Jump to content


The Official consolidated MASS SHOOTING thread


  • Please log in to reply
333 replies to this topic

#1 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 05:53 AM

Since this is a recurring theme and its hard to keep track of all the hundreds of threads on the subject - gun nutters and gun grabbers alike - post your comments here:

 

OK, I'll start......  two three observations from this latest occurance of mental instability violence.

 

1.  It looks like what the gun nutters have been saying for a while is true.  Lack of Enforcement of the existing laws and the need to beef up the penalties for the use of a gun in a violent act played a major role in this shooting.  It seems the shooter was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out a neighbors tires with a handgun in an "anger fueled Blackout".  He was booked on malicious mischief.  Malicious mischief?  Really?  Then has another incident where he shoots through a neighbors ceiling whom he had a "contentious relationship" with.  So two different crimes using a gun and two different PDs and DAs who did nothing.  And he was still able to pass a background check with those events plus a known and long history of mental disorders. 

 

Evidence is building to the point where it is evadent that the common GLARING theme among mass murderers is mental disorder and instability and society doing nothing about the problem.  No "universal background check" system proposed by the grabbers has yet to address this issue.  I have strongly and loudly advocated for mentally unstable people to be identified and prevented from acquiring weapons.

 

2.  It looks like the shooter used a plain jane shotgun owned by everyone who hunts birds and and other small game.  Worst case - he had a "riot gun" with an 8 round tube.  8 rounds is now "high capacity???  What's interesting, very telling and not surprising in the least is that the major news orgs are totally down-playing the fact that he entered with only a shotty and then acquired the AR-15 from a security guard once he was in.  Because that story doesn't play well that an average shotgun was used in the genesis of the attack - the press are glossing over the weapons issue and still emphasizing the AR-15 as somehow being the evil weapon.  That would be like someone breaking into a National Guard armory, getting their hands on an M-249 and then the press and the gun grabbers saying:  "See, we told you machine guns were bad!"

 

Are we going to hear a call by Andy Cuntmo, Diane and others to ban shotguns now?  What are the chances?

 

3.  Oh yeah.  It STILL took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.  The fact that other good guys with guns were ambushed and killed by surprise is irrelevant.  In fact in roughly about 10% of cop killings - they were killed with their own gun.  Are we actually discussing disarming cops so we don't have guns for criminals and the mentally unstable to have access to - as it appears to be in this DC mass shooting case?  Really?



#2 Cavandish

Cavandish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:33 AM

You do realize that most of the posts from "gun grabbers" are pointed towards background checks and the rest of the points you refuted were either obvious trolls or meant in humor right?

 

It is nice to see the gun fetishists are ready for a battle  :mellow: I'm sure none of the voices in the lamestream right wing MEDIA have a vested interest...at all. It isn't like they are going to politicize this event to their own gain, i mean that is what "THEY" do.

 

They are just reporting, on those people reporting, on that story that shouldn't be reported on for so long, for longer then they are. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

 

Yes i am sure over the course of rash speculation throughout the day certain media types have said things that no longer make sense, politicians are going to play to their interest groups and in the end NOTHING will happen. Congress is pretty awesome at nothing after all.

 

Gun Fetishists are already waving the "Gun Free Zone", as if that is something new in military/federal facilities or in any way attributed to Obama, which it isn't.

 

The misinformation from both sides is staggering.

 

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction?



#3 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,140 posts
  • Location:Balikpapan, Indonesia
  • Interests:Hobie Miracle 20

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:37 AM

Nutter Dad buys 13yo son lethal weapon. 7 dead after late night rampage.

 

http://www.thejakart...nster-kids.html



#4 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:39 AM

So, we're "gun fetishists" now?  Nice.  Do they make latex I can wrap my rifles in and little leather handcuffs for the stock so the rifles will be obedient finally?



#5 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:48 AM

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction?

 

Not according to this report 

 

SEATTLE (AP) - The man identified as the shooter in the Washington Navy Yard slayings had been arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out the tires of a parked car in what he described as an anger-fueled "black out."

Two construction workers building a new home told police that Aaron Alexis walked out of a home next door on May 6, 2004, pulled a pistol from his waistband and fired three shots into the rear tires of their parked car.

 

 

Court records show he had a hearing and was released on the condition he not have contact with any of the construction workers. A message left for the attorney who represented him at that hearing, Raymond Connell, was not immediately returned.

Seattle police said Monday the case was referred to Seattle Municipal Court for charges of property damage and discharge of a firearm.

There's no record that he was ever prosecuted, and a spokeswoman for the Seattle City Attorney's Office, Kimberly Mills, said her office never received the report from police so did not review it for possible charges.

 

 

http://www.komonews....-223980371.html



#6 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:53 AM

You do realize that most of the posts from "gun grabbers" are pointed towards background checks and the rest of the points you refuted were either obvious trolls or meant in humor right?  Are you talking to someone else?  An imaginary friend maybe?  What points did I "refute"?  Since I started the thread, there were no other points to refute.  I attempted to make some points/observations.  Can you be more clear? 

 

And I was certainly not trolling.  And I support background checks. Which the shooter apparently passed last week with flying colors when he bought his shotgun at a gunshop.  What would YOU suggest we do wrt to background checks that would have prevented this?

 

It is nice to see the gun fetishists are ready for a battle  :mellow: I'm sure none of the voices in the lamestream right wing MEDIA have a vested interest...at all. It isn't like they are going to politicize this event to their own gain, i mean that is what "THEY" do.

 

They are just reporting, on those people reporting, on that story that shouldn't be reported on for so long, for longer then they are. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!  Huh????  PUI?

 

Yes i am sure over the course of rash speculation throughout the day certain media types have said things that no longer make sense, politicians are going to play to their interest groups and in the end NOTHING will happen. Congress is pretty awesome at nothing after all.  ibid

 

Gun Fetishists are already waving the "Gun Free Zone", as if that is something new in military/federal facilities or in any way attributed to Obama, which it isn't.  Who's saying that?

 

The misinformation from both sides is staggering.  I'm not sure its misinformation.  But it seems to be very selective information coming out of the media regarding the weapons used.  They are very specific about the AR-15 (which was not his) and seemingly very deliberately down-playing the shotgun he bought and used to gain entry.  The WaPo or the NYT (can't remeber which) tracked down his purchase of the shotgun to a VA dealer the week prior.  So they KNOW what kind of gun it was.  The fact that they are not saying leads me to believe it is a run of the mill shotty, probably a pump 12 ga shotgun exactly like what millions of people use to hunt and target shoot with.  Had it been some super-tactical 150 round drum fully auto EBS - I'm sure the press would have been playing that up to no end.  But the narrative that it was not a high capacity, evil black assault rifle with a mind of its own will not play well to the gun grabbing liberal public.

 

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction?  I think I posed those specific questions.  did you miss that?



#7 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:24 AM

 So these two clowns qualify as gun fetishists? 

 

 http://www.jsonline....-223514231.html

 According to the recording:

 

The men are walking down the street when they see a police car's lights go on and they see officers approaching. As the officers order the men to put their hands against the wall, the police ask why they're carrying the guns that way.

 

"For self-defense," Branstrom says.

 

"These are real AR-15s guys. I'll cover them both," says one officer, who levels his own weapon at the men as another officer begins questioning them.

 

Police ask if the men are headed to the farmers market.

 

"Yeah, we were just going to do some shopping," Branstrom says.

 

"Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer.

 

"Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.



#8 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:00 AM

 So these two clowns qualify as gun fetishists? 

 

 http://www.jsonline....-223514231.html

 

 

Dunno, I would have to know what else they do with their guns.  Do they take them to bed with them?  Ejaculate on them? 

 

Fetishism:

 

1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes.

2. Excessive attachment or regard.
3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish

 

I see nothing in the article that would indicate they were fetishists.  The guns were slung over their backs, so they weren't even fondling them.  I would think if you met the definition of fetishism, you would not be able to take your eyes or hands off the object of your lust.  They seemed pretty calm.  Especially when the police took the guns away from them briefly.  I would think a true fetishist would have been very upset with someone handling their precious.

 

No, what I think they are is morons who are making the correct point the wrong way.  I also think they could be looking for money in a settlement. 



#9 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:09 AM

Overthrow-the-Regime-600x471.jpg



#10 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:47 AM

Overthrow-the-Regime-600x471.jpg

 

But.... but.... but I thought small arms were not sufficient to overthrow an oppressive regime or drive out an overwhelmingly superior invading army?

 

Well, except for Afghanistan and Iraq - but lets not pick nits.



#11 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:09 AM

 So these two clowns qualify as gun fetishists? 

 

 http://www.jsonline....-223514231.html

 

 

Dunno, I would have to know what else they do with their guns.  Do they take them to bed with them?  Ejaculate on them? 

 

Fetishism:

 

1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes.

2. Excessive attachment or regard.
3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish

 

I see nothing in the article that would indicate they were fetishists.  The guns were slung over their backs, so they weren't even fondling them.  I would think if you met the definition of fetishism, you would not be able to take your eyes or hands off the object of your lust.  They seemed pretty calm.  Especially when the police took the guns away from them briefly.  I would think a true fetishist would have been very upset with someone handling their precious.

 

No, what I think they are is morons who are making the correct point the wrong way.  I also think they could be looking for money in a settlement. 

 

 

 They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.



#12 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:40 AM

 They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.

 

I've been separated from mine now for 3.5 months and I only get visitation rights every 6 months or so.  I used to get cold sweats at night, but I'm much better now.....



#13 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:39 PM

more-

 

Report: Navy Yard Gunman 'Gathered Weapons Along the Way'

 

by ELIZABETH SHELD 17 Sep 2013, 3:01 AM PDT
 

NBC News reports that Aaron Alexis was armed with "an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and a handgun" when he was killed in a shootout with authorities. Law enforcement told NBC "they believed he arrived packing only the shotgun, which he bought last week from a gun dealer in Lorton, Va., about 20 miles from Washington."  

 

The Washington DC local NBC affiliate says that sources informed them "that surveillance footage showed that he began his attack with a shotgun, but was found with a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle."

 

Alexis has had several run-ins with the law on firearm related issues in the past.  In 2010 in Fort Worth Texas, the police arrested him for discharging a firearm within city limits. The police report indicates that Alexis' neighbor heard a 'pop' sound and found a hole in her floor and ceiling. She believed someone had shot into her apartment. The woman also reported she was terrified of Alexis, who had confronted her for making too much noise. 


The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms.

 

In 2004, Alexis was arrested in Seattle for a more disturbing incident. On May 6, he pulled out gun a fired three shots into the tires of a Honda Accord belonging to a construction worker who "mocked and disrespected him." Alexis told the police "he had an anger-fueled 'blackout.' "  He also claimed he had PTSD from the events of September 11, 2001. 

 

"After reviewing the facts presented by the police department, it was determined that the elements constituting recklessness under Texas law were not present and a case was not filed," said Melody McDonald, a spokeswoman with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office.

 

The gunman was working as a subcontractor for Hewlett Packard for a company called "The Experts."  He held a "secret" level security clearance (WHAT?!?) and serviced computer equipment at the Navy Yard. 



#14 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:42 PM

 They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.

 
I've been separated from mine now for 3.5 months and I only get visitation rights every 6 months or so.  I used to get cold sweats at night, but I'm much better now.....
Try a ball gag. It's worked for gator.

#15 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:13 PM

I think the latest shooting is a Hate Crime.

Holder should be all over this one. It's obviously Justice for Trayvon.



#16 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:56 PM

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?



#17 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,468 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:02 PM

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

#18 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:03 PM

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

You are so right.  

The only real solution is registration.  Being able to trace the chain of custody of a weapon found at a crime scene will allow us to punish the enablers and refine our laws.  Once gun traders realize they are a major key in solving the problem, they will step up and help.



#19 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?



#20 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:06 PM

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

Arrested or convicted?  Do you really want an arrest keeping you away from your precious?



#21 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,323 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:06 PM

Arrested or convicted?

#22 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,468 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:07 PM



It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."


 
So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?


Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.

#23 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:24 PM

Here's a fellow with priors that we might want to take a look at before he starts the next Sandy Hook or Navy Yard massacre.

 

Even the police chief thinks so.

 

http://blogs.broward..._a_sandy_ho.php



#24 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,501 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:37 PM

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.



#25 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

 

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

 
So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

 

Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.

 

General is fine, was just using this as an example.....  If the goal of training is to spot mental instability, then I would suggest that is a horribly inefficient use of resources and effort.  There are other better ways to do so.  EVERY ONE of the recent mass shooters were all known to be mentally unstable.  It was no shock to those around them.  SO using a one-time training course to attempt to spot that is silliness.  Besides, even the most unstable can often hold it together for a couple of hours to get through a course.  Its the long term signs that people near these psychos that are the warning signs.

 

Not to mention, it smacks of an effort to disqualify people much like a literacy test was used at the voting booth.  I have no issue with training being a requirement for CCW, because you would be carrying in public and might conceivably use the weapon in public.  But for general ownership - I don't see the need.  The amount of deaths from accidents (which is all training is designed to fix) are statistically insignificant.  And accidents, as has been said here 1000 brazillion times has fuck all to do with mass shootings and murder.



#26 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.



#27 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:59 PM

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.



#28 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,592 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:00 PM

In a world where there seems to be no end of people willing to shoot me, I'm not inclined to weaken my rights of self defense.

 

On the other hand, I would like to keep guns, knives, clubs, rat poison and anything else which is lethal away from those that are certifiable. So, I say you make gun ownership easy, and gun confiscation almost as easy. For example, if you have a driver's license you should be able to buy a gun and that should be considered your gun license. Use it (the license) irresponsibly and lose the license or pay whatever fine the law requires. Same with the gun.



#29 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,501 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:01 PM

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

Yes, but only after a number of years. There has to be something beyond getting booted from the Navy after 4 years that tells us someone is dangerous to society and needs to be locked up BEFORE they commit a crime. I do wonder why someone who was booted then got security clearance as a contractor, but that is a specific administrative question, not a legislative one.



#30 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,955 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:05 PM

"Buy a shotgun.  Buy a shotgun."



#31 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,468 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:06 PM





It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control.  As I said, I am not opposed to training.  But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
 
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements.  But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts.  Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot?  kill more people?  Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."


 
So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?


Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.


 
General is fine, was just using this as an example.....  If the goal of training is to spot mental instability, then I would suggest that is a horribly inefficient use of resources and effort.  There are other better ways to do so.  EVERY ONE of the recent mass shooters were all known to be mentally unstable.  It was no shock to those around them.  SO using a one-time training course to attempt to spot that is silliness.  Besides, even the most unstable can often hold it together for a couple of hours to get through a course.  Its the long term signs that people near these psychos that are the warning signs.
 
Not to mention, it smacks of an effort to disqualify people much like a literacy test was used at the voting booth.  I have no issue with training being a requirement for CCW, because you would be carrying in public and might conceivably use the weapon in public.  But for general ownership - I don't see the need.  The amount of deaths from accidents (which is all training is designed to fix) are statistically insignificant.  And accidents, as has been said here 1000 brazillion times has fuck all to do with mass shootings and murder.


I didn't say the goal of training was finding mass shooters, or even that I was in favor of it or that it was a good idea. You asked how training might in any way deter mass shootings, and I answered a way in which it might.

#32 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,592 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:09 PM

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

Yes, but only after a number of years. There has to be something beyond getting booted from the Navy after 4 years that tells us someone is dangerous to society and needs to be locked up BEFORE they commit a crime. I do wonder why someone who was booted then got security clearance as a contractor, but that is a specific administrative question, not a legislative one.

Locked up before they commit a crime?! I may need that AR-15 after all, jfc.

 

If you adopt "helping people in need" as our primary social policy we nip most of societies problems in the bud. All you need is money. MMT and Pegovian taxes provide more money than we could ever possilby use.

 

"It" is always about money, always will be...



#33 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 05:15 PM

Dianne Feinstein jumps the gun literally 

 

(CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"

 

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

 

 

 

So, the one gun that the Control Crowd accepts as a legitimate sporting arm may be the one used here. It is interesting that the same report says he rented an AR15 but returned it shortly before the shooting. (maybe he had trouble finding 5.56/.223 ammo in stock anywhere.)

 

 

 

 

 



"Buy a shotgun.  Buy a shotgun."

 

Are you channeling Joe Biden?



#34 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,592 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:13 PM

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.



#35 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,021 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:33 PM

It works pretty good in Halo in close quarters.



#36 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:37 PM

It works pretty good in Halo in close quarters.

 

Exclusive: The Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis played violent video games including Call of Duty for up to 16 hours at a time and friends believe it could have pushed him towards becoming a mass murderer.

http://www.telegraph...ideo-games.html



#37 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,501 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:37 PM

so, what then? are people now going to suggest we ban pump shotguns?



#38 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,564 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:55 PM

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war.  It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback.  It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.



#39 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,322 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:03 PM

Here's a fellow with priors that we might want to take a look at before he starts the next Sandy Hook or Navy Yard massacre.

 

Even the police chief thinks so.

 

http://blogs.broward..._a_sandy_ho.php

He used to mow my lawn, he was a very nice boy.  



#40 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:18 PM

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war.  It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback.  It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg



#41 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:24 PM

Chicago needs knife background checks?

 

2i22xoo.jpg



#42 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:26 PM

6sh0de.jpg



#43 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,566 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:27 PM

 

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war.  It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback.  It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg

 

Might be good equipment in an MRAP, but, that things got too much crap that'll snag on branches for me to want one for my woods. 



#44 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 17 September 2013 - 07:35 PM

Old School

 

Ithaca_DSPS_0800.jpg



#45 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:08 PM

Old School

 

Ithaca_DSPS_0800.jpg

 

At least add a door breaching serrated muzzle brake. Oddly absent from the gun pic I posted Hmmm.



#46 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:12 PM

Not planing on breaching any doors.



#47 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:17 PM

Not planing on breaching any doors.

 

What fun is that?



#48 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,400 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:22 PM

Not planing on breaching any doors.

Then stay with the J105, it won't plane on anything. 



#49 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,072 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:24 PM

Not planing on breaching any doors.

Then stay with the J105, it won't plane on anything. 

 

Geez, man.  I know this is PA, but some things are out of bounds.



#50 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,564 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:26 PM

 

 

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war.  It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback.  It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg

 

Might be good equipment in an MRAP, but, that things got too much crap that'll snag on branches for me to want one for my woods. 

 

That sure doesn't look like pump action which was the topic under discussion.



#51 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:33 PM

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.

 

 

 A year in prison probably hasn't fixed more than a very small number of people's schizophrenia.  The press just wants to blame somebody in government.  



#52 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,501 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:45 PM

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.

 

 

 A year in prison probably hasn't fixed more than a very small number of people's schizophrenia.  The press just wants to blame somebody in government.  

 

I would say that small number would be approximately 0.

 

If it really is schizophrenia, it would be rather late onset, wouldn't it? I thought that typically presented late teens early twenties. Unless he was mostly functional with it for a decade. Blaming someone or something means that people can believe that if we do something then stuff like this will never happen again. That thought lets them sleep better at night, regardless of whether it is true or not. I am having a hard time finding a bogeyman in this, aside from the one who was doing the shooting and is now dead.



#53 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:02 AM

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.



#54 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,566 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:01 AM

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

 

I don't think we yet know enough to adequately answer your very valid question, SE.  Some of the things "I've heard" lead me to believe that the red flags he'd exhibited, each taken individually, weren't sufficient to satisfy legal requirements. Taken in total, perhaps.  

 

The difference in our approach to this is this: You think that this situation should be ameliorated by an infringement of everyone else's rights, even if that infringement, by your own admission, would do little to nothing to prevent a recurrence.  I think that we need to figure out why people are increasingly willing to create the havoc we've witnessed in recent history, and once we've come to that realization, figure out how to best deal with it. 

 

I want to fix the things that make people behave badly - you want to make sure that their bad behavior isn't able to affect more than a minimum of people.  Hmmm - the difference? You think that there's an acceptable threshold of hurts-per-instance, I think that there's not. You think that there's a problem with what people are using to create the hurt, I think that the problem is the PEOPLE who are causing the hurt.  

 

So - at a high level, I think we both want the same thing: To reduce the # of innocent people who are hurt as a result of someone else's willful decisions. 

The question then becomes, Specious - How do we reconcile that common desire against the very different perspectives we each hold?  



#55 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:06 AM

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  



#56 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,564 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:09 AM

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.



#57 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:10 AM

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  



#58 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:13 AM


LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 
True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.
Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

#59 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:17 AM

 

 


LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 
True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.
Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

Do you think arrests should be entered into the no-gun list database?   I do.



#60 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:18 AM

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

i disagree. everyone has a right to own a firearm. it is up to the state to prove otherwise. the trouble seems to be that no one wants the state to be good at the job. 



#61 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,566 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:20 AM

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 



#62 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:23 AM

 

 


LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 
True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.
Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

because any data base would be considered an invasion of privacy? seems to me that you are suggesting the need for a data base which would involve employers and multiple states with differing gun legislation. good luck with that.



#63 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,994 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:24 AM

Hmmm, sounds like this one could have been much worse, were it not for a particular Virginia gun law...

 

 

WASHINGTON — The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test-fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...icials-say.html



#64 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:27 AM

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein


seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect



#65 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:29 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 



#66 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:29 AM

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

only in attitudes..................



#67 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:30 AM

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

#68 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:31 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?



#69 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:32 AM


 


 



LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 
True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.
Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.
The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.
And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.
Do you think arrests should be entered into the no-gun list database?   I do.

Absolutely not. I clearly said the key in this instance was the use of a gun to express anger.

#70 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:32 AM

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

It is not one they will find very easy to address. Guarding stuff is damn boring.

#71 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:33 AM

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?



#72 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,566 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:34 AM

 

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein


seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

 

I would suggest that you're misunderstanding my intent.  The idea behind Mr. Heinlein's comment is that accountability for one's actions makes one consider them more carefully before acting upon them.  That sir, is the basis of my comment.  

To make it personal, when I was a little boy, I knew that if I did anything inappropriate that my folks WOULD find out about it, because everyone around me knew who I belonged to.  I also knew that the hell I'd catch for embarrassing my parents was MUCH more than anything I'd deal with from any "authority figure".  

 

A return of societal values to the point in which people are concerned enough to consider the ramification of their intentions before acting upon them is what I seek. If we as a society, much as has happened w/the MADD campaign, create pressures that guide behavior in a positive direction, I think that those individual societal pressures will be much more effective at creating the behavioral changes we desire than will any implement-based restrictions.



#73 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:36 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb. 



#74 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:46 AM


Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?


Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?
Yes exactly! For instance California is much more reasonable than say Texas or Alabama. Even given some nutter residents like mr booth and timo.

#75 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:55 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein


seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

 

I would suggest that you're misunderstanding my intent.  The idea behind Mr. Heinlein's comment is that accountability for one's actions makes one consider them more carefully before acting upon them.  That sir, is the basis of my comment.  

To make it personal, when I was a little boy, I knew that if I did anything inappropriate that my folks WOULD find out about it, because everyone around me knew who I belonged to.  I also knew that the hell I'd catch for embarrassing my parents was MUCH more than anything I'd deal with from any "authority figure".  

 

A return of societal values to the point in which people are concerned enough to consider the ramification of their intentions before acting upon them is what I seek. If we as a society, much as has happened w/the MADD campaign, create pressures that guide behavior in a positive direction, I think that those individual societal pressures will be much more effective at creating the behavioral changes we desire than will any implement-based restrictions.

i agree with you. it seems that accountability for events like this don't seem to be a factor in the mind of the perpetrator. kind of like the death sentence being a deterrent. 

 

i think i would take this accountability to a level that most people would disagree with. the mainstream gun community needs to be the ones who are leading this campaign. for groups such as the nra (who may not be representative of the main stream) to just stone wall and refuse to compromise will see the majority, the law abiding citizens, be judged by the actions of the minority, the crazy nutjob mass murderer.



#76 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:57 AM

 

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb. 

shirley you jest?



#77 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:01 AM

 


Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?


Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?
Yes exactly! For instance California is much more reasonable than say Texas or Alabama. Even given some nutter residents like mr booth and timo.

 

i don't think you could have picked better states to illustrate your position. if zman was from texas or alabama it would have been a slam dunk.



#78 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:06 AM

I am pretty adept at making a strong case for my arguments....

#79 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:07 AM

Since this is a recurring theme and its hard to keep track of all the hundreds of threads on the subject - gun nutters and gun grabbers alike - post your comments here:

 

OK, I'll start......  two three observations from this latest occurance of mental instability violence.

 

1.  It looks like what the gun nutters have been saying for a while is true.  Lack of Enforcement of the existing laws and the need to beef up the penalties for the use of a gun in a violent act played a major role in this shooting.  It seems the shooter was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out a neighbors tires with a handgun in an "anger fueled Blackout".  He was booked on malicious mischief.  Malicious mischief?  Really?  Then has another incident where he shoots through a neighbors ceiling whom he had a "contentious relationship" with.  So two different crimes using a gun and two different PDs and DAs who did nothing.  And he was still able to pass a background check with those events plus a known and long history of mental disorders. 

 

Evidence is building to the point where it is evadent that the common GLARING theme among mass murderers is mental disorder and instability and society doing nothing about the problem.  No "universal background check" system proposed by the grabbers has yet to address this issue.  I have strongly and loudly advocated for mentally unstable people to be identified and prevented from acquiring weapons.

 

2.  It looks like the shooter used a plain jane shotgun owned by everyone who hunts birds and and other small game.  Worst case - he had a "riot gun" with an 8 round tube.  8 rounds is now "high capacity???  What's interesting, very telling and not surprising in the least is that the major news orgs are totally down-playing the fact that he entered with only a shotty and then acquired the AR-15 from a security guard once he was in.  Because that story doesn't play well that an average shotgun was used in the genesis of the attack - the press are glossing over the weapons issue and still emphasizing the AR-15 as somehow being the evil weapon.  That would be like someone breaking into a National Guard armory, getting their hands on an M-249 and then the press and the gun grabbers saying:  "See, we told you machine guns were bad!"

 

Are we going to hear a call by Andy Cuntmo, Diane and others to ban shotguns now?  What are the chances?

 

3.  Oh yeah.  It STILL took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.  The fact that other good guys with guns were ambushed and killed by surprise is irrelevant.  In fact in roughly about 10% of cop killings - they were killed with their own gun.  Are we actually discussing disarming cops so we don't have guns for criminals and the mentally unstable to have access to - as it appears to be in this DC mass shooting case?  Really?

hey jbsf, how about you list all the things which you think should disqualify people from possessing a gun.

then what sort of format should it exist in?

who should have access to this "list'?



#80 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,564 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:19 AM

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

 

Geee, I thought you were the one with all the ideas.

 

Let's try doing something about the nuts.  Chemical control doesn't seem to do much good.  In fact, I think there is some evidence that it does harm.



#81 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,564 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:25 AM

 

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No.  There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city.  Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc.  Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose?  Any changes?  

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein


seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

Mr Heinlein is correct.  Note his clever use of personal pronouns.  It doesn't say somebody's life.



#82 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:45 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

 

In theory nothing. 

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions. 

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66    Males - 65    Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes  17 no   8 unsure

Venue -  3 church  20 work  12 school  31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto  29 rifle  24 revolver  23 shotgun  (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
 
Total murders over the same interval  100's of thousands....
 
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
 
 
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)
 

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.


 

 



#83 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:52 AM

2ibkg2b.jpg



#84 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:41 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hello?  McFly?  (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another?  A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?  

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem.  We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails. 

How do we do that?  Societal pressure.  Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that.  SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction? 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein


seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

Mr Heinlein is correct.  Note his clever use of personal pronouns.  It doesn't say somebody's life.

is a shame then that there are 13 somebodies....

 

it really is a stupid quote. is he saying that where people have guns, you need to do the right thing or you will get shot?

what about if people don't have guns? i mean, you still need to do the right thing otherwise some one might punch you etc?

 

and of course, if everyone is doing the right thing in the first place, why the need for guns or punching? 

 

guns don't seem to be improving your society. at least, not at the rate that good old fashioned respect would

 

 

edit. bolded bit is attributed to a guy in the chesapeake. badly edited by me because of "too many quotes"bullshit



#85 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:52 AM

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True.  He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD.  Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them.  What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun?   He had no convictions.  He was a military vet.   Much like you Jeff.

 

I didn't say there was an existing law.  But if ya'll are so goddammed anxious to pass new laws - better to start with something to address the mental health issue of these mass shootings rather than the implement used. 


As I said... THE common thread in ALL of the recent and past MASS shootings has been mental illness.  Find a way to keep THEM from getting guns and we will actually make progress.



#86 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:58 AM

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry.  They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry.  Set up a stringent and fair process to do this.  You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry.  At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure.  But it works.  

 

No it wouldn't be.  It goes against EVERY principle we hold dear in this country.  By that logic, we should assume everyone arrested is guilty until proven innocent.  They have to prove they didn't commit a crime or they stay in jail.  If we did that, I FUKEN GUARANTEE YOU that the crime rate would plummet.  Plummet overnight in fact.  Sure there will be innocent people rotting in jail, but that's a small price to pay for the "greater good".

 

Because that is EXACTLY what you are proposing we do wrt to guns.  Sorry skippy - it doesn't work that way.  But you know that and you're just being a trolling cunt  troll.



#87 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:02 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

 

Absolutely nothing.  I've been advocating this since the beginning.....



#88 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,670 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:09 AM

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

 

In theory nothing. 

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions. 

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66    Males - 65    Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes  17 no   8 unsure

Venue -  3 church  20 work  12 school  31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto  29 rifle  24 revolver  23 shotgun  (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
 
Total murders over the same interval  100's of thousands....
 
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
 
 
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)
 

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.


 

 

 

 Then there is no problem! The sales of guns have been through the roof. Give it time.  



#89 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:13 AM

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

Mr Heinlein is correct.  Note his clever use of personal pronouns.  It doesn't say somebody's life.

 

He is absolutely correct.  However, he wrote that in a time when there weren't the number of lunatics out there running rampant in a fractured, disjointed society.  The combo of social isolation, chemical solutions to everything and a never-ending barrage of violent stimuli means that these guys that snap no longer care about their own lives.  In fact, I think they get to a hopeless point where they are going to end it anyway, but their anger is so great that they have decided to take as many people with them as possible.

 

Its a real shame they don't just commit suicide in a quiet room somewhere and be done with it.  But I believe society's constant push to require everyone to seek fame drives many of these nutjobs to go out in a blaze of glory.



#90 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:08 AM

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

Mr Heinlein is correct.  Note his clever use of personal pronouns.  It doesn't say somebody's life.

 

He is absolutely correct.  However, he wrote that in a time when there weren't the number of lunatics out there running rampant in a fractured, disjointed society.  The combo of social isolation, chemical solutions to everything and a never-ending barrage of violent stimuli means that these guys that snap no longer care about their own lives.  In fact, I think they get to a hopeless point where they are going to end it anyway, but their anger is so great that they have decided to take as many people with them as possible.

 

Its a real shame they don't just commit suicide in a quiet room somewhere and be done with it.  But I believe society's constant push to require everyone to seek fame drives many of these nutjobs to go out in a blaze of glory.

personal responsibility and respect for others is about pride and honour in oneself. guns have nothing to do with this. as others continue to yell from the roof tops,"guns don't kill, people do!"

 

the ability to shoot someone doesn't make them respect you. it makes them fear you. the fact that this seems to be not understood suggests a deep cultural issue. kind of like what a guy in the chesapeake is getting at.

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other. 



#91 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:25 AM

 

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb. 

 

You don't think those compromises are already in place?  There are reams of legislation that imposes those compromises already.  What else do you want?

 

But of course I am ok with compromises.  However, any NEW compormise needs to meet the criteria of a balance between how much does it affect individual rights and freedoms for law abiding citizens against how much good does it actually achieve.  Unless those questions are asked and can be adequately answered - I am in no mood for compromise for compromise's sake.



#92 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:28 AM

 

 What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower? 

 

In theory nothing. 

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions. 

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66    Males - 65    Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes  17 no   8 unsure

Venue -  3 church  20 work  12 school  31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto  29 rifle  24 revolver  23 shotgun  (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
 
Total murders over the same interval  100's of thousands....
 
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
 
 
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)
 

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.


 

 

 

 Then there is no problem! The sales of guns have been through the roof. Give it time.  

 

Except when someone defeats the effect....

 

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition.   And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."

The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations.

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/m...h.jxtgb16H.dpuf



#93 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,242 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:33 AM

The NY Times tells a whopping lie and gets caught. The Time let its hatred for the AR15 color its integrity and now look dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

 

 

 

The liberal media is so obsessed with linking the Navy Yard shooter with the AR-15 rifle that it is making up false tales of Aaron Alexis trying to obtain one.

 

The New York Times attempts to give the impression that a so-called assault-weapon law stopped Alexis from buying a rifle in Virginia, but that is not true.

 

The Times has a story Tuesday on its homepage with the headline “State Law Stopped Gunman From Buying Rifle, Officials Say.”

 

The first line says: “The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.”

 

Apparently neither the reporter nor his editors took the time to fact check their vague “law enforcement officials” sources. 

 

“Virginia law does not prohibit the sale of assault rifles to out-of-state citizens who have proper identification,” Dan Peterson, a Virginia firearms attorney, told me Tuesday night. The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card. 

 

The Commonwealth defines “assault firearm” as any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or pistol with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds or can accommodate a silencer or is equipped with a folding stock. 

 

John Frazer, also a firearms attorney in the Commonwealth, told me that, “State law in Virginia — like most states — allows purchase of rifles or shotguns by residents of other states. Virginia simply requires some additional forms of identification.”

 

Federal law is clear on this residency issue. A quick glance at the ATF website would have informed the New York Times journalists that a person may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a federal firearms licensee’s premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws, which it would in this case.



Read more: http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2fDt40V58 
 

 

 



#94 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:47 AM

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other

 

On this, we are in violent agreement!



#95 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:58 AM

I appears that an AR-15 was not even used in the shooting AT ALL!  I heard this on PBS newshour and this CNN article confirms it:

 

http://edition.cnn.c...-15-gun-debate/

 

CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

 

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"

 

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

 

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect.

 

This shows how just bad the misinformation was

 

I HATE THE FUCKING LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!  LIARS AND CUNTS, all of them!



#96 the_abandoned_brane

the_abandoned_brane

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:59 AM

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other. 

we're a culture of death. whether its dropping bombs on arabs, ripping kids out of the womb or shooting each other. we may pretend to be appalled, but we're not really. tie this into the fact human life is being devalued in the US,and bingo. we get where we are today. nowhere.



#97 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:22 AM

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other

 

On this, we are in violent agreement!

 

does it have to be violent?

 

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other. 

we're a culture of death. whether its dropping bombs on arabs, ripping kids out of the womb or shooting each other. we may pretend to be appalled, but we're not really. tie this into the fact human life is being devalued in the US,and bingo. we get where we are today. nowhere.

 

 

i guess it does..................

 

:D  :P  :D  :P



#98 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:30 AM

I appears that an AR-15 was not even used in the shooting AT ALL!  I heard this on PBS newshour and this CNN article confirms it:
 

http://edition.cnn.c...-15-gun-debate/
 
CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.
 
A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"
 
However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
 
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect.

 
This shows how just bad the misinformation was
 
I HATE THE FUCKING LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!  LIARS AND CUNTS, all of them!




Networks Try To Explain Blown Call
By David Bauder
AP Television Writer
Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2000; 6:39 p.m. EST
NEW YORK –– Television networks tried to explain Wednesday how they blew a call on the Florida election results – not once but twice – the second time prematurely declaring George W. Bush the next president.
The networks were forced to take back that call after 4 a.m. EST when it became clear that the close Florida count would be contested.
"We don't just have egg on our face," NBC's Tom Brokaw said. "We have an omelette."
NBC had been first to declare a winner in Florida on Tuesday, saying Al Gore won at 7:50 p.m EST. Its rivals quickly followed suit, basing their information largely on polling data provided by Voter News Service, a consortium created by The Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC.
The networks take their victory projections seriously and promised before Election Day to be cautious if the race was close.
"Let's get one thing straight right from the get-go: We would rather be last in reporting returns than be wrong," Dan Rather said on CBS at the outset of coverage. "If we say somebody's carried the state, you can take that to the bank."
But at 9:55, CNN took back its projection, saying Florida was now too close to call. CNN election experts had noticed a discrepancy between a VNS estimate and the actual vote, a network spokeswoman said.
Other networks, VNS and the AP quickly took back their predictions of a Gore victory in Florida. As the evening wore on, TV analysts increasingly gave Bush the edge. After polls closed on the West Coast, it became clear that Florida would decide things.
At 2:16 a.m., Fox News Channel declared Bush the winner in Florida. Within four minutes, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC did the same. The AP said the race was still too close to name a winner.
Fox made the call based on its analysis of the vote count – it believed Bush's lead was so large there was no way Gore could overcome it given what experts knew about ballots left uncounted, said John Moody, Fox News Channel's vice president of news and editorial quality.
He said Fox did not make its call based on any advice from VNS. In fact, because of the earlier mistake on Gore, "we were all aware that their model was not perfect," he said.
Why were the other networks so quick to follow?
"It's competitive," pollster John Zogby said on Fox News Channel. "One network does it and it creates a panic among the other networks."
Executives at CBS and NBC denied they took their cues from a rival. Each said their experts reached essentially the same conclusion as Moody.
"There's always competitive juices flowing on this, but people spent hours looking at Florida," said Al Ortiz, executive producer of the CBS election coverage. "When we made this call, we really felt it was solid."
CBS blamed VNS, saying the consortium provided incorrect information on uncounted votes. As a result, Ortiz said, the networks were taken by surprise when the vote count later tightened – at one point bringing Gore to within 224 votes.
In a statement issued Wednesday, VNS said it had based its Florida-for-Gore call on exit polls, augmented by actual votes from model precincts. "These models, based on sampling precincts, have served us well through many elections. However, we will investigate why they did not work properly in this specific situation," the service said.
The later Florida-for-Bush declaration was based on actual votes indicating Bush had a sufficient lead to take the state, VNS said. After Bush's lead dropped dramatically with the tabulation of the remaining votes, "the responsible thing to do was to withdraw the call," it said.
CNN said in a statement that it has "initiated an immediate review of all procedures involved and has already begun consultations with other news organizations." ABC also said it was looking into what happened.
"We made mistakes," said Jeff Zucker, a producer of NBC's coverage. "But we made mistakes based on bad information. If you make a mistake and own up to it, that's fine."
Despite the network projections, the AP did not declare Bush the winner.
"By midnight we knew Florida was going to deliver the presidency to one candidate or the other, and when our TV partners called the state for Bush, the vote was in his favor," said AP Executive Editor Jon Wolman. "We saw that, too, but we also saw that some significant Democratic precincts were still being tallied, and our vote-count experts felt strongly that it was too close to call."
About an hour after declaring Bush the winner, the networks began to get queasy. Ed Bradley read an advisory explaining the AP's non-call on the air. "A very reliable news service," Rather said.
The networks all took the Bush projection back around 4 a.m. "We're not absolutely sure quite what to do next," ABC anchor Peter Jennings confessed at 4 a.m. EST.
It made for gripping television, and early indications are many Americans stayed up to watch. Between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. EST, Nielsen Media Research reported that 22 percent of American homes with TVs had their sets on. The audience for ABC, CBS and NBC was 225 percent higher than usual at that hour.
An audience in Austin, standing in the rain waiting to celebrate a Bush victory and watching large-screen TVs, cheered at the network projections. A Nashville audience was glum.
Newspapers across the country made decisions based on what they heard on TV. The final edition headline in the Daily Gazette in Schenectady, N.Y., blared: "Networks: Bush Wins." There were reports of editors shouting "stop the presses" in newsrooms when the calls were reversed – just like in the movies.
"I'm not sure television's had as bad a night as this," Tom Rosensteil, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said on CNN.
Marvin Kalb, executive director of the Shorenstein Center on Press and Politics at Harvard University, said he feared repercussions from this "very major goof."
"Television news is supposed to cover the news," Kalb said. "It is not supposed to be a player, certainly not a player on the scale that was demonstrated last night. My concern is there may be calls for legislative or executive control over the way television news calls elections in the future, and that will get us into a fundamental constitutional fight."
CBS' Ortiz said in the network's defense: "We leveled with our viewers all night long about where we stood."
And Fox's Moody said he doesn't regret the decision. "When that recount is completed, I feel that our call will be correct."

© Copyright 2000 The Associated Press
Back to the top





spacer.gif

spacer.gif

spacer.gif
looks like its been happening for some time



#99 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:47 AM

Mental health concerns sure have gained some traction here since guns became numero uno bickering topic

 

It seems some here are entertaining ideas that some yet to be found method of broad screening is required to pick out those most at risk of committing henious crimes. Sounds easy enough, somewhere near 50% of the US population will experience some type of diagnosable mental disorder in their life. Some, it appears, are also entertaining the idea that those people could also be eligable for dminisheed rights (as in no more 2A for 'crazy' folk) based on their mental health...sounds easy enough as well

 

All the while, the existence of a dangerous implement is viewed as vital to the ongoing welfare & security of the US. We all know that it's written into a 200 year old bill of rights & that the 2A has questionable relevance in modern life. But hey, lets not allow that to get in the way of careful & persistant lobbying to ensure the US population at large hears how reliant on a gun they truely are...afterall you need one to fight back against an oppressive govt (they pop up with alarming regularity), you need one to defend yourself (it's a well documented fact that gun owners & their families are safer when they own one), you need one for fun (families that shoot together stay together), you need one to hunt (because supermarkets & reliable food supplies only exist in places where unicorns live) & when you're thinking of putting your hard earned down for a gun, you need to buy one that lets you shoot a lot of rounds (because reloading is a PITA). It's hard to imagine life without a gun when you consider how vital to modern life they truely are

 

So mental health screening sounds like a viable solution for the bad & totally undeserved rep the peace loving gun gets

flower_power_gun_by_sillybillyisaac.jpg



#100 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:00 AM

We all know that it's written into a 200 year old bill of rights & that the 2A has questionable relevance in modern life.

 

I dunno who your "we all" is but the 2nd of your statements is patently false. 

 

But there's ~250 million of "we all" who think otherwise






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users