CDZ Gun culture? or Disrespectful culture? Where does gun violence come from?

[emilynghiem]

Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!

Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."

Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs

The choice of services are different from the people being served.

The LGBT arguments were blending this together.

Pogo this is what I mean by BELIEFS changing how we look at laws or rights.
If one person BELIEFS LGBT orientation is not a choice but is born into like race,
that's a different LAW being applied than someone who sees LGBT orientation
as a choice and same sex marriage faith based practice that govt cannot force anyone to engage in.

If we don't BELIEVE the same things about where LGBT orientation comes
from, we don't see rights or laws the same way. So it's like conflicting cultures.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!

Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."

Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs

The choice of services are different from the people being served.

The LGBT arguments were blending this together.

Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.

Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.

I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.

Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake

 

[Pogo]

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

And what happens when the President of the United States openly calls for such Fourth Amendment nose-thumbing? Especially since in order to be President he took an oath to preserve protect and defend that document?

>> On Sept. 15 [1986], President Reagan signed an executive order calling for drug testing of a broad range of the Federal Government's 2.8 million civilian employees, earmarking about $56 million for the undertak-ing in the first year. The increased use of drug testing by governmental agencies and private employers - more than a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies test job applicants - is part of a larger trend in society's war on drug abuse, with a pronounced shift of emphasis to the drug user. << --- NYT 10/86
​

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

This is where 99% of the conversation resides - on the leaf level, instead of at the root level. These are the kinds of mind-bending absurdities that arise when we begin with a trajectory that's off in the bushes.

We've got to back off, all the way to the beginning, to see where the problem lies. You've got a document - the Constitution - that's supposed to protect rights by violating them. This absurdity is then expressed in a myriad of ways all the way down the chain. You cannot start with an inequality of rights and end up with equality. The very fact that "Congress shall have power to XYZ" but the individual citizen shall not have the same power is the root inequality from which all others spring.

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat

Do you claim the right to tell a business owner, on his own property, that he may not choose who to associate with, under threat of personal violence? Understanding that all law is ultimately backed by personal violence if each step in the attempt to enforce that law is resisted, this is precisely what's being claimed when you support legislation that disallows employment bias based on race/age/gender, etc.

Either that, or you are denying the verity of the above quote, claiming that government has rights that individuals don't have - so which is it? Therein lies the problem. I agree with you that it is stupid, unfair, etc., to discriminate based on race, but if the power of law is to have any legitimacy, it must be rooted in the rights of the individual. Incidentally, the achievement of that legitimacy also serves to obviate law entirely; as law becomes a hollow echo of individual rights (the mere act of writing it down add no actual content). Government, then, if legitimate, does not truly govern, as it has no authority of its own. It merely becomes an organized collective effort to enforce the rights already possessed by each within its jurisdiction. And since the rights of those within its jurisdiction do not differ from those without, its jurisdiction is effectually non-existent.

You see the absurdity of the very notion of government. You cannot derive rational solutions from a position of absurdity, and thus nearly all conversation on this website, and in the public political discourse, is little more than the caterwauling of the insane. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but you see the point, and it is quite compelling - wouldn't you agree?

TBH my eyes glazed over about 20% of the way through that but it seems to be doing the same thing Emily keeps doing -- trying to veer off into "governments" and "rights".

My observation is (I thought) not that complicated. It's simply noting that, WHILE there is X number of megatons of rhetorical fury about the Second Amendment when its principle is perceived to be threatened, there is 1/1000 X of the same concern when the principle of the Fourth is. And we could cite similar comparisons with the First Amendment, and pick them from all over this board, just for a start.

And I find that inconsistent, to say the least. And that inconsistency points right back to my original citation of Gun Culture ---- which serves to explain why such a discrepancy exists.

That's another observation of the social values in play. Were we not infested with this gun fetish culture, concern for the Second Amendment would be commensurate with that of any other threatened Amendment.

For instance I've posted this literally dozens of times:

​

--- that's a direct, explicitly-stated threat to the First Amendment. And nobody cares. But if I were to start a discussion that dares to simply examine --- not even the Second Amendment but the social values behind firearms --- I'd have hundreds of posts attacking, I'd have the same not-listening drones that didn't hear Bob Costas plugging in their own content, I might be thread-banned as I was last week, I might be kicked off the site entirely as I was on another board prior to this one, simply for suggesting we have a gun fetish culture.

That glaring inequity speaks volumes. Its emotion-based vitriol confirms to me that I'm exactly on the right track.

In short, my focus on this issue is not at all concerned with "government" and never has been. It's entirely focused on collective social psychology. Because that, I submit, is where the answer is. Trying to shunt off to 'governments' and "laws" is just taking our eye off the ball. Gun violence isn't a legislation problem; it's a social problem.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This is where 99% of the conversation resides - on the leaf level, instead of at the root level. These are the kinds of mind-bending absurdities that arise when we begin with a trajectory that's off in the bushes.

We've got to back off, all the way to the beginning, to see where the problem lies. You've got a document - the Constitution - that's supposed to protect rights by violating them. This absurdity is then expressed in a myriad of ways all the way down the chain. You cannot start with an inequality of rights and end up with equality. The very fact that "Congress shall have power to XYZ" but the individual citizen shall not have the same power is the root inequality from which all others spring.

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat

Do you claim the right to tell a business owner, on his own property, that he may not choose who to associate with, under threat of personal violence? Understanding that all law is ultimately backed by personal violence if each step in the attempt to enforce that law is resisted, this is precisely what's being claimed when you support legislation that disallows employment bias based on race/age/gender, etc.

Either that, or you are denying the verity of the above quote, claiming that government has rights that individuals don't have - so which is it? Therein lies the problem. I agree with you that it is stupid, unfair, etc., to discriminate based on race, but if the power of law is to have any legitimacy, it must be rooted in the rights of the individual. Incidentally, the achievement of that legitimacy also serves to obviate law entirely; as law becomes a hollow echo of individual rights (the mere act of writing it down add no actual content). Government, then, if legitimate, does not truly govern, as it has no authority of its own. It merely becomes an organized collective effort to enforce the rights already possessed by each within its jurisdiction. And since the rights of those within its jurisdiction do not differ from those without, its jurisdiction is effectually non-existent.

You see the absurdity of the very notion of government. You cannot derive rational solutions from a position of absurdity, and thus nearly all conversation on this website, and in the public political discourse, is little more than the caterwauling of the insane. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but you see the point, and it is quite compelling - wouldn't you agree?

TBH my eyes glazed over about 20% of the way through that but it seems to be doing the same thing Emily keeps doing -- trying to veer off into "governments" and "rights".

My observation is (I thought) not that complicated. It's simply noting that, WHILE there is X number of megatons of rhetorical fury about the Second Amendment when its principle is perceived to be threatened, there is 1/1000 X of the same concern when the principle of the Fourth is. And we could cite similar comparisons with the First Amendment, and pick them from all over this board, just for a start.

And I find that inconsistent, to say the least. And that inconsistency points right back to my original citation of Gun Culture ---- which serves to explain why such a discrepancy exists.

That's another observation of the social values in play. Were we not infested with this gun fetish culture, concern for the Second Amendment would be commensurate with that of any other threatened Amendment.

For instance I've posted this literally dozens of times:

​

--- that's a direct, explicitly-stated threat to the First Amendment. And nobody cares. But if I were to start a discussion that dares to simply examine --- not even the Second Amendment but the social values behind firearms --- I'd have hundreds of posts attacking, I'd have the same not-listening drones that didn't hear Bob Costas plugging in their own content, I might be thread-banned as I was last week, I might be kicked off the site entirely as I was on another board prior to this one, simply for suggesting we have a gun fetish culture.

That glaring inequity speaks volumes. Its emotion-based vitriol confirms to me that I'm exactly on the right track.

In short, my focus on this issue is not at all concerned with "government" and never has been. It's entirely focused on collective social psychology. Because that, I submit, is where the answer is. Trying to shunt off to 'governments' and "laws" is just taking our eye off the ball. Gun violence isn't a legislation problem; it's a social problem.

Ah I see. Well that's unfortunate. It's a shame that you can't find the time or focus to explore what someone took the time and focus to say to you. I do understand your point, and I agree, but I there's a couple of things to consider:

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

The authority of government is backed by the use of force. It's ONLY check is commensurate force; not the "checks and balances" of the three branches, which all sit on one side of the fence when the conflict is between a government and its people. All other rights can be defended if the right to bear arms in maintained, but if that right is robbed from the people, all other rights are in jeopardy. This is critical to understand - this world is still a jungle, despite the dream of artificial "civilized" society, and no amount of words on parchment change the fact that if one man has a spear and the other doesn't, the man with the spear is the master.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

 

[Pogo]

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Again I'd go back to my smoking analogy. We "culturally shifted" public attitudes toward smoking. Not laws but attitudes. Government didn't do that. It can't. "Cultural shift" means changing the extant values. In that case we changed "smoking is cool" to "smoking is uncoool". In the instant case the task is to shift the culture from "killing and blowing things up is cool" to "Respect for Life". Again, government can't change values. If we need a reminder of government's inability to shift a cultural value, I refer you to the Eighteenth Amendment.

My position is, and always has been, this is not a 'government' issue in the first place. Throwing laws at the problem is a distraction that at best serves as political theater so some politicians can claim, "look at us, we're doing something". But as long as that death-wish cultural value -- that desire -- continues to flourish in the culture, they are not.

Put simply, this is not a battle for laws or votes. This is a battle for hearts and minds and spirit.

I get the feeling I'm still talking over people's heads but I'll keep at it until I get through.

 

[usmbguest5318]

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Again I'd go back to my smoking analogy. We "culturally shifted" public attitudes toward smoking. Not laws but attitudes. Government didn't do that. It can't. "Cultural shift" means changing the extant values. In that case we changed "smoking is cool" to "smoking is uncoool". In the instant case the task is to shift the culture from "killing and blowing things up is cool" to "Respect for Life". Again, government can't change values. If we need a reminder of government's inability to shift a cultural value, I refer you to the Eighteenth Amendment.

My position is, and always has been, this is not a 'government' issue in the first place. Throwing laws at the problem is a distraction that at best serves as political theater so some politicians can claim, "look at us, we're doing something". But as long as that death-wish cultural value -- that desire -- continues to flourish in the culture, they are not.

Put simply, this is not a battle for laws or votes. This is a battle for hearts and minds and spirit.

I get the feeling I'm still talking over people's heads but I'll keep at it until I get through.

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

While I don't concur with Brian's stance, I suspect too that the above quoted remarks don't address the basis of his argument. He's not arguing about guns vis-a-vis a legal construct. He's arguing from the standpoint of the 2nd's alignment with notions of sovereignty and liberty. His is a philosophically founded argument, not a jurisprudentially founded one; thus invocations of what be or be not codified are insufficient refutations.

As one of my friends would, in recognition of the fact that one can potentially argue coherently for literally years and never get to a mutually satisfying end (other than to agree to stop talking about it), say, "Oh, sh*t. He's gone Greek on us."

I think the above to be the case because, rhetorically, Brian does the same thing I do -- he plays to his strengths. Consequently, he's not going to embark upon a discursive path that depends on a strong understanding of the ideas of a discipline that isn't in his wheelhouse, as it were. That's what competent strategists do, regardless of what be the specific application -- discourse/debate, chess, business negotiations, career development, diplomacy, war, etc. -- of sound strategizing.

 

[MarathonMike]

I personally do not use the term 'gun culture' because the term itself is easily misused and/or misinterpreted. I am guessing from the context that for this thread 'gun culture' means the US has lots of guns and lots of people who like them. Separate from that, 'gun violence' is the misuse of firearms against other people or, I suppose, oneself. Is suicide gun violence?

IMO the only connection between gun violence and gun culture is availability. Would we have less gun violence with less guns? Yes. Would we have less gun violence with better support for dysfunctional families? Yes. Would we have less gun violence if we intervened earlier with socially isolated individuals? Yes. Would we have less gun violence if we got rid of gun free zones? Yes. Are there other things that might reduce gun violence? Yes.

In short (and I'm repeating myself from other posts, sorry) there is no magic bullet solution to gun violence.

 

[JoeB131]

Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.

Do you know what I read. In every case of a mass shooting, the person was able to get a gun!

Every last one.

Don't let them have easy access to guns, no mass shootings. Amazing how that works.

 

[JoeB131]

neither are guns

Really? How many mass shootings were achieved without a gun?

 

[JoeB131]

Different culture. Guns don’t make people do things. Japan has a high rate of suicide.

No, guns don't make you do anything.

They just give you the ability.

So angsty Hiro who plays too many video games really doesn't have the capability to shoot up a school before he kills himself.

Angsty Billy does.

see how that works?

 

[2aguy]

I personally do not use the term 'gun culture' because the term itself is easily misused and/or misinterpreted. I am guessing from the context that for this thread 'gun culture' means the US has lots of guns and lots of people who like them. Separate from that, 'gun violence' is the misuse of firearms against other people or, I suppose, oneself. Is suicide gun violence?

IMO the only connection between gun violence and gun culture is availability. Would we have less gun violence with less guns? Yes. Would we have less gun violence with better support for dysfunctional families? Yes. Would we have less gun violence if we intervened earlier with socially isolated individuals? Yes. Would we have less gun violence if we got rid of gun free zones? Yes. Are there other things that might reduce gun violence? Yes.

In short (and I'm repeating myself from other posts, sorry) there is no magic bullet solution to gun violence.

No,..we wouldn't have less violence....Britain banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime rates are through the roof...



Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[2aguy]

Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.

Do you know what I read. In every case of a mass shooting, the person was able to get a gun!

Every last one.

Don't let them have easy access to guns, no mass shootings. Amazing how that works.

Except in France.....or Sweden.....or Australia......in France, they don't use pistols or AR-15 civilian rifles....they use fully automatic military rifles that are completely banned and illegal in France....they are the preferred gun for street level criminals as well as muslim terrorists who are on government terrorist watch lists.......

Criminals in Europe have guns.....if you want a gun in Europe, just go to your drug dealer and you can get a gun....that means you can do a mass shooting if you want to.....yet they don't...culture and values, not guns.

Britain....they almost had 2 mass shootings.....the teenagers were able to get guns and were only stopped by dumb luck...

And the last story below...of the gunman in Britain who walked into the Nursery school...which British gun law stopped him from murdering those children...another case of luck....he was looking for another guy, but had he been intent on murdering children, no gun law or confiscation in Britain would have stopped him....

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack



Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.

====Teenage boy 'took shotgun to school after being bullied for being fat'


15-year-old boy arrested for taking shotgun and ammunition into school did it because he was being bullied for being too fat, fellow pupils said.

=======




'Gunman' walks into Liverpool nursery school as children were playing inside

Police have sealed off a children's nursery in Liverpool amid reports a gunman walked into the building while youngsters were inside.

Officers were called to Childs Play Nursery in Wavertree, Merseyside, at around 8am this morning.

The man, who is believed to have been carrying what looked like a firearm, walked into the nursery and approached another man.

He then left with a second man on the back of a motorbike.

 

[2aguy]

neither are guns

Really? How many mass shootings were achieved without a gun?

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France killed more people with a rental truck than all of our mass shooters have been able to do with guns.....86 people murdered in 5 minutes without any of the risk of getting a gun and ammo.......

 

[2aguy]

Different culture. Guns don’t make people do things. Japan has a high rate of suicide.

No, guns don't make you do anything.

They just give you the ability.

So angsty Hiro who plays too many video games really doesn't have the capability to shoot up a school before he kills himself.

Angsty Billy does.

see how that works?

The Japanese don't have crime of any kind compared to any other culture....they have a collective society, they have a police state, they have a court system that actually puts criminals in jail, and even the Yakuza is kept from getting guns by long, really long, prison sentences....while here in the U.S. the democrat party keeps letting our violent gun criminals out of jail over and over again....

Since our gun criminals are known to police, have been arrested and locked up by police....our problem is that democrats keep letting them back out of jail.....over and over again......if we could keep democrats from letting gun criminals out of jail, the tiny areas of our inner cities that have almost all of the gun violence would be safer.

 

[JoeB131]

Except in France.....or Sweden.....or Australia......in France, they don't use pistols or AR-15 civilian rifles....they use fully automatic military rifles that are completely banned and illegal in France....they are the preferred gun for street level criminals as well as muslim terrorists who are on government terrorist watch lists.......

Wow, guy, this is your argument, once a decade or so, organized terrorists are able to pull something off.

Okay, what they don't have are regular people who get AR-15's or guns and attack because they got thrown out of school or YouTube wouldn't monetize their workout video.

 

[JoeB131]

The Japanese don't have crime of any kind compared to any other culture....they have a collective society, they have a police state, they have a court system that actually puts criminals in jail,

okay, The Japanese are not the Borg. While I'm sure "all those people look alike' in Jesusland, they aren't a collective.

As for putting people in jail

Number of prisoners in Japan -

By 2001 The overall prison population rose to 61,242 or 48 prisoners per 100,000. By of the end of 2009, the prison population had yet again risen to 75,250, or 59 prisoners per 100,000.

Wow. Sounds bad. But the United States.

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation or on parole.

sorry, man, we lock up a heck of a lot more people than the Japanese do, and amazingly, we haven't even put a dent in crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

neither are guns

Really? How many mass shootings were achieved without a gun?

How many murders are achieved without guns?

Why is it you think getting killed by a rifle the same time as a couple other people worse than getting shot, stabbed, beaten etc individually?

 

[JoeB131]

How many murders are achieved without guns?

Why is it you think getting killed by a rifle the same time as a couple other people worse than getting shot, stabbed, beaten etc individually?

Because there are a lot more of them.

We have 11,000 gun homicides a year... while most countries only have a handful.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many murders are achieved without guns?

Why is it you think getting killed by a rifle the same time as a couple other people worse than getting shot, stabbed, beaten etc individually?

Because there are a lot more of them.

We have 11,000 gun homicides a year... while most countries only have a handful.

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Get a handle on the areas where the most murders occur and like magic our murder rate drops up to 70%

But you don't want to do that

 

[sparky]

Gotta love these cyclical gun debates where any litigation simply hands crooks the keys to the arsenal

~S~