US Connecticut Shooting

[RabbitLuvr]

http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html

Unbelievable some parents are trying to get rich off this.

In the United States, this is all too believable.

 

[mlp]

I'm not the one running around pretending that "assault weapons" are exceptionally dangerous guns.

Anything with a large clip/magazine and fast shooting power is exceptionally dangerous in the context of mass murders. Any gun at all is exceptionally dangerous with respect to killing one or several people in the context of road rage, domestic disputes, spur of the moment suicides, etc.

I think that getting rid of assault weapons (and here I'm using the term to include anything that acts like an assault weapon), automatics, semi-automatics and large clips/magazines is feasible in the context of the Second Amendment even as you interpret it.

That will reduce the number of deaths somewhat.

Please tell me where I've said anything different than that.

I'm promoting the idea that guns makes a person macho? ORLY? How?

Again, you're not reading very carefully.

I do promote the idea that an attack on one part of the constitution is very likely to become an attack on other parts of our constitution.

Yeah, a bit hysterical there, aren't we? Machine guns are illegal. ZOMG, how has the Constitution survived that?! ZOMG, how did the Constitution survive Prohibition?!

ORLY? I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but I've stated before that cultural, economic and political changes will reduce gun deaths. I'm just skeptical of the idea that banning scary looking guns will do much. The effects of the first AWB backs me up on this.

I thought we had agreed that the first AWB was cosmetic in nature. Do we really have to re-argue everything as though this thread is Groundhog Day?

Cutural changes aren't going to occur while people like you promote the sanctity of gun ownership as though you were a prophet preaching from the mountains.

 

[mlp]

How are you going to keep the criminals, who don't care about gun bans, out of your side?

Well, there's not going to be a market for guns on our side. And I will rely on law enforcement to protect me, as I do now.

Plus a really high border fence, with razor wire on top, to keep out the gun nuts.

 

[mlp]

And in other news, the NRA vows to fight a proposed treaty to regulate the international trade in arms: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-arms-treatynra-repeatl1e8nr3m0-20121228,0,4897945.story?page=1 Because of course U.S. gun manufacturers have a 40% of the international market in guns, and it would be a shame if they lost any part of the profits they make from supplying guns to various war lords, cartels, etc.

Also in other news - the neighbor of the man who shot the firefighters bought the guns for him: http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC121229-0000052/Neighbour-bought-gun-for-man-who-shot-at-firemen I guess she thought his constitutional rights had been infringed upon by the fact that he was prohibited from buying the guns himself. After all, the Constitution doesn't support such a prohibition, now does it?

 

[das_nut]

Anything with a large clip/magazine and fast shooting power is exceptionally dangerous in the context of mass murders.

A gun with a large magazine isn't necessarily an assault weapon.

ZOMG, how has the Constitution survived that?! ZOMG, how did the Constitution survive Prohibition?!

Which amendment gives the right to drink alcohol?

Really, if you can't even be bothered to read the US Constitution (it's a short enough document), maybe you shouldn't comment on constitutional issues.

I thought we had agreed that the first AWB was cosmetic in nature. Do we really have to re-argue everything as though this thread is Groundhog Day?

Now one of these days you'll learn how fast you can swap out clips. Of course, I fully expect that your solution to that would be to ban all clothing with pockets.

Cutural changes aren't going to occur while people like you promote the sanctity of gun ownership as though you were a prophet preaching from the mountains.

I suppose that when it comes to Constitutional rights, the only ones we should bother with are the popular ones. *sigh*

I never really looked into it but I would suspect they would be more at risk for kidnap for ransom, for one thing. I bet a lot of them go to schools with armed guards or have body guards.

Is kidnapping for ransom a likely risk for the rich? I'm googling, and what I'm finding out about kidnapping for ransom is that Phoenix seems to be the capital of kidnapping for ransom in the US, and that the perpetrators and victims both tend to be linked to Mexican drug cartels. So I guess if Mexican drug cartel members are sending their kids to expensive private schools, maybe armed guards make sense.

Well, there's not going to be a market for guns on our side.

Your side appears to have abolished all crime. Quite the accomplishment.

If we're abandoning all pretense of realism, why not wish for guns that will only hurt bad people?

Plus a really high border fence, with razor wire on top, to keep out the gun nuts.

You really need to call up some conservative politicians. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear about a magical fence that can keep everyone out.

 

[das_nut]

And in other news, the NRA vows to fight a proposed treaty to regulate the international trade in arms: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-arms-treatynra-repeatl1e8nr3m0-20121228,0,4897945.story?page=1 Because of course U.S. gun manufacturers have a 40% of the international market in guns, and it would be a shame if they lost any part of the profits they make from supplying guns to various war lords, cartels, etc.

Just googling that, the reason I find for the NRA to oppose that is due to such a treaty requiring mandatory gun registration for US citizens if they buy an imported gun.

Also in other news - the neighbor of the man who shot the firefighters bought the guns for him: http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC121229-0000052/Neighbour-bought-gun-for-man-who-shot-at-firemen I guess she thought his constitutional rights had been infringed upon by the fact that he was prohibited from buying the guns himself. After all, the Constitution doesn't support such a prohibition, now does it?

As far as I can tell, interpretations of constitutional law does allow constitutional rights to be removed from those convicted from a crime, even after release.

Now, why don't you tell us about your fascinating theory that the solution to someone breaking the law is to pass more laws for them to break.

I suppose you think that the drug war isn't being won because drug users are only breaking a few laws, and if we passed just more laws for them to break, nobody would use drugs.

 

[Wolfie]

In the United States, this is all too believable.

Sadly that is true.

 

[mlp]

A gun with a large magazine isn't necessarily an assault weapon.

Yes, I know. Again, please try to read more carefully.

Which amendment gives the right to drink alcohol?

Really, if you can't even be bothered to read the US Constitution (it's a short enough document), maybe you shouldn't comment on constitutional issues.

Harkening back to your earlier cry that the Constitution had only ever been amended to increase rights and anything that decreases rights (according to your perception) would put the whole thing in jeopardy.

Now one of these days you'll learn how fast you can swap out clips. Of course, I fully expect that your solution to that would be to ban all clothing with pockets.

My goodness, you have a sense of humor after all. Who would've thought?!

I suppose that when it comes to Constitutional rights, the only ones we should bother with are the popular ones. *sigh*

Yeah, the Constitution has never been modified to reflect technological or societal changes.

But under your interpretation, I guess the ban on machine guns is unconstitutional?

Your side appears to have abolished all crime. Quite the accomplishment.

Again, reading comprehension. Or maybe just plain reading? Or did I type the part about police in invisible ink?

If we're abandoning all pretense of realism, why not wish for guns that will only hurt bad people?

My bad. I was too hasty in attributting a glimmer of a sense of humor.

You really need to call up some conservative politicians. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear about a magical fence that can keep everyone out.

See comment re sense of humor above.

As far as I can tell, interpretations of constitutional law does allow constitutional rights to be removed from those convicted from a crime, even after release.

I think that maybe you should read the Constitution a little more carefully (it's a short enough document, after all) and then try to be a little more consistent in your interpretations.

(it's a short enough document, after all).

Now, why don't you tell us about your fascinating theory that the solution to someone breaking the law is to pass more laws for them to break.

I suppose you think that the drug war isn't being won because drug users are only breaking a few laws, and if we passed just more laws for them to break, nobody would use drugs.

Sweetie, I think that perhaps you need to re-read this thread in its entirety, because you've missed my major point, which I have re-iterated about half a dozen times.

This has gotten to the point where I have repeated myself, and on important points, more than once.

You have yet to voice any ideas that might effectuate change. Maybe you're content with the status quo?

 

[das_nut]

You have yet to voice any ideas that might effectuate change. Maybe you're content with the status quo?

As I said before, legalize drugs - it removes a lot of money from criminal enterprises (and if you're for gun control, the same networks that smuggles drugs can easily smuggle weapons). Then attack the culture.

One of the more interesting [ideas] I've heard is to give a financial incentive for people to inform on illegal guns. (Remember, illegally acquired guns are used far more frequently than "gun show loophole"-acquired guns.)

Had to repost this, since you seemed to have missed the original posts.

 

[das_nut]

Oh, and your other point:

Harkening back to your earlier cry that the Constitution had only ever been amended to increase rights and anything that decreases rights (according to your perception) would put the whole thing in jeopardy.

I don't have a major problem with a constitutional amendment to define gun regulation.*

I *do* think that trying to pass a constitutional amendment to define (or restrict) gun regulation is pretty implausible, but go right ahead and try. Hell, it probably will be as effective as your other ideas.

*I'd actually like to see a constitutional amendment actually giving the feds the power that the feds currently horribly abuse the commerce clause to justify. Seems cleaner. But I don't think that amendment is likely to pass either. Which is a shame - its so much more elegant to base government on the idea that human being have innate rights and that the government has no rights but for what rights the people grant it. I really like that idea - which makes me either very liberal or very conservative - not sure which.

 

[mlp]

Had to repost this, since you seemed to have missed the original posts.

Thanks.

Do you have any support for your contention that legalizing drugs would reduce gun violence in the U.S.?

As for illegal versus legal guns: About 2/3 of mass shootings involved legal guns. Domestic murders, road rage, spur of the moment suicides, accidental gun deaths - all of which I would describe as easily preventable deaths (if guns were not right on hand) generally involve legally acquired guns. Illegally acquired guns seem to be largely confined to gang related violence and violence while committing other crimes, and with respect to those kinds of crimes, I agree that whether guns are illegal or not, is not going to significantly affect those categories of deaths.

Has the financial incentive for people to inform on illegal guns actually ever been tried? I would think that the milieus in which such informing might work would also be extremely dangerous for the informants, making that a rather short lived experiment.

And my point is that a constitutional amendment is not necessary for most gun regulation, i.e., the ban on machine guns.

 

[das_nut]

Thanks.

Do you have any support for your contention that legalizing drugs would reduce gun violence in the U.S.?

Well, there's this that I found while googling for "illegal drugs homicide":

"Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that “drug-related” murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

But very few would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America’s three-decade-long “drug war.” Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

Ending the drug war would involve reducing all of these incentives to murder."

So according to the government, between 5% and 50% of all homicides are drug related.

Well, that's clear. /sarcasm.

As for illegal versus legal guns: About 2/3 of mass shootings involved legal guns. Domestic murders, road rage, spur of the moment suicides, accidental gun deaths - all of which I would describe as easily preventable deaths (if guns were not right on hand) generally involve legally acquired guns.

First of all, I'd rather disagree with the characterization that suicides are spur of the moment - I could be wrong, but as far as I know, suicide tends not to be a spur of the moment thing, but instead tends to result from a pre-existing suicidal depression.

Illegally acquired guns seem to be largely confined to gang related violence and violence while committing other crimes, and with respect to those kinds of crimes, I agree that whether guns are illegal or not, is not going to significantly affect those categories of deaths.

Actually, you would be somewhat wrong. There should be an economic incentive to increase the number of gun deaths by criminals if guns are illegal. Crime committed by criminals against non-criminals should go up, since the "cost" of crime goes down. (That is, if guns are illegal, law abiding citizens are unlikely to shoot you when you are committing a crime against them.) The advantage a gun gives a criminal also goes up (since it's unlikely a law abiding citizen will shoot back).

Has the financial incentive for people to inform on illegal guns actually ever been tried? I would think that the milieus in which such informing might work would also be extremely dangerous for the informants, making that a rather short lived experiment.

Could be an anonymous program, which would remove one of your objections. But as far as I know, it's never been tried.

And my point is that a constitutional amendment is not necessary for most gun regulation, i.e., the ban on machine guns.

Has the ban on machine guns actually survived a SCOTUS challenge?

 

[mlp]

Well, there's this that I found while googling for "illegal drugs homicide":

"Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that “drug-related” murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

But very few would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America’s three-decade-long “drug war.” Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

Ending the drug war would involve reducing all of these incentives to murder."

So according to the government, between 5% and 50% of all homicides are drug related.

Well, that's clear. /sarcasm.

Legalizing drugs would cut down the number of those murders committed by drug suppliers. Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned whether drug suppliers kill each other or not. I don't think there would be fewer addicts though (one could easily argue that there might well be more), and they're still going to have to pay for their drugs, unless you're proposing drug giveaway programs. As for gangs - there have been gangs killing each other since well before drugs became a big thing. There have been successful criminal enterprises before drugs as big business also - just think of the Mafia.

So, other than saving the lives of drug suppliers, I don't think you're going to be saving a lot of lives by legalizing drugs.

First of all, I'd rather disagree with the characterization that suicides are spur of the moment - I could be wrong, but as far as I know, suicide tends not to be a spur of the moment thing, but instead tends to result from a pre-existing suicidal depression.

I didn't say that suicides in general are spur of the moment. I think a significant category of suicides are, though - generally young people. Only 10% of the suicide attempts by gun fail; 75% of suicide attempts by overdose fail; wrist slashing has a very high failure rate. And you have to be really committed to the idea of suicide to hang yourself. Only 10% of the people who fail their first attempt end up eventually killing themselves. Again, a gun makes it really easy. My sister would almost certainly be dead if she had had a gun available; as it was, she doubled up with wrist slashing and an overdose, and survived.

Actually, you would be somewhat wrong. If nothing else, crime committed by criminals against non-criminals should go up, since the "cost" of crime goes down, and carrying a gun tilts the power to the criminal's favor. (That is, if guns are illegal, law abiding citizens are unlikely to shoot you when you are committing a crime against them.)

I think you are giving criminals way too much credit for analyzing risk/benefit. Most violent criminals have very poor impulse control (which is why they're criminals in the first place); that's why the death penalty isn't a deterrent, and why prison isn't a deterrent for them.

Could be an anonymous program, which would remove one of your objections. But as far as I know, it's never been tried.

I would suspect that gangs and militia type organizations are pretty alert to the idea of snitches among them, anonymous or not.

Has the ban on machine guns actually survived a SCOTUS challenge?

I don't think the NRA has fancied its chances.

 

[das_nut]

Legalizing drugs would cut down the number of those murders committed by drug suppliers. Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned whether drug suppliers kill each other or not.

I don't trust the drug suppliers' aim to encourage them to shoot at each other.

I don't think there would be fewer addicts though (one could easily argue that there might well be more), and they're still going to have to pay for their drugs, unless you're proposing drug giveaway programs.

But the cost of drugs will most likely decrease. After all, smokers tend not to commit crime to pay for their fix.

As for gangs - there have been gangs killing each other since well before drugs became a big thing. There have been successful criminal enterprises before drugs as big business also - just think of the Mafia.

Sure there has been successful criminal enterprises before the current drug problem, but it would be naive to think that the amount of cash drug trafficking provides isn't fueling organized (and unorganized) crime.

So, other than saving the lives of drug suppliers, I don't think you're going to be saving a lot of lives by legalizing drugs.

Well, drug suppliers, victims of drug suppliers, victims of drug users, and probably even some of the drug users.

I didn't say that suicides in general are spur of the moment. I think a significant category of suicides are, though - generally young people. Only 10% of the suicide attempts by gun fail; 75% of suicide attempts by overdose fail; wrist slashing has a very high failure rate. And you have to be really committed to the idea of suicide to hang yourself. Only 10% of the people who fail their first attempt end up eventually killing themselves. Again, a gun makes it really easy.

Then again, with gender differences in suicide "success" rates, one could argue that there's something a tad more going on. Unless you want to argue that suicidal women are too dumb to obtain and/or use a firearm.

I think you are giving criminals way too much credit for analyzing risk/benefit. Most violent criminals have very poor impulse control (which is why they're criminals in the first place); that's why the death penalty isn't a deterrent, and why prison isn't a deterrent for them.

I agree that criminals probably aren't the most rational of folks, but there's probably some risk analysis going on.

After all, if crime was fueled strictly by poor impulse control, we shouldn't expect to see it fluctuate due to other factors.

I would suspect that gangs and militia type organizations are pretty alert to the idea of snitches among them, anonymous or not.

Why would you assume that such informants would come from inside of the organization?

 

[das_nut]

Overreaction after the school shooting?

Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School District Superintendent, Steve Ciccariello, said that [the student's] teacher saw hand-drawn pictures of what appeared to be weapons in his notebook.

Investigators from the department and the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office went to the 16-year-old boy’s residence on East Spencer Lane and found several items, including electronic parts and several types of chemicals that when mixed together could cause an explosion, police said. The student was charged with possession of a weapon, an explosive device, and was placed in Harborfields Detention Center, police said.

[...]

Police Chief Pat Moran stressed Tuesday night no threats were made by the student and there was no indication there was any danger posed to anyone or property at the school.

“There was no indication he was making a bomb, or using a bomb or detonating a bomb,” he said.

It would be nice to have more details. Most people have chemicals in their house that react horribly when mixed together. But it doesn't mean they are planning to make a bomb.

 

[ledboots]

Better chuck away the chlorine bleach and ammonia, you flipping cleaning bombers!

 

[das_nut]

Better chuck away the chlorine bleach and ammonia, you flipping cleaning bombers!

That's the first two chemicals I thought of. Poisonous gas bomb right there, and most people have the supplies.

I also believe I possess some flammable liquid, some empty, small-mouthed containers, and a few rags. I must be planning to make molotov cocktails.

 

[Eleven]

This is from Gabrielle and Mark Gifford's new website aimed at preventing gun violence.

Dear fellow American,
Two years ago, a mentally ill young man shot me in the head, killed six of my constituents, and wounded 12 others. Since that terrible day, America has seen 11 more mass shootings – but no response from Congress to prevent gun violence. After the massacre of 20 children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary though, it’s clear: This time must be different.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

 

[AeryFairy]

Aaand now there's a conspiracy theory.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/index.html

Do not know whether to laugh, cry, or punch things.

 

[Dedalus]

Aaand now there's a conspiracy theory.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/index.html

Do not know whether to laugh, cry, or punch things.

What the ****?