Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[LeVeL]

That's all very well, but exactly what is the NRA proposing to improve mental health (other than increasing expenditure)? They have identified the problem (or so they would like you to believe), it is up to them to either drop this diversion or propose a viable solution.

Probably nothing. The NRA does not do a very good job representing gun owners.

Come and live in Australia. You won't need a gun to defend your home here (unless you are an illegal south east asian immigrant running a crystal meth factory in Cabramatta).

That's your solution? For me to abandon my friends and family and move to Australia? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you just appeared to the rest of the civilized world?

I live in inner city Sydney (the largest metropolis, with the most gun crime, in the country), I go to sleep every night with the back door open (so the cat can come and go as she pleases) and have never feared a home invasion by an armed gunman.

I call leaving the door open at night poor judgement, not safety. I know a lot of people (in America!) who leave their doors open, yet I'm still not sure why; I see it as ignorance.

We have very tight gun control here and I have no fear that a burglar is likely to be armed.

Right, because burglars follow laws. And there is no black market for guns. And there are no knives. Or bats. Or axes.

Still pedantry in my view. I see no reason for a law abiding citizen in a civilized country to have to own a killing stick which is automatic, semi-automatic, has a magazine of more than a couple of rounds or looks cool (like those weapons in "Medal of Honour").

For the millionth time, automatic weapons have been banned for decades. Way to buy into the bullshit media hype.
No reason to own a semi-automatic? Great, you just banned every single pistol out there :lol:
Magazine capacity has been covered a million times already - Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, used two pistols to kill 33 people. No "evil" automatic Rambo guns. There's this thing called "reloading..."

Out of interest. What is the NRA's policy on private ownership of nuclear weapons? Do they consider it a violation of their 2nd amendment rights that they are not freely available at Costco?

Like I said, the NRA does not do a very good job representing gun owners.


All the NY law is trying to do is keep law abiding citizens from owning firearms. The majority of pistols out there have had magazines larger than 7 rounds made, so New Yorkers are left with just revolvers and shotguns basically. Unbelievable bullshit.

 

[jetsetter]

Still pedantry in my view. I see no reason for a law abiding citizen in a civilized country to have to own a killing stick which is automatic, semi-automatic, has a magazine of more than a couple of rounds or looks cool (like those weapons in "Medal of Honour").

I know it is futile, so I won't bother any more, but if you Americans cannot see how ridiculous you appear to rest of the civilized world with regards to gun control, there is no hope for you. You will continue to live in your "cold war" style arms race between the (perceived) threats and the threatened.

In a civilized country one would have the choice whether to own a firearm or not. To not have the ability to make that choice is profoundly uncivilized and shows a lack of trust in yourselves far greater than any country that allows private firearm ownership. You and others accuse those who wish to own firearm of showing an inordinate level of fear of their fellow citizen but it is you who fear for it was you who barred your fellow citizens from owning firearms. I can say that I live without fear of my fellow citizen and would allow them to own a firearm if they choose.

 

[TC]

GerFix, I don't believe that only people from other countries think our current (lack of) gun laws are insane. The problem is, the very instant someone wants to discuss the subject, most people go mental. The discussion is very much one-sided because the gun nuts take it over. You can't have any reasonable discourse.

We have thousands of gun laws here. The truth is, the only gun law the anti-gun people will recognize is an all-out gun ban, nothing less. You expect gun owners to do all the work, sacrifice everything, give up everything, while the anti-gun people give up nothing, do nothing, sacrifice nothing. You're not bringing anything to the table, you're simply demanding that they give up their rights and freedoms and aren't satisfied with their refusal. The idea that guns can be be dangerous and deadly is nothing new. It's a 'no shit Sherlock' argument and it wasn't sufficient for a gun ban in the beginning, and it's not sufficient now. Going after pseudo-assault rifles when it's hand guns that are used far more often to kill. Going after high capacity magazines when only a few shots are fired in your average homicide. How can anyone take these blatantly fear based, knee jerk reactionary proposals the least bit seriously?

 

[prizrak]

In a civilized country one would have the choice whether to own a firearm or not. To not have the ability to make that choice is profoundly uncivilized and shows a lack of trust in yourselves far greater than any country that allows private firearm ownership. You and others accuse those who wish to own firearm of showing an inordinate level of fear of their fellow citizen but it is you who fear for it was you who barred your fellow citizens from owning firearms. I can say that I live without fear of my fellow citizen and would allow them to own a firearm if they choose.

I agree with everything you said. I would also like to add that assuming people want firearms for protection only is like saying that people want cars just so they can get places. There are plenty of collectors out there, sport shooters, recreational shooters, hunters, etc...

- - - Updated - - -

GerFix, I don't believe that only people from other countries think our current (lack of) gun laws are insane. The problem is, the very instant someone wants to discuss the subject, most people go mental. The discussion is very much one-sided because the gun nuts take it over. You can't have any reasonable discourse.

Actually there are two problems:
1) Anti-gun people generally don't know anything about guns at all. I cannot have a rational discussion on a subject when a person does not have much knowledge of it. I can educate them on it but that wouldn't be a discussion.
2) So far the anti-gun proposals are illogical or plain wrong (see above for reasons). Banning weapons for the way they look rather than the way they function (again see #1). Restricting the amount of ammo a firearm may hold (because we all know that criminals would not buy large capacity mags from elsewhere or couldn't reload).

Any time a gun crime happens the "peace corps" brigade jumps all over themselves to ban guns and regulate them completely ignoring the underlying issue. Yet when a DUI happens it's the driver's fault not the car's. How is it logical?

 

[Vette Boss]

I agree with everything you said. I would also like to add that assuming people want firearms for protection only is like saying that people want cars just so they can get places. There are plenty of collectors out there, sport shooters, recreational shooters, hunters, etc...

- - - Updated - - -


Actually there are two problems:
1) Anti-gun people generally don't know anything about guns at all. I cannot have a rational discussion on a subject when a person does not have much knowledge of it. I can educate them on it but that wouldn't be a discussion.
2) So far the anti-gun proposals are illogical or plain wrong (see above for reasons). Banning weapons for the way they look rather than the way they function (again see #1). Restricting the amount of ammo a firearm may hold (because we all know that criminals would not buy large capacity mags from elsewhere or couldn't reload).

Any time a gun crime happens the "peace corps" brigade jumps all over themselves to ban guns and regulate them completely ignoring the underlying issue. Yet when a DUI happens it's the driver's fault not the car's. How is it logical?

If that is your reason for not wanting to have a debate, then fuck you. When you decide to be irrational, it is not the fault of the opposition. Only you can control your emotions. I have given absolutely no reason for such an attack. I have no power over you or anyone else.

 

[jetsetter]

Being frustrated with the ignorance of the opposition is reasonable when the personal liberty of all Americans is at stake. And no Vette Boss, he did not attack you. At best I would call that a retort.

Recently I was visiting the Guardian's website (UK paper) and when I find articles decrying things like SOPA next to articles calling for the banning of private firearm ownership I become confused. In my mind these two views are not compatible with each other. You cannot call for freedom and then take it away and be expected to be taken seriously.

 

[prizrak]

If that is your reason for not wanting to have a debate, then fuck you. When you decide to be irrational, it is not the fault of the opposition. Only you can control your emotions. I have given absolutely no reason for such an attack. I have no power over you or anyone else.

Where did I attack you in my post? I attempted as best I could to explain to you the reasons why it is difficult to have a discussion on gun control. I also attempted to show that a discussion where one side knows very little about a subject (any subject) while the other knows a lot would not really be a discussion. For example I cannot possibly have a discussion on alloy development because I know literally nothing about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Being frustrated with the ignorance of the opposition is reasonable when the personal liberty of all Americans is at stake.

It's not even frustration, I'm more than happy to share knowledge on any subject I have but not a single gun control advocate that I have ever dealt with came up to me with any questions. They just start talking about measures that don't make any logical sense to me....

 

[HatePersonified]

Lone bright spot here. Senator of the Year, All Years.

 

[prizrak]

Lone bright spot here. Senator of the Year, All Years.

I'm remembering this name next time he runs.

 

[biggie]

Only other rational thought I've seen in NY senate.

 

[jetsetter]

I'm remembering this name next time he runs.

Ball is kind of a mixed bag for me. I like his position on firearms but his position on fracking is...............unfortunate.

 

[prizrak]

Ball is kind of a mixed bag for me. I like his position on firearms but his position on fracking is...............unfortunate.

I didn't know that Battle Start Galactica had some sort of political implications (sorry couldn't resist). I can't say I know much about fracking but it was more the way he was thinking rather than actual stance on 2A.

 

[HatePersonified]

I'm remembering this name next time he runs.

"In early 2005, Ball announced his candidacy for State Assembly as a Republican and stated he would attempt to unseat the incumbent Assemblyman Will Stephens in a primary. Ball himself dressed up in a chicken suit and followed around Stephens after the incumbent refused to debate him."

lol.

 

[prizrak]

"In early 2005, Ball announced his candidacy for State Assembly as a Republican and stated he would attempt to unseat the incumbent Assemblyman Will Stephens in a primary. Ball himself dressed up in a chicken suit and followed around Stephens after the incumbent refused to debate him."

lol.

That's just making me like him more

 

[British_Rover]

Actually, it isn't. "Prohibited persons" is codified law, but "dangerous persons" isn't.



You'll notice that that idea a bunch of you were laughing at, armed guards in schools? Yeah, that's in there as well. School resource officer = armed cop on campus. Probably because the school that Obama's kids goes to has had an entire fucking ARMED PLATOON guarding their students (even when there are no presidential offspring attending), has for decades and even the press was quietly pointing this out.

.

dangerous person isn't codified anywhere really? I find that hard to believe.

Pop quiz how many hot shot how many soldiers are in a platoon?

 

[Spectre]

dangerous person isn't codified anywhere really? I find that hard to believe.

Believe it or not, it's not in Federal law. I checked with a lawyer who used to practice up in that part of the world (NY/NJ/MA) and she says that she doesn't remember that being in the law up there either.

Pop quiz how many hot shot how many soldiers are in a platoon?

Depends on which organization you want to talk about. Usual is about 26-64. Sidwell Friends has a permanent staff of eleven-plus armed security (a squad or section) but they also have contract and temp security staff (not including Secret Service) of between 10 and 30 depending on at what point in history you're looking at. So they *do* have a platoon; their eleven-man permanent security staff forms the 'officers' corps' as it were.

When no students are present on the grounds, only the permanent security staff are there. When there are students there, the non-permanent staff are added.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Interesting.

4 Pinocchios for a slashing NRA ad on security at Sidwell Friends School

So the frame of hypocrisy is already a bit misshapen. But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?

This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as ?special police officer,? while two are listed as ?on call special police officer,? which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.

Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms ? but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: ?Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.?

Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 ?armed guards? is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html?tid=pm_pop

 

[Spectre]

Interesting.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html?tid=pm_pop

NRA ad or not (I haven't seen it yet) - my source is someone who used to work there and now works a similar position at a similar private school in Dallas.

It should also be pointed out that Sidwell has recently been recruiting another permanent special police officer. http://www.sidwell.edu/news/article/index.aspx?linkid=32603&moduleid=379

Applicants must have a current SPO license...

Also, "but I've never seen a guard on campus with a weapon" doesn't mean anything. Private school armed security is supposed to be not seen and not heard and especially not spook the rich parents. They usually carry concealed just like most bodyguard types do, so you're not going to see the weapons unless they need them.

 

[British_Rover]

PISSSED lost a big post don't feel like re-writing it.

Partially based on that Washington post article and other things. Short version Sidwell is a Quaker school so having them directly employ armed guards when Quakers are non-violent pacifists seems unlikely at best. If they do it is spread over two campuses and multiple shifts so most likely one or two guards per campus per shift. Perfectly normal for a school that size, about a 1,000 students, to have that many guards. Not a platoon as Specter is claiming not even a squad really more like a fireteam and not a "small army" or "elite unit" as I have seen reported in some of the crazier blogs.

The whole argument is just stupid. It is just the NRAs way of dog whistling to the people already suspicious of Obama for being different and it is going to backfire on them.

I love it how Specter almost always has a private source here or there for everything.


Here is my random private source.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1698371

They are armed, but I am not aware of there ever being an occasion where a weapon was drawn. They carry a concealed handgun, not assault rifles, and yes, you are correct in that the night shift is more computer orientated(and walking the grounds at shift change).

People seem to think that there are 12 highly armed guards at each school, from the things that are being posted online. They don't apparently understand that the three schools Sidwell Friends Lower School, Sidwell Friends Middle School, and Sidwell Friends Upper School are three different campuses. Each with one guard per campus, per shift, each with only one concealed handgun that they will likely never use.

Which in reality is less than some schools utilize. Both schools that my children go to(they are in single sex schools, boys in one, girls in the other) employ 2 armed guards per campus, and yet I am not aware of a gun being drawn in the last decade at either campus.

Quick summary of the rest of the post I lost.

Here is a question for you.

Why have violent crime rates fallen in the past twenty years but mass shootings have become almost common?

The murder rate has fallen by almost half since 1992 and by 16.8 percent since 2002.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Concealed carry permits have increased by an enormous number but what that exact increase is I do not know. Something like five million more permits over the past 25 years seems to be the rough estimate.

All that extra firepower out there plus more civilians carrying and security at most large areas but still more mass shootings keep happening. At VA Tech we had armed security, campus police, Blacksburg Police and the fucking Corps of Cadets field stripping M-16s on the upper quad. All of that still didn't stop Cho.

When the only tool you have is a hammer every problem is a nail. That is the NRA and for the most part the larger gun communities position. I do not think more guns is the answer. I am not saying that less guns is necessarily the answer either. Better control of access and better preventative measures are what I think is needed.

Oh I forgot this from a few days ago.

Ah, but see, the United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic, which means that the constitution comes first and foremost. If tomorrow 100% of the population votes to abolish the second amendment, that will mean absolutely nothing. The constitution is above all else.

In the Constitution there is this thing called a Article V Constitutional Convention or amendment Convention and it can be used to amend the Constitution as an end run around the Federal Gov't.

If 100% of the populace was polling for anything then they could organize a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. It has never been done before but it could be done.

Hoooly shit, conspiracy theories are starting to get REALLY generous with untenable evidence...

I mean, the logical leaps here are wider than the grand canyon.

I couldn't watch that whole thing.

Of course you could just think these things have all been Black Flag operations like Dave Mustaine does.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/16/megadeths_dave_mustaine_obama_stages_aurora_shootings/

 

[Spectre]

PISSSED lost a big post don't feel like re-writing it.

Partially based on that Washington post article and other things. Short version Sidwell is a Quaker school so having them directly employ armed guards when Quakers are non-violent pacifists seems unlikely at best.

The fact that Sidwell employs armed guards is not in doubt. They do. Call them and act like a concerned parent who is considering their facility and ask about security. They will tell you, after some evasion, that yes, they do have armed personnel on campus.

I love it how Specter almost always has a private source here or there for everything.

I don't - most of the time I'm providing cites, which is more than many here do and more than the press does. Nice of you to think so, though.

Here is a question for you.

Why have violent crime rates fallen in the past twenty years but mass shootings have become almost common?

The murder rate has fallen by almost half since 1992 and by 16.8 percent since 2002.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Concealed carry permits have increased by an enormous number but what that exact increase is I do not know. Something like five million more permits over the past 25 years seems to be the rough estimate.

All that extra firepower out there plus more civilians carrying and security at most large areas but still more mass shootings keep happening. At VA Tech we had armed security, campus police, Blacksburg Police and the fucking Corps of Cadets field stripping M-16s on the upper quad. All of that still didn't stop Cho.

The Corps of Cadets was not issued any ammo, per Federal laws, and their rifles were deactivated. Campus cops (and everyone else) were distracted and on the other side of the campus looking at the murders Cho had commited 2 HOURS earlier at the West Ambler Johnston Hall. They were out of position and they did not lock down the campus. Blacksburg PD had minimal response to what they thought was a cold scene as reported by the campus cops and was also out of position. There were no authorized armed personnel in or near Norris Hall when Cho started up again. Cites are in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

It should also be noted that mass shootings are NOT on an upswing or peaking or spiking. Cite: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/

No statistically discernible increase in mass shootings since 1980. Hard science, peer reviewed as it is extracted from the FBI's own statistics, so it's not just some random college-funded survey.

What's become more common, then? Wall-to-wall mediapalooza coverage. More attention is focused on the incidents (to boost media revenues, naturally) but there aren't actually more incidents.

Now who's dog whistling, again?