Connecticut School shooting!

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Ausm, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Criminals don't obey gun laws" is such a stupid argument. By that logic, there's no use for any laws ever, because criminals won't obey them anyway.

    Also, the Constitution is not some holy document. It's been amended and revised many times, as evidenced by the 2nd AMENDMENT, and lots of parts of it have been reconsidered in the nation's history. We took out the part allocating certain votes for the possession of slaves, for instance. Believing everyone has a right to bear arms morally is one thing, but it being in the Constitution isn't justification for it staying in the Constitution, if it's no longer in the nation's best interest as a whole.
     
  2. AnyMal

    AnyMal Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    15,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're either missing or ignoring the point altogether. Laws or no laws, criminals will find the way to arm themselves. Have you noticed that no one has ever attempted to invade mainland US? Ever wonder why is that?
     
  3. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    (1) Are you forgetting the War of 1812

    (2) A little thing called the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
     
  4. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hahahahaha, sure, the lack of invasions of the US has nothing to do with the two huge oceans on either side, or the military that spends more than the next 10 combined, or the huge nuclear stockpiles we possess.

    "Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to drive through stop signs."
    "Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to steal electronics from your house."
    "Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to enter the US."
    Guess we shouldn't make laws against illegal immigration or home invasions!
     
  5. AnyMal

    AnyMal Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    15,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) How did it end for invaders?

    2) It certainly helps, but it's not a single detering factor. Plenty of coastal or island nations have been conquered in the past.
     
  6. Geosurface

    Geosurface Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    3
    Oh no, I agree.

    I fully support mandatory nutrition labels on food, having health inspections of restaurants and regulations to keep food safe... I support speed limits and brake lights and seat belts being mandatory in all cars.

    I support regulations about guns having safety mechanisms on them.

    I don't support making it illegal to not wear your seat belt, or not wear a motorcycle helmet.

    Does this distinction make sense? I'm in favor of common sense regulatory measures applied at an industry level. I'm not in favor of removing individual rights.
     
  7. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uhh, the British kicked our asses in the War of 1812, they burned the White House and the actual armed militias (you know, those things actually in the second amendment) couldn't do much against a real army. Try reading a history book.
     
  8. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    2
    According to the DOJ/UPenn, 98% of gun crime doesn't involve "assault weapons", just plain old handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. The deadliest shooting in US history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved no "assault rifles", just handguns.

    Banning assault weapons is an entirely ineffective way to reduce firearms-related homicides, but the anti-gun lobby isn't interested in actually reducing gun crime. They just want to give themselves a pat on the back.
     
  9. dmens

    dmens Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    1
    Guess you better ban civilian purchase of fertilizers and fuel oil, because any decently intelligent person with intent can blow up a couple hundred people then blow up the cops that arrive.

    I am also not surprised that the anti-gun people coming out of the rat-holes after this tragedy to advocate for government-only ownership of guns. Because the government would never kill innocent people with guns, never.

    By the way, any comment on the Korean and Norwegian mass shootings?
     
  10. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    The distinction makes sense, but I don't think it's fully developed. There are very few truly "individual rights," because we live in a society. Your right not to wear a seatbelt impacts my insurance costs, the nation's health care costs, the emotional health of the EMTs and other parties around when you go flying through your windshield, etc. If we measure out those costs through the legislative process and decide they're a price worth paying, fine. But it's also fine if we, as a society, decide otherwise. There's always going to be a sacrifice. Hell, look at all the people who were so pissy about "their right" to have slaves getting taken away that they rebelled against the US and fought a long and bloody war over it.

    This is a good point if the efforts only extended to assault rifles and that excluded further efforts beyond that, but assault rifles are the low hanging fruit. There's a lot stronger argument for allowing hunting rifles than AK-47s. Considering the political climate in this country, no serious gun control is going to happen, but we could at least take some steps towards it.
     
    #760 berzerker60, Dec 16, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  11. Alex C

    Alex C Senior member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've also spawned ~85% of the world's serial killers, very few of whom ever used guns (some of which racked up body counts higher than many mass shootings). I think we need a better understanding of violence in general and why Americans are seemingly so much more prone to it than much of the rest of the civilized world. Violence is the issue; how it's perpetrated matters much less than why.

    Personally, I feel that the current method of mass shootings is heavily influenced by the media. Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are featured prominently in video games and movies, used by both heroes and villains. These shooters aren't particularly bright, and their only experience with violence thus far has come from entertainment sources, so that's what they emulate. I'm not saying these people wouldn't have done this if cable only aired shows about rainbows and puppies, just that their methodology is influenced by what they know of violence. For most people these days, that happens to be what they learned from media. If serial killers, arson, and bombings were more abundant in movies and games, I think we'd be seeing a lot more of that instead of mass shootings.
     
  12. dmens

    dmens Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    1
  13. Screech

    Screech Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    1
    Morgan Freeman's take (not sure if it was already posted):

    EDIT: Ignore me, I'm stupid....
     
    #763 Screech, Dec 16, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  14. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ding ding ding. You win. You've explained in clear words why no responsible gun owner should ever support firearms legislation.

    Banning "assault weapons" is just your first step to get the momentum going. You're actually interested in banning a lot more.

    Why allow you to get any momentum going, period?
     
  15. Don Vito Corleone

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Messages:
    30,007
    Likes Received:
    46
    FYI this is a hoax and not something Morgan Freeman said (moreover, while I enjoy Morgan Freeman as an actor, his off-screen life is notable mostly for rumors that he had an affair with his step-granddaughter - I'm not sure why his opinion on matters political would be anything of particular note).
     
  16. Don Vito Corleone

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Messages:
    30,007
    Likes Received:
    46
    I see your point but the creed you have endorsed would provide no means for protecting the public from mentally ill people who pose an apparent danger to public safety (a la James Holmes). I think this is an entirely wrongheaded view and one which fails to provide reasonable protection of the public. I have firsthand experience with this issue both with members of my own family and with a murder defendant I represented. I am not speaking in theoretical terms.
     
    #766 Don Vito Corleone, Dec 16, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  17. Geosurface

    Geosurface Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    3
    I support the authorities being able to put someone into an institution indefinitely if they have made credible threats to do a mass killing and those threats can be demonstrated to have come from them. I support releasing them immediately at any time a board of psychologists agrees that they are no threat. I fully expect this board to get it wrong sometimes.

    I support removing such a person's right to legally own firearms, and I don't expect this to help much.

    What I cannot abide is conflating all levels of mental illness with one another, increasing the stigma of seeking help, etc...

    That's why I say, credible, direct threats must be present and provable.
     
  18. Retro Rob

    Retro Rob Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7,692
    Likes Received:
    13
    I have a serious question I'd like to ask, just to get some information or insight:

    Should the Constitution be "re-tooled", or updated? I ask because we live in a totally different and diverse world than when it was written, and it's writers could not have forseen the sort of madness going on in today's world.

    Personally, I don't think there's a problem with it .. only with the people who want to wave it around when they don't want to budge or make any adjustments. And this isn't to single out gun-owners, but in all facets of modern life.

    Just a thought I was mulling over a few minutes ago.
     
  19. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Constitution can be re-interpreted, and has been by the SCOTUS.

    But amending it requires a very large, unified effort on both the state and national level. The majorities required to propose and approve an amendment are prohibitively large.
     
  20. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's also stupid. I don't think we should absolutely legalize every drug, but I do think we should legalize marijuana. Someone who DOES think we should legalize every drug will agree with me on MJ, so we can work together on that, even though they're "trying to get momentum going" and I'm not. It's not always a slippery slope. MJ is different from crack. Hunting rifles are different from assault rifles. You don't have to set a black-and-white rule for every broad category. Sometimes complexity is good.

    Do you think this most recent killing could have happened on the scale that it did with a bolt-action hunting rifle that required a worthwhile licensing process to purchase? Crazy people are going to be crazy, but the impact of that doesn't have to be so awful.
     
    #770 berzerker60, Dec 16, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  21. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    2
    But if you view the discussion as a tug of war, I don't want to give you an inch without making you fight for it as long as possible. That way, after you've gained that inch, you'll be too tired to continue pulling. Even though you're saying that you're not trying to keep the momentum going, through my actions I'm assuring it.
     
  22. berzerker60

    berzerker60 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I'm saying it's stupid to view it as a tug of war. No extremist position is good for society. Banning all guns would be dumb. Having no limitations whatsoever on guns would be dumb. It's a matter of where on the spectrum minimizes unnecessary restrictions while protecting public health. It's not significantly different in that sense than requiring vaccines, but with some exceptions for religious reasons or for the immuno-compromised. It would be awful to force people to get medical procedures against their genuine religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you have to fight tooth and nail against allowing any vaccinations 'in order to exhaust me so I don't fight further.'
     
  23. Geosurface

    Geosurface Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't like the idea of this guy posthumously being given power over the mother fucking constitution when he already had the power to end 26 lives.

    The constitution impacts hundreds of millions of people if not more.

    This guy's impact is already larger than he had any deserving right for it to be, let's not feed into his desires even more. He wanted to be important, and damned if we aren't playing along.
     
  24. jpeyton

    jpeyton Moderator <BR> SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25,244
    Likes Received:
    2
    You absolutely have to view it as a tug of war, because both sides have their extremists and centrists, who will operate in unison with each other but towards different ends.

    We had an assault weapons ban before. I'm not stupid enough to rule another one happening, but I also know that our first experience with one provided valuable data showing its ineffectiveness.

    I'm also a realist who understands that when ineffective legislation produces ineffective results, the anti-gun lobby is going to push for their next hash mark.
     
  25. Retro Rob

    Retro Rob Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7,692
    Likes Received:
    13
    You're missing my point.

    Are you giving "power to criminals" by locking your doors at night when they threaten to break in? No.

    My whole point is for us to start being proactive instead of reactive all the time. Maybe we can stop of this before it happens.