Another mass shooting in America

[Randy]

Alright, well then we have some common ground. I agree mental health isn't being sufficiently addressed (although I still lack a personal answer to that) but there are some dangerous and easily exploited loopholes in our current gun laws.

Fair point on the 'Ft. Hood Shooting'. For what you describe, yes, most of the people on the base aren't carrying a weapon on their person but you also acknowledge that there are weapons on the base and I'm sure there are also guards/MPs scattered throughout the base. Also, if keeping a weapon on you in a military base is such a difficult thing, how did he make it so far into the facility with them on his person?

I updated my post a little bit from probably the time you first saw it. I added:

Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.

I'd be curious about your take on that.

 

[ST3MOCON]

The first 10 amendments count for all man. Black, white and everyone in between. Those are the original 10 amendments. I caution anyone that saying any of those rights are not equally important to eachother. Free speech due process are other big rights given to us. I notice how many people complain on here about people's Due process being violated. Take away one right and we can take away others. Whether they take away the others is arelavent. The point is if that now they know they can take away your rights. Now they can wrongfully detain you. When I say "they" I mean anyform of our government, (local,state,federal). I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it. I also hope that FLlint someday changes his mentality over our rights in the bill of rights but I think it's save to say it may be to late. Don't worry guys they will pass bans on guns. They will eventually ban all guns. Just know that when they do, they have taken away one of your rights whether you use it or not. Excuse any grammar errors I am little late for work. Best wishes to everyone. Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Assuming you were chiming in based on flint's post mentioning gun ownership as more of a "privilege than a right" (contextually, that's what it looks like), it's a valid point but tone deaf. Yes, on the issue of semantics, the beginning of the Constitution is the "Bill of Rights". To that end, you're right.

That's actually exactly what I was doing. Someone brought up that the right to bear arms was a Right granted by the Constitution. Flint argued that it's more of a privilege than a right. I pointed out that so far as the constitution is concerned, it is 100% a Right. That, I thought, was the end of it (supported by Flint conceding that point, I assumed). When FPS responded to that, I assumed he was still following that line of discussion, and tried to point out that the conclusions he was drawing didn't logically follow the points I had been attempting to make.

because the Constitution doesn't include or exclude certain weapons, what's allowed and not allowed is defined by law. The "privilege" lies in what guns you're allowed to own, who's allowed to carry them and where. Felons and mentally ill can't legally own them, people on parole for violent crime can't own them (or any crime, in a lot of cases), you can't carry a gun with you into a lot of places (last I knew, NYC has a ban on CCW or open carry, plus you're not allowed to bring a gun into a lot of public/government buildings [court, etc.]), you can't own a bazooka with ammunition, you can't own an uzi, you can't build a pipebomb, etc.). By the time it's said and done, the Constitution could still read "right to bear arms" and that could be restricted down to muskets, with that hollow definition of "a right" still intact.

Completely agreed, and it was never my intention to imply that I thought otherwise.

I found your response to be obtuse because you're clearly smart enough to know what fps was inferring

I must not be, since unless he chimes in saying otherwise, I thought thought that the parts of my post he was rebutting were the parts he quoted directly, not everything in the post including the picture.

yet you chose to stick directly to the strict definition of "a right" and used your sarcasm to imply you "had no idea what he's talking about".

I stuck directly to the strict definition of a right, because I thought that what was still being discussed was whether or not is is a right, and what that right may or may not entail. Given my interpretation of how the discussion was headed, it wasn't that I had "no idea what he was talking about," but rather that I didn't know why he was continuing to pursue a line of the discussion that I thought had been closed to everyone's satisfaction, or why he was putting words in my mouth based on points I had never been making to being with. I of course can see now how he was responding to the picture and not what I had said directly and therefore wasn't willfully putting words in my mouth, but we know what they say about hindsight.

 

[ghostred7]

Also, if keeping a weapon on you in a military base is such a difficult thing, how did he make it so far into the facility with them on his person?

I'd be curious about your take on that.

Never said it was difficult....saying "it isn't allowed." Liken it to the gun-free zones. It was (and maybe still is) very easy to travel around w/ a firearm on base against the rules/laws/etc. The knowledge is that ALL potential firearms, except those used by the MPs, are under heavily secured lock & key...you can't just walk to the armory and get it (each unit has an arms room). In fact, I'd actually have been a little worried if our base would of been attacked b/c it'd take a lot of process, phone calls, etc to even get INTO our arms room, much less pull a M16/M60/whatever off of the racks. This knowledge probably helped comfort the Ft. Hood shooter.

For the stand-off position thingy....I answered my belief on that above...but here again: I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c they follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation (at least in their mind).

 

[Randy]

I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it.

Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.

So you believe there should be zero restrictions? Mentally ill and felons legally owning guns? Because from what you're saying, the law should be taken as exactly what it says on the paper.

As I said earlier, and I'm not trying to be cute, the Constitution also allowed for slavery. Do you consider that to have been a "right we had taken away"?

I'd, personally, be a little careful about saying "gun owners are not evil people" like you can speak for everybody. By nature, no, I don't believe owning a gun makes them evil or a person who owns a gun does so because they're evil. But to imply that you and all gun owners are of the same mind and of the same intention is... reaching.

 

[Randy]

For the stand-off position thingy....I answered my belief on that above...but here again: I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c they follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation (at least in their mind).

Good points all around, but I respectfully disagree here. If a person is suicidal, there's nothing indicating to me that the fear of somebody else being armed plays a significant role in their choice of venue. They're suicidal, they're planning on dying during/after their attack. If anything, the correlation is between public places being 'gun-free zones' because they house lots of people and shooters picking public places because they're densely populated.

Also, the details are still emerging in the Newtown case, but the choice of venues seems to be linked to the actual issue with the shooter. The Ft. Hood shooter picked his base, the Columbine shooters picked the school where they were being bullied, by some accounts the Colorado shooter was mentally ill and was on some kind of 'trip' about the Joker (hence the opening of Batman), etc. Nothing there indicating that the majority reason people shoot up a place is because they don't think anybody will be armed. It's because they're insane and they're looking to take out their frustration on the people they think wronged them. In that sense, it's not much different than any murder. The victims are random, the venues are not.

Going back to your point about people targeting "gun-free zones", I don't think being a "not-gun free zone" would make the place any safer. A darkened movie theater? I lose my wallet in a seat easy enough, forget little kids or whoever else picking around in the dark while I'm watching my movie. But that might just be paranoia on my part.

 

[ghostred7]

Good points all around, but I respectfully disagree here. If a person is suicidal, there's nothing indicating to me that the fear of somebody else being armed plays a significant role in their choice of venue. They're suicidal, they're planning on dying during/after their attack. If anything, the correlation is between public places being 'gun-free zones' because they house lots of people and shooters picking public places because they're densely populated.

Also, the details are still emerging in the Newtown case, but the choice of venues seems to be linked to the actual issue with the shooter. The Ft. Hood shooter picked his base, the Columbine shooters picked the school where they were being bullied, by some accounts the Colorado shooter was mentally ill and was on some kind of 'trip' about the Joker (hence the opening of Batman), etc. Nothing there indicating that the majority reason people shoot up a place is because they don't think anybody will be armed. It's because they're insane and they're looking to take out their frustration on the people they think wronged them. In that sense, it's not much different than any murder. The victims are random, the venues are not.

Going back to your point about people targeting "gun-free zones", I don't think being a "not-gun free zone" would make the place any safer. A darkened movie theater? I lose my wallet in a seat easy enough, forget little kids or whoever else picking around in the dark while I'm watching my movie. But that might just be paranoia on my part.

I'm not [intentionally] saying the gun-free zone is the motivator, but I do believe that being a "safe zone" could still play into the execution of it based on, pardon the statement, target of opportunity. The Columbine kids could of as easily waited outside...but instead went behind the closed doors (example: in GA, you're allowed to have a firearm in your car in the school parking lot while in transit) b/c it was safer for them inside. Ft. Hood guy....already made the statements there. CO shooter, again...parking lot vs. closed theater...still fits the "zone" mold.

I'm running to shop now....but I *DO* believe there is some mental health reform that will help a lot more than anything that further restricts healthy, law-abiding citizens, from executing their as-is-now rights. The firearms are in circulation....once that happens, they will ALWAYS be in circulation, no matter what laws are put in place. The amnesty program in Haiti was supposed to be like this (no citizens w/ guns, can turn them in to us (UN Peacekeepers: US, Djibouti, etc). They never all got turned in....only the citizens that wanted to do "the right thing." 3 days after the amnesty program, I had to secure a scene where a loony guy killed his neighbor's entire family....over bread (that's what started the argument). The neighbor just turned in his family firearms 2 days earlier (1 AK-47 & 1 12ga pump shotgun) whereas the guy that did the killing didn't. I'll NEVER forget that scene.

 

[narad]

How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?

Exactly, and have you heard one reasonable suggestion to this that sounds like it would make a significant impact? I haven't. It's funny too as mental health is such a fuzzy concept. A few decades ago being homosexual was considered the result of a mental malfunction. A few more decades back and if your son was acting up a bit - fix his behavior with a lobotomy! Truly one of the worst sciences! And now the logic seems to be: "if someone were to commit a mass murder, that person must have mental health issues, because a sane person would not act in that way." We have plenty of awful vices to motivate such crime without being insane, and when exactly did it become easier to measure, monitor, and adjust what people think, instead of simply restricting their access to the tools required for efficient mass slaughter?

I can see how restricting guns would still allow these violent occurrences, but to me the loopholes associated with gun reform are insignificantly small compared to the absolute incompetence of mental health services in the US.

 

[synrgy]

Never say 'never'.

A legitimate 'buyback' program would very likely put a significant dent in whatever is currently in 'circulation'.

 

[Randy]

NRA’s Wayne LaPierre: Put ‘armed police officers’ in every school

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like ‘Bullet Storm,’ ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ ‘Mortal Combat,’ and ‘Splatterhouse,’ ”

Yep, the "don't blame guns" guy just blamed video games.

 

[synrgy]

'd me on that update!

Can't say I'm the least bit surprised. It's always video games, violent media, and aggressive music. It's never 'this mentally unstable person was easily able to acquire the necessary tools to rapidly kill a room full of children'.

If he had a band, it'd be called Scapegoat.

 

[Randy]

Well, while I'm in the business of ing (since this point will inevitably come up) these are the small government people (LaPierre famously called federal agents "jack booted thugs") who now want armed police in EVERY school.

Bear in mind, armed police in every school = need to purchase more guns = more money for the companies the NRA lobbies for.

 

[AxeHappy]

Mortal Kombat you son of a bitch!

 

[synrgy]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed the inherent hypocrisy between 'small government' and 'put an armed cop in every school'.

*edit*

 

[Murdstone]

So apparently there was just a shooting half an hour away from me in Altoona, a few people dead including a state trooper. Ruh roh.

 

[synrgy]

^Confirmed:

DA: 4 dead, 3 troopers hurt in shootings - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror

 

[renzoip]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed the inherent hypocrisy between 'small government' and 'put an armed cop in every school'.

Well, the only thing that conservatives love more than their so called "freedom and small government" is "national security". The later will most likely be favored at the over the former. The thing is, they make others carry the burden of their "national security" while they conveniently get to keep their "freedom and small government", that they so feel entitled to for being "responsible citizens", as if that was something they weren't supposed to be in the first place.

 

[Randy]

^Confirmed:

DA: 4 dead, 3 troopers hurt in shootings - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror

If only those three troopers had guns this wouldn't have... oh wait.

 

[Murdstone]

If only those three troopers had guns this wouldn't have... oh wait.

First thing I thought. Unfortunately I doubt this will make any ripples due to it being a smaller happening compared to the last few weeks.

 

[Randy]

Well, my condolences to everyone involved.

I've been so burned up over this shooting stuff over the last week, I think I came off a little calloused about today's events. So my apologies there.

Let's hope, regardless of "which side is right" we do something about this soon.