Now is the time

Posted by: steveg

Now is the time - 12/14/12 10:45 AM

More than two dozen people killed — most of them elementary school children — in Connecticut. The Administration must make the issue of gun control a top priority. Now! The election is over and there's no need to worry about ruffled feathers. It's time to take the NRA on. It's time for all of us to become pro-life. Not in the abortion context, but to protect the lives of our brothers and sisters and kids from the out of control gun violence in this country.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 11:02 AM

Well, I say let them exercise their 2nd Amendment rights !!

Anyone who wants to carry a muzzle loading musket SHOULD be allowed to !! Nothing more ! wink

Naw, they need to limit clip sizes - 6 no more. ... course creeps like this guy would violate the law anyway... what's a gun infraction compared to mass murder! mad

BUT - Agreed - something concrete needs to be done - STAT !!
Posted by: Mike

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 12:45 PM

There are voices who suggest arming teachers, citing those incidents in Florida where gun-toting citizens have foiled armed robberies etc.
Here in Illinois soon it'll be legal to carry a concealed weapon, just like in numerous (over 20?) other states.
Is this where we're headed?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 01:11 PM

The Repugnican Michigan legislature passed a law yesterday that allows licensed gun owners to carry in schools, arenas, and other public venues. Feel safer now? This is madness!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 02:50 PM

Insane: click.

More insane: lick

There really is no hope for this country. We're going down the primrose path to political hell.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 03:01 PM

Both are predictable. Sad, ain't it?
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 03:13 PM

The worst part of it is this...
I only feel the need to own a gun because of these gun nuts and their need to own guns. I have to be able to protect my family... so this year I have been contemplating a weapon.

Not a rifle for hunting or a side arm to practice with at the range. A "Get Thee behind me Satan" gun.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 03:17 PM

Been there. Done that. Won't do it again.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Now is the time - 12/14/12 03:30 PM

Any story link from the Drudge Report will result in a tirade of comments attacking Obama. Whether it's a tragic story like this from CBS, ABC, BBC, Yayoo News, … whatever, their comments pages get filled with Drudge-crowd hate.

I was reading the comments on the CBS News story of the shooting and the wackos were blaming Obama for another staged gun tragedy event to seize guns. Or this shooting was due to CT's school union thugs. Or the shooter must be a Liberal because he's from liberal CT. Or this occurred because Obama has removed prayer from the schools. Or this is a race incident because of actor Jamie Fox saying something about "shooting all the whites he can" ….

Sad.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Now is the time - 12/15/12 06:03 AM

Well, I thought it interesting that he kept wiping his eye when I didn't see any tears. But he did look sincere and ilm sure he was. A man would have to be.

But this comes shortly after those bozo DJs from Australia gave their fake cry interview. Obama sure didnt act like they did

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Now is the time - 12/15/12 06:11 AM

Like all legislation, if they propose legislation they should make sure that it would have prevented the incident if it had been in place before the incident . Most legislation don't even come close. The so called assault weapon ban sure ddnt,

People shouldn't propose legislation that will cut off millions of people' freedom on a knee jerk response to a tragedy that wouldn't have been prevented if the legislation had been in place before.

Dave
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Now is the time - 12/15/12 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Like all legislation, if they propose legislation they should make sure that it would have prevented the incident if it had been in place before the incident .

Pardon me, but that's an unworkable standard. Acts such as murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement are all against the law, yet people still commit those crimes regardless -- does that mean we shouldn't have laws making those acts illegal in the first place?

Laws are deterrent, not preventive, since it's unreasonable to expect any law to guarantee it will prevent a determined enough person from breaking it. Even if you're willing to go to Orwellian lengths, you're never going to actually guarantee some one person won't commit a criminal act -- the best you can do is make the punishment harsh enough so as to be a deterrent in most cases, or put enough logistical road blocks in the way such that they, too, become a deterrent (or, ideally, both).

Quote:
The so called assault weapon ban sure ddnt,

Inconclusive, actually. Since the ban lasted only ten years, in a society so saturated with guns, that wasn't enough time to gather any really meaningful data one way or another.

Plus, how do you gather data on a person intending a crime, but who actually was deterred by a law and its consequences and walked away? There's just no way of tallying that kind of thing ...

Quote:
People shouldn't propose legislation that will cut off millions of people' freedom on a knee jerk response to a tragedy that wouldn't have been prevented if the legislation had been in place before.

A few points:

a) This kind of thing has happened often enough that I'd think the suggestion of reviewing our gun control laws as a result is hardly a "knee jerk" response at this point ...

b) Nobody is suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment (although that could be an interesting national dialogue). And if, say, passing a law limiting ammo clips to single-digit rounds is "cutting off millions of people's freedom," then perhaps it's time to also have a conversation about what we actually mean by "freedom" these days ... And,

c) With the person dead, it's unknowable wether a particular law would have prevented him from committing this specific act. Again, such a standard is untenable since the data we have available isn't that definitive or fine-grained -- the best we can do is find trends in crime rates and whatnot, and even that can be a bit fuzzy. All of which doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and not examine how we as a society should be addressing this issue.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Now is the time - 12/15/12 05:36 PM

I totally agree on the single digit clips... IF you can have only 6 shots you either have to carry lots of clips, or lots of weapons. They're going to be harder to conceal in those cases and maybe in some situations, the shooter will be spotted before they start. Plus if you have to reload every 6 shoots, maybe they'll get nailed, or removed in the process, thus limiting the carnage.

Think of this - there are clips you can get with 30-33 shots... you pack only 5 of those and you can kill >150 people. The facility can hit the 9-11 alarm after the first shot BUT with that firepower - anyone can take out >100 people before the Police even arrive. That is INSANE - that capability has nothing to do with freedom and only mass killings !

Now the assault rifle ban - it'll take 10-20 years to reduce the weaponry in this country . . even if you did ban large clips. You could have any weaponry ban and not see tangible results for years. BUT the fines or penalty would have to be VERY severe, so the risk to the average person isn't worth it. NRA can still have their hunting rifles and limited hand guns, etc.. but we don't need citizens to be armed to the hilt like they're hitting Normany beach ! SOME say they need it so the Federal Govt won't think of becoming a dictatorship or stripping their freedoms. Really, you're that delusional ??. IF that really happened, "you" really think you can take on the whole armed forces with your 30 round clips ? . . .they'll probably send in a drone to take your sorry azz out so you won't even get the satisfaction of a firefight ! There is just no justification for their wanting this huge capacity for firepower.. it's lunacy !

Plus we tried "Dodge City"- how'd that work out ? There was a reason they checked guns at the city limit. ONLY then did things become "civilized". How in the HLLL did we ever get here ? eek
More people with guns that have insane firepower only feeds the paranoia !! mad
Posted by: MrB

Re: Now is the time - 12/15/12 10:16 PM

What people call "Dodge City" is a misconception. The town of Dodge City was kept wild on purpose to bring in the cattle from Texas. They did ths for about 15 years from 1872 to 86. When the boom died. They tried to keep a balance so that the town could profit from the cattle drivers when they were paid at the end f the drive. They spent their money at the numerous saloons and brothels, bath houses, cafes. Also the men would buy fancy clothes, and tack.

I saw a receipt from Robert Wrights store ( the main mercantile) where his daily gross was over $4,000 that's a lot of money in those times and for a town with pop of 1500.

They wanted to keep the drivers liquored up. So they tried to keep the guns down.

But why the mass shootings now, when it is hard to get legal weapons when for decades is was easy but not so many publicized shootings? Is it the attitude of the populace? It must be. Why don't folks look at the prevalence of the populace to use drugs. When I was in school, I never worried about getting shot at school. Why not? Every farm boy had a gun in his car or truck. I did on occasion have a car at school. When I did it often had a rifle in it. No one thought about it. Why now. Can't be the guns. There are no guns at school now. Haven't been for years. Can you say that about drugs?

But peeps who like their drugs say they are no problem. Peeps who like their guns, say they are no problem. Interesting isn't it. Oh, but people who like their drugs say that when they are using them they aren't thinking of killing people. Well, people who work with guns recreationally aren't thinking of killing people, in fact, they are very cautious.

Dave
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Now is the time - 12/16/12 07:39 AM

Originally Posted By: MrB
But why the mass shootings now, when it is hard to get legal weapons when for decades is was easy but not so many publicized shootings? Is it the attitude of the populace?

While I disagree that it's hard to get legal weapons these days, the underlying question is a good one -- definitely part of the problem is societal. My take on this is that back when you and I were going to school, massacring people by the room-full was unheard of -- so far out of our experience as to not even be an option we could consider. Not that the world was necessarily a less-violent place back then, but a vast majority of Americans were blissfully ignorant of such violence, even if only conceptually.

By contrast, in 2012 not only are such things part of our daily lives -- via TV, movies, the interweb, etc. -- but they are positively tolerated. And I can't help but think that our failure as a society to react concretely to such events since Columbine* has only added legitimacy to their being seen by disturbed minds as valid forms of expression. Not that disturbed minds wouldn't imagine such things regardless, but that we have basically done nothing to make killing large numbers of people in a short period of time more difficult certainly makes that kind of thinking more likely.

Drugs are also a problem, but in a vastly different way. Or maybe I've missed the coverage of theater-goers being violently assaulted with dime-bags of weed ;-)


*I use Columbine as the starting point since it was the first such event to really spark a national sense of outrage, if for only a little while, that I can think of.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now is the time - 12/16/12 01:13 PM

Reasonable gun control and better mental health protocols are a big part of the problem. But let's not forget the media. The glamorization of violence — especially gun violence — in video games and movies and on TV is very much a part of the problem. Yeah, I know... Freedom of speech. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Now is the time - 12/16/12 02:55 PM

What is hard about buying a gun today? You can buy a 30 round assault rifle at Wal-Mart.

http://reviews.walmart.com/1336/19235996...ews/reviews.htm

40% of guns are sold at gun shows and there is a "loophole" that says guns sold at trade shows don't require a background check. Huh???
Posted by: MrB

Re: Now is the time - 12/16/12 03:50 PM

The ad doesn't say what Walmart stores carry this rifle. In our store, they don't sell firearms at all.

I still contend its not that easy.

Dave
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now is the time - 12/18/12 09:42 AM

Quote:
Pardon me, but that's an unworkable standard. Acts such as murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement are all against the law, yet people still commit those crimes regardless -- does that mean we shouldn't have laws making those acts illegal in the first place?

No, I tend to agree with B on this - none of those comparisons are seen as constitutional rights. Any attempt to interfere with such rights must at least have some prospect of achieving the desired objective although I'd be inclined to replace his use of the verb 'would' with 'could' (have prevented the incident).

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Now is the time - 12/18/12 10:14 AM

Quote:
Any attempt to interfere with such rights must at least have some prospect of achieving the desired objective although I'd be inclined to replace his use of the verb 'would' with 'could' (have prevented the incident).

Well, if you make that replacement (with which I agree), you change the standard significantly. My point was that since no law can guarantee someone won't break it (or at least try to), using that as a standard for drafting the legislation in the first place isn't terribly realistic =)

I do agree that passing a law that doesn't have at least a reasonable chance of achieving its purpose is a complete waste of time ...
Posted by: DLC

Re: Now is the time - 12/18/12 02:20 PM

I think that's the BIG difference! Violence is so interwoven into all media, movies, games, MSM, news, TV... It's like a cancer!

So I still believe - limit access and firepower. It'll take 20 years but eventually it'll have an effect. But it's going to be a LONG process IF we choose to start it. More guns won't help. It'll get crazy. If they'd gotten to the school and a dozen parents were running around armed - how do they tell the bad guy ?? By law the bad guy has to wear a black hat ? laugh

MrB thanks for the clarification. Maybe I was thinking of Tombstone.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now is the time - 12/18/12 11:54 PM

Quote:
My point was that since no law can guarantee someone won't break it (or at least try to), using that as a standard for drafting the legislation in the first place isn't terribly realistic

Well, you mentioned murder in your range of comparables as if it were something different from the target crime he was discussing. I understood his standard to be that no legislation should be enacted if it erodes a constitutional right but doesn’t deal with the problem for which it’s introduced.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 02:35 AM

Dave I agree with you especially the violent crap coming out of Weinstein and Quinton T should be completely censored and never shown period.They are horrible to view and the language is putrid.Also video games are becoming another disaster in a lot of them just show how much killing and authority you have over your opponent.Most of these manufacturers should be banned from producing this garbage which is poisoning the minds of our children today.
Posted by: Mike

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike
There are voices who suggest arming teachers, citing those incidents in Florida where gun-toting citizens have foiled armed robberies etc.
Here in Illinois soon it'll be legal to carry a concealed weapon, just like in numerous (over 20?) other states.
Is this where we're headed?



Now our neighbor, Missouri, is thinking about arming teachers.
Gov. Perry said it'd be alright for registered concealed weapons carriers to bring them to school.
And S.Carolina is discussing this also.
Good Lord!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 10:07 AM

May as well let 8 year olds drive, too, or fly commercial jetliners. And how about no med school needed to perform heart surgery. Heck, let's put C4 on the shelves of craft stores. crazy
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 10:28 AM

Quote:
I understood his standard to be that no legislation should be enacted if it erodes a constitutional right but doesn’t deal with the problem for which it’s introduced.

I guess that depends on one's definition of "deal with" -- In Mr. B's case, I took it to mean "would have guaranteed this event would never have happened," which I think is an unrealistic benchmark since no law can reasonably provide such a guarantee ...

Also of note (and not necessarily directed at you): the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is already somewhat regulated and not absolute in all cases -- although owning a RPG launcher is legal, actually obtaining one and a live grenade to go with it involves jumping through quite a bit of regulatory hoops. Not impossible, just difficult. Ditto a tank with operable guns, belt-fed machine guns, flamethrowers, field artillery or even a jet fighter (although getting a Sidewinder or a Hellfire for it might be a bit tricky) -- all are legal, but you'd need to go through the proper regulatory and licensing routines to actually own one.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 12:51 PM

Like I always point out to the gun folks - we have a spectrum....
No guns on one end.... Nukes on the other!!
Where do "you" draw the line and why?

I believe the majority of Americans do not like semi- or fully automatic weapons and large clips! So 6-8 shot rifles and pistols is the line! But I'd like to see a detailed study!

We can't guess what the Constitutional forefathers would do, but we do know they had no concept of multiple shot firearms. Those didn't arrive until the mid-late 1800s! I doubt they'd approved of all carrying the firepower we have today. Militia/ national guard -OK but individual - nope!

BTW-in the civil war a soldier could get off 3 rounds per min if he was good. In revolutionary times, I bet 1-2, because powder wasn't pre-packaged; it came from a powder horn! All the Constitutional writers knew was the latter! I believe if you showed them today's firepower they'd be super shocked & dumbfounded ! eek
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 12:54 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
The ad doesn't say what Walmart stores carry this rifle. In our store, they don't sell firearms at all.

I still contend its not that easy.

Dave


I don't know what you classify as easy. As long as you don't have anything that that would flag the FBI.. you can have your weapon same day.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110509130122AA3Pq5m
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 01:30 PM

Of course. now it's impossible to buy, since Walmart just quit selling it.

http://brandon.patch.com/articles/walmar...-think-0ff55f1b
Posted by: DLC

Re: Now is the time - 12/19/12 03:10 PM

This is where profit motive overcomes good sense. WHO'D want to sell them in the first place ? Is a few $ really worth putting this firepower into someone's hands ? Sure they're legal- lots of things are legal, but very dumb or unethical. Would they sell nukes, or RPGs if they were legal ??

Now they can rationalize and say it's the shooter's responsibility- and it IS- but they become an accomplice in my eyes. Once that gun hits the street WTF knows whos' hands it might fall into. Why not stick to guns you are pretty sure for sport, or self defense? (sure those get used too, but you KNOW a semi-automatic is made to kill lots of people, not deer or birds !)

I think it's time to take the NRA on- head on !!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now is the time - 12/20/12 01:37 AM

Quote:
I guess that depends on one's definition of "deal with" -- In Mr. B's case, I took it to mean "would have guaranteed this event would never have happened," which I think is an unrealistic benchmark since no law can reasonably provide such a guarantee ...

You seemed to characterise his stance more widely before when you reasoned that “Acts such as murder, rape... are all against the law, yet people still commit those crimes”.

Murder is the crime but the proposed legislation is about gun control and someone can break a regulation on that without committing murder. B was right therefore to expect any legislation offered as a solution to mass murder of children and teachers in a schoolhouse to actually inhibit the crime.

It’s doubtful that the legislature has any power to withhold a true constitutional right at any rate without widespread public support that makes it possible in fact. In general the least requirement for attempting to do so should be that its wider purpose ‘would’ be fulfilled and that enactment would confer a greater benefit objectively assessed than that which it withholds.

So appalling are these crimes that I was, as you know, content to replace ‘would’ with ‘could’ but only with the ‘balance of benefits’ criterion as part of the justification. I take the view, however, that the Obama administration is barking up the wrong tree by relying on legislative solutions to this problem. It’s unlikely you’ll ever get to firearm restrictions as stringent as those in the UK but even they didn't prevent the massacre that occurred at Dunblane in 1996.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Now is the time - 12/20/12 02:54 AM

KM what would you propose to confront this type of problem we are facing today regarding gun control?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now is the time - 12/20/12 04:19 AM

Quote:
KM what would you propose to confront this type of problem we are facing today regarding gun control?

Well, I do think the executive should reflect upon its own standards and the messages it sends out to others through its own behaviour.

km