Connecticut School shooting!

[Geosurface]

While tragic, and deeply fucked up, this event has zero implications for public policy in any rational mind.

Doing nothing isn't just acceptable, it is logical and in all likelihood inevitable.

And this happened about half an hour from where I live.

 

[lotus503]

I am of the belief that more regulation of the gun industry will lead to just that, more regulation. Many, including myself, will view it as an infringement of rights. I really don't see the benefit in this case.

I think if infringing on your 2nd amendment rights would lead to less of these types of crimes I would support it.

You don't have access to tanks and armed drones, there is lots of weaponry private citizens cant easily get. So there are already limits to the 2nd amendment. Maybe we need more limits?

 

[Retro Rob]

While tragic, and deeply fucked up, this event has zero implications for public policy in any rational mind.

Doing nothing isn't just acceptable, it is logical and in all likelihood inevitable.

I'm willing to bet you'd change your tune if your kid was in the school. Not to the point of banning anything, but to at least to make things safer overall.

However, I can agree with you somewhat... because the simple fact is really nothing *can* be done to prevent it... as you stated.

That's why I take my own responsibilty for my own safety. Even gun owners do to.

EDIT: Didn't get your edit, Geo. Now I see it.

 

[lotus503]

While tragic, and deeply fucked up, this event has zero implications for public policy in any rational mind.

Doing nothing isn't just acceptable, it is logical and in all likelihood inevitable.

And this happened about half an hour from where I live.

I fine with being viewed as irrational, it's not acceptable, it will never be acceptable and I suspect there is a huge % of the population that thinks as I do. Given that I wouldn't hold your breath that public policy will not be impacted.

 

[Geosurface]

How can you support punishing millions of innocents for the acts of a handful of loons who are already neutralized via incarceration or death?

 

[lotus503]

How can you support punishing millions of innocents for the acts of a handful of loons who are already neutralized via incarceration or death?

If by punishing you mean making it so you don't have access to certain things in an effort to keep more kids from being killed, yup I support that.

I think losing the right to own an assault weapon for example is acceptable if it saves one kid from losing their right to breath.

 

[Geosurface]

I'm willing to bet you'd change your tune if your kid was in the school.

Very likely I would, then again do you think every gun owner who lost their child there wants gun bans now?

I'm not a gun owner myself...

I don't think the feelings of people closest to rare tragedies should be the benchmark for setting sober public policy that impacts millions.

Do we ask the mother who just lost her child to a drunk driver if alcohol should stay legal?

 

[Retro Rob]

If by punishing you mean making it so you don't have access to certain things in an effort to keep more kids from being killed, yup I support that.

I think losing the right to own an assault weapon for example is acceptable if it saves one kid from losing their right to breath.

Not according to some fanatic gun owners, as that "one kid" is nothing more than collateral damage.

 

[Retro Rob]

Very likely I would, then again do you think every gun owner who lost their child there wants gun bans now?

I'm not a gun owner myself...

I don't think the feelings of people closest to rare tragedies should be the benchmark for setting sober public policy that impacts millions.

Do we ask the mother who just lost her child to a drunk driver if alcohol should stay legal?

you neglected to read the rest of my post. I said, "outside" of banning guns.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

While tragic, and deeply fucked up, this event has zero implications for public policy in any rational mind.

Doing nothing isn't just acceptable, it is logical and in all likelihood inevitable.

And this happened about half an hour from where I live.

If we as a people held your pessimistic view of humanity, we'd still be living in caves. The fact that your post also stigmatizes anyone who would dare think that this incident should have implications for public policy is "irrational" just demonstrates how disconnected from human empathy you are.

You do not get to set the agenda for public policy or human progress. Thank God that is the case.

 

[Farmer]

If by punishing you mean making it so you don't have access to certain things in an effort to keep more kids from being killed, yup I support that.

OK, but realize that more than few people don't support further deterioration of personal freedom in the name of public safety.

I think losing the right to own an assault weapon for example is acceptable if it saves one kid from losing their right to breath.

How do you define an "assault weapon?" What difference does it makes what the guy is using in a scenario such as this?

 

[Geosurface]

I think losing the right to own an assault weapon for example is acceptable if it saves one kid from losing their right to breath.

From time to time kids die on roller coasters and drown in swimming pools, does saving those few lives justify depriving millions of the enjoyment those things bring?

Hell no.

Stop letting CNN get your blood pressure up.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

How can you support punishing millions of innocents for the acts of a handful of loons who are already neutralized via incarceration or death?

What "millions" and "punishment" are you envisioning? Reasonable gun restrictions (which I am not personally calling for) and/or improvement of our woefully deficient mental health system would punish nobody. Moreover, the flaws in our mental health system don't JUST lead to spree killings - they lead to innumerable murders and violent crimes every year.

 

[lotus503]

you neglected to read the rest of my post. I said, "outside" of banning guns.

Yeah I don't agree with banning all guns. I also would support no changes in gun rights if we could come up with other ways to address the issue.

Doing nothing is not an option.

 

[Retro Rob]

If we as a people held your pessimistic view of humanity, we'd still be living in caves. The fact that your post also stigmatizes anyone who would dare think that this incident should have implications for public policy is "irrational" just demonstrates how disconnected from human empathy you are.

You do not get to set the agenda for public policy or human progress. Thank God that is the case.

Just for the record, I don't agree with his sentiment myself, just the part that we can't stop evil, but I don't think we should just "sit on our hands", though.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

From time to time kids die on roller coasters and drown in swimming pools, does saving those few lives justify depriving millions of the enjoyment those things bring?

Hell no.

Stop letting CNN get your blood pressure up.

This, coming from a person who has consumed literally more than 1,000 hours this year worrying about a single criminal matter in which he has no personal involvement. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Retro Rob]

From time to time kids die on roller coasters and drown in swimming pools, does saving those few lives justify depriving millions of the enjoyment those things bring?

Hell no.

Stop letting CNN get your blood pressure up.

false ..... equivalency.... again..... again..... AGAIN!!!!

 

[Farmer]

What "millions" and "punishment" are you envisioning? Reasonable gun restrictions (which I am not calling for) and/or improvement of our woefully deficient mental health system would punish nobody. Moreover, the flaws in our mental health system don't JUST lead to spree killings - they lead to innumerable murders and violent crimes every year.

I am all for improved mental healthcare. I think it would be a whole lot more effective than anything in the gun arena.

I believe he is referring to the millions of law abiding gun owners who would suffer from a restriction of their personal freedoms in the event of stricter gun control.

 

[Farmer]

false ..... equivalency.... again..... again..... AGAIN!!!!

Can you explain the way in which you believe this equivalency is false?

 

[lotus503]

From time to time kids die on roller coasters and drown in swimming pools, does saving those few lives justify depriving millions of the enjoyment those things bring?

Hell no.

Stop letting CNN get your blood pressure up.

I don't watch news.

due to drownings, pool safety has gotten a lot better, there are codes that are to be followed related to pools, fencing etc. roller coasters now are much safer do to regulations and codes.

Only in the gun culture do we have a do nothing attitude.

Yes depriving people of gun enjoyment is perfectly fine to me if it saves lives.

But then again accidents and murder are false equivalencies.

 

[Farmer]

I think if infringing on your 2nd amendment rights would lead to less of these types of crimes I would support it.

You don't have access to tanks and armed drones, there is lots of weaponry private citizens cant easily get. So there are already limits to the 2nd amendment. Maybe we need more limits?

There is some correlation that widespread media coverage of these massacres leads to follow-on crimes that are similar in nature.

If suppression of such media coverage (which would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment) reduced the number of these crimes, would you support that as well? It's a slippery slope, so I am confused as to why you can support it so wholeheartedly.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can you explain the way in which you believe this equivalency is false?

I've never saw a person mudered with a swimming pool, or a rollercoaster. to add, swimming pools and rollercoasters are not weapons of war.

 

[Farmer]

I've never saw a person mudered with a swimming pool, or a rollercoaster. to add, swimming pools and rollercoasters are not weapons of war.

I keep saying this, but almost all legally purchased weapons in the United States is used for sporting purpose, not to wage war.

Do you truly believe the only purpose of a firearm is a "weapon of war?"

There is a belief that the person should have the individual freedom to do what he pleases, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of his fellow citizens. The vast majority of gun owners exercise their freedom in just such a manner, and yet their freedom is under attack because a nutcase hundreds of miles away decided to break the law. Does this sound fair, or correct?

 

[Geosurface]

This loon wanted to cause sorrow, be famous, and make an impact.

Media and kneejerkers, be they politicians or citizens are clamoring to fulfill his every desire. Spread that sorrow from one community to an entire planet. Give him posthumous sway over our very constitution...

Sad.

 

[blankslate]

I'm starting to wonder if there is silence of the part of people who should be addressing the issue of mentally unbalanced (or people who just suffer from social developmental issues) people around firearms if there will be an effort by personnel departments to try and weed out potential problems during hiring interviews.

"Do you own a firearm?"
"Why, yes I own a bolt action hunting rifle. I love taking vacations during deer hunting season."

"Do you own a firearm?"
"Damn straight. Got me an arsenal, ain't no liberal gubment gonna take over while I have my way."

"Do you own a firearm?"
"Nope don't really care about guns."


who would get hired?