Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 1,152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Banning semi automatics:

Pro:

Mass shootings will likely kill fewer people.

Cons:

You won't be able to shoot the entire herd at once.

When the government takes over you will have to face a tank with a revolver instead of a glock


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Banning semi automatics:

Pro:

Mass shootings will likely kill fewer people.

Cons:

You won't be able to shoot the entire herd at once.

When the government takes over you will have to face a tank with a revolver instead of a glock

Yeah, I love the argument that we should be able to possess assault weapons in case we need to protect ourselves from the big bad government. The idea that that would work in any way shape or form is some sort of fetishized, romantic delusion of the hardcore right.

EDIT: Also, "when the government takes over" is hilarious. When the government takes over from whom, exactly? The government?


SuperSlayer wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Why do these shootings always happen when a big movie comes out? Something fishy going on about these shootings and I can't quite put my finger on it yet.
There's nothing "fishy" about it. These are independent events only very loosely connected by the occasional shared cultural element.
Are you sure? How do you know these events are not events set up by the government to get the people to turn on gun laws?

Because that's the sort of thing that an actual crazy person believes.

Quote:
These events always seem to happen on certain mysterious dates.

No, they don't. Stop being a conspiracy theorist.


Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.

If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.

Got bad news for you, as the economy crashes there will cease to be an area less like a war zone


Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.

Hey Scott. My home HAS been broken into twice and several people around here have been broken into too. So I should move JUST because I live in an area that has crime? WHERE should I move to, Mr. "I am always right and you are wrong"? What should I do when my wife pulls up and they are robbing my house, Mr. "My political views are the only way"? MOVE? The are very few places in this world that are truely crime free. And as for the police, they can only do so much. Yes, this incident is a tragedy, but a person who wants to kill will do so, gun or no gun.


Besides, do you REALLY think that it would be that hard for someone to get a gun just because they are banned? Are you that naive? If I wanted a gun, I could get it through criminal channels. On one hand, I do agree that there should be some form of gun control. On the other hand, there is a reason why gun ownership is in the constitution, the basis for the whole United States.


Sharoth wrote:
Hey Scott.

Hi, Sharoth.

Quote:
My home HAS been broken into twice and several people around here have been broken into too.

That's awful.

Quote:
So I should move JUST because I live in an area that has crime?

It sounds like crime is a pretty huge issue in your area. If my home were broken into multiple times, and I knew that such break-ins were both common and ongoing, yeah, I'd probably move based on that alone. Especially if I had kids. You might want to consider doing the same.

Quote:
WHERE should I move to,

Somewhere with a crime rate of less than oh-god-someone's-in-the-house.

Quote:
Mr. "I am always right and you are wrong"?

Would you prefer that you always be right, and I be wrong? Oh, you dog you! I bet you would!

Quote:
What should I do when my wife pulls up and they are robbing my house,

If your wife pulls up to your house while it is being robbed, she should probably call the police. What you should do depends on where you are. Are you in the house? Get out of the house! Are you not in the house? Stay out of the house!

Quote:
Mr. "My political views are the only way"?

My political views aren't the only way. There are a bunch of valid opinions. "Gun control should be unrestricted" is not one of those valid opinions. We're past that. You can certainly continue to hold onto that opinion, but it will be treated by the rest of us with the same level of respect we afford all invalid opinions.

And before you try to tell us otherwise, yes, there is such a thing as a bad opinion. Your first grade teacher lied to you.

Quote:
MOVE?

I don't know. Do you like living? Then yeah, probably!

Quote:
The are very few places in this world that are truely crime free.

There are also relatively few places in the United States where home robberies occur with such frequency as you describe. Most places experience some small amount of crime (that is currently in decline and at a long-time low). If you feel that an assault weapon is necessary to defend your family from home invasion, you probably live in an area with too much crime. Consider a change of scenery!

Quote:
And as for the police, they can only do so much.

Police are capable of a surprising level of action! You should try them out! You'll be surprised!

Quote:
Yes, this incident is a tragedy, but a person who wants to kill will do so, gun or no gun.

A person without a gun will try to kill, perhaps. And he may even be successful at killing a couple people!

Meanwhile, a person with a gun will likely succeed in murdering a relatively horrific number of people in a very short span of time.

Today there were two completely separate incidents in which a crazy person decided to try and murder a bunch of schoolchildren. One of them took place in Connecticut. The other took place in China. The one that took place here featured a deranged gunman with multiple firearms. The one that took place in China featured a lunatic with a knife, because it's really hard to get ahold of guns in China. The one that took place here was an attack on a class of twenty students and a handful of faculty. The one that took place in China was an attack on 22 kids. The one that took place here resulted in the massacre of an entire elementary school class. The one that took place in China resulted in the hospitalization of four children for serious injuries, and zero deaths.

Two attacks, two different countries, two different sets of weapon control laws, two different weapons used, and two very different outcomes.

You are free to continue to hold the viewpoint you hold. But it is a viewpoint that does not deserve - and will not receive - any of our respect.

Source on today's slashing attack in China.


Sharoth wrote:
Besides, do you REALLY think that it would be that hard for someone to get a gun just because they are banned?

It would be much harder.

Quote:
Are you that naive?

Nope. In fact, I can very nearly guarantee you that I am much better informed on this topic than you are. Much better.

Quote:
If I wanted a gun, I could get it through criminal channels.

Ah, yes. Criminal channels.

Quote:
On one hand, I do agree that there should be some form of gun control.

So do I. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

Quote:
On the other hand, there is a reason why gun ownership is in the constitution, the basis for the whole United States.

What reason is that?


Besides, you do not care about anyone political view point Scott. They either agree with you or they are wrong. Well, guess what! I disagree with you.

Point one - I voted for Obama. So what? I disliked him less than the other guy.

Point two - I DO dislike drugs! WHY? I have seen too many addicts and too much abuse of them.

Point three - The constitution alows gun ownership FOR A REASON!!! Yes, there are some people who should never get near a gun, but the majority of the gun owners are saner than you and I are. They know how dangerous the guns are and take precautions to keep them safe.

Point four - I am a city person who also loves the country. There are areas int his country where you NEED a gun in order to survive. And heaven forbid if you go into some of the state parks where the criminals have taken control of them to grow their drugs.

Point five - "You and yours" "City folk"? You must not have traveled much. Be careful of being so judgemental, because your ignorance starts to show.

The Exchange

So the answer is to all move to a mile away from the police station and away from the crime. And if crime shows up, move. And if the police lack instant teleportation better to die waiting than fight back

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
On the other hand, there is a reason why gun ownership is in the constitution, the basis for the whole United States.
What reason is that?

Because the framers that didn't want a standing army won the debate. They were quickly proven wrong though.

The keep part was due to the nature of the country and military at the time. When the flag goes up you need the infantry armed quickly, and the only warning you might have is when someone stumbles upon an invading unit just outside town. Anything heavier then a musket or rifle was kept in an armory.

The bear part is about ensuring that everyone is part of the militia.

The whole defending yourself from the government is a right wing myth.

Sovereign Court

I would hope we all could agree that everyone having to own AKs to feel safe isn't an ideal or a healthy situation. It would be nice if you lived like I do up here in Canada where I don't own a gun and haven't locked my front door in almost twenty years. There are still gun crimes, usually criminals shooting other criminals, and there are occasional break ins, but I've never felt the need to barricade my door with a shotgun loaded waiting in fear for multiple assailants to breach my compound. Sounds like a hellish existence.

Personally I'd just get a dog, most career criminals don't want to bother with a dog.

Also, despite the economy being in the dumps I heard that violent crime is way down, theft is up, but with the exception of these mass murders violent crime is going down.

Sovereign Court

I should also note that I have lived in the country, we have brown bears and they usually run when the lights turn on, but we've have a green bin program for a while now and the occasional bear has gotten too comfortable living too close to humans and has had to be put down. Usually they just relocate the things. Farmers used to need a rifle to kill predators, but with most meat production being done in factory like conditions these days there's less need to guard your animals from foxes or coyotes.

I've never gone hunting (well not to kill anyways) but I have walked game trails and learned how to set snares for rabbits with the scouts. I could see the thrill of hunting but even there I think there'd be more of a thrill or challenge to take down a buck with single shot from a bolt action then a hail of bullets. There are parts of Canada where you have to fear grizzlies and polar bears, you live up there you want a heavy rifle with you, but for the most part country life was pretty peaceful.

Silver Crusade

Why do Americans need to own guns?


Sharoth wrote:
Besides, you do not care about anyone political view point Scott.

I most certainly do!

Quote:
They either agree with you or they are wrong.

You believe the same thing. Just, perhaps, not with as much conviction as you ought to. Or perhaps too much, depending on who you're talking to.

Quote:
Well, guess what! I disagree with you.

Yeah, I got that.

Quote:
Point one - I voted for Obama. So what? I disliked him less than the other guy.

Cool, I voted for Obama too!

Quote:
Point two - I DO dislike drugs! WHY? I have seen too many addicts and too much abuse of them.

Amazing, I dislike drugs, too! Some I just dislike a little, and some I dislike a whole lot. And some I'm actually sort of okay with, like alcohol! And drugs prescribed by medical professionals to treat maladies!

Quote:
Point three - The constitution alows gun ownership FOR A REASON!!!

You keep saying this. I don't think you can defend it. Not that there isn't a reason. I just don't think you understand it very well.

Quote:
Yes, there are some people who should never get near a gun, but the majority of the gun owners are saner than you and I are.

That is almost certainly not true.

Quote:
They know how dangerous the guns are and take precautions to keep them safe.

51% is a pretty low number when you consider that everyone else is an irresponsible firearm owner. Perhaps the number is higher, but you haven't shown it.

Quote:
Point four - I am a city person who also loves the country. There are areas int his country where you NEED a gun in order to survive.

And yet there are probably people living in those areas who don't own firearms and are, undoubtedly, surviving. Your "need" is, perhaps, a bit of an exaggeration.

Quote:
And heaven forbid if you go into some of the state parks where the criminals have taken control of them to grow their drugs.

Because wandering off deep into undeveloped national park land without an understanding of the lay of the land is totally normal!

Quote:
Point five - "You and yours" "City folk"? You must not have traveled much.

Because I find stereotypical country colloquialisms funny?

Quote:
Be careful of being so judgemental, because your ignorance starts to show.

Laughing at being called "city folk" by someone on the internet isn't ignorance. If you knew what ignorance was, we'd be having a very different discussion right now.


Andrew R wrote:
So the answer is to all move to a mile away from the police station and away from the crime. And if crime shows up, move. And if the police lack instant teleportation better to die waiting than fight back

Yep, that's definitely exactly what I said and is in no way whatsoever a misrepresentation of my viewpoint.

I'd correct you, but you'd ignore it because it's easier to pretend I'm more ridiculous than you are.

American conservatives, ladies and gentlemen!


Krensky wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
On the other hand, there is a reason why gun ownership is in the constitution, the basis for the whole United States.
What reason is that?

Because the framers that didn't want a standing army won the debate. They were quickly proven wrong though.

The keep part was due to the nature of the country and military at the time. When the flag goes up you need the infantry armed quickly, and the only warning you might have is when someone stumbles upon an invading unit just outside town. Anything heavier then a musket or rifle was kept in an armory.

The bear part is about ensuring that everyone is part of the militia.

The whole defending yourself from the government is a right wing myth.

But government BAD!

Unregulated firearm ownership by people who think Obama is a socialist Muslim GOOD!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
Why do Americans need to own guns?

You want an honest answer?

Because a lot of Americans are really, really frightened creatures. They are inculcated from an early age to a mentality that is distrustful of the unknown, and which makes mountains out of scary things and molehills out of reasonable arguments. Because guns have come to represent freedom in its most basic form, and gun ownership has come to be seen as patriotic and celebrated. And, most of all, because they're part of the "American Way of Life" and always have been, and anyone who wants to change your "American Way of Life" is definitely unpatriotic, probably a terrorist, and possibly Literally Hitler. There are all sorts of other elements (our gun lobby is enormous and wealthy, people hate the idea of gun control but love the individual elements of gun control, we cover the bajeezus out of mass shootings like today, etc.) but that's the short of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If getting a firearm is apparently so difficult already (at least according to some) and no tightening of the restrictions are necessary, here's something to think about:
Eight Things More Difficult Than Owning a Gun

Yes, yes, it's a HuffPost article, but it's backed up by links to governmental and other pages


Andrew R linked a Cato Institute publication earlier.
It would seem that it's totally out of date and here's a debunking of it:
Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

Another striking thing that seems to pop up when comparing the US to e.g. Israel and Switzerland in these gun cases - no mention of size or anything of the countries. It's, however, almost the first thing that pops up, from the usually conservative/Libertarian side, when other comparisons are made, e.g. about universal health care.
"Oh, but the US is much different, it's much bigger and has a larger population, so what works in a 'small' European country would never work here."
Funny that...


Oh hell, I cannot imagine how much suffering this has caused. I can only offer my condolences to the families of the victims...and give my own children hugs. And bullet proof vests...

I admit, I cannot understand how America can sit and watch this and not want to regulate guns. We had one incident, at Dunblane Primary School, that involved the murder of fifteen five and six year old children and there teacher, and we made it pretty much illegal to own pistols as well heavily regulating larger weapons. No one argued, that I can recall.

That was in 1996. We haven't had another school shooting since. So say what you will, but it certainly seems that less guns equals less dead children works for the UK. I do seem to recall someone attacked a school with a katana (now also illegal to own with certain exceptions) but failed to do as much damage because...well, a sword isn't as good at killing people as a gun is.

America doesn't have that option, of course. There are too many guns out there. But there are still a lot of things that can be done. Regular checks on people who own weapons, removal of said weapons in case of any issues, required training...

And getting rid of laws that make it legal to carry gun around on the streets and shoot people you deem are threatening you.


Americans want to own guns to protect ourselves from people with guns. Events like this make it seem like there are armed nutcases who can strike anywhere, at any time, and the police won't arrive in time to save you. Meanwhile someone commuting suicide with a gun or a child shooting someone while playing with a gun go quietly unremarked.

Don't think the rest of the world is immune to this fallacy either: your media gives you the exact same impression of the us. It doesn't help that countries try to compare the US and Sweden as if their populations were equal. If Americans have something like this happen once a year and Sweden has something like this happen every 33 years then they're both just as prevalent in that country.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Americans want to own guns to protect ourselves from people with guns. Events like this make it seem like there are armed nutcases who can strike anywhere, at any time, and the police won't arrive in time to save you.

Someone was also citing the NRA: "When guns will be outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

Well... In western Europe (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany to name the biggest) firearms ownership is very limited. And the NRA is right, automatic rifles are mainly owned by criminals here. We don't have either death penalty (max is around 30 years of prison for a murder).
The result for a population of 300 millions people is 3 to 4 times less victims of gun violence than in the US.

Americans might think guns are protecting them but criminology highlights the opposite.

Lets even imagine teachers were armed, besides the everyday impact on children, how could they stop that guy with an assault rifle and a bulletproof vest?
So except if you imagine teachers with bulletproof vest and automatic rifles it's pointless and, if you do, you've to be 100% sure that no teacher will ever become nuts otherwise you again have the same drama!

You can't mourn those children and support at the same time the laws that contributed to have then killed.


Angstspawn wrote:
Lets even imagine teachers were armed, besides the everyday impact on children, how could they stop that guy with an assault rifle and a bulletproof vest?

If you shoot someone in a bullet "proof" vest that doesn't have the military grade ceramic plates you're probably going to stop them. You're just not going to kill them (at least unless you walk over to them while they're on the ground with a broken rib and shoot them again...)

This would cause more problems than it would solve. In all likelihood the teacher is still going to be going "huh..." and be killed before getting to the gun. That has to be weighed against the risks that the Kids could get the gun and play with it, the teacher could go nuts and shoot their own classroom, or on one of those really bad days just kill themselves.

I remember jimmying the lock on my teachers desk in the 5th grade and leaving a fuzzy mouse cat toy in there....

Quote:

Well... In western Europe (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany to name the biggest) firearms ownership is very limited. And the NRA is right, automatic rifles are mainly owned by criminals here. We don't have either death penalty (max is around 30 years of prison for a murder).

The result for a population of 300 millions people is 3 to 4 times less victims of gun violence than in the US.

Assault rifles are in a lot of high profile cases but they statistically result in a small percentage of the deaths. Europe also doesn't have the urban blights to the extent that the US does, where things are so bad that risking your life and killing become the only means of economic advancement.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Europe also doesn't have the urban blights to the extent that the US does, where things are so bad that risking your life and killing become the only means of economic advancement.

If areas are that unsafe pacify them with police forces. If you don't have enough, recruit more.

When was the last time United States were invaded?? Civilians don't need to possess war weapons nor automatic pistols in a democratic country during peace time.


My heart goes out to those that have lost there children
Speaking as a parent that has lost a child i can tell you there is nothing more painful
No parent should have to bury there child

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
We haven't had any serious gun control regulations presented on a national level for years, now, and miraculously we've had more mass shootings than just about any time I can remember. It's abundantly clear that unrestricted ownership of firearms and the associated glorification of gun ownership and gun use is doing nothing to stop mass shootings, so why do we continue to allow the gun-rights crowd to run roughshod over the idea that weapons that make mass killings a fairly trivial matter ought to be tightly controlled?

By your logic, we should ALSO be having serious first ammendment discussions as well, as we havent had any serious regulations on religion and speech on a national level in DECADES, yet we have had more violence commited by relgion, especially one in particular over the last decade(Islame). Its abundently clear that unrestricted first ammendment rights and free association and glorification of religious freedom and speech has done nothing to stop terror attcks. So WHY do we allow first ammendment advocates to run roughshod over the idea that relgion and speech make mass killings fairly easily ought to be tightly controlled?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I recognize that many on these boards are very distressed about the events of yesterday in Connecticut, as are we all. A terrible event that defies description. I think that some posters calls for stricter gun control measures were unfortunate and rather ill timed (and I am referring particularly to poster Scott Betts). I would expect those calls from certain politicians and celebrities so soon after this type of tragedy, but I was disappointed to see it so soon on the Paizo message boards. Regrettably, these types of tragedies often become “opportunities” for strong proponents of stricter gun control measures to promote their ‘agenda.’

You (Scott Betts) ask the question, why do these shootings happen. You have had gun ownership by a significant percentage of the American population for decades, but you did not see these type of mass-shooting incidents 20, 30, 50 years ago, like you are seeing them now. But how many people are asking questions about the direction of the culture of the USA, the breakdown of the American family and the effects of divorce on children and adolescents, the replacement of a religious based morality with that of a secular-progressive “morality” where overt religious life is ridiculed and belittled, the unbelievable rates of illegitimacy across all demographic groups & the problems of drug use & irresponsible sexual behaviors, the role of 1st person shooter video games on adolescents (or adults), the effects on individuals and the culture at large of music, television and movies that glorify and promote not only extreme violent behavior, but glorify it and remove any notion of consequences or responsibility from ones actions or choices.

Potentially all of these above factors (and many others not listed) were factors here, but we here silence from many in the world of TV/media, and even on these message boards. The only familiar drum beat we hear is that of more gun control. In your original posts (Scott Betts), you scoff at the idea of arming a “Mrs. Henderson” to prevent such an incident from occurring. Yet there area likely some professionals in a school setting who could handle such a responsibility. Further, hiring an armed security guard at every school would go a long way to help with this also. Metal detectors in every school building might also be merited.

I am not inclined to fault ‘mental health’ on this. I perform psychological evaluations (for my job) on adolescents and adults who are incarcerated. I can show you thousands of clients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders who don’t perform these type of attrocities. Evil people do them. Whether they have mental health problems, or use guns, knives, bombs, etc., is secondary.

The problem with legislation in Washington is Unintended consequences. I previously worked for the U.S. Senate in Washington DC and worked around legislators daily. I observed first hand that on a daily basis, there are literally countless examples of problems created in Washington for the rest of the country, because politicians fail to comprehend what the long term effect of their current actions will be on the rest of the country. Many laws passed to regulate various aspects of American life, business & society have far more reaching ends than the originators ever intended.

Furthermore, what the current president and members of congress state that they seek to do (in the form of legislation) and what actually ends up actually occurring in the wording (and therefore, the ultimate result) of that legislation is often quite different. You may want “more reasonable” gun control in this country, but there are many people who want no private ownership of firearms in this country, and they use tragic events such as this in an effort to forward their goals of eliminating all gun ownership incrementally. That is why the ‘gun crowd’ is perhaps justifiably concerned about the immediate calls for gun control measures.

I would contend that no amount of gun control would have altered the situation here. The perpetrator (shooter) of this terrible incident did not own the guns he used. He stole the guns he used from another law abiding citizen, (his mother, who had obtained those firearms legally and lawfully), whom he subsequently murdered with those very guns. How would more gun control laws have thwarted that? Unless you (or others) are talking about denying the shooter’s mother from obtaining/owning firearms in the first place. And that would clearly infringe on the law abiding citizens Right to use/own firearms under the 2nd amendment. That is why the ‘gun crowd’ is concerned about this incident. The existing laws on the books are adequately establishing a waiting period, and preventing people with criminal records, serious mental health problems and those who are involved in domestic violence situations from legally obtaining firearms. I'm fine with those prohibitions. None of those criteria however apply to a criminal like this person, who stole firearms and used them to kill others. More gun control won't solve that.

Liberty's Edge

I feel a lot of sadness for the families and friends of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy.

Seen from France (and with some time spent in Japan), guns are a BIG part of the problem. When someone goes on a killing spree in Japan, it is with a knife. In France, it might be with a hunting rifle. In the end, they kill far less people than in the USA.


Betts, I'm reading more of your posts. Your condescending and contemptuous statements towards conservatives and others who have differing views from you is disappointing. As is your politicizing this tragedy.


First of all, my condolence to all USA people. Those kind of horrible news makes all world sad.

Andrew R wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.
Got bad news for you, as the economy crashes there will cease to be an area less like a war zone

I live in Spain. Currently, we are on a HORRIBLE economic situation. We have like 5 million people not working (my English fails me here; What is the correct word for "paro"). Every week we have huge protest on the streets for really good reasons. But are nowhere near a "war zone". There are not people killed, just some crystal shops crashed and little more. I have never understood why on the USA people have that obsession with guns. Spain have crimes, of course (we are really tired of the economic crimes of our politics) but maybe we have one massacre liked that every 40 or more years. And I'm sure that the lack of guns is part of it.

Sorry for my lack of english here; some words fail me, on many levels.

Finally, I want to say it again. Is an horrible day for everyone. You all have my condolences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
But how many people are asking questions about the direction of the culture of the USA, the breakdown of the American family and the effects of divorce on children and adolescents, the replacement of a religious based morality with that of a secular-progressive “morality” where overt religious life is ridiculed and belittled, the unbelievable rates of illegitimacy across all demographic groups & the problems of drug use & irresponsible sexual behaviors, the role of 1st person shooter video games on adolescents (or adults), the effects on individuals and the culture at large of music, television and movies that glorify and promote not only extreme violent behavior, but glorify it and remove any notion of consequences or responsibility from ones actions or choices.

We have all the same in Europe: divorce, religious morality ridiculed, etc... still we have four times less victims of gun violence!

Killer_GM wrote:
I am not inclined to fault ‘mental health’ on this. I perform psychological evaluations (for my job) on adolescents and adults who are incarcerated. I can show you thousands of clients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders who don’t perform these type of attrocities. Evil people do them.

There is not such concept as evil in psychology and psychiatry. To name the murderer evil is just an excuse not to do anything to prevent another upcoming massacre. Be less a priest and more a scientist.

Killer_GM wrote:
He stole the guns he used from another law abiding citizen, (his mother, who had obtained those firearms legally and lawfully), whom he subsequently murdered with those very guns. How would more gun control laws have thwarted that? Unless you (or others) are talking about denying the shooter’s mother from obtaining/owning firearms in the first place. And that would clearly infringe on the law abiding citizens Right to use/own firearms under the 2nd amendment.

Then explain the parents (and those of the 10,000+ victims of guns every year) that those deaths are the rightful and acceptable price to pay to enjoy the 2nd amendment.

Even the best medicine has a killing ratio but it's acceptable for the benefits 99,9% enjoy. I can say so about (most) of medicine: "sorry for the victims but it's the price to pay".
Would you say the same concerning firearms ownership in the US??


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Europe also doesn't have the urban blights to the extent that the US does, where things are so bad that risking your life and killing become the only means of economic advancement.

I'm not so sure of that. And that's without even making the standard jokes about Glasgow. There are some pretty vast areas of urban blight all over Europe.

But I think you're alluding to (perhaps unintentionally) some other issues at work. It's not just about the number of weapons, the crappy mental health net, the urban blight and decay, the racism, and so on. It's multiple factors all at once and some countries handle those issues a lot differently than we do here. I'd say that one major factor is that they are taking steps to deal with a lot of these factors on a large scale while here in the US, we repress them to the backs of our consciousness citing too much worry over taxes and global geopolitics. Those obsessions have a price. That price may not be in the higher taxes paid by other countries, but I'm not convinced that's a good trade.

Dark Archive

Angstspawn wrote:

Then explain the parents (and those of the 10,000+ victims of guns every year) that those deaths are the rightful and acceptable price to pay to enjoy the 2nd amendment.

Even the best medicine has a killing ratio but it's acceptable for the benefits 99,9% enjoy. I can say so about (most) of medicine: "sorry for the victims but it's the price to pay".
Would you say the same concerning firearms ownership in the US??

By your logic, are you willing totake away car ownership or religion(1st ammdment rights) as well, or curtail them? People die to cars, or drunkdriving or other such in much higher numbers then any gun massacre.

We accept the price there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
I would contend that no amount of gun control would have altered the situation here. The perpetrator (shooter) of this terrible incident did not own the guns he used. He stole the guns he used from another law abiding citizen, (his mother, who had obtained those firearms legally and lawfully), whom he subsequently murdered with those very guns. How would more gun control laws have thwarted that? Unless you (or others) are talking about denying the shooter’s mother from obtaining/owning firearms in the first place. And that would clearly infringe on the law abiding citizens Right to use/own firearms under the 2nd amendment. That is why the ‘gun crowd’ is concerned about this incident.

And maybe it's a bad mix to have guns in the same house as a someone with a personality disorder without requiring additional, verified measures to keep them secure. We infringe on the 2nd amendment in other ways based on the threat the person poses to public safety. Felons can't have them legally, for example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
carmachu wrote:


By your logic, are you willing totake away car ownership or religion(1st ammdment rights) as well, or curtail them? People die to cars, or drunkdriving or other such in much higher numbers then any gun massacre.

We accept the price there.

But, as has been mentioned above, we regulate cars a lot more than we currently regulate guns. Do you have to annually register your guns like you do your cars? Maintain a current firearms license with your current address on file with the state or local authorities? Carry liability insurance to operate your guns? Have annual inspections of your firearms (granted some states don't have annual car inspections... but some do)? Have to pass occasional check points watching for people misusing guns? Programs of those sorts exist throughout the US to regulate use of cars. And we accept the price of those programs and their intrusion into our liberties so we can drive and minimize the likelihood of troubles.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For anyone who wanted to help in whatever small way they could afford, beats arguing over the internet.


Angstspawn, I've been to Europe, and I've got family members living in 7 European countries at present. There are significant cultural factors present in the USA that lend itself to the higher rate of 'gun violence,' than in Europe at the current time, I will grant you. Historically however, within the past 100 years, Europeans have killed MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen with guns, rather than ten thousand per year here in the USA. Consider that, before you are overly harsh on the 'gun-happy USA.' Further, Europe has been able to create vast social safety nets and crade-to-grave welfare states to help "protect individuals", because Euopean countries are not obligated to pay massive amounts of money for national defense. The USA does that. We guard Europe now, just as we have done since World War II. This leaves Europe financially able to enact massive government funded support systems to help its citizens, that we don't have here in the USA. And sadly, you're still on the verge of bankruptcy without help from Germany, and heaven help us, the gun-happy USA...

"Evil" refers to the value judgment placed on the actions of individuals. The term is not intended to "explain or excuse" why these actions happen. However evil does exist, even if the secular world of psychiatry doesn't talk about it often. Given that Europe is largely agnostic at best and athiest at worst, I can understand why you don't subscribe to the term. And since you've already got an abundence of scietists in Europe, perhaps you ought to look for a priest instead for an explanation. Assuming there are any priests left in Europe...

Any amount of gun violence is wrong and unfortunate. That does not mean that outlawing gun ownership, or passing counterproductive gun laws which do nothing is the answer. I have done evaluations/therapy with literally HUNDREDS of young men/women, ages 14-21 who have used guns in commission of crimes, including murder. To date, only ONE (1) of those individuals LEGALLY owned the gun he/she used in the commission of a crime. The rest either stole the firearm themself, or bought it illegally/on the black market from someone else (who likely stole it) and then sold it illegally. How does gun control of law abiding citizens stop this? IT DOESN'T. As I stated in a previous post, some 'gun control' that is already on the law books is appropriate and helpful in preventing certain individuals from getting firearms. I have no problem with these. However, the emotional reactions from some following these tragedies has the potential to result in legislation that does FAR MORE than most would hope to see done about the "problem of gun ownership." Going too far on gun control is not a good thing.

The majority of the individuals who perpetrate horrific crimes, like the ones we saw in Colorado and now Connecticut, are social outcasts, who have a history of family problems, are under employed, socially isolated and ostracized, have bleak futures and employment prospects, have poor coping skils, little of meaning or value in their life, and have little/no religious faith or background (which gives moral reasons to NOT harm others. I'm not talking about religious Nuts who think that they are justified in harming others because of their religion.) Perhaps this is the problem we should be focusing on, rather than the weapon they choose to use. People killed with weapons other than guns are no less dead. The common factor is the person who committed the crime.

A "personality disorder", which is what news agencies in the USA are saying the shooter had in the Connecticut incident had, is a term used by the American Psychological Association to 'scientifically' classify people of a rather unpleasant sort who have PERSISTENT MALADAPTIVE PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS. These individuals are not born that way, as personality disorders are not hereditary/genetically based. They are acquired through life and learning, primarily in the early years of a person's life. Abuse and neglect are primary factors in later development of personality disorders. "Having a personality disorder" does not justify bad behavior (any more than "evil" does). It merely signifies that bad/maladaptive behaviors are more likely to be present in the person in question.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
I recognize that many on these boards are very distressed about the events of yesterday in Connecticut, as are we all. A terrible event that defies description. I think that some posters calls for stricter gun control measures were unfortunate and rather ill timed (and I am referring particularly to poster Scott Betts). I would expect those calls from certain politicians and celebrities so soon after this type of tragedy, but I was disappointed to see it so soon on the Paizo message boards. Regrettably, these types of tragedies often become “opportunities” for strong proponents of stricter gun control measures to promote their ‘agenda.’

It's always too soon to talk about gun control according to gun advocates.


carmachu wrote:

By your logic, we should ALSO be having serious first ammendment discussions as well, as we havent had any serious regulations on religion and speech on a national level in DECADES, yet we have had more violence commited by relgion, especially one in particular over the last decade(Islame). Its abundently clear that unrestricted first ammendment rights and free association and glorification of religious freedom and speech has done nothing to stop terror attcks. So WHY do we allow first ammendment advocates to run roughshod over the idea that relgion and speech make mass killings fairly easily ought to be tightly controlled?

Cool, then let's have some serious discussion about first amendment particulars. Feel free to start a thread about it.

151 to 200 of 1,152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards