30 PM
You know, one of the things that drives me crazy is that people who have been through unquestionably terrible events are somehow awarded a "moral authority" so that their opinions on related subjects must be respected, even if they have no idea what they're talking about.

A Bushmaster is simply a semi-automatic version of the M16, generally referred to using its trademarked designation AR-15. It's not a Thompson submachine gun or even an Uzi. It's just a plain vanilla rifle.

And once again, no matter how you change the background check rules, it would have had no bearing on Sandy Hook, because the murderer stole the guns he used after committing his first murder.

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by dabo on 01-29-13 at 06:01 PM
I don't know about "moral authority" but a little respect in light of the tragic loss of his 6-year-old son, a little decorum, would be good.

Anyway, no, the Connecticut assault weapons ban didn't cover the version of the bushmaster the shooter had available, or limit the number of rounds per clip. Had it covered that version of an assault rifle (or limited the rounds) he still could have gone through with the shooting, he had other weapons available. But perhaps the death toll wouldn't have been as high.

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 01-29-13 at 06:21 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-29-13 AT 06:22 PM (EST)

Yes, agreed. That was the intent behind my post - not that the father should be held as a moral authority, but rather to highlight the boorish behaviour of the pro-gun folks.

Regardless of whether the father knew what he was talking about or not, decorum would have been in order. And wouldn't it make a much greater impression to wait their turn and then make valid counterpoints (such as what AyaK did) instead of acting like a rowdy bunch?

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by AyaK on 01-29-13 at 08:03 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-29-13 AT 08:04 PM (EST)

I certainly agree that shouting "The Second Amendment" at the father was boorish behavior that doesn't accomplish anything except provide headlines for the Puffington Host.

The problem with the whole line of argument is that there is no easy answer. Did anyone else here see the great original Norwegian film Insomnia (not to be confused with the pathetic U.S. version starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams)?

The reason the U.S. version was so lame was that Insomnia actually turns around the strict gun laws in Norway -- so strict that police aren't even allowed to carry guns. The lead police detective is Swedish, where police can carry guns, and had taken a job in Norway after having been disciplined in Sweden for having sex with the main witness in one of his cases. Despite having moved to Norway, he still carried a gun (albeit illegally).

The detective and his partner were trying to trap a murderer in the Arctic region of Norway when they inadvertently tipped off the murderer. Like the old NRA slogan, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns -- and the murderer does in fact have a gun and shoots one of the pursuing police officers. The formerly Swedish detective pulls his gun and shoots at a figure in the fog -- which turns out to be his partner, who was failing mentally and had gone in the wrong direction on the pursuit. The partner dies.

Under Norwegian law, any shooting is a strict liability offense, so now the detective has also committed murder (even his act of firing was a crime that would cost him his job). But the other cops think the murderer shot the partner -- though the murderer saw what really happened. Ultimately, another police officer is assigned to investigate the "cop killing". The detective has identified the murderer but can't arrest him because he'll blow the whistle on the partner shooting. He even assists the murderer in trying to frame someone else. However, it doesn't work. The murderer ends up holding the detective at gunpoint, thinking the detective has come to kill him (to silence him) but then dies accidentally when a walkway collapses while he's fleeing. The detective finds conclusive evidence that he was the murderer and turns it in.

As the case is closed, the police officer working on the partner killing tells the detective that she recovered a shell casing near the dead partner and gives it to him, asking him if he knows what it is. He identifies it as a shell casing from the guns carried by the Swedish police. She agrees -- but takes no further action, permitting him to leave with the shell casing so that the death of the partner would be pinned on the now-dead murderer.

Great movie. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about how Americans wouldn't understand the original, because the Second Amendment makes the detective's actions so alien to us.

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by cahaya on 01-29-13 at 11:05 PM
Let's put it this way... Norway and Arizona are worlds apart.

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by dabo on 01-30-13 at 01:53 AM
And yet the 2011 Norway shooter was able to purchase his weapons legally in Norway.

He also bought 10 30-round magazines for the rifle from a United States supplier, and 6 magazines for the pistol (including 4 30-round magazines) in Norway.

"RE: Heckle away"
Posted by AyaK on 01-30-13 at 12:15 PM
Right. Norway has two exceptions for guns: (1) sport hunting and (2) target shooting (it's an Olympic sport, and Norway dominates in the biathlon (skiing/shooting) competition). In each case, you're required to prove that you engage in the activity. In this case, the gunman actually joined a target shooting club and attended for three months, renting a pistol at the club for shooting. He also used the target shooting as evidence of his interest in sport hunting, which was acceptable under Norwegian law.

So he took advantage of both exceptions. Very clever.

"NBC dishonesty"
Posted by AyaK on 01-30-13 at 12:44 PM
I expect dishonesty from MSNBC and the Puffington Host, but sometimes I just respond without researching first. Had I researched this, I would have learned that the idea of the father being "heckled" by the pro-gun audience was, as usual for the source, BS.

Here is a comparison between the NBC edit of the video, which makes it look as if he was interrupted, and the actual video. If you watch the two videos, Fox News looks great by comparison, because this is such a propaganda edit that even Roger Ailes would know better. But NBC apparently has no shame.

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/01/29/just-nbc-yet-another-deceptive-edit/

Watching the two tapes makes me realize how intellectually vacant U.S. liberals have become, in that their prime network, NBC, has apparently concluded that its side can't win an honest debate and instead cooks up leftist propaganda that it tries to pass off as news. Shame on the Puffington Host for disseminating it further.

"RE: NBC dishonesty"
Posted by dabo on 01-30-13 at 03:22 PM
So, he taunted them into it. I'm surprised Fox didn't style it that way. But, really, they still didn't need to chime up, knee-jerk reaction.

Anyway, as the video show, Mr. Heslin wasn't really out to taunt them or make headlines (the Connecticut Post link I checked had heckling in the headline), he really just wants people to think about the question, why does anybody need these assault-style weapons, these high capacity magazines.

"RE: NBC dishonesty"
Posted by AyaK on 01-30-13 at 05:37 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-30-13 AT 05:38 PM (EST)

No, he didn't taunt them into it; he asked the audience a question. I daresay he disagrees with the response, but when you ask a question and then claim that no one has an answer for it, someone is bound to answer.

Even the WaPo has realized that this was another example of NBC's unethical editing (similar to the infamous George Zimmerman tape); as usual, NBC is trying to cover for its lack of ethics by claiming that it is "reviewing" its edit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/30/msnbc-reviewing-newtown-heckled-video/

"Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by Estee on 01-30-13 at 04:03 PM
The hearings going on, shouting matches over what's Rights and what's I Need To Defend Myself Against Arial Bombardment, and now this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/30/arizona-shooting/1877525/

{dark}Let me guess. It's a protest shooting. A gun enthusiast is using bullets to speak out against how much harder it'll be to do this.{/dark}

"RE: Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by Starshine on 01-30-13 at 04:36 PM
Louis Abruzzo of Alvardao Realty, said the shooting happened in the lobby. The 92,000-square-foot, three-story office building is more than 85% leased.

Abruzzo paid $10.2 million in cash for the office building in December 2011.

Was this an advert to sell the remaining 15%?

Very strange ending to the story

"RE: Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by AyaK on 01-30-13 at 05:41 PM
Was the shooter a postal worker?
"RE: Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by Estee on 01-30-13 at 06:27 PM
It's Arizona and the victims appear to work for a law firm. I'll guess police officer.
"RE: Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by cahaya on 01-31-13 at 01:38 AM
Law firm Osborn Maledon confirmed that litigator Mark Hummels - who is president of the Federal Bar Association's Phoenix chapter - had been shot.

"Our partner, Mark Hummels, was representing a client in a mediation today when he was shot. We understand that other people also were injured," the firm said in a statement.

I'm waiting for the NRA to say all lawyers should carry a gun to protect themselves while meeting their clients, while Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County expands his posse to cover office buildings as well as schools.

"RE: Arizona practices ironic timing."
Posted by Estee on 01-30-13 at 06:21 PM
"Some extra space just opened up. Very reasonable rates. You assume all cleaning and bullet hole coverage costs."
"Spackle"
Posted by foonermints on 01-30-13 at 10:15 PM
Or toothpaste if you are a college student.
"RE: Spackle"
Posted by cahaya on 01-31-13 at 02:16 AM

Ultra-brite.


Smurfy snowy holiday present by agman

"More Mental Illness"
Posted by kidflash212 on 02-03-13 at 01:06 PM
Jimmy Lee Dykes described as a paranoid, anti-government militia type boarded a school bus several days ago, shot and killed the bus driver and abducted a 5 year boy. He is now holed up in a bunker on his property with the boy in a tense hostage situation.

Chris Kyle, a decorated Navy SEAL, killed by a former marine suffering from PTSD at a gun range in Texas.


In both these cases, there were warning signs. Jimmy Lee beat and killed his neighbors dog with a pipe because it walked on "his side" of the property.

I am not smart enough to find a solution but mental illness is clearly a common thread in all these tragedies. There must be a better way to recognize potential killers and prevent things like this.


"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by cahaya on 02-03-13 at 01:39 PM
So, what is the NRA position on this shooting range incident after releasing their shooting range mobile app?
"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by kidflash212 on 02-03-13 at 01:57 PM
I don't think a former marine suffering from PTSD was influenced by a video game. I'm commenting more about how to deal with mental illness. Seems to me that a soldier diagnosed with PTSD should not be at a gun range, something failed.
"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by Starshine on 02-03-13 at 02:16 PM
I'm unhappy with the use of the phrase Mental illness to me this covers too wide a variety of illnesses.

If gun ownership is going to be allowed then I would hope that there would be a tighter wording of which mental illnesses should mean restriction.

There seem to be very strong feelings that all Americans should be allowed to own guns, so I can see people not seeking treatment or getting help for an illness for fear of being banned from firearm ownership.

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by foonermints on 02-03-13 at 02:39 PM
Even if they were not permitted to own a gun, they'd steal it or get it on the black market.
"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by Starshine on 02-03-13 at 03:04 PM
Probably true (although I wonder how many of us actually know how to get things on the black market).

I just worry about the lumping of so many different illnesses together under the one flag of "Mental Illness" apart from anything else it stigmatises all sufferers.

I seem to remember that Depression is the second most common illness in the UK, so I would guess it was fairly prevalent in the US as well, putting that in a basket with PTSD or Schizophrenia makes as much sense to me as putting colds, a broken leg, and Huntington's chorea together because they are "Physical Illness"

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by kidflash212 on 02-03-13 at 03:21 PM
Agreed that the term mental illness is probably too broad, I just don't have a better one at this time.

I just think we need to identify the people with the potential for this type of violence earlier. Jimmy Lee Dykes (who is still holding a five year old boy hostage in a bunker at this very minute) showed many warning signs but nothing happened.

"It's a "friend of a friend" thing"
Posted by foonermints on 02-03-13 at 05:27 PM
Not terribly hard for a gun. I think I mentioned in an earlier post about working with undercover officers trying to get RPG's off the streets. The general population doesnt really need that kind of ordnance.


Not much left of the duck for a barbecue.

quack!

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by Snidget on 02-03-13 at 04:24 PM
Or use whatever other weapon they find handy.

Sadly it seems that while the common criminal who only shoots up a few people when absolutely necessary do generally get black market guns, way too many of the insanely violent people who do crazy things have no problem at all passing the background check. I think something like 80% (if I remember that number correctly) of the crazy gun violence acts (compared to the I shot the owner of the store so he couldn't be a witness) are done with the guns purchased by the person at a gun store that follows all the rules we currently have.

I don't want to keep the people who really are law-abiding and unlikely to do something crazy from owning guns, but we should be able to something more than arm them all and let God sort them out.

They had a turn in your gun get money no questions asked thing on the news today. Some people turned in rocket-launchers. Now those weren't likely bought at the neighborhood weapons store. So I know the black market is alive and well and selling stuff I really don't want the crazies to get their hands on.

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by cahaya on 02-03-13 at 02:54 PM
That's partly my point, that not all Americans should have the right to bear arms, because of their mental condition, while the NRA insists that anyone who wishes to bear arms should be able to do so based on Constitutional rights.

Suddenly the coffin on the app shooting range becomes a real coffin on the shooting range.

FWIW, I have spend many hours on a shooting range with like-minded friends, mostly .22 rifle and .38 handguns. I've also shot a lot of long-range target with a Mauser 8mm rifle accurate to 1000 meters on my folks' farm, reloading my own ammo cartidges, and I think that this skill, along with other defense skills, is (unfortunately) a necessary skill to have in this society. I'm not a gun nut, and currently I don't even own one, but I do know how to shoot and why I would shoot if it ever became necessary.

Unfortunately, with a society as large and fractious as ours, there will be people on the fringe who will abuse the right to arms when in fact they should be kept well away from bearing them.

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by Snidget on 02-03-13 at 04:16 PM
It does seem that some hold the position that if we give everyone an arsenal and a huge number of bullets we will eventually figure out every individual who has more violence than empathy, or sense. And either a good guy will take them out or a gun in the area will induce them to commit suicide before they kill off to many other people.

The handful of survivors will certainly all be law abiding peaceful people, right?

"RE: More Mental Illness"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-03-13 at 02:52 PM
The only way to stop a bad guy is not to have a good guy hand him a gun.

RIP Chris Kyle, I know you were trying to help him with his PTSD but taking him to a gun range? Common sense or something is missing in the story here.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Al a Mental"
Posted by dabo on 02-03-13 at 05:10 PM
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/franken-to-introduce-bill-to-bring-mental-health

Franken (1/30/13): Tomorrow I will introduce the Mental Health In Schools Act which will improve access to mental health care for kids. Catching these issues at an early age is really important. I want to be careful here -- that we don't stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population. In fact, they are more likely to be the victims of violence.

http://abcnewspapers.com/2013/01/31/u-s-sen-al-franken-introduced-mental-health-in-schools-act/

"RE: Al a Mental"
Posted by Snidget on 02-03-13 at 05:28 PM
*nods*. They generally have the same percentage of violent behavior as any other group. It does seem that when psychosis and violence collide the results are particularly distressing and newsworthy so it can seem that only the "crazy" are dangerous. There are plenty of violent people among the sane.

We should treat all the mentally ill so they will be able to be healthy members of society and able to care for themselves as much as possible (I know we can't cure them all). It isn't just the violent few who need intervention.

"Child safe: JLDykes dead."
Posted by Estee on 02-05-13 at 07:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/us/alabama-child-hostage/index.html

A camera they somehow got into the bunker?

...sorry, that one kind of jumped out.

"RE: Child safe: JLDykes dead."
Posted by kingfish on 02-05-13 at 08:49 PM
The old teddy bear with the blinking red eye trick.
"RE: Child safe: JLDykes dead."
Posted by cahaya on 02-06-13 at 00:03 AM
This sounds like something fooner would invent, the innocuous robotic teddy bear.

"RE: Child safe: JLDykes dead."
Posted by Snidget on 02-05-13 at 09:35 PM
There was some kind of ventilation shaft they said they were sending things down to them (I think I heard kid's medication, cheezits, a toy) so they could have put it in something they sent down?
"RE: Child safe: JLDykes dead."
Posted by dabo on 02-06-13 at 01:19 AM
Happy birthday, Ethan. Hope he has a great party.
"*darkly thinking*"
Posted by Snidget on 02-03-13 at 04:26 PM
Sandy Hook kids singing at the Super Bowl?

I'm already seeing what the conspiracy nuts and no one has any right to ever speak out about a gun that hurt them or anyone they ever met, ever, types are going to do in the comments sections and on twitter.

I may need to start drinking now.

"RE: *darkly thinking*"
Posted by cahaya on 02-06-13 at 01:27 AM
I may need to start drinking now.

Help yourself to a drink, but make sure you don't have a gun in your other hand when you do!

"Spreadsheet."
Posted by Estee on 03-18-13 at 12:34 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408?localLinksEnabled=false

At least the officer realizes all gamers aren't like that. I know a good part of the reading audience won't. If that trigger didn't exist, something else would have crystallized it.

Another article from a few days ago suggested one classroom was skipped because there was black construction paper in the window (leftover from an arts and crafts day) and Lanza supposedly thought that meant it was unoccupied. Sure, he went for an elementary school to guarantee he was targeting those who couldn't fight back, but shooting up an empty room? Pointless. And scoreless. So in this theory, he moved on.

It could have been so much worse.

A spreadsheet seven feet long and four wide.

It has been so much worse.

Somewhere in the world, another document became a little longer.

"RE: Spreadsheet."
Posted by cahaya on 03-18-13 at 01:02 PM
So now every Excel user has to register themselves with Microsoft and future releases of Excel will have a built-in size limiter to no larger than A4 paper to prevent anyone from compiling spreadsheets like this ever again.
"RE: Spreadsheet."
Posted by Estee on 03-18-13 at 01:11 PM
As if that'll do anything. Everyone knows future killers are people who disregard the rules of corporate society and use Open Office.
"RE: Spreadsheet."
Posted by cahaya on 03-18-13 at 10:05 PM
Everyone knows future killers are people who disregard the rules of corporate society and use Open Office School.

Fixed that.

"RE: Spreadsheet."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 03-18-13 at 06:05 PM
A truly dedicated user would just type everything out in three-point font and enlarge the view on the screen by 300% or so.
"NRA Solution"
Posted by dabo on 04-03-13 at 01:47 AM
Predictably, they go with a plan that sells the most guns and makes money for the NRA. Basically, teachers with guns, trained by the NRA, funded by the gubment.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-nra-task-force-school-safety-20130402,0,7704514.story

http://www.nraschoolshield.com/NSS_Final_FULL.pdf

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by kingfish on 04-03-13 at 08:56 AM
That's such a bad idea, IMO.

I mean, tragic and heartbreaking as Sandy Hook was, it (a murderous rampage on school grounds by a deranged intruder) was a pretty isolated incident, and introducing guns onto the school campus is a dumb overreaction.

I go along with increasing the protection of schools by strengthening doors, walls, and surveillance, etc. Basically making it tough for an intruder. But guns in schools only increases the possibility of an insane rampage by whoever has them. Who knows when a teacher or a security guard would go berserk if they were armed?

You’ve never seen a teacher on the verge of a breakdown in class? I think we all have a story or two along those lines; it’s a tough job sometimes.

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by Snidget on 04-03-13 at 09:07 AM
Hopefully they will do enough screening that the one with the access to the guns will be the least likely to go nutso, but you can't ever be sure who is the one that won't break.

Are they forcing this as an open carry, gun must be loaded, ready to shoot, at all times, on someone's body? Because a 15 foot exclusion zone in my classroom where I can't go over there to help a kid and the kids cannot ever approach my desk just doesn't seem like it would make instruction more effective. Because they are talking arming teachers as much as hiring a professional who has no instructional duties, right?

Because if the loaded gun is within reach of a kid, some kid is going to have bad day and grab for it. The kids will also figure out where the guns are locked up and how to pick the lock. Hopefully they will be in a location that is always protected, but no security system is foolproof. Fools evolve too fast. And as I've said before, I would rather the teacher be in charge of getting the kids to cover rather than how do I work my way through the shooting zone to get to where the guns are locked up.

Sounds like a great way to sell more guns, and after all isn't the NRA primarily an organization to protect the gun manufacturers?

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by cahaya on 04-03-13 at 12:54 PM
Blam! Blam!

Blame! Blame!

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by dabo on 04-03-13 at 04:51 PM
Sounds like a great way to sell more guns, and after all isn't the NRA primarily an organization to protect the gun manufacturers? It should be obvious to everyone by now that the NRA works only for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Armed volunteers in schools is a horrible idea, but hey it gets the most guns into schools. I like the idea of armed security, just let them be professional and give the teachers the security to teach, the kids the security to learn.

What next? Fully staffed NRA shooting ranges/arsenals at every school?

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by Snidget on 04-03-13 at 06:23 PM
It is like they don't pay any attention to how much training it takes before a professional is ready for high pressure situations with live ammunition. After all every so often a bunch of bystanders get hit when the highly trained people are trying to take out a gunman.

Seems like they think a couple of weekends is all any random human needs, and how are they screening for the people who can volunteer? I mean anyone who can buy a gun legally includes a heck of a lot of the mass shooters they are saying this will protect us from. Heaven for fend we get a few wanna be gun slinger types who are looking for someone to legally take down and a kid pulls something black or shiny out of a backpack at the wrong time.

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by dabo on 04-04-13 at 00:11 AM
Police Academy training varies, of course, but just a brief look around I found from 13 weeks to 6 months. Not all of that is about how to handle a tense situation, they have to know the laws and be able to pass tests and stuff.

Army basic training is 8 weeks. Just basic, mind you.

Navy basic training is 7 weeks.

Marine basic training is 13 weeks.

The NRA expects me to believe volunteers can be ready after 40 to 60 hours training. No thanks.

"Look"
Posted by foonermints on 04-04-13 at 08:33 AM
At the intense training the TSA was trying to give airline pilots with a weapon in the cockpit. They abandoned the idea because half the time the pilot either accidentally shot the co-pilot, or shot out the avionics.
"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by Snidget on 04-04-13 at 08:50 AM
*nods* and that is just for the regular run of the mill tense situations you expect for any soldier or police officer.

Usually in a mass shooter you don't send deputy Bubba fresh outta police academy, you send in the specialists like a SWAT team, and how many extra hours is that?

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by kingfish on 04-04-13 at 10:43 AM
LAST EDITED ON 04-04-13 AT 10:44 AM (EST)


My feeling is that you don't even want sufficiently trained people in schools to be armed. It's not lack of training that is the problem, it's armed nutziods (technical term). There are some situations (non-school) where you need armed security, and one would hope that they would be well trained. But, if one wants to prevent another Sandy Hook, not in schools.

Anybody can go berserk whether they are trained or not, and if they have a gun, it's another Newtown massacre. Cops, army personnel, Swat team members, Seals, Delta Commandos, anyone, much less school security personnel or teachers. Case on point, Dorner, the California cop killer.

Beefing up entrances to schools enough to delay entry until cops arrive, and maybe additional school drills for this type of emergency are (IMO) the more practical solutions.

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 04-04-13 at 12:39 PM
>Heaven for fend we get a few
>wanna be gun slinger types
>who are looking for someone
>to legally take down and
>a kid pulls something black
>or shiny out of a
>backpack at the wrong time.

That is my biggest fear about letting my kids use a Blackberry - the action of reaching out to a belt holster to pull out a black, shiny Blackberry is almost exactly the same as the action of reaching out to a belt holster to pull out a black, shiny gun.

I fully expect to read stories of marshals or volunteer deputies shooting down kids because they thought the kid was reaching for a gun.

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-04-13 at 11:00 AM
LAST EDITED ON 04-04-13 AT 11:00 AM (EST)

To bad the NRA has used at least 3 shooting stories that either didn't happen or they changed the way it happen to fit their position.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: NRA Solution"
Posted by kingfish on 04-04-13 at 02:18 PM
Let's see, who else does that sort of thing...? Scratching head…

Like, every politician, pro or anti NRA? Like, almost every sentient being with an opinion, pro anything, con anything?

The NRA certianly didn’t invent that ploy.

"Strange Bedfellows"
Posted by IceCat on 04-12-13 at 07:11 AM

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/11/al-qaeda-spokesman-slams-ease-of-gun-purchases-in-u-s/
"NC A&T on lockdown"
Posted by Snidget on 04-12-13 at 11:29 AM
LAST EDITED ON 04-12-13 AT 06:25 PM (EST)

Man with rifle spotted, so far no shots fired, but several nearby schools also locked down.

Hoping for a peaceful resolution and no deaths there today.

and NCCU on the other side of me.

http://myfox8.com/2013/04/12/nccu-on-lockdown-after-incident-at-residence-hall/