• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

I don't think anyone with right-wing political beliefs (which research suggest are generated by neurotic/paranoid mental problems) should have gun. It's just too risky.
 
jj said:
Several more words: Crazy tea party politicians, "2nd amendment remedies", preaching revolt if Obama wins, etc.

I am NOT even mildly intending to suggest the guy was on the lunatic right, of course, the POINT, despite any number of people who seek to deny it, mischaracterize it, or otherwise try to hide the fact, public figures, be they good or bad, who advocate things enable the unhinged of any kind, including the "just merely unhinged".

This kind of enablement and (I presume accidental, although sometimes I wonder) encouragement is part of the reason this happens.

A complete lack of mental health care for those under the top 5% of wealth is another problem.

Finally, the stigma attached to mental health care is the third problem.

Except for the politicians who have been speaking violence, this isn't something tied to one party or group of people. Well, the media and the intentional incitement of anger and hatred we see from them needs to be mentioned, as well.

Again, this isn't about political parties, it's about advocation of violence and/or anger.
Click to expand...
my candid response to this ******** will get me banned.
Keep your *********** political broad brush out of this, *******!
 
thaiboxerken said:
Right, gun control advocates just want to punish gun owners.:rolleyes:
Disagreement on how best to limit gun violence is one thing, claiming that the other side just wants to punish gun owners is just plain stupid. What if I said that gun advocates just want to shoot people?
Click to expand...

Not stupid at all. Many gun control laws are aimed primarily at law abiding persons and simply make gun possession a victimless crime. I only have to point to the AWB of 1994 as an example. It made mere possession of an assault weapon made after 1994 a crime unless you were one of those special people who were exempt.

If you said gun advocates just want to shoot people, I would ask you to prove it. So can you.

Ranb
 
Guns prevent crime. Today I've had my Sig locked and loaded, finger on the trigger. Not one minute after I put it down, <SNIP>.

Edited by Locknar: 
SNIPed, breach of rule 9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StankApe said:
I thought liberals were all about tolerance? apparently some of them are about taking the rights of law abiding citizens away due to the actions of a tiny minority of bad/crazy people.

Why not focus these crazed red eyed efforts on trying to identify high risk people sooner? Rather than using sad events like today as a weapon to further an agenda?
Click to expand...

I am very liberal. I have guns (knives, spears, axes) and am quite capable of/willing to use them. There are others....
 
JihadJane said:
I don't think anyone with right-wing political beliefs (which research suggest are generated by neurotic/paranoid mental problems) should have gun. It's just too risky.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's funny because I feel that everyone with extreme left wing beliefs SHOULD be well armed. In fact, I am dumbfounded as to why the left has spent the better part of 7 decades disarming themselves. WTF left?
 
joesixpack said:
People are emotionally attached to their rights, not their guns. I'm sure some people fetishize their weapons, but most people actually see the loss of rights as exactly that, a loss of rights.
Click to expand...

I guess what I, and I'm sure many others, don't get is what is so critically important about the "right" to bear arms. What of importance will be lost if that right is withdrawn? As is abundantly clear, a great many countries operate successfully and peacefully without such a right. And with much fewer homicides. Isn't it time for a proper cost/benefit analysis of open slather gun ownership? I contend that a loss of a right would be a very minor cost.
 
I was channel surfing on Sirius radio today, news channel to news channel from left, right and center and there are many opinions, little to no facts and everybody had an axe to grind.

Examples: caller tells Hannity that he's carried a hadgun for 15 years, stopped a gang initiation in Utah...I remebered from snopes

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/backseat.asp

Hannity responds with his own ******** story:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/gangs/buckfifty.asp

Some other right winger has a caller calling for the return of god into schools, because the lack of religon caused the shooter to snap. If the schools taught religon we wouldn't have these problem. Host concurs.

Chris Matthews has on Carolyn McCarthy and a survivor of the Virgina Tech. shooting. I was interested in his story, right up till the point he completely mislead the listening audience, and McCarthy proves the old point about not letting your lack of knowledge get in the way of having a strong opinion.

Matthews goes on a mini-rant about the NRA not commenting - iirc the NRA said something to the effect that they were witholding comment until more facts were available - the horror!

Right winger goes on rant about Obama.

Left winger decries "the gun culture" and blah, blah, blah.

Meanwhile, nobody really knows anything other than a bunch of families are destroyed because some twisted **** wanted his name in the paper.

Dr. Drew was on one show, and he was the only one that made any sense imo - that when an individual takes it upon himself to act out in murdering family members and little children, the underlying mental issues are so profound that there was probably no way to stop them, but that he also believed that there had to be warning signs that went un-noticed, either intentionally or negligently.

TV news just stated the firearms used were registered to the mother he killed.

9mm Glock and SIG, some typeof AR platform rifle, unknown if the rifle was used.

My heart breaks.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Gun owners should pay for it.
Click to expand...

Gun ownership is an individual right in the USA. If a person has to pay for a right, then it is no longer a right.

Since voter fraud is a problem, let's hear your proposal for registered voters to personally pay for fraud prevention measures to ensure the value of their vote is not diluted.

Ranb
 
Rat said:
Furthermore, and I speak as someone who (eventually) believes in the system we have over here, what qualifies as mental health? I have a diagnosed mental disorder, but I don't believe that I am more likely than the average person to someday get together several guns and kill several strangers. This is the problem I have with people automatically saying that the perpetrator in this case must have had a mental illness, as if it's the sort of thing that people with mental illnesses do.

Presumably schizophrenia would disqualify an applicant. Maybe also depression. How about ADD? Or autism? Or Agoraphobia?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way to ensure that people don't seek treatment for any of those conditions of course. There has to be a balance.

(I've been listed as two of those five conditions you listed and if I weren't distracted by the mechanism of these nail clippers I'd tell you which. :p )
 
joesixpack said:
Wow, that's funny because I feel that everyone with extreme left wing beliefs SHOULD be well armed. In fact, I am dumbfounded as to why the left has spent the better part of 7 decades disarming themselves. WTF left?
Click to expand...

If you believe you should be running things, an unarmed civlian populace is a very attractive situation.

It goes the same for nuts on both sides, left and right.
 
Dr.Sid said:
This one was mentioned at local newspaper and caught my attention ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_bombings .. May 18, 1927
Click to expand...

E-freaking-gad, that is one horrifyingly motivated individual. How is it this is the first time I've read or heard about this? Third worst after 9-11 and Oklahoma city and at least a third of his plan failed? :covereyes 1927, before the Depression. I guess it just goes to show, crazy is timeless.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
Gun ownership is an individual right in the USA. If a person has to pay for a right, then it is no longer a right.

Since voter fraud is a problem, let's hear your proposal for registered voters to personally pay for fraud prevention measures to ensure the value of their vote is not diluted.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Voter fraud isn't a problem though.
 
Sabretooth said:
Even though this post was dripping with a condescending tone, I really don't have a problem with submitting myself to a mental check. It would be a minor inconvenience to ensure that a lunatic or two are identified in advance of what happened today.

However, who makes the decision that you're competent? Your doctor? The local sheriff? Both? Someone else?

Again, as long as its fair and unbiased, I could live with such a requirement.
Click to expand...

Mental health specialists should be involved. Perhaps people trained to a standard specific for the task.
 
lionking said:
I guess what I, and I'm sure many others, don't get is what is so critically important about the "right" to bear arms. What of importance will be lost if that right is withdrawn? As is abundantly clear, a great many countries operate successfully and peacefully without such a right. And with much fewer homicides. Isn't it time for a proper cost/benefit analysis of open slather gun ownership? I contend that a loss of a right would be a very minor cost.
Click to expand...

I contend that you are wrong.

You contend that the gangs are well armed because the weapons are easy to get in the US. Now let's discount Russian and South America for now and grant that. So guns become illegal in the US. Would this make it harder for gangs to get guns? No, in fact it would become another revenue stream for the gangs and empower them even more. Maybe you disbelieve this. Fine.

What other costs are there? Short term thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths fighting over guns being taken. What do we know, absolutely know about gun owners in the US. The have guns. Taking those guns will impose one hell of a cost whether or not it's a good idea. The cost is no way, no how minor even if you consider the removal of the 2nd amendment minor.

When doing a cost/benefit analysis, you can't just consider the cost of everything going right. You must consider the cost of things that are likely to go wrong as well. That's why the war in Iraq cost just a bit more than we were told it would.
 
With over 200 Million guns in the US what will any laws do ?

Some of the problem I see is just basic society and a big loss of trust in everything.
 
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-thinking_about_newtown.html
Nor were there guns -- or Americans -- involved in another incident today, which was mostly pushed out of the news in the U.S. in light of the horrific Connecticut incident: in Henan, China, a man went into a school and stabbed 22 children, plus one adult. Apparently, no one was killed, but one report I read said it was part of a "wave of brutal stabbings and hammerings throughout China" over the past few years. Cripes: HAMMERINGS?!
Click to expand...
and
... had the paragraph above finished when they showed an interview with the principal at Columbine -- at the time of the 1999 shootings there, and still today. Frank DeAngeles said the answer wasn't more school security, and wasn't more gun control, but rather better help for people with mental problems. "The thing that I keep stating time and time again is what causes so much hate in people's hearts that they're willing to walk into an elementary school to injure or kill kids? Where did this start?"
Click to expand...

'nuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom