Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:43 am

The real winners are gun dealers who will reap windfall profits after FOX News and talk radio once again raise fears that Obama is coming after our guns. According to the NRA's Orwellian logic, the fact that Obama did nothing about gun control in his first term is proof that he's coming after our guns in his second term, despite the fact that he actually expanded gun rights in his first term. Obama must be the only politician in American history that's gotten an "F" rating from both the NRA and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Could this all be a racket where the gun lobby pays right-wing pundits to scare people into going out and buying guns?

Here are some facts you probably won't hear from the National Rifle Association: The Second Amendment is fading as a wedge issue in American politics, gun owners are winning, and President Barack Obama is doing little to alter the scales.

Nearly one in two Americans now have a gun in their home and just 26 percent favor an all-out ban on handguns, down from 60 percent in 1959, according to a recent Gallup survey. The number of Americans who support tighter gun laws is at an all-time low.

And Obama?

Gun talk has been almost anathema at the White House. Obama signed a bill in 2009 that allows people to carry loaded guns into most national parks; in 2011, he largely avoided a discussion -- to the anger of many activists -- about strengthening gun laws following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Obama received a failing grade from the nation’s preeminent gun control group, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

We couldn’t find a word about gun policies on Obama’s re-election website.

"The gun control debate is over," said Rick Wilson, a GOP political consultant. "We live in a country where guns are a fundamental part of mainstream American culture. The moment I saw that Walmart now sells AR-15s (a type of semi-automatic rifle), I knew the debate was over."

Yet, you won’t hear much of that as the NRA campaigns against Obama in 2012.

In a new campaign mailer -- the contents of which we expect to be repeated in emails and at dinner tables -- the gun rights group is casting Obama as a gun control crusader who is "coming for our guns."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -our-guns/
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:45 am

Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"

That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:25 am

Daisy wrote:
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"

That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.

Best Xmas present for the little rug rat at 5 or 6? Form fitted Kevlar vests.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:32 am

Daisy wrote:Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.

I recognize the 'jest', but just a quiet reminder: there are those of us for whom this issue has become all too real and have lost a loved one because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. Take away the ease of murder and you eliminate MANY (not all) murders. The vast majority of gun murders are committed by cowards/pychopaths who would NEVER be able to kill someone any other way. Guns make murder so easy that it only takes 'disgruntlement' to commit it in many (most?!) cases. I don't advocate draconian Gun Control, but we now find ourselves in a state of 'draconian' Gun UNcontrol.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 am

jazzcyclist wrote: Could this all be a racket where the gun lobby pays right-wing pundits to scare people into going out and buying guns?


The MSM play a part in this. A couple of years ago, NPR had segment on All Things Considered talking to people about this very topic, with some saying they had to buy them and....and never once in the whole story did the fact that Obama has zero interest in gun control come up.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:09 am

Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...

I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:20 am

preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...

I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. . . . Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.

I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.

It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:30 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...

I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. . . . Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.

I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.

It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.

Marlow, that's YOUR OPINION of their lack of character - a word for whose definition has been mangled to the point of being lost. If a person does that which a government does, is that person without character and the government with character? If the person uses a gun and the government uses a drone or cruise missile, which is the coward? If a person blows up themselves and a bus and a government uses an assassin's bullet from 500m away, who is the coward? You're being anything but objective, imo.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:36 am

Daisy wrote:
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"

That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.


Are you suggesting you haven't got one in your desk drawer :shock: ? Most disappointing.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:38 am

preston wrote:Marlow, that's YOUR OPINION.
You're being anything but objective, imo [in MY OPINION].

You just 'negated' your own statement. Funny how that works, huh?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:51 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Marlow, that's YOUR OPINION.
You're being anything but objective, imo [in MY OPINION].

You just 'negated' your own statement. Funny how that works, huh?

Marlow, if you want to continue your simple semantic games, fine; but, I never implied that it was anything other than my opinion (note my liberal use of quotes and MY OPINION). However, you would like us to believe that you're right; that the killers are cowards and it can't be questioned... and I'm just saying that's short-sighted and narrow.

One of my favorite movies was Se7en...

William Somerset: If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations, but he's not the devil. He's just a man.

William Somerset: It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs, it takes effort and work.
David Mills: We're talking about who are mentally ill. We are talking about people who are fucking crazies.
William Somerset: No...no...we're not...no
David Mills: Yes. Today...
William Somerset: We are talking about everyday life here. You...you can't afford to be this naive.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 am

preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...

I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.

Preston, I couldn't have said it better myself. The whole time I was reading Marlow's post, I kept thinking what a frivilous use of the word "coward". But I also remember that Marlow's considers the 9/11 terrorists cowards too. To me a coward is someone who does something knowing full well that they won't suffer consequences for their actions that they would never consider doing otherwise. IMO, losing one's life is the ultimate cosequence that a person can pay. The SEAL team that conducted the OBL raid possessed a certain level of bravery because they had no idea what consequences awaited them. However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:03 am

Marlow wrote:I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.

It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.

But most of these nutjob killers like the one who struck in Oregon last night don't do it from a safe distance. He had to know that the whole thing would end with either him getting killed or spending the rest of his life in jail. However, I will agree with you that snipers, who kill from hidden places or from a half mile away, are cowards. By the way, do you really feel any different about killers who murder their victims at close range by stabbing or bludgeoning them to death?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:03 am

jazzcyclist wrote:However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.

They are following orders, I'm not sure that makes them cowards.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:11 am

I don't know why people do what they do and though I don't see myself as defeatist or cynical, and I really don't try too hard to figure out why? I really don't care. I think anyone who tests positive for anything that they took should be banned. I don't care if it's cold medicine or an unmarked supplement. Rules say, or said, you're responsible for what's in your body...your fault. Now, Pego feels differently and comes at it from a medical and pharmological understanding and wonders whether or not something is aiding or not. To me it doesn't matter. It only matters that a person had the opportunity to follow the rules and didn't.

The same goes with killing. I don't know why people do it and don't spend too much time trying to figure out why. For every person that is killed there is a high likelihood that someone will one day want retribution. It really doesn't much matter why and labeling a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" a coward is silly and not constructive. In many ways the life of a "terrorist" is actually rational - something Paul Revere, George Washington and a few other dead "Americans" would agree with.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:12 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.

They are following orders, I'm not sure that makes them cowards.

That didn't work for Nazi soldiers at Nuremburg.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:07 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.

They are following orders, I'm not sure that makes them cowards.

I don't see how "following orders" figures into this. Afterall, the 9/11 hijackers were just following OBL's orders. However, I will concede that drone operators aren't necessarily cowards, it's just that operating drones requires no courage and killing in this manner is something that cowards can do as effectively as the brave.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby TN1965 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:16 pm

Daisy wrote:
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"

That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.


I wonder where I can conceal my semiautomatic while I am running in the neighborhood park or trail. And where can I conceal it while I am swimming in a municipal pool?

I certainly would not want to carry the extra weight of a pistol during a marathon race. But then I would be announcing to the would-be criminals that I am an unarmed victim. Should I risk my life by running a marathon without my semiautomatic? Life is so full of tough questions.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:16 pm

preston wrote:I'm just saying that's short-sighted and narrow.

Surely you must grasp the irony of all your pronouncements . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:20 pm

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:I'm just saying that's short-sighted and narrow.

Surely you must grasp the irony of all your pronouncements . . .

I only grasp that you're over your head again, and you don't want to admit that you were silly to call killers cowards. Attack me if you must, as I've pointed out before, it's your M.O.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:40 pm

preston wrote:I only grasp that you're over your head again, and you don't want to admit that you were silly to call killers cowards. Attack me if you must, as I've pointed out before, it's your M.O.

Apparently the irony IS lost on you . . . oh well, it amuses me nonetheless, and we have re-arrived at the abrupt end of our path yet again. No :o there!
Peace out. :)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Wang Lung » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:27 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...

I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.

Preston, I couldn't have said it better myself. The whole time I was reading Marlow's post, I kept thinking what a frivilous use of the word "coward". But I also remember that Marlow's considers the 9/11 terrorists cowards too. To me a coward is someone who does something knowing full well that they won't suffer consequences for their actions that they would never consider doing otherwise. IMO, losing one's life is the ultimate cosequence that a person can pay. The SEAL team that conducted the OBL raid possessed a certain level of bravery because they had no idea what consequences awaited them. However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.


I know a few Airmen who do this for a living. Do you? Have you offered your assessment of their character to them? If not, I'd say you were a coward.
Wang Lung
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:43 am

Wang Lung wrote:I know a few Airmen who do this for a living. Do you? Have you offered your assessment of their character to them? If not, I'd say you were a coward.

The fact that all you have to offer to this thread is an ad hominem personal attack tells me all I need to know about you. Here's some advice for your future posts: Attack the message, not the messenger.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:46 am

Wang Lung wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling :? ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.

Preston, I couldn't have said it better myself. The whole time I was reading Marlow's post, I kept thinking what a frivilous use of the word "coward". But I also remember that Marlow's considers the 9/11 terrorists cowards too. To me a coward is someone who does something knowing full well that they won't suffer consequences for their actions that they would never consider doing otherwise. IMO, losing one's life is the ultimate cosequence that a person can pay. The SEAL team that conducted the OBL raid possessed a certain level of bravery because they had no idea what consequences awaited them. However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.


I know a few Airmen who do this for a living. Do you? Have you offered your assessment of their character to them? If not, I'd say you were a coward.

I guess you didn't or couldn't read the following where jazz says:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.

They are following orders, I'm not sure that makes them cowards.

I don't see how "following orders" figures into this. Afterall, the 9/11 hijackers were just following OBL's orders. However, I will concede that drone operators aren't necessarily cowards, it's just that operating drones requires no courage and killing in this manner is something that cowards can do as effectively as the brave.


So, defend your "friends", that's your prerogative, but read all of the comments and you will see that jazz qualified his answer. All that said, it takes ZERO courage to operate a joystick from hundreds of miles away. ZERO!
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:27 pm

preston wrote:So, defend your "friends", that's your prerogative, but read all of the comments and you will see that jazz qualified his answer. All that said, it takes ZERO courage to operate a joystick from hundreds of miles away. ZERO!


Although I understand the point, I wonder if it doesn't take a certain form of courage for at least certain joystick operators (depending on their philosophy and values), when they know that certain buttons they push will probably end up killing significantly more innocent people than the people they're ordered to kill.... I do find it sad that the media often mentions the success and glory of particular drone strikes in killing a suspected terrorist, but often glosses over the collateral damage of the multiple innocent civilians that were almost always also killed in the attack.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby bad hammy » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:26 pm

If mass killers were real men they'd use something a bit more sporting, like a knife or an axe. Only pussies use guns for this kind of work . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:12 am

bad hammy wrote:If mass killers were real men they'd use something a bit more sporting, like a knife or an axe. Only pussies use guns for this kind of work . . .

And, what would you know, "bad hammy" has a "real man" to admire...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 6520121214

A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country. ...

In 2010, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:09 am

bad hammy wrote:If mass killers were real men they'd use something a bit more sporting, like a knife or an axe. Only pussies use guns for this kind of work . . .

Well, I guess that depends on what the goal of the killer is. If it's to demostrate machismo, he should use his bare hands. On the other hand, if it's to wreak as much havoc as possible, he should use a bomb, a la Timothy McVeigh.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby guru » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:52 am

guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:00 am

Is mass murder now the cool thing to do for delusional nutjobs? Is there a copycat syndrome to this phenomenon?

Also, why hasn't Al Qaeda struck in this manner? Afterall, it's virtually impossible to prevent in an open society. Did they set the bar to high on 9/11/01 and now shooting a couple of dozen people seems to small for them?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Also, why hasn't Al Qaeda struck in this manner? Afterall, it's virtually impossible to prevent in an open society. Did they set the bar to high on 9/11/01 and now shooting a couple of dozen people seems to small for them?

Random civilian bombings continue apace in the Mid-East. Trying it here will get more 'response' than they can handle (though, if they thought they could get past Homeland Security, they'd certainly try). For all the ineptitude we accuse our gov't of, our intelligence apparatus is best in the world by far. Hundreds of attacks are secretly prevented every year. I had a 'classified security briefing' about a year after 9/11 and even I was astounded what we had in place and could do. That's after 20 years of dealing with spooks in the military. We are hyper-sophisticated.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:58 am

Mass Killers are not cowards, according to the pros they're failures. And, when you consider the direction in which society is headed (everyone expecting/demanding to be important or a bigshot of some sort [twitter,facebook, youtube, et.al] when it's impossible that they can/will be) ... expect many more mass killings, and hope that you and yours are not victims. But, it will happen again. And, again.

Here's an abstract on what the professionals have to say about it.
http://www.academia.edu/1199492/Hegemon ... ted_States


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 831_2.html
Serial killers, forensic psychiatrists say, derive sexual gratification from their killings. The Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, the John Wayne Gacys -- they don't want to be caught. They often enjoy taunting police. The violence is, in its own perverse way, about pleasure.

"Serial killers are more like drug addicts than anything else," Kaye says. "They need to ramp up the excitement each time, they're getting reinforcement from their acts. They're running on the dopamine side of the brain. They're running on highs."

It's not that way for mass killers -- guys who take out a gun and try to kill as many people as possible. They're not looking for highs -- they're depressed, angry and humiliated. They tend to be rejected in some romantic relationship, or are sexually incompetent, are paranoid, and their resentment builds. They develop shooting fantasies for months or years, stockpiling dreams and ammunition. The event that finally sets them off, Welner says, is usually anticlimactic -- an argument, a small personal loss that magnifies a sense of catastrophic failure.

"But they don't 'snap,' as you so often hear people say," Welner says. "It's more like a hinge swings open, and all this anger comes out."

They plan everything about the killings, he says, except how to get away.

"It's about suicide," Welner says. "It's about tying one's masculinity to destruction."

It's also rare for them to be truly psychotic, he says. Psychotics hear voices and people from outer space and talking dogs.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:01 am



It is totally incomrehensible to me that somebody would want to massacre a bunch of 5-year olds.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby guru » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:02 am

27 dead, 18 kids. Insanity
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:14 am

Pego wrote:


It is totally incomrehensible to me that somebody would want to massacre a bunch of 5-year olds.


Didn't you hear? They're *brave* individuals... :roll:
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:31 am

Marlow wrote:Random civilian bombings continue apace in the Mid-East. Trying it here will get more 'response' than they can handle (though, if they thought they could get past Homeland Security, they'd certainly try). For all the ineptitude we accuse our gov't of, our intelligence apparatus is best in the world by far. Hundreds of attacks are secretly prevented every year. I had a 'classified security briefing' about a year after 9/11 and even I was astounded what we had in place and could do. That's after 20 years of dealing with spooks in the military. We are hyper-sophisticated.

Al Qaeda doesn't have problems getting people in this country, it's just that all their people post-9/11 are incompetent. Have you forgotten about the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, etc.? Evidently, they lost their best and brightest on 9/11/01, so why do they give these nincompoops simpler assignments? Any useful idiot can fire a gun randomly into a crowd, but it takes a lot more intelligence to successfully build and detonate a bomb.

By the way, we'll never be able to keep bad guys out of this country as long as we have a porous southern border.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:50 am

JRM wrote:
Pego wrote:


It is totally incomrehensible to me that somebody would want to massacre a bunch of 5-year olds.


Didn't you hear? They're *brave* individuals... :roll:

I'm sure the killers think they are "brave"; that they finally "stood up" for themselves after being humiliated for the last time. Maybe they felt they were being "brave" to kill because their lover left or they lost their job or someone questioned one of their formulas on an internet messageboard. Nah, the messageboard guy would probably only get pissed; stewing and waiting for the next indignifying episode - maybe a late term paper. :roll:
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby gh » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:07 am

at this point I'm sure you'll understand why I'm locking this down for a day or two until the passion passes. I don't want to give anybody a forum to say something that will really piss me off.
gh
 
Posts: 46326
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:15 am

It seems that a lot of politicians are willing to review the politics of gun control/advocacy in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting. Something about the players talking seems to be different, but time will tell if anything changes.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:40 am

preston wrote:It seems that a lot of politicians are willing to review the politics of gun control/advocacy in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting. Something about the players talking seems to be different, but time will tell if anything changes.

Nothing much will change. We might get another assault weapon ban, but we all remember how easy that was to get around. Banning gun sales at gun shows would help as well. Now there's a drum beat about "the mentally ill" but that will soon fade as well. Most violence is not perpetrated by someone with a diagnosis but by someone with pent up rage triggered by something unpredictable. We're a violent society, with many stressors, and many angry inadequate folks. We can tighten access to guns, and tighten security at schools, but these incidents will continue. We have pretty well stopped Plane hijackings, government building killings, but that's a much narrower and doable problem.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests