Connecticut School shooting!

[lotus503]

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?

I do think the media reports contribute significantly.

But I also see the first amendment as clearly defined, 2nd amendment is less defined, as you already cant have tanks, drones, biological, nuclear weapons.

I would fully support boycotting news agencies that nationally report these crimes. But no, I don't think you can remove the right for them to do so.

But defining your right to bear arms as gun with a 5 round capacity, absent of other alternatives I'd support that.

 

[nehalem256]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Arming_in_Norway_and_through_the_Internet

Looks like Norway has more stringent gun control law than America. Didn't stop a guy from killing 69 people in a mass shooting.

Also keep in mind that the population of Norway is 1/60th of the US. Which means you chance of dying in a mass shooting in the last 50 years is probably less in the US than Norway.

 

[Farmer]

I do think the media reports contribute significantly.

But I also see the first amendment as clearly defined, 2nd amendment is less defined, as you already cant have tanks, drones, biological, nuclear weapons.

I would fully support boycotting news agencies that nationally report these crimes. But no, I don't think you can remove the right for them to do so.

But defining your right to bear arms as gun with a 5 round capacity, absent of other alternatives I'd support that.

Just as you can define the right to bear arms as the right to own "firearms with a 5 round capacity," I can just as easily define the right to free speech as the right to broadcast only to local regions, or broadcast news only to those immediately affected by it.

As I see it, it is arbitrary why you would choose to narrowly define one liberty, but not another. It is a slippery slope.

 

[Geosurface]

If my kid drowns I'll be less sad than if a loon shoots her? I think not.

Dead is dead. True equivalency.

 

[lotus503]

Just as you can define the right to bear arms as the right to own "firearms with a 5 round capacity," I can just as easily define the right to free speech as the right to broadcast only to local regions, or broadcast news only to those immediately affected by it.

As I see it, it is arbitrary why you would choose to narrowly define one liberty, but not another. It is a slippery slope.

I agree it's a slippery slope, I also want to commend you on a thoughtful discussion, it's a refreshing change from the typical On here.

I'm not sure any form of gun control is the solution or even a worthwhile path to a solution. I am sure the do nothing meme of some like GEO is not acceptable.

 

[nehalem256]

But defining your right to bear arms as gun with a 5 round capacity, absent of other alternatives I'd support that.

Wouldn't that ban essentially all modern handguns?

Are you planning to confiscate all existing handguns with more capacity than that?

 

[Geosurface]

Btw, though I've never owned a firearm... If I do it will be a small, basic pistol with a small capacity. I see no appeal to AR-15s and shit.

I also see no appeal to alcohol, cigarettes, soap operas or drugs. Tattoos puzzle me also.

My belief in personal freedoms extends beyond my own narrow self-interest and yours should too.

 

[lotus503]

If my kid drowns I'll be less sad than if a loon shoots her? I think not.

Dead is dead. True equivalency.

If my one if my kids drowned in a pool accident I'd be devastated and heartbroken, if they were murdered In connecticut i would also be devastated and heartbroken. In both cases I'd be looking at ways to stop others from going through similar pain.

Be it code changes for pool fences or gun control.

That does not make an accidental drowning and murder equivalent.

 

[lotus503]

Wouldn't that ban essentially all modern handguns?

Are you planning to confiscate all existing handguns with more capacity than that?

It's not a plan of action it's an example.

 

[waggy]

If my one if my kids drowned in a pool accident I'd be devastated and heartbroken, if they were murdered In connecticut i would also be devastated and heartbroken. In both cases I'd be looking at ways to stop others from going through similar pain.

Be it code changes for pool fences or gun control.

That does not make an accidental drowning and murder equivalent.

this is a good point.

you would want code changes to make sure a swimming pool that was not wired or plumbed right fixed. and those swimming pools that are not right fixed. You wouldn't be calling for the ban of swimming pools since it wasn't the pool that killed the child but someone messing it up.

i feel the same way. it's the same way about guns. i don't want guns banned. they didn't kill anyone and never have. its the person controlling the gun who has a broken brain taht did it. i want them fixed and us as a nation to understand we can't sweep mental illness under the table.

 

[spidey07]

A gun with a 5 round magazine is stupid for defense purposes.

Than god I stocked up on 30 round mags. Have a hundred of them.

But when the victims aren't able to shoot back? That's when a 5 round mag would be little deferent and only harms legitimate defense purposes.

 

[lotus503]

Btw, though I've never owned a firearm... If I do it will be a small, basic pistol with a small capacity. I see no appeal to AR-15s and shit.

I also see no appeal to alcohol, cigarettes, soap operas or drugs. Tattoos puzzle me also.

My belief in personal freedoms extends beyond my own narrow self-interest and yours should too.

I do own a few guns and have enjoyed shooting all types ARs are fun to shoot.

I have smoked, watched reality TV, done drugs and have a tattoo.

I think personal freedom extends to both people who own guns and people who are killed by them.

If your interested in preserving personal freedom you should consider ways to better extend them to people who are murdered by rampage killers.

 

[spidey07]

I do own a few guns and have enjoyed shooting all types ARs are fun to shoot.

I have smoked, watched reality TV, done drugs and have a tattoo.

I think personal freedom extends to both people who own guns and people who are killed by them.

If your interested in preserving personal freedom you should consider ways to better extend them to people who are murdered by rampage killers.

Glad you agree. There shouldn't be any gun free zones and all have the right to defend their life no matter where they are.

Ever wonder why the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

 

[lotus503]

this is a good point.

you would want code changes to make sure a swimming pool that was not wired or plumbed right fixed. and those swimming pools that are not right fixed. You wouldn't be calling for the ban of swimming pools since it wasn't the pool that killed the child but someone messing it up.

i feel the same way. it's the same way about guns. i don't want guns banned. they didn't kill anyone and never have. its the person controlling the gun who has a broken brain taht did it. i want them fixed and us as a nation to understand we can't sweep mental illness under the table.

I agree and I personally do not want to ban guns or even control them. But I also don't want these types of crimes to just be acceptable byproducts if personal freedom.

But rather than discuss ways to stop these sorts of crimes folks like GEO just want to chalk it up to acceptable loss.

I'm here to say its not acceptable and absent of other solutions gun control is acceptable.

You would think this would create a sense of desire to be creative in dealing with the problem vs. reducing gun freedoms. Instead we get a lot of do nothing rants.

 

[lotus503]

Glad you agree. There shouldn't be any gun free zones and all have the right to defend their life no matter where they are.

Ever wonder why the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

I think putting armed guards in schools and other high probability targets would help, we just have to find a way to pay for it.

 

[waggy]

I agree and I personally do not want to ban guns or even control them. But I also don't want these types of crimes to just be acceptable byproducts if personal freedom.

But rather than discuss ways to stop these sorts of crimes folks like GEO just want to chalk it up to acceptable loss.

I'm here to say its not acceptable and absent of other solutions gun control is acceptable.

You would think this would create a sense of desire to be creative in dealing with the problem vs. reducing gun freedoms. Instead we get a lot of do nothing rants.

...

at first i was going to say it's not a gun control issue and it's a mental health issue (wich i really really believe). But thinking about it the family knew he had mental health issues. they knew he had problems yet had guns available for him to steal and why the fuck where they not locked up then?

I guess that brings up a issue. should people that have a family member with a mental illness be able to have guns? Why are not doing more for people with mental illness.

someone on a another site (if i mentioned it i would get banned for it) linked http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html this was pretty fucking eye opening.

 

[lotus503]

...

at first i was going to say it's not a gun control issue and it's a mental health issue (wich i really really believe). But thinking about it the family knew he had mental health issues. they knew he had problems yet had guns available for him to steal and why the fuck where they not locked up then?

I guess that brings up a issue. should people that have a family member with a mental illness be able to have guns? Why are not doing more for people with mental illness.

someone on a another site (if i mentioned it i would get banned for it) linked http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html this was pretty fucking eye opening.

I think it's a mental health issue too, as well as a byproduct of our sensationalistic culture. When I read headlines like

"2 killed and 4 wounded"

I know there is some sick fuck out there looking at it as some score to beat.

I'd love for the NRA and anti gun Lobby groups organize to Boycott the media over the reporting of these crimes.

I'd love for the NRA to fund lobby for better mental health legislation.

I applaud anyone who has offered suggestions on how to resolve this type of crime even if I don't agree with them.

At least they acknowledge the issue.

 

[dmens]

Btw, though I've never owned a firearm... If I do it will be a small, basic pistol with a small capacity. I see no appeal to AR-15s and shit.

I also see no appeal to alcohol, cigarettes, soap operas or drugs. Tattoos puzzle me also.

My belief in personal freedoms extends beyond my own narrow self-interest and yours should too.

Yeah well if you actually shot a small pistol or revolver you'd know how difficult it is to consistently hit a perfectly still man-sized target at 25 yards.

But hey, feel free to limit yourself with a barely adequate, hard to shoot firearm that is more of a liability than a tool once you missed 6 times.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah well if you actually shot a small pistol or revolver you'd know how difficult it is to consistently hit a perfectly still man-sized target at 25 yards.

This is of course only a problem if you are intending to hit targets at a range of 25 yards. Which most people engaging in defensive actions are not trying to do.

 

[Sonikku]

What is up with the Media lately? They have blatantly ignored the victims in this tragedy; The gun owners.

 

[nehalem256]

Glad you agree. There shouldn't be any gun free zones and all have the right to defend their life no matter where they are.

Ever wonder why the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

Because most places that are declared "gun free zones" are enclosed areas with lots of people present.

If you wanted to commit a mass shooting wouldn't an enclosed area with lots of people present be the ideal location?

 

[dmens]

This is of course only a problem if you are intending to hit targets at a range of 25 yards. Which most people engaging in defensive actions are not trying to do.

For a novice, even getting two chest shots on a person at 10 yards is not easy with a subcompact/snub-nose. Add in low-light (most defense situations occur at night), adrenaline, etc. There's a reason veteran shooters shy away from those types of guns for concealed carry.

Either way, it is absurd to limit all civilians to puff guns because some people hold delusions about their godly shooting abilities.

 

[Darwin333]

I think this is a completely misguided view, with respect to the way mentally ill people are treated.

As yet we don't know a lot about Adam Lanza, but James Holmes, for example, was apparently perceived as a highly dangerous, mentally ill man by the entire staff of the U of CO school of psychiatry, yet they could take no action to get him committed. I think that's wrong, and if they had, he would have harmed nobody. I myself defended a mentally ill man who was put on a 72-hour hold because he was severely depressed with signs of psychosis. He could not he committed past the hold period, and ended up drowning his 6-month-old baby. I could list many more examples, but one that comes to mind is this kid, who killed two people after his parent spent years trying to get him help for his increasingly crazy and violent behavior - http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...store-slayings-Suspect-s-creepy-past-recalled

I would like to see some reforms to these laws - accompanied by judicial scrutiny to protect the patients' rights - because at this point we err so strongly in favor of patients' rights that it's often impossible to protect the public from violent crazies.

I almost always err on the side of individual freedom but this is one instance that I absolutely agree with you. There just aren't many methods to keep people that are extremely likely to be a harm to themselves or others due to mental illness off the streets. I don't have the answer, and I highly doubt our politicians can come up with one, but I bet that mental health experts could come up with something that we can at least start to debate about.

 

[nehalem256]

For a novice, even getting two chest shots on a person at 10 yards is not easy with a subcompact/snub-nose. Add in low-light (most defense situations occur at night), adrenaline, etc. There's a reason veteran shooters shy away from those types of guns for concealed carry.

Either way, it is absurd to limit all civilians to puff guns because some people hold delusions about their godly shooting abilities.

I am betting most people are not "concealed carrying" AR-15 eithers.

 

[Darwin333]

Because most places that are declared "gun free zones" are enclosed areas with lots of people present.

If you wanted to commit a mass shooting wouldn't an enclosed area with lots of people present be the ideal location?

Bullshit. There are metric fucktons of crowded places that are not legally "gun free zones" that people mass shootings rarely occur in.

Gun free zones are basically limited to schools and maybe .gov buildings? I can name dozens of enclosed areas with crowds of people off the top of my head that are not gun free zones.