Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[Pogo]

England effectively banned civilian firearm ownership, yet they have a far less peaceful society than America as they have a much higher violent crime rate.

Therefore, I don't see that America's more peaceful society is due to the threat of gunfire or some 'silent war'.

That said, I do believe you're correct that we should strive for as peaceful a society as possible because we should desire that to be the case. This, of course, does not mean we should disarm the people, as that only leads to higher violent crime rates, as results in England and Australia clearly demonstrate.

Actually I don't think that demonstration is "clear" at all, from what I've seen. Ipse dixit sure saves typing but it doesn't really prove anything.

If you are suggesting that England does not have a higher violent crime rate than the US, that would be incorrect:

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And for good measure, another source:

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

Read more: Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No ipse dixit there!

It is also crystal clear that violent crime rates in Australia and England increased dramatically following their bans on civilian owned firearms...and this during a time in which other western countries were seeing a decrease in violent crime rates. For proof, I would direct you to the British Home Office, reported by BBC news (July 12, 2002), in which it was found, following the gun ban, that Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. The trend into continued in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, an 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Making the situation look even worse for England is the fact that in America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime, while in Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.)

And as was already demonstrated, the UK's violent crime rate remains to this day the highest in the EU and higher than in America.

Australia's no better. According the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003), in the the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender their personal, homicides were up another 20%. Ouch. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Ouch again.

So, there you go, CRYSTAL clear.

Ironic that you claim "no ipse dixit" and then proceed to post paragraphs about Australia with no link whatsoever...

They also directly contradict what I remember reading here a couple of months ago, but it's ultimately irrelevant, as you're still hung up on the whole "gun control" thing and that's not my issue anyway.

Your issue seems to be quantification of guns; mine is quality of moral values. Take care of the latter, and the former simply cease to be an issue.
IOW instead of tossing gasoline on the fire, starve its fuel -- voilà, no fire.

 

[hunarcy]

[What these mass shooters are after is personal carnage, and by that I mean the real, physical, visual experience of being able to watch helpless people, even kids, scream, run for cover and bleed from their wounds. They're out for a perverse kind of power trip (and I think it's got everything to do with power). You can't get that kind of sensory feedback by poisoning the water or leaving a bomb for later while you get out of harm's way. I have no doubt the moment when they're strafing innocent people absolutely IS their payoff. As I remember the Columbine cameras showed Klebold and Harris whooping with exhilarated delight as they inflicted their carnage.

If so, then doing the killing by hand would more closely provide the experience you describe.

 

[Pogo]

[What these mass shooters are after is personal carnage, and by that I mean the real, physical, visual experience of being able to watch helpless people, even kids, scream, run for cover and bleed from their wounds. They're out for a perverse kind of power trip (and I think it's got everything to do with power). You can't get that kind of sensory feedback by poisoning the water or leaving a bomb for later while you get out of harm's way. I have no doubt the moment when they're strafing innocent people absolutely IS their payoff. As I remember the Columbine cameras showed Klebold and Harris whooping with exhilarated delight as they inflicted their carnage.

If so, then doing the killing by hand would more closely provide the experience you describe.

No, that's absurd. Killing by hand by definition requires up-close-and-personal contact, one individual at a time. Completely different thing. With a gun you get to stand over "here", while everybody else is over "there"; you get to strafe multiple bodies at will, you get the blood and guts, literally, spilling out, and you get a roomful of victims running for their lives. You get none of that with hand-to-hand combat.

Plus if you're engaging one individual personally, it ties you up on that individual and frees every other individual to step in and stop the perpetrator. With a gun, you're in charge of everybody's actions. That's the whole appeal of the assault weapon for that insidious purpose. You just can't do it any other way.

 

[eflatminor]

Actually I don't think that demonstration is "clear" at all, from what I've seen. Ipse dixit sure saves typing but it doesn't really prove anything.

If you are suggesting that England does not have a higher violent crime rate than the US, that would be incorrect:



And for good measure, another source:

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

Read more: Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No ipse dixit there!

It is also crystal clear that violent crime rates in Australia and England increased dramatically following their bans on civilian owned firearms...and this during a time in which other western countries were seeing a decrease in violent crime rates. For proof, I would direct you to the British Home Office, reported by BBC news (July 12, 2002), in which it was found, following the gun ban, that Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. The trend into continued in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, an 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Making the situation look even worse for England is the fact that in America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime, while in Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.)

And as was already demonstrated, the UK's violent crime rate remains to this day the highest in the EU and higher than in America.

Australia's no better. According the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003), in the the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender their personal, homicides were up another 20%. Ouch. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Ouch again.

So, there you go, CRYSTAL clear.

Ironic that you claim "no ipse dixit" and then proceed to post paragraphs about Australia with no link whatsoever...

Oh for Christ's sake, I cited the report and date of publication from which the statistics came (Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003)). Are you really that obtuse?

They also directly contradict what I remember reading here a couple of months ago,

Uh, yea...speaking of ipse dixit! Good gawd the irony is thick...

but it's ultimately irrelevant,

What you "remember"? Absolutely.

as you're still hung up on the whole "gun control" thing and that's not my issue anyway.

Right, when you lose the debate, move the goalposts. Pathetic.

Your issue seems to be quantification of guns; mine is quality of moral values. Take care of the latter, and the former simply cease to be an issue.
IOW instead of tossing gasoline on the fire, starve its fuel -- voilà, no fire

You know what I find immoral? The notion that those that think they know what's best for everyone else enacting firearm/accessory bans that only serve to put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing the armed criminals that couldn't give two shits about your rules. Now THAT'S immoral.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe not. But they sure can cool off you gun nuts.

She comes back with a trollish reply. Do You have some vendetta against law abiding citizens? You just admitted you don't care about criminals

I don't have a vendetta against anyone. I just have zero tolerance for immature little boys, such as yourself. You care about nobody else. It doesn't matter to you how many innocent people are murdered each day as long as guns are readily available to you. Grow up.

I"LL ASK YOU AGAIN
How many mass shooting did clintons assault weapon ban stop? How many mass shootings have gun free zones stopped/ How many lives have gun controlled saved?
Now if you want to be mature you'll answer like an adult, if not remain childish and irresponsible

 

[Pogo]

If you are suggesting that England does not have a higher violent crime rate than the US, that would be incorrect:



And for good measure, another source:



No ipse dixit there!

It is also crystal clear that violent crime rates in Australia and England increased dramatically following their bans on civilian owned firearms...and this during a time in which other western countries were seeing a decrease in violent crime rates. For proof, I would direct you to the British Home Office, reported by BBC news (July 12, 2002), in which it was found, following the gun ban, that Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. The trend into continued in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, an 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Making the situation look even worse for England is the fact that in America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime, while in Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.)

And as was already demonstrated, the UK's violent crime rate remains to this day the highest in the EU and higher than in America.

Australia's no better. According the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003), in the the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender their personal, homicides were up another 20%. Ouch. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Ouch again.

So, there you go, CRYSTAL clear.

Ironic that you claim "no ipse dixit" and then proceed to post paragraphs about Australia with no link whatsoever...

Oh for Christ's sake, I cited the report and date of publication from which the statistics came (Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003)). Are you really that obtuse?



Uh, yea...speaking of ipse dixit! Good gawd the irony is thick...



What you "remember"? Absolutely.

as you're still hung up on the whole "gun control" thing and that's not my issue anyway.

Right, when you lose the debate, move the goalposts. Pathetic.

Your issue seems to be quantification of guns; mine is quality of moral values. Take care of the latter, and the former simply cease to be an issue.
IOW instead of tossing gasoline on the fire, starve its fuel -- voilà, no fire

You know what I find immoral? The notion that those that think they know what's best for everyone else enacting firearm/accessory bans that only serve to put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing the armed criminals that couldn't give two shits about your rules. Now THAT'S immoral.

(a) is there some reason you can't link the report? (b) what I remember is as relevant or irrelevant as your ipse dixit; (3) now you're just trolling; declaring yourself the winner of your own strawman debate is rhetorical onanism. It hasn't been my issue since before I came to this board. It wasn't my issue yesterday, it isn't my issue today, and it won't be my issue tomorrow. Like it or lump it.

And yet, (d) you've copied the last part of my post and then rambled on as it if's not even there, babbling to your own strawman, which tells me you're not hearing anything but your own voice.

That's exactly why most of these dialogues go nowhere. They're monologues. Try to come in with something more flexible than a pre-prepared script on the same old rhetorical echo.

 

[eflatminor]

Ironic that you claim "no ipse dixit" and then proceed to post paragraphs about Australia with no link whatsoever...

Oh for Christ's sake, I cited the report and date of publication from which the statistics came (Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003)). Are you really that obtuse?



Uh, yea...speaking of ipse dixit! Good gawd the irony is thick...



What you "remember"? Absolutely.



Right, when you lose the debate, move the goalposts. Pathetic.

Your issue seems to be quantification of guns; mine is quality of moral values. Take care of the latter, and the former simply cease to be an issue.
IOW instead of tossing gasoline on the fire, starve its fuel -- voilà, no fire

You know what I find immoral? The notion that those that think they know what's best for everyone else enacting firearm/accessory bans that only serve to put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing the armed criminals that couldn't give two shits about your rules. Now THAT'S immoral.

(a) is there some reason you can't link the report? 'Cuz if it isn't on the internet, it can't be true!...(b) what I remember is as relevant or irrelevant as your ipse dixit; (3) now you're just trolling; declaring yourself the winner of your own strawman debate is rhetorical onanism. It hasn't been my issue since before I came to this board. It wasn't my issue yesterday, it isn't my issue today, and it won't be my issue tomorrow. Like it or lump it.

And yet, (d) you've copied the last part of my post and then rambled on as it if's not even there, babbling to your own strawman, which tells me you're not hearing anything but your own voice.

That's exactly why most of these dialogues go nowhere. They're monologues. Try to come in with something more flexible than a pre-prepared script on the same old rhetorical echo.

Bottom line, I find your idea of what's moral to be highly immoral. And that's no pre-prepared script.

 

[Pogo]

Oh for Christ's sake, I cited the report and date of publication from which the statistics came (Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003)). Are you really that obtuse?



Uh, yea...speaking of ipse dixit! Good gawd the irony is thick...



What you "remember"? Absolutely.



Right, when you lose the debate, move the goalposts. Pathetic.



You know what I find immoral? The notion that those that think they know what's best for everyone else enacting firearm/accessory bans that only serve to put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing the armed criminals that couldn't give two shits about your rules. Now THAT'S immoral.

(a) is there some reason you can't link the report? 'Cuz if it isn't on the internet, it can't be true!...(b) what I remember is as relevant or irrelevant as your ipse dixit; (3) now you're just trolling; declaring yourself the winner of your own strawman debate is rhetorical onanism. It hasn't been my issue since before I came to this board. It wasn't my issue yesterday, it isn't my issue today, and it won't be my issue tomorrow. Like it or lump it.

And yet, (d) you've copied the last part of my post and then rambled on as it if's not even there, babbling to your own strawman, which tells me you're not hearing anything but your own voice.

That's exactly why most of these dialogues go nowhere. They're monologues. Try to come in with something more flexible than a pre-prepared script on the same old rhetorical echo.

Bottom line, I find your idea of what's moral to be highly immoral. And that's no pre-prepared script.

Again, e-troll, your description of "immoral" has zero to do with anything I've posted, here or elsewhere. Save your metaphorical breath for someone it actually applies to.

 

[eflatminor]

(a) is there some reason you can't link the report? 'Cuz if it isn't on the internet, it can't be true!...(b) what I remember is as relevant or irrelevant as your ipse dixit; (3) now you're just trolling; declaring yourself the winner of your own strawman debate is rhetorical onanism. It hasn't been my issue since before I came to this board. It wasn't my issue yesterday, it isn't my issue today, and it won't be my issue tomorrow. Like it or lump it.

And yet, (d) you've copied the last part of my post and then rambled on as it if's not even there, babbling to your own strawman, which tells me you're not hearing anything but your own voice.

That's exactly why most of these dialogues go nowhere. They're monologues. Try to come in with something more flexible than a pre-prepared script on the same old rhetorical echo.

Bottom line, I find your idea of what's moral to be highly immoral. And that's no pre-prepared script.

Again, e-troll, your description of "immoral" has zero to do with anything I've posted, here or elsewhere. Save your metaphorical breath for someone it actually applies to.

Actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with the immorality of what you've posted. I get you can't see that, which is the point really. You actually think you're standing for what's right, while in actuality, you're advocating that which is most harmful to free people.

I'd say shame on you, but I don't think have the ability to recognize it...a common affliction among those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Yea...pass.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually I think the way you summed up the last sentence makes my point, if I can explain it...

First, I agree with the end part that teachers (or whoever) should not be forced to arm themselves. For one glaring reason, maybe, like me, they don't believe that approach is constructive, but destructive.

Back to the top of your post -- I sense that you're nudging toward the "guns don't kill people" mantra, concentrating on the gun itself. I have to admit I've never understood the meaning of that argument on semantics. We all understand how gunshots work; nobody's suggesting that guns get up and fire themselves. When I write "the counter to guns" that's a shorthand for "the counter to a bad guy with a gun" -- in other words the only situation where a gun is a threat. We already agree that a gun by itself without a shooter operating it is not in itself a threat. I put in that shorthand so that I can keep the snarky sentence short: "the counter to guns is ... more guns!"

What's supposed to be the obvious greater point there is not about guns; it's about violence.

That was not where I was going with that at all. I was answering the idea that you don’t counter a bad gunman with a good gunman. You have missed the entire point by going off on a tangent of ‘escalation.’ I understand and agree with the societal issues here but you are completely ignoring the NOW. If you can’t fix society in a day (and we know you can’t) then we need to address the points with the limitations that we have today. That is where a good guy needs to be there to take care of the bad guy.

What I'm getting at is (again sarcastically put)- "the answer to violence is ... more violence!" If the folly of that satirical statement is not immediately apparent, then we have much work to do. Answering violence with more violence, whatever form it takes (guns or otherwise) only reinforces the message that "you had the right approach, you were just outgunned-- bring more firepower next time". It validates the idea of violence before the violence even starts. It encourages the violence to start, much as Prohibition encouraged bootlegging.

We would but that statement is as false as the last. You counter violence by putting an end to that violence. Standing there getting gunned down does not put an end to violence. We know that. Sandy Hook shows us that. Stopping the bad guy (aka. Killing him) does in fact stop the violence.

I just don't believe psychologically that humans are deterred by an opposing force. If anything it makes some more determined to resist that force. I've already postulated that these mass shooters when they snap are compensating for some personal loss of power by rendering their victims helpless -- now, knowing that maybe some school official is armed, it just becomes that much more of a challenge: "if I can take out the guard and then start strafing people I'll be the most powerful motherfucker in the room!!"

Well, no, not at all OR the perp would have went to a place with guards. He had that option. These shooters do not want to overpower guards, they just want the power period and that is why he chose a target that had no chance of defending themselves. That is fairly obvious. If what you are postulating is true, then you would be seeing these shooters in places that were NOT gun free zones and where there were actual guards or some obstacle that they would have to overcome. Instead, they are attracted to venues where opposition is zero and the people are utterly helpless.

Further, you should have noted that there was nothing in my statements about deterrent. In fact, I do NOT want to deter these people specifically because when you deter one target you just get a target somewhere else. I stated that specifically and it is one reason that I find the idea of guards a bad one. The perp would simply shoot up the bus or the bus stop before the bus comes or the playground after school or a thousand other venues where the guard would not be. Guards are a deterrent for standard criminals that have not mad the decision that they are going to kill a bunch of children. Those people are not going to be deterred by anything. I advocate for removing the barriers to CC holders in places like schools specifically because that is not a guard or a deterrent. It is simply an end. He pulls his gun and starts randomly killing children; the ‘good guy’ with the gun simply stops him. Done.

So what I'm getting at here is the concept of escalation. Basically I'm trying to boil it down to, you don't counter a negative with more of the same negative. This gets back to the whole false dichotomy of "good and evil" I guess. I simply don't believe that either "good" or "evil" can ever prevail by force. Either one will be resisted; not because it's the force of evil or good, but simply because it's a force. Here's where I reference your last line, the one that assumes "bad guys" and "good guys". Not only is that hopelessly simplistic, but everybody with a gun is the good guy in his own mind. If he didn't believe in what he was doing, whether that's offense or defense, then he wouldn't be doing it. Human nature is just not that simple.

I'm getting way down to my Taoist philosophical roots I guess but I just don't believe anyone is deterred simply by knowing that what they're about to do will be resisted. That's like the cheap door lock that keeps the honest people out. If anything a determined person is instead motivated by it. Just as we keep noting a gunner determined to get an AR-15 will find a way whether it's legal to do so or not.

It should be obvious that you don't extinguish a fire by dousing it with gasoline. Put a couple of CC holders in the theater in Aurora shooting back at Holmes, and you have not only a shooter more determined, since he's now engaged in self-defense, but you also have a room full of innocent victims caught in the crossfire as well. That's escalation. And that's what the NRA proposed this week-- to escalate school violence pre-emptively. Completely wrongheaded.

As far as the NRA, yeah I can't help noticing that what they offer of late involves adding even more guns that the absurd number we already have (as a nation), and putting them into the hands of people who may (a) not believe in the concept and/or (b) see it as counterproductive and even dangerous for exactly the reasons I just laid out -- we haven't even mentioned the scenario where the school firearms get stolen or commandeered by an instantaneous maniac, who now has firearms he didn't come to school with (what could possibly go wrong there?).

So whether the NRA propose what they do because it makes more money for their underwriters or not, it's still a solution that bites the big one, as it only exacerbates the underlying atmosphere of "gun culture". It rubs salt into the wound. That may be the corruption of their funding sources, or it may be their own myopia, but either way the NRA is doing absolutely zero to address the underlying gun culture.

So ultimately this point goes right back to the culture and value system, and the idea that violence is the way to impose a moral society by force. I believe that value system is entirely bogus, doesn't work, never has worked, and will never work.

As another poster on this board put it, "I don't want my son going to school in a war zone". We've gone to great lengths to supposedly live in a country of peace. It boggles the mind that having achieved that, we then want to throw that concept away, as this latest NRA wet dream would have us do.

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

And you have gone off the point I was making with this imagined idea of ‘escalatoion’ like we are talking about the wild west and the O.K. Corral. That is not what we are talking about. There are not going to be a bunch of shootouts. We are not answering violence with a bunch more violence.

These one line ‘simplifications’ are a bad way to try and drive your point home – particularly when you are calling my statement of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys overly simplistic. Time and time again we have incidents where people that are armed pull out their weapon and shoot a person attempting to kill others dead. That is what I am talking about. There is no ‘escalation’ at all. There is nothing to escalate. There is no outgunned. Mostly because the very idea of outgunned is terribly flawed. These people are being stopped with handguns weather or not they are carrying ‘bigger’ weapons and there is no advantage in brining something bigger to the fight. One bullet from anything is all it takes to stop the ‘bad’ guy.

Really, what are you advocating then? You have to answer that one question before you go blasting the NRA for putting up bad solutions that are calling for more ‘violence.’ A change in underlying culture is a LONG term change. Something that you cannot expect to happen in this generation. If that is the long term goal, what is your short term goal? Do nothing? That is a possibility. I am actually good with that. That is admitting though that you have no short term goal at all though and makes the attacks against other proposals less strong.

As I said, I think that your argument about escalation and the idea of armed people playing into the violent culture is deeply flawed. It assumes far too much and paints pictures of shootouts and violence. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about ending that violence. I don’t know what you think is going to stop a shooter. It certainly is NOT going to be peace and love. Rainbows are not going to pop up with blossoming flowers to stop crazy people murdering innocents. In that line, getting rid of gun free zones and other places where targets are guaranteed to congregate is not a bad idea. Having that one person there that is responsible and able to STOP the violence is extremely important.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bottom line, I find your idea of what's moral to be highly immoral. And that's no pre-prepared script.

Again, e-troll, your description of "immoral" has zero to do with anything I've posted, here or elsewhere. Save your metaphorical breath for someone it actually applies to.

Actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with the immorality of what you've posted. I get you can't see that, which is the point really. You actually think you're standing for what's right, while in actuality, you're advocating that which is most harmful to free people.

I'd say shame on you, but I don't think have the ability to recognize it...a common affliction among those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Yea...pass.

You do realize that up to this point (at least on this thread) Pogo has NOT advocated for gun control, right?

 

[eflatminor]

Again, e-troll, your description of "immoral" has zero to do with anything I've posted, here or elsewhere. Save your metaphorical breath for someone it actually applies to.

Actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with the immorality of what you've posted. I get you can't see that, which is the point really. You actually think you're standing for what's right, while in actuality, you're advocating that which is most harmful to free people.

I'd say shame on you, but I don't think have the ability to recognize it...a common affliction among those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Yea...pass.

You do realize that up to this point (at least on this thread) Pogo has NOT advocated for gun control, right?

I do indeed. I also see what he IS advocating.

While denying the reality of what happens following tyrannous actions by a government, he calls for all to embrace his idea of 'moral values', which has the real world result of making good citizens vulnerable to the actions of criminals that no amount of hand holding and singing of kumbaya will overcome. What he advocates is therefore immoral.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I think the way you summed up the last sentence makes my point, if I can explain it...

First, I agree with the end part that teachers (or whoever) should not be forced to arm themselves. For one glaring reason, maybe, like me, they don't believe that approach is constructive, but destructive.

Back to the top of your post -- I sense that you're nudging toward the "guns don't kill people" mantra, concentrating on the gun itself. I have to admit I've never understood the meaning of that argument on semantics. We all understand how gunshots work; nobody's suggesting that guns get up and fire themselves. When I write "the counter to guns" that's a shorthand for "the counter to a bad guy with a gun" -- in other words the only situation where a gun is a threat. We already agree that a gun by itself without a shooter operating it is not in itself a threat. I put in that shorthand so that I can keep the snarky sentence short: "the counter to guns is ... more guns!"

What's supposed to be the obvious greater point there is not about guns; it's about violence.

That was not where I was going with that at all. I was answering the idea that you don’t counter a bad gunman with a good gunman. You have missed the entire point by going off on a tangent of ‘escalation.’ I understand and agree with the societal issues here but you are completely ignoring the NOW. If you can’t fix society in a day (and we know you can’t) then we need to address the points with the limitations that we have today. That is where a good guy needs to be there to take care of the bad guy.

What I'm getting at is (again sarcastically put)- "the answer to violence is ... more violence!" If the folly of that satirical statement is not immediately apparent, then we have much work to do. Answering violence with more violence, whatever form it takes (guns or otherwise) only reinforces the message that "you had the right approach, you were just outgunned-- bring more firepower next time". It validates the idea of violence before the violence even starts. It encourages the violence to start, much as Prohibition encouraged bootlegging.

We would but that statement is as false as the last. You counter violence by putting an end to that violence. Standing there getting gunned down does not put an end to violence. We know that. Sandy Hook shows us that. Stopping the bad guy (aka. Killing him) does in fact stop the violence.

I just don't believe psychologically that humans are deterred by an opposing force. If anything it makes some more determined to resist that force. I've already postulated that these mass shooters when they snap are compensating for some personal loss of power by rendering their victims helpless -- now, knowing that maybe some school official is armed, it just becomes that much more of a challenge: "if I can take out the guard and then start strafing people I'll be the most powerful motherfucker in the room!!"

Well, no, not at all OR the perp would have went to a place with guards. He had that option. These shooters do not want to overpower guards, they just want the power period and that is why he chose a target that had no chance of defending themselves. That is fairly obvious. If what you are postulating is true, then you would be seeing these shooters in places that were NOT gun free zones and where there were actual guards or some obstacle that they would have to overcome. Instead, they are attracted to venues where opposition is zero and the people are utterly helpless.

Further, you should have noted that there was nothing in my statements about deterrent. In fact, I do NOT want to deter these people specifically because when you deter one target you just get a target somewhere else. I stated that specifically and it is one reason that I find the idea of guards a bad one. The perp would simply shoot up the bus or the bus stop before the bus comes or the playground after school or a thousand other venues where the guard would not be. Guards are a deterrent for standard criminals that have not mad the decision that they are going to kill a bunch of children. Those people are not going to be deterred by anything. I advocate for removing the barriers to CC holders in places like schools specifically because that is not a guard or a deterrent. It is simply an end. He pulls his gun and starts randomly killing children; the ‘good guy’ with the gun simply stops him. Done.

So what I'm getting at here is the concept of escalation. Basically I'm trying to boil it down to, you don't counter a negative with more of the same negative. This gets back to the whole false dichotomy of "good and evil" I guess. I simply don't believe that either "good" or "evil" can ever prevail by force. Either one will be resisted; not because it's the force of evil or good, but simply because it's a force. Here's where I reference your last line, the one that assumes "bad guys" and "good guys". Not only is that hopelessly simplistic, but everybody with a gun is the good guy in his own mind. If he didn't believe in what he was doing, whether that's offense or defense, then he wouldn't be doing it. Human nature is just not that simple.

I'm getting way down to my Taoist philosophical roots I guess but I just don't believe anyone is deterred simply by knowing that what they're about to do will be resisted. That's like the cheap door lock that keeps the honest people out. If anything a determined person is instead motivated by it. Just as we keep noting a gunner determined to get an AR-15 will find a way whether it's legal to do so or not.

It should be obvious that you don't extinguish a fire by dousing it with gasoline. Put a couple of CC holders in the theater in Aurora shooting back at Holmes, and you have not only a shooter more determined, since he's now engaged in self-defense, but you also have a room full of innocent victims caught in the crossfire as well. That's escalation. And that's what the NRA proposed this week-- to escalate school violence pre-emptively. Completely wrongheaded.

As far as the NRA, yeah I can't help noticing that what they offer of late involves adding even more guns that the absurd number we already have (as a nation), and putting them into the hands of people who may (a) not believe in the concept and/or (b) see it as counterproductive and even dangerous for exactly the reasons I just laid out -- we haven't even mentioned the scenario where the school firearms get stolen or commandeered by an instantaneous maniac, who now has firearms he didn't come to school with (what could possibly go wrong there?).

So whether the NRA propose what they do because it makes more money for their underwriters or not, it's still a solution that bites the big one, as it only exacerbates the underlying atmosphere of "gun culture". It rubs salt into the wound. That may be the corruption of their funding sources, or it may be their own myopia, but either way the NRA is doing absolutely zero to address the underlying gun culture.

So ultimately this point goes right back to the culture and value system, and the idea that violence is the way to impose a moral society by force. I believe that value system is entirely bogus, doesn't work, never has worked, and will never work.

As another poster on this board put it, "I don't want my son going to school in a war zone". We've gone to great lengths to supposedly live in a country of peace. It boggles the mind that having achieved that, we then want to throw that concept away, as this latest NRA wet dream would have us do.

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

And you have gone off the point I was making with this imagined idea of ‘escalatoion’ like we are talking about the wild west and the O.K. Corral. That is not what we are talking about. There are not going to be a bunch of shootouts. We are not answering violence with a bunch more violence.

These one line ‘simplifications’ are a bad way to try and drive your point home – particularly when you are calling my statement of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys overly simplistic. Time and time again we have incidents where people that are armed pull out their weapon and shoot a person attempting to kill others dead. That is what I am talking about. There is no ‘escalation’ at all. There is nothing to escalate. There is no outgunned. Mostly because the very idea of outgunned is terribly flawed. These people are being stopped with handguns weather or not they are carrying ‘bigger’ weapons and there is no advantage in brining something bigger to the fight. One bullet from anything is all it takes to stop the ‘bad’ guy.

Really, what are you advocating then? You have to answer that one question before you go blasting the NRA for putting up bad solutions that are calling for more ‘violence.’ A change in underlying culture is a LONG term change. Something that you cannot expect to happen in this generation. If that is the long term goal, what is your short term goal? Do nothing? That is a possibility. I am actually good with that. That is admitting though that you have no short term goal at all though and makes the attacks against other proposals less strong.

As I said, I think that your argument about escalation and the idea of armed people playing into the violent culture is deeply flawed. It assumes far too much and paints pictures of shootouts and violence. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about ending that violence. I don’t know what you think is going to stop a shooter. It certainly is NOT going to be peace and love. Rainbows are not going to pop up with blossoming flowers to stop crazy people murdering innocents. In that line, getting rid of gun free zones and other places where targets are guaranteed to congregate is not a bad idea. Having that one person there that is responsible and able to STOP the violence is extremely important.

Morning F2. OK I admit that was a longwinded treatise all on the same point, and attendant tangents. Possibly off your point, but your point was off mine.

Yeah I know I get longwinded, guilty as charged. Perhaps the special editing-caffeine hadn't kicked in at the time

Basically yes I am thinking long-term and of the global effects on tomorrow driven by what we do today. I'm concerned that all the NRA's thinking in this case serves to do is escalate the culture of "firearms everywhere" -- not escalation of a particular situation but of the culture itself. When I went to school there was no such thing as a guard, armed or unarmed; the idea would have been bizarre. Now we're proposing to put elementary schools on a level with courtrooms and prisons. We lose something valuable in our psyche when we get to that point. Now I don't believe the NRA by itself created the atmosphere that has changed in these schools, but I do believe they're proposing to make it worse, by as I said pouring gasoline on a fire. Sending the message that "this is a war zone". So yes it very much is a concern about the Wild West mentality.

Let's just bring down a point at a time from yours:

>> Standing there getting gunned down does not put an end to violence. We know that. Sandy Hook shows us that. Stopping the bad guy (aka. Killing him) does in fact stop the violence. <<

Can't argue with that - that's in the moment. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But that's really not my point; again I was trying to address not what happens in a moment of crisis, but the idea of creating fertile ground for more of those moments.

>> Well, no, not at all OR the perp would have went to a place with guards. He had that option. These shooters do not want to overpower guards, they just want the power period and that is why he chose a target that had no chance of defending themselves. That is fairly obvious. If what you are postulating is true, then you would be seeing these shooters in places that were NOT gun free zones and where there were actual guards or some obstacle that they would have to overcome. Instead, they are attracted to venues where opposition is zero and the people are utterly helpless. <<

Actually I think you're postulating. We don't know they go about their planning that way (if there is any planning rather than it being spontaneous). There's always some obstacle or challenge to be met before the shooting starts-- Lanza had to break into the school door; Muhammad had to hide his boy shooter in the trunk; some of them wear bulletproof vests. Seems to me guard in the way would just be another challenge that happens to be in the way.

Schools usually don't have these guards, true, but I strongly suspect that we see so many shootings in schools because of the nature of schools, not the fact that there are no guards there. Sandy Hook was a place that was intimately familiar to Lanza. Same with Columbine and most other school shootings. The only exception I can think of that would fit your theory is Carl Roberts with the Amish girls, Roberts being an outsider. Lanza I have to consider still an insider; he didn't choose Sandy Hook at random, but because he knew the place well, and because of whatever personal association was in his twisted head, born of that experience. I don't think it had anything to do with the knowledge that there's no guard to get past, and I don't think that would have influenced his action. For all we know he was prepared to take a guard down if there was one.

{tangent warning - I just went, in development of this point, to see if Lanza was wearing protective armor-- apparently he was not but I came across this:
>> Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently. << (here-- just food for thought) /close tangent}

I do believe school shootings by insiders have a lot to do with some psychological connection to the school and its population, together with knowing the physical territory. And if a guard were in place, he would simply become part of that territory. The psychology of what's specifically going on in schools, or in the school system as a whole, to spark these incidents from their own population, that's a whole 'nother worthy question.

(James vonBrunn stormed into the Holocaust Museum and started his shooting with the guard who opened the door (and killed him). Spengler set a fire to lure firefighters and police-- not only were they not a deterrent, he lured them in. If anything the psychological presence of a guard may be interpreted by them as Target Number One, after which you move to "Level Two".)

Ultimately what I'm getting at here is, the NRA moving guns into schools would just create an atmosphere of continual fear, and fear fuels violence. That's the psychic gasoline poured on the fire. So again when I say "escalation", I mean of the everyday atmosphere. I know I got off to a tangent on the Aurora scenario; that's a microcosmic corollary of the same idea but probably out of place where I wrote it.

And anyway this point was all about the NRA's school guard proposal, not about what to do in immediate moments of a live situation. If I misplayed your point, it was because that point misplayed what my original was.

>> These one line ‘simplifications’ are a bad way to try and drive your point home – particularly when you are calling my statement of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys overly simplistic. <<

That's not meant to be personal at all; I'm riffing there, again expanding philosophically beyond the scope of the original point. I speak of "us" as a collective; our collective thinking. And I do think that collective thinking is fatally flawed in seeing the world in black and white, cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, good guys and bad guys. When we accept a dichotomy like that we put fences around our own intellect and deny ourselves the capacity for actually creative solutions. What the NRA is proposing, that just ain't creative. And even if one does accept it as a school solution, it does nothing to address the culture of violence by firearm that pervades the society inside and outside schools.

OK, I'm riffing again, I'll break here. Thanks for reading.

 

[Pogo]

Again, e-troll, your description of "immoral" has zero to do with anything I've posted, here or elsewhere. Save your metaphorical breath for someone it actually applies to.

Actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with the immorality of what you've posted. I get you can't see that, which is the point really. You actually think you're standing for what's right, while in actuality, you're advocating that which is most harmful to free people.

I'd say shame on you, but I don't think have the ability to recognize it...a common affliction among those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Yea...pass.

You do realize that up to this point (at least on this thread) Pogo has NOT advocated for gun control, right?

Sadly many will read the words and yet see only what they want to address, even if what they want to address is not present, because actually addressing the words that are present would be too much of a challenge. That's what E&#9837;m is doing, so AFAIC he's more background noise. Plus he's got no sense of humor so I don't waste my time.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Pfft.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't waste my time.

Promise?

addressing the words that are present would be too much of a challenge

Yes, you proved that by denying well documented facts based on some vague recollection that you cannot cite. But hey, if you "remember reading here a couple of months ago", well that will just have to suffice!

Pass.

 

[idb]

She comes back with a trollish reply. Do You have some vendetta against law abiding citizens? You just admitted you don't care about criminals

I don't have a vendetta against anyone. I just have zero tolerance for immature little boys, such as yourself. You care about nobody else. It doesn't matter to you how many innocent people are murdered each day as long as guns are readily available to you. Grow up.

I"LL ASK YOU AGAIN
How many mass shooting did clintons assault weapon ban stop? How many mass shootings have gun free zones stopped/ How many lives have gun controlled saved?
Now if you want to be mature you'll answer like an adult, if not remain childish and irresponsible

Hmmm....how to prove a negative....I wonder....

 

[idb]

People come to the attention of the authorities for all sorts of reasons.
Both sides of the debate say that firearms should be removed from criminals and those with mental issues.
Once someone has been identified to be mad or bad a registry can be checked to see if they have legally purchased a firearm and the appropriate action taken.
The argument often put forward is that it won't prevent the illegal purchase of guns, which is true, but so what, that's an enforcement issue?
How else would you do it?

I see where you are coming at now. Ill concede the mentioned point above as that is a reasonable statement but I still do not support registration for guns and I will explain why.

First, the systems that are currently in place would fail to actually stop the problems we are having. The major shootings that have happened in recent memory were from people that are not diagnosed or did not have prior records. In other words, they would not have had any problems with a gun registry and it would not have help in these cases. Further, most criminals acquire their weapons through illegal means anyway so, again, I don’t see this as having any real impact on other gun crime as well.

Essentially, I see this as an infringement on a right. It is a tracking system put in place to track people that are not breaking the law and have not had any legal process. In order to track these people I personally believe that they have the right to a day in court. That infringement is simply not warranted when the realized benefits are not sufficient.

As you likely already know, I am naturally distrustful of the government in general anyway and this is yet another method to gain power and knowledge over the people that I don’t see the government needing. You would gain a positive in enforcement of those that become criminals/crazy that were not identified before that BUT how often do we get in that place where such an even would yield positive outcomes. Very rarely.

Do you not find that the tracking of legal citizens who have not committed a crime is against your right to privacy and to be simply left alone? Is that not important, even when approaching weapons and their ownership?

I would support an ID or designation on your ID that identifies you as a legal purchaser of weapons. Such a reality would not identify what you purchased, how much you purchased or even if you purchased anything at all but it would give a seller immediate and positive verification that the purchase was legal. In that light, there would be no ‘gun show loophole’ because a personal seller would only need to look at your ID to identify that you were a legal purchaser.

BTW: I support voter ID for much the same reasons. I see the 2 as almost identicle.

Conversations at your house must be damned interesting at times!!!!

Oh, you have no idea! LOL. Family get together are hilarious as my father and I LOVE to talk politics (if my presence on this board were not evidence enough of that) and we always engage my grandfather. He gets so angry also, usually attempting to avoid the conversations altogether. We are really split, Me and one uncle being libertarians, my father an extreme right (but agnostic, go figure), my grandfather extreme left and my other uncle damn far on the left spectrum as well. I love to stir the pot to

Fair enough, I'm not happy to give the gummint extra ways to keep track of me either.
What you propose, with a licence for purchasing is exactly what we do here - gun purchases used to be recorded but this was stopped a couple of decades ago.
To purchase a firearm or ammo you must be licensed and the purchaser must sight your licence.
Obviously it can be cancelled if you fall foul of the law.


Your statement;

The major shootings that have happened in recent memory were from people that are not diagnosed or did not have prior records. In other words, they would not have had any problems with a gun registry and it would not have help in these cases.

runs counter to the NRA et al's line that guns need to be kept out of the hands of mad people (and everyone else should have one) and that will solve the problem.
I'm not suggesting you support the NRA's position (I don't know) but it's just an observation.


I don't subscribe to the 'government is out to get us' paranoia movement but I do believe that powers given to the government - whether well-intentioned or not - can be used for purposes for which they were never intended.
As such, the laws have to be extremely well framed and oversight of hem has to be rigorous.

I do believe, however, that the argument that 'it's no use doing anything because nothing can prevent all crimes' is not a valid position - but is a widely held one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't have a vendetta against anyone. I just have zero tolerance for immature little boys, such as yourself. You care about nobody else. It doesn't matter to you how many innocent people are murdered each day as long as guns are readily available to you. Grow up.

I"LL ASK YOU AGAIN
How many mass shooting did clintons assault weapon ban stop? How many mass shootings have gun free zones stopped/ How many lives have gun controlled saved?
Now if you want to be mature you'll answer like an adult, if not remain childish and irresponsible

Hmmm....how to prove a negative....I wonder....

Let's start with the first one.
Did Clinton's Assault weapons ban stop any mass shootings?

 

[idb]

I"LL ASK YOU AGAIN
How many mass shooting did clintons assault weapon ban stop? How many mass shootings have gun free zones stopped/ How many lives have gun controlled saved?
Now if you want to be mature you'll answer like an adult, if not remain childish and irresponsible

Hmmm....how to prove a negative....I wonder....

Let's start with the first one.
Did Clinton's Assault weapons ban stop any mass shootings?

Yes.
It prevented that massacre of 47 nuns and a paperboy in Baltimore.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fair enough, I'm not happy to give the gummint extra ways to keep track of me either.
What you propose, with a licence for purchasing is exactly what we do here - gun purchases used to be recorded but this was stopped a couple of decades ago.
To purchase a firearm or ammo you must be licensed and the purchaser must sight your licence.
Obviously it can be cancelled if you fall foul of the law.

I have one distinction though, I don&#8217;t think there should be a license per say as here we have a right to own a firearm and that right cannot be preemptively infringed. That is why I mentioned a moniker on your ID. Something that states you are not flagged as a non-purchaser or perhaps the opposite &#8211; one that flags you as a person that cannot purchase a weapon. We have that in many states with alcohol: if you are under 21 a large red banner is placed across your ID that says you cannot legally purchase alcohol. Something like that would work well I believe for instant verification. That is very similar though.

Your statement;

The major shootings that have happened in recent memory were from people that are not diagnosed or did not have prior records. In other words, they would not have had any problems with a gun registry and it would not have help in these cases.

runs counter to the NRA et al's line that guns need to be kept out of the hands of mad people (and everyone else should have one) and that will solve the problem.
I'm not suggesting you support the NRA's position (I don't know) but it's just an observation.

Well, not really. This is not counter to the specific contention of the NRA that says they want to keep weapons out of the hands of mad people. The difference is that you are looking at enforcement BEFORE looking at discovery. At this juncture, the people that were mad were not previously identified. I believe that the grater point the NRA was making is that we need to be able to identify if you are mad or not. There certainly should have been more signs that this was the case. For the most part, we already keep weapons out of the hands of people that are not capable. Where we are failing is letting many of those slip through the cracks. IF there is a better method of discovery THEN we can talk about grater measures of enforcement. Discovery MUST come before implementing those measures as you do not, under any circumstances, pass legislation limiting freedoms based on the idea that there will be a time in the future that those laws might help. We need the discovery first so that the laws makes sense in the first place.

That statement from the NRA I support though most of the actual proposals (where this statement is more of an actual truism) I cannot support as they miss the mark.

I don't subscribe to the 'government is out to get us' paranoia movement but I do believe that powers given to the government - whether well-intentioned or not - can be used for purposes for which they were never intended.
As such, the laws have to be extremely well framed and oversight of hem has to be rigorous.

The government is never &#8216;out to get us.&#8217; I think that you misunderstand the reality in that sentiment. It is not a conspiracy. They are not plotting. The government is not doing what it does to get us. What is happening is that the government is looking out for itself, garnering as much power and control as it can. None of this is with nefarious means (well at least the vast majority is not) but it ends up the same. I do not fear the government crony coming to the door and taking my freedoms tomorrow. It won&#8217;t happen. I fear the gradual and ever present move towards the same. That move is not only demonstrable, it is the inevitable end of ALL bureaucracies.

I do believe, however, that the argument that 'it's no use doing anything because nothing can prevent all crimes' is not a valid position - but is a widely held one.

I would state that no one actually prescribes to that but then you might show me some quotes from this thread

Honestly, that concept is asinine and I don&#8217;t think anyone is really on that side. Such a concept makes no sense. There does have to be some impact thought that is demonstrable and greater than the limits in freedoms. It is a reality that the safest government to live under is a totalitarian one. There is no way around that. We must accept that there are costs for freedom and some of those costs are in blood. I, for one, would rather die a free man than live as an owned one.