Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 55553 times)

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #200 on: December 20, 2012, 02:36:10 am »

Like... Spoons? ;)

EDIT: But seriously, does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass murder?

At the very worst certain types of weapons were initially designed for war.  War is normally not consiered mass murder.  And virtually every type of personal weapon (M1 Garand, M14, M16 (AR-15), M4 (AR-15)) built for war has taken on new life and personality as recreational competition guns.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #201 on: December 20, 2012, 02:41:00 am »

Russ and Steve, as for armed teachers... How many armed guards managed to stop a bank robbery?
Not all banks have armed guards these days.. can't remember the last time I've seen one.  The risk for banks to be robbed is extremely remote.  But when they did use them the bad guys knew where they were stationed, where they stood, etc.  IN other words they could and did plan their robbery with them in the equation.  This would be quite different with teachers carrying concealed.  Though, just like banks, the bad guys will end up going somewhere where they don't have to deal with guards at all.  Mass Murderers already pick a gun free zone by design, if we enable the teachers they'll just pick the next gun free zone.. too bad we're so stupid as to provide them and then tell them where they are.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #202 on: December 20, 2012, 02:43:18 am »

Russ, I already provided it: extensive it isn't, but I said earlier that I was shooting with an AK-47 and military rifles, and quite successfully so, both in target practice and disassembling/assembling it.

I just do not see the need to keep an AK-47 under my pillow as a civilian, thus my gun skills are probably getting rusty.


I could care less about what type of weapon.. children shoot AK-47's all the time.  I'm interested in what training and exposure to mindset other than the television you've been exposed to?
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #203 on: December 20, 2012, 02:49:48 am »

Are you saying that a burglar would calmly continue while alarms are blaring and all lights inside and outside go on!? Seriously?

Good alarm systems (at least here) are connected directly to a monitoring center which would then alert the police. It would take some balls on the burglar side to wait to see if the police shows up.

Additionally, given that you consider guns to be primarily a deterrent, how about acquiring a plastic one? I am sure that at today's stage of technology, they might even come with a cocking sound built-in.
1.  Yes, they often do depending on their goal.  Not everyone is out to steal the family toaster.  Some re there for the kill.  Or kidnapping.  Or retaliation (something cops often have to live with for a very long time)..

2.  Virtually all private security companies are private and have relationships/agreements with the police.   If you're not giving out specific information to the monitors expect another 10-15 added on to whatever the police response time normally is.  Btw.. this is something you should ask your realtor when buying a home.. Where is the closest police station, response time, and crime rates..
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #204 on: December 20, 2012, 05:29:23 am »

STORAGE LAWS:  In Florida they enacted a law in the 80's that held owners of guns criminally and civilly responsible if their guns were used in the commission of a crime or were misused in any way. The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key...
I really feel this one law.. would do more good than all the gun control put together. 
To an outsider, storage laws like that look like "gun control" in the plain meaning of the words - controlling how you use your gun. I guess in the context of the US debate, "gun control" means something narrower. Steve, would you favour strict policing of such laws, or the withdrawal of ownership rights as a penalty for breaking them?
Logged
Ken Cameron

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #205 on: December 20, 2012, 06:01:22 am »

Look at how easily gun control was enacted in Australia..akin to the proverbial knee jerk reaction without adequate representation and due process.  Even now, years later, I'd bet if Australia or even the UK voted concerning gun control the numbers would be split pretty much down the middle.. This tells me the rights of right around half these citizens were severely infringed on.  Sad.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #206 on: December 20, 2012, 06:33:35 am »

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.

I have to agree with Ken here with regard to Australia - other places: who knows.

Tony Jay
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #207 on: December 20, 2012, 11:38:17 am »

...  War is normally not consiered mass murder...

Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.

What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?

Oh, wait, this must be it: I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:

"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"

Wait, another edit:

"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass RECREATION?"
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 11:42:15 am by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #208 on: December 20, 2012, 02:47:24 pm »

To an outsider, storage laws like that look like "gun control" in the plain meaning of the words - controlling how you use your gun. I guess in the context of the US debate, "gun control" means something narrower. Steve, would you favour strict policing of such laws, or the withdrawal of ownership rights as a penalty for breaking them?
I fully support the law as written.  As written it is a felony to not store your guns properly.  A felony instantly disqualifies you from gun ownership.  Ever.  Or living in a house where guns are kept.  Ever.


"Gun Control" to law makers I think does include storage, mental health checks, background checks, basically anything related to a person obtaining, keeping, using, firearms.  It does not include a big one.. "carrying" afaik..


To be clear, I favour strict policing of all gun laws.. but unfortunately such enforcement is rare.  Many of the experts on both sides acknowledge this as  a problem and think we could make big changes.  I agree, jail time is an effective deterrent for the average gun owner.. albeit not so much fo the career criminal.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #209 on: December 20, 2012, 03:18:37 pm »

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.

1.  ANY TIME you take away rights (assuming you considered them rights) quickly based on such a horrid act such as your country suffered.. that's pretty much knee jerk and imo poor government.  Did anyone really think there were mass murderers lining up waiting their turn?  Or might the people have been better served by adequate studies vetted by peer based review?  And not old mostly outdated studies used. 

2.  I mean by referendum of course, where the electorate either by representation (how we do it here because of the size of our country) or directly.  I'm sure you know Australia much better than I do, but based on my access to Australia the people I know regret the governments actions concerning gun control.  Most agree they would have been better served if they weren't in a hurry to make major changes.. and indeed there was no reason to hurry other than those who favoured gun control knew their chances are better to strike while emotions are high.  Like they're doing here.  I'm sure everyone will agree the most important decisions should not be hurried.  They should be studied, debated, reflected.. but not hurried.

3.  Yes, unfortunately your constitution comes from a different place than ours.  Considering your influences of origin, asking yourselves why you have no rights concerning firearms.  There are several parties lobbying for a new constitution in Australia..  I wish them luck.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #210 on: December 20, 2012, 03:57:16 pm »

Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.

What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?



Slobodan, what the hell are you doing?

You must know perfetly well that war is a legal situation whose conduct is bound with all manner of internationally accepted conventions, the abuse of which leads to prosecution in the aftermath, whereas murder is an outlaw act which is always headed for prosecution.

That death in great numbers can be, and usually is the outcome of war, the intention behind a declaration of war is something entirely different to someone indulging in a personal act of illegal killing.

The two are so far apart as to begger belief that anyone could draw a parallel.

You have got to be arguing for the simple reason that you enjoy it.

Rob C

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #211 on: December 20, 2012, 04:15:17 pm »

Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.

What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?

Oh, wait, this must be it: I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:

"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"

Wait, another edit:

"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass RECREATION?"

1.  I always answer your questions, yet you ignore mine.  I had asked you about your background with firearms.. perhaps it's further down in thread.. I hope so because you exhibit a certain ignorance (I don't intended the use of this word as a put down,. but simply a description of fact) of the subject which to those who don't make you see a bit funny.  You are always welcome to ask when you don't know something.   I recommend doing so before further response.   Allow me to give you a professionals view on why we call it "stopping" vs. "killing" and why it's a mindset.

First, it is not in a police officers job description to kill.  We never want to kill.  We really don't want to even hurt someone.  I used to address all the people I arrested, took down, tazed, etc.. as "Sir" and with strong politeness.  Why?  Two reasons.  You gained a lot more cooperation by being polite and it tended to defuse even the most violent  situations.  Even after I'd have them in cuffs I'd continue.  Why? Because there was a point in the process where you had to remove them from the cuffs and they had the chance to even the score if they thought they could.  And career criminals were often big brawny guys.  Why was I polite?  The job description said I had to detain, arrest, search, incarcerate them.. it said nothing about pissing them off.  My job was MUCH easier if we had a professional but fun rapport.  I'd much rather make them laugh, than make them broken.    Gow jai mak?

Remember now, I call it a mindset for a reason.  Not for a funny.  Let us continue.  A call comes in a strung out speed addict is holding several children at knife point.  This is a gun free zone, hence the knife (that was a funny).   I walk in, try to reason with a strung out junkie (usually not a productivei feat) , and he gets a crazed look in his eyes, tells me he's going to kill the girl he points to fifteen feet way.

To the untrained individual 15 feet seems a long ways off, giving the police professional more than enough time to over take the junkie and arrest him.  But the trained police professional knows it could take well under 2 seconds for the junkie to span the fifteen feet and KILL his victim.  Not acceptable.

What's left?  You scream "kill him, kill him!"  I ask "method?"  You scream "shoot him in the chest, in the head, KILL him.."   If I did this a bullet to chest and one to the head would certainly KILL him.  But it probably wouldn't prevent the girl from being killed too.   EH?  Seriously.  A junkie, even a jonsing junkie high on speed can often take several bullets to the vitals and keep on going until loss of blood kills them.  In such cases they tend to get tunnel vision of purpose and you can almost bet that would e the outcome.  A dead girl, possibly two.   Not acceptable.  

Not to worry, I have training and I'm not thinking about killing him.  Remember, I'd prefer not to.  My goal is to stop him and that is all.  There's a difference?  Yes, there is.  I would draw my service pistol and shoot him in the pelvis until he crumples.  A pelvis shattered by a bullet crumbles.  A man cannot stand, leap, jump, travel with a shattered pelvis.  It's impossible.  I could them relieve him of his knife (nasty things, we should outlaw them) and say "Sir, you have the right to remain..."  Though, a shattered pelvis is extremely painful.

Can you see now why we train with this mindset?   It wasn't always this way, but it has been for at least 35 years that I know of.  A point of interest.  Many police officers who get shot and die.. get shot AFTER shooting the other guy.  They were probably shooting to kill.


2.  From a journalistic standpoint.. I'd use "designed for war" if they indeed were that type of weapon.  Or "designed for competition" , or "designed for cowboy action shooting", or "the make and model.. "  Whatever is most relevant..

3.   Irony.. maybe there's better things to say..
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #212 on: December 20, 2012, 04:24:47 pm »



You have got to be arguing for the simple reason that you enjoy it.

Rob C

They have simply ran out of steam having failed to support their argument, which is mostly made up of quips and quotes they've heard somewhere else, and obviously spent little time thinking about.

This is a serious subject well served by discipline, reasoned thought, and factual knowledge.  Jokes are what he has left.

Even the President isn't serious about gun control.  If he was he wouldn't have been put Biden in charge.

Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #213 on: December 20, 2012, 04:25:46 pm »

Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.

I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.

And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #214 on: December 20, 2012, 04:39:45 pm »

military weapons

Slobodan ... I have learned the correct euphemism.

Modern Sporting Rifles.

(never knew it was "sporty" to kill anything ... generally, in all of the sports in which I participate, everyone leaves the field alive ...)
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #215 on: December 20, 2012, 04:40:41 pm »

Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.

I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.

And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.

Slobodan, What "military" weapons are we talking about? I thought you were referring to the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle which was used in the Connecticut shootings. You told me you'd fired the M-16 and AK-47 on full automatic. That being the case it's damned sure you know that the Bushmaster isn't an "assault weapon" or a "military weapon." Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US. It's different in most Middle Eastern countries.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #216 on: December 20, 2012, 05:27:25 pm »

... Jokes are what he has left...

No, Steve, I see jokes as my weapon of choice (pardon the pun) that is perfectly suited to expose utter ridiculousness of some of your statements and concepts.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #217 on: December 20, 2012, 05:35:08 pm »

... Bushmaster isn't an "assault weapon" or a "military weapon."...

Ok, lets see what the Bushmaster .223 is:

From a Times Magazine article:

Quote
... turned up in the hands perpetrators of mass murder. A Bushmaster .223 was used by Jacob Tyler Roberts to kill two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last week. It was also one of the weapons allegedly brandished by James Holmes, charged with killing 12 people and wounding 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., earlier this summer. And it’s similar to the weapon used in the Beltway Sniper shootings, in which John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo used it to kill 10 and wound three others.

Quote
... the weapon was adapted for military use as the M16; it went in to service in Vietnam in 1963. The modern AR-15 is a demilitarized version of the M16...

Quote
Because it falls under the federal definition of the term “assault weapon,” the AR-15 has long been a target of anti-gun legislation. “It was one of the weapons [specifically] banned by the Assault Weapons Ban legislation in 1994,”

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/#ixzz2FdNi01vR

I mean, just take a look at that cutie. Isn't it obvious it is made for purely recreational purposes?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 05:45:23 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #218 on: December 20, 2012, 05:51:29 pm »

... Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US...

Hmmm... why not? If the mighty 2nd Amendment says "the right to bear arms," without limiting or defining it, why then not automatic weapons as well? If it was possible to ban automatic weapons, why not then ban sami-automatic as well? Looks like the 2nd Amendment isn't such an obstacle as gun proponents would like us to believe.

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #219 on: December 20, 2012, 06:29:33 pm »

Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.

I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.

And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.
So far you haven't been talking about military weapons.   What you said is military weapons are designed for MASS MURDER.   They are not.  Not one gun manufacturer sells a gun designed to murder.  This is a politically hyped up term and it's not funny when discussing a serious subject. 

Have you ever been to war?  I didn't think so.  You certainly wouldn't want someone implying you were a mass murderer.  You have no idea how offensive this is.  You are wrong to say this and wrong not to retract what you said.  I've been sensitive to you feeling patronized with no argument at all.. or that your shortened name offended you.  But now you call me and our veterans mass murderers by attaching this term to the weapons we carried.   

Meanwhile, you're mislabeling an AR-15 which WAS NOT made to kill..  Sorry, but you're way off base.   The only way you could express your lack of knowledge on the subject would be to classify a weapon by the way it looks..
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Up