The question was thrown out there and I had answered it. All things can be abused when used incorrectly. Try following the invention and life of dynomite and you will see abuses from its original intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
The question was thrown out there and I had answered it. All things can be abused when used incorrectly. Try following the invention and life of dynomite and you will see abuses from its original intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No he didn't .He used one that looked like a military weapon.Quote:
Tom get real, that idiot used a military weapon
Edit... even when we had a so called "assault rifle"ban... all they did was ban semi-automatics that looked like military rifles. Hunters that wanted one could legally get them... as long as it looked like a hunting rifle.
Materials for fertilizer bombs not regulated | Homeland Security News WireQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
If it was an impulse attack then yes I agree. But I am sure this was planned many days in advance ;despite the stupid FOX report this morning .
It shows the complete lack of knowledge of guns when a civilian AR is constantly referred to as a "military weapon". The similarity is the appearance. That's it. But I suppose we can create more panic and make the rifle look worse by calling it a military weapon... oh, and an "automatic weapon"...
Also, I keep seeing "weapons of mass destruction" in this thread. Really? I was always under the impression that WMD was in reference to bombs, missiles, bio-weapons... now we need to include an AR in that as well...
Well, I guess it does sound better... so much more evil.
Professor Adam Lankford wrote this op ed Monday comparing mass killers in the US to suicide bombers outside the US. He finds striking simularities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/op...lers.html?_r=0Quote:
There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die. The specific psychiatric diagnoses vary widely, and include everything from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and others forms of psychosis. The suicide rate was 12.4 per 100,000 people in the United States in 2010 (the highest in 15 years). Suicide is relatively rare, but it is rarer still in most Muslim countries. This is a very limited pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters come.
The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him. Not surprisingly, the presence of mental illness can inflame these beliefs, leading perpetrators to have irrational and exaggerated perceptions of their own victimization. It makes little difference whether the perceived victimizer is an enemy government (in the case of suicide terrorists) or their boss, co-workers, fellow students or family members (in the case of rampage shooters).
The key is that the aggrieved individual feels that he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. In many cases, the target for revenge becomes broader and more symbolic than a single person, so that an entire type or category of people is deemed responsible for the attacker's pain and suffering. Then, the urge to commit suicide becomes a desire for murder-suicide, which is even rarer; a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies suggests that only two to three of every one million Americans commit murder-suicide each year.
The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. More than 70 percent of murder-suicides are between spouses or romantic or sexual partners, and these crimes usually take place at home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as “martyrs” after their deaths and, sure enough, terrorist organizations produce martyrdom videos and memorabilia so that other desperate souls will volunteer to blow themselves up.
Similarly, rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?” the Columbine shooter Eric Harris remarked. He had fantasized with his fellow attacker, Dylan Klebold, that the filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino would fight over the rights to their life story.
Although we can only speculate, Adam Lanza's decision to target elementary school children in Newtown, Conn. may have been a calculated attempt to get as much attention as possible. Despite misconceptions to the contrary, many mentally ill people are quite capable of staging their attacks for symbolic effect. In 2002, the Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo shot a middle schooler, then taunted the police with a note that said “Your children are not safe anywhere at any time.” Mr. Lanza may have realized that the only thing that generates more attention than killing random innocent adults is killing random innocent children.
It is tempting to look back at recent history and wonder what's wrong with America — our culture and our policies. But underneath the pain, the rage and the desire to die, rampage shooters like Mr. Lanza are remarkably similar to aberrant mass killers — including suicide terrorists — in other countries. The difference rests in how they are shaped by cultural forces and which destructive behaviors they seek to copy. The United States has had more than its share of rampage shootings, but only a few suicide attacks. Other countries are regularly plagued by suicidal explosions, but rarely experience a school shooting.
I can't help but wonder about Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho and Adam Lanza. If they had been born in Gaza or the West Bank, shaped by terrorist organizations' hateful propaganda, would they have strapped bombs around their waists and blown themselves up? I'm afraid the answer is yes.
Research on Suicide Terrorism, Mass Shootings, Criminal Behavior, and More
Hello again, tom:
All the more reason to make sure they CAN'T get their hands on weapons of mass destruction.Quote:
Professor Adam Lankford wrote this op ed Monday comparing mass killers in the US to suicide bombers outside the US. He finds striking simularities:
Excon
Now a semi-automatic is a wmd ? Lol
Today the President created a taskforce headed by Joe Biden to come up with gun control legislation... yes this Joe Biden
Biden and his Beretta - YouTube
Do you know who will be on this taskforce? It sounds like the agenda will include discussion aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
1. legislation to reinstate a ban on assault-style weapons (expired in 2004).
2. closing a gun show loophole allowing people to buy arms from private dealers without background checks
3. legislation limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines
I'm guessing other taskforces will be formed to discuss the mental health issues and maybe the impact of violent entertainment (?). And I hope it won't be only talk with no reasonable and worthwhile action.
You have your head in the sand it is the same weapon as the M16, the armalite rifle used by military forces, It just doesn't operate on automatic and there is one verson of it that takes large calibre ammunition and WMD isn't just confined to things that kill many people in one placeQuote:
Originally Posted by odinn7
It's not the same "weapon"... It doesn't have a select fire option and the trigger group is made for semi only. The rifle would need to be modified to accept an auto trigger group. Therefore, it is not the same rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And who has their head in the sand?
WMD as defined by the FBI: FBI WMD FAQs
I wonder why he didn't get Dingy Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein to figure it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:
You call 'em what YOU want, and I'll call 'em what I want..Quote:
now a semi-automatic is a wmd ? Lol
ANY weapon that can wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds, and with a quick change of the magazine, another 100, IS a weapon of mass destruction in MY book.. It don't surprise me none that we don't agree.
Excon
I'm with you ex, there has been pussyfooting around this issue for a long time, I'll tell you this so the gunnuts have something to look forward to.
You would be aware that we have some stringent gun control laws here, well in the aftermath of recent gang violence and an on the street assassination among our more violent residents, no prizes for guessing who, they will move to ban semi-automatic hand guns in my state.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226540732055
And the interesting thing is there isn't even a ripple of protest
Enough pussyfooting around on this issue no matter where you live!
I agree with you 100%. That's been my point this entire time. To me, a gun that has a 100 bullet clip that can shoot 100 bullets in a matter of seconds, is a dangerous weapon that should not have been in the hands of a civilian.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
On fb I'm having this same argument, and I'm repeatedly told that this tragedy would still have happened had the killer not had this gun, but just a 6 shooter handgun or a knife. Well, if you look at this crime, right after shots were heard, teachers hid their students, the school was put on lockdown. Would people have still died if the killer had only had a 6 shooter handgun or knife? Probably. But 26 people? Doubtful.
We can't prevent murder, we can't prevent things like this from happening completely, but we can sure as hell make it harder for people to kill dozens of people in a few minutes, by limiting the weapons they have access to. Had this killer not had access to the weapons he had, 20 parents wouldn't be grieving the loss of their children tonight. Would any be grieving? Could be, the shooter could be a good shot and aim and hit all 6 targets if he had the kind of gun I believe is the only type of weapon that should be allowed for civilians. But 20 children? I doubt it.
I have 3 weapons, I have one that can hold 5 bullets. Trust me, that's all I need for protection. If you break into my home and my dogs don't tear you apart, I will take you down, and I won't need all 5 bullets to do it. So why does anyone else need 100 bullet clips, and guns that can hold those clips? I'm not a gun aficionado, that's obvious, but I can aim and shoot, and 5 bullets is all I need if you intend to do me harm. Frankly, I most likely wouldn't even need that, I have a baseball bat and two dogs that are very protective of their family home, and only accept invited guests that we personally greet.
Let me try and answer your question. Because of the rambo mystique. There is a belief that a courageous, if inadequately trained citizen, will be victorious over an armed attacker, that the attacker will back off if confronted. The attacker in the Newtown case went prepared to be confronted, he wore a bullet proof vest, proving his obvious intent to fight it out. There is also some sort of belief that the US is about to suffer some form of invasion which will require the average citizen to defend themselves, thus they need weapons with high magazine capacity. This is some sort of hangover from the revolution and it is true that for about fifty years they might have had reason for concern. Fact is they have created the situation where they need to defend themselves against each other. This is called paranoiaQuote:
Originally Posted by Alty
There is no legal gun on the market that can "wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds" . A rapid rate of fire of a Bushmaster AR-15 is about 45 rpm and that depends on the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger at that rate . As I already said ,I have no problem with restrictions on magazine sizes.
And my husband said there were probably 30 bullets in the clip and he had to pull the trigger for each shot -- it wasn't an automatic spray of bullets after one trigger pull.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
yes ;each shot has to be the result of an independent trigger pull. The semi-automatic differs from the bolt action in that a bullet resets in the chamber automatically. The clip size sounds right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Where did your husband get this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Edit. If the shooter had 30 bullets in his gun, then he didn't have to reload once to kill the 26 people he killed.
He knows from personal knowledge as a gun collector that a Bushmaster is semi-automatic (one trigger pull for each shot) and that 30 rounds is the usual for it for one magazine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Here is something from online CNN --
"The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines."
Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com
Edit: The children were shot multiple times. Lanza reloaded and used more than one magazine.
2nd edit: And Lanza shot staff and students who were in more than one room, i.e. he walked around from room to room..
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I understand that you have a personal vandetta to settle with the world. I get that. But your constant trips into fantasy land are just so tiring. I guess what your trying to say is that anyone that is proficient with a firearm is a rambo no matter how much they may train or what their background is. News flash. Police kill innocent people all the time because they don't train as much as many of the people that I know that are responsible gun owners.
It is also a sport as well. But in your mind if someone were to shoot back you assume that the attacker will just stand there and keep picking other targets rather then being distracted by the bullets coming his/her way.
That isn't going to happen. The confusion alone could save lives. But return fire by responsible gun owners would most likely result in the perp assuming room temprature in a very short time with full ventilation.
So if you want to win hearts and minds then at least center yourself in the real world and not hide behind the shadows of your past.
And I also wonder why it is assumed that any civilian with a gun is automatically "inadequately trained"... How is that? I'll give you that not everyone that owns or carries a gun is fully trained but to assume that simply because you're a civilian that you aren't trained... it's just wrong. I know plenty of civilians (myself included) that are better with guns than the police are. I know plenty of civilians that have had adequate training. Just because you wear a badge doesn't automatically make you adequately trained.
Yeh I know a lot pass through the military. It seems from your remarks that your police training should be brought up to speed, But it isn't just an assumption, owning a gun, going to the range now and then, isn't training to aim and kill or maim, there is a lot more to itQuote:
Originally Posted by odinn7
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I think he is referring to your ethos. Ex's post #122
My ethos is I know enough about the stupidiy associated with guns, and violent fantasy, to understand it fueled by violent videos, games and so on in unbalanced individuals. I have a great deal of life experience in these issues, experience I would rather not have gained. I'm on the side of the victims of gun violence. I understand, as is demonstrated in societies all over the world that the restriction of gun ownership is clearly demonstrated to reduce casualities associated with gun use and the slaughter of innocents. As I said much earlier there is a higher right than the right to own a gun, and that right is the right to life. This is the point no one wants to argue. They don't realise that having a gun in every home is not an assurance of security, it is reinforcing an ethos that if you want to succeed in criminal activities you must kill or be killed. This is not an attack on commerce, it is not an attack on liberty, it is a simple statement, the opening words of a well know document right to life, stated before any other rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
As part of the stupidity I speak about, are you aware that Bushmaster promote a man-card as part of their gun marketing and that they revoked the shooter's man-card after he used a bushmaster to slaughter 26 people. How stupid can you get? Rhetorical question, I know.
The founders did not list them according to importance. But it is also self evident that life ,liberty and property(or as the founders put it the 'persuit of happiness') ,if they are a rights ,needs to be defended... and a person does have that right... really.. they do.Quote:
This is not an attack on commerce, it is not an attack on liberty, it is a simple statement, the opening words of a well know document right to life, stated before any other rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And again... you don't know what kind of training I have had... what kind of training anyone has had. You only assume that our training is no more than just going to the range now and then. How do you know this? As I said earlier, I'll give you that not every gun owner is properly trained for a "situation" but don't sit there and make a blanket assumption (stated as true fact) that every gun owner has no training other than maybe the range now and then.
One of our Texas reps has the answer, install automatic retractable steel walls in every school in America. Frankly I like the alligator filled moat idea better.
Hello again, Steve:
I heard your congressman Gomert wishing the teacher in Connecticut HAD an assault rifle so she could have STOPPED the carnage... I've never heard anything more STUPID in my life.
Your vision for America, Steve, is a far cry from MY vision. Good thing YOUR vision has been REPUDIATED. There WON'T be MORE arming of America. There WILL be LESS. Live with it.
excon
You have no idea what my vision for America is, you've spent years painting your own deluded picture of what you THINK it is.
FYI, we already have districts in Texas that arm teachers and train them to respond. You must not have any idea how many rural schools we have in this nation that are literally in the middle of nowhere. They can't rely on law enforcement, they're too far away. It makes more sense than imprisoning kids in steel walled schools.
Of course your side has resisted every effort we've made to get kids out of dangerous, failing public schools and making sure we have a culture that considers human life disposable. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.
You have a Democrat in Michigan saying there will be blood, a union thug warning of civil war, teachers that are "doing it for the kids" faking illness and getting fake doctor's excuses to go throw their little temper tantrums instead of caring for the children.
You yourself have been thumping your chest over a WAR on women. We have a VP who warns we're going to put blacks back in chains, and all manner of other uncivil, bloody, violent imagery and behavior from the left. Why the heck should we take you seriously?
P.S. You know where the sharpest rise in gun ownership has occurred? Among Democrats, women and every region but the south. They're just taking after Biden and Reid and their love for Berettas, and Feinstein who used to (and may still) carry everywhere she went. I think it's time you minded your own house instead of invading my peaceful home.
Bravo! F'ing BRAVO! Standing ovation!Quote:
You have no idea what my vision for America is, you've spent years painting your own deluded picture of what you THINK it is.
FYI, we already have districts in Texas that arm teachers and train them to respond. You must not have any idea how many rural schools we have in this nation that are literally in the middle of nowhere. They can't rely on law enforcement, they're too far away. It makes more sense than imprisoning kids in steel walled schools.
Of course your side has resisted every effort we've made to get kids out of dangerous, failing public schools and making sure we have a culture that considers human life disposable. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.
You have a Democrat in Michigan saying there will be blood, a union thug warning of civil war, teachers that are "doing it for the kids" faking illness and getting fake doctor's excuses to go throw their little temper tantrums instead of caring for the children.
You yourself have been thumping your chest over a WAR on women. We have a VP who warns we're going to put blacks back in chains, and all manner of other uncivil, bloody, violent imagery and behavior from the left. Why the heck should we take you seriously?
P.S. You know where the sharpest rise in gun ownership has occurred? Among Democrats, women and every region but the south. They're just taking after Biden and Reid and their love for Berettas, and Feinstein who used to (and may still) carry everywhere she went. I think it's time you minded your own house instead of invading my peaceful home.
... then driving away in their limo with their armed security guard.Quote:
. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.
Interesting and important point you make about rural and urban environments. I can see where a smaller community would have to rely more on each other rather than law enforcement for safety and protection. I can see a principal or teacher being the fire chief or the police chief. Even the barber. Or wearing all the above hats
That's food for thought.
How small is that community, just big enough to murder yourself?
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They need to be defended because they are self-evident, or they need to be defended because they are a right?
Think it through carefully before you answer.
Tut
Don't have to think hard at all the words weren't parced in the Declaration of Independence :
The self evident truth is about the rights .Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Ok then it is a self-evident truth. Do you know what a self-evident truth is?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
I think you are guilty of revisionism Tom and yet you keep telling us about original intentQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You cannot get more original than this
I cannot see a number of things in there, in particular property, nor do I see guns. Now I know that a lot can be read into the word among, but because they are not specifically stated they rank a little lower.What you have been just telling us is words mean whatever you want them to meanQuote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
Wow it's been a long time since I took this quiz. A truth is a fact. A self evident truth is so obvious that it's well understood without having to provide proof . To save time I'll offer that an unalienable right is a natural right as recognized by the thinkers of the Enlightement What's your point ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:14 PM. |