Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

12-14-2012 , 05:22 PM
How did you embed that tweet's hashtag?
12-14-2012 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
IIRC the gun nut crowd was all too happy to run around shouting how 9/11 never would have happened with armed passengers basically instantaneously.

They don't want to talk about gun policy after mass shootings and tragedies because the link between stupid/nonexistent gun policy and people/children senselessly dying is most salient at those moments.

I mean their response to mass shootings happening constantly in our society and having become basically an accepted part of living in America is...more guns. Really.
This is a solid post. Especially the bolded.
12-14-2012 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
How did you embed that tweet's hashtag?
Dunno. I just copied it all.

Maybe the embedding happened automatically due to the "editor mode" setting here?
12-14-2012 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biesterfield
Yes, people kill people. Guns just make it incredibly easy and efficient for someone to do so.

"if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?" - Aaron Sorkin.

By the way, I'd like a gun nut to try to still defend the second amendment for me.
firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

USA#1 = 9.00
All those countries combined = 16.65

(mind, not all from the same year)
12-14-2012 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis
This is 100% false. The "gun culture" right now is exploding with furious anger and sickness over this. Its all over every gun forum, facebook page, twitter etc.
I bet they're just about angry enought right now to shoot someone.
12-14-2012 , 05:28 PM
GJGE media getting the shooter's name wrong.
12-14-2012 , 05:29 PM
Cnn interviews third grader. Please kill yourself cnn.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...ng-witness.cnn
12-14-2012 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynton
David Dayen ‏@ddayen I don't know what the response should be to the #CTshooting, but I know that frontiersmen who lived 230 years ago should determine it
A+
12-14-2012 , 05:29 PM
Owned.
12-14-2012 , 05:31 PM
Going back to the point of Low Key and my point of neither of us being a psychologist, I think the point of General Tsao "more guns, arm everyone, less mass shooting" point comes from a want of a lot of people to be the action hero. They'd love to be John McClane or whatever and fantasize about disarming/killing the villain and saving the day.
12-14-2012 , 05:32 PM
Mark Kelly (former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' husband):

I just woke up in my hotel room in Beijing, China, to learn that another mass shooting has taken place - this time at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims and the entire community of Newtown, CT. I just spoke to Gabby, and she sends her prayers from Tucson.

As we mourn, we must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right. This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait.



Let's hope this incident is the impetus that helps to alter the 2nd Amendment to fit in today's 21st century.

This an outcome rational, forward thinking Americans can all hope for.
12-14-2012 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPHoya
"no federal law" means precisely what it says; Connecticut's laws are not federal laws, obviously

Also wrong re: M16, the AR-15 was designated M16 by the military when introduced. If the commercial model used here - no idea how we know which iteration was used - was only semi-automatic, you're technically right because this would have been a semi-automatic rather than fully-automatic design, but if we want to split hairs the receiver is identical - in fact most of the weapon is identical - and can easily be converted to fully automatic for minimal expense. For that matter you can convert caliber, etc., with the same receiver very easily.

EDIT: Point being, this is an M16 that in its commercial legal availability is not fully automatic. Better now? Pretty irrelevant point.
It's not irrelevant. Your implication is that a commercial AR15 is the same gun that the US Army issues to its soldiers. It's not. The difference between semi-auto (civilian) and full auto (Army) is pretty big. The fact that he could modify it to be fully auto is irrelevant unless he actually did so.

And why harp on the weapon anyway. If he killed the same number of people, but used a lever action rifle designed in 1873, it would be better?

12-14-2012 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Fox news coverage is like unironically vastly superior to CNN right now.
You mean the guy seriously advocating armed guards in all elementary schools?
12-14-2012 , 05:33 PM
holy crap @ Low Key's performance ITT. I mean, wowowowow
12-14-2012 , 05:34 PM
Then they end up shooting a family member by accident instead. Or committing suicide with it.
12-14-2012 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Going back to the point of Low Key and my point of neither of us being a psychologist, I think the point of General Tsao "more guns, arm everyone, less mass shooting" point comes from a want of a lot of people to be the action hero. They'd love to be John McClane or whatever and fantasize about disarming/killing the villain and saving the day.
another possibility:

people like tsao would rather read - Homicidal maniac killed after injuring one kindergartner, instead of 30 Dead Before Shooter Offs Himself.
12-14-2012 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Going back to the point of Low Key and my point of neither of us being a psychologist, I think the point of General Tsao "more guns, arm everyone, less mass shooting" point comes from a want of a lot of people to be the action hero. They'd love to be John McClane or whatever and fantasize about disarming/killing the villain and saving the day.
no, it comes from nearly all of these mass shootings happen in gun free zones learn your ****ing lesson already and please stop getting people murdered.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
It's not irrelevant. Your implication is that a commercial AR15 is the same gun that the US Army issues to its soldiers. It's not. The difference between semi-auto (civilian) and full auto (Army) is pretty big. The fact that he could modify it to be fully auto is irrelevant unless he actually did so.

And why harp on the weapon anyway. If he killed the same number of people, but used a lever action rifle designed in 1873, it would be better?

That weapon holds like ten rounds and takes at least thirty seconds to reload. An AR-15 holds thirty rounds and can be reloaded in under a second.

Had he used a lever action rifle he very likely would have killed fewer people.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Some reaction posted on Sullivan's blog. (By the way, this is why I like his blog: he does a good job of collecting diverse views.)

I bold the parts I find interesting.

Quote:
Fallows wonders when America will learn its lesson:
Guns don't attack children; psychopaths and sadists do. But guns uniquely allow a psychopath to wreak death and devastation on such a large scale so quickly and easily. America is the only country in which this happens again -- and again and again. You can look it up.
Ezra Klein adds:
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. But that’s unacceptable. As others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.
Eugene Volokh rounds up instances of citizens with guns confronting and stopping shooters:
[I]t appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he’s already done? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders? Again, we don’t know. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of all homicides in the U.S., and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander).
Tom Jacobs reviews research on gun control:
[I]f you hear the argument “Gun control wouldn’t have prevented tragedies like the one in Connecticut,” the answer is: That’s probably true. But it would lessen the likelihood of a lot of other, smaller tragedies that receive less publicity, but still cause enormous pain.
Frum weighs in:
A permissive gun regime is not the only reason that the United States suffers so many atrocities like the one in Connecticut. An inadequate mental health system is surely at least as important a part of the answer, as are half a dozen other factors arising from some of the deepest wellsprings of American culture. Nor can anybody promise that more rational gun laws would prevent each and every mass murder in this country. Gun killings do occur even in countries that restrict guns with maximum severity. But we can say that if the United States worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be many, many fewer atrocities like the one in Connecticut.

12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
um no. they are very different rifles. notably the m-16 is capable of fully automatic fire.

standard ar-15 is illegal in Connecticut.
Also you're wrong that the "standard" AR-15 is illegal in Connecticut. Full auto and selective fire (i.e. can burst fire if set to burst fire) rifles are considered to be "assault weapons" and are therefore banned. A semi-auto AR-15 is fine as long as it does not also have a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, threaded barrel or ****ing grenade launcher.

Or, in other words, non-tactical grip semi-auto AR-15 is legal.

Moreover, any pre-1994 (I think it's like September '94) model AR-15 that was fully built by whatever the cutoff is is excepted from the above, and so legal. They're called "pre ban" AR-15s. They will be, almost always, literally an M16.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Cnn interviews third grader. Please kill yourself cnn.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...ng-witness.cnn
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoltan
You mean the guy seriously advocating armed guards in all elementary schools?
oh. well.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

USA#1 = 9.00
All those countries combined = 16.65

(mind, not all from the same year)
Now subtract the 84 killed in the single mass shooting in Denmark last year, and get back to us.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
another possibility:

people like tsao would rather read - Homicidal maniac killed after injuring one kindergartner, instead of 30 Dead Before Shooter Offs Himself.
This never happens though. My entire point is that the first scenario is complete fantasy, you're just proving it for me. Yes, it exists in movies and TV. Bruce Willis can do it. The average person? Never happens.

Tsao, that last post of yours is a new low. I guess that all the gun free zones I live in in Canada are just getting EVERYONE murdered, right? You're putting blood on the hands of people who think not putting guns in the teachers hands isn't a bright idea? Really? Mindblown.
12-14-2012 , 05:35 PM
just checked, the death toll in columbine was 15 including the shooters.

If our country doesn't make a change after this event today I have no hope for America.
12-14-2012 , 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
It's not irrelevant. Your implication is that a commercial AR15 is the same gun that the US Army issues to its soldiers. It's not. The difference between semi-auto (civilian) and full auto (Army) is pretty big. The fact that he could modify it to be fully auto is irrelevant unless he actually did so.
oh and 99% chance he didn't modify it, it's not just something anyone can do. it's basically easier to get a full auto rifle than to convert one from semi to full. doubt some 20 year old kid has the machining tools or knowledge to do it.

      
m