Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 55539 times)

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #160 on: December 18, 2012, 06:17:12 pm »


then you probably can give us an example of armed NRA card carrying civilian who ever stopped a mass shooting ?
Well.. if we assume the armed NRA card carrying member stopped them before they could kill a second person.?  I could show you thousands.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #161 on: December 18, 2012, 06:17:24 pm »

... How many years?  I've thought about this a lot.  And if it's even possible.  At least a hundred years?

As a Chinese saying goes: "even a thousand miles journey starts with the first step"  ;)

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #162 on: December 18, 2012, 06:21:13 pm »

The purpose of spoons is neutral, to feed people. The purpose of guns is single-minded, to kill.
No.. the purpose of guns it to protect life.. or take life.  Offence/Defence    So I suppose neutral too.  If you doubt me ask for the doctrine of any police force.. it's mindset.  When the cop shoots the person who is shooting innocents is he thinking "I'm killing that SOB" or is he thinking "I'm saving those poor folks "

Guns provide choices we wouldn't otherwise have.  For the overwhelming majority of us..  our choices are honourable.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #163 on: December 18, 2012, 06:24:48 pm »

I do not feel patronized when you provide useful facts. I do when you consider those who disagree with you (thus a matter of opinion, not facts) ignorant. I do not appreciate when you mock my name, though (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)

I still don't understand where you felt that.. but I'm trying to anticipate repeat offences.

I didn't mean to knock your name either.. just couldn't recall how to spell it.. :)  I'll improve this too.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #164 on: December 18, 2012, 06:31:20 pm »

Your proposed solution may indeed work, but the problem is that your solution is impossible to implement in the U.S. now or anytime in the foreseeable future.

It's impossible to say at all.  First, "mass killings" as he's referring to happen extremely rarely.  Probably more people are killed by falling objects (I tried to google the answer and you'd be surprised by the number of lawyers who popped up who specialize in this area.. geez.. but with hail, workplaces, trees, etc, there are a fair number) than mass shootings (in America)..    Chicken Little was smarter than we gave him credit for..    My point being that mass killing are very rare and infrequent, most are planned well, and who says we can eliminate them just by removing one tool out of many which they can use?


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

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #165 on: December 18, 2012, 06:32:27 pm »

and if we remove gang crimes from others we will be back on top...

Don't think so.. but you're welcome to show us.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #166 on: December 18, 2012, 06:34:02 pm »

More than 500 children die each year in the US because they accidentally fired a gun they found in their homes.

Guess they could have all accidentally done something else to themselves ... like accidentally spooning themselves.

There's a disconnect somewhere.. didn't understand that at all.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #167 on: December 18, 2012, 06:47:45 pm »

Steve,

I can't say any more about the conversations with US cops, other than, when firearms entered the subject, the vast majority of those US officers were not in favour of guns in the hands of anyone - criminals, lawful citizens etc. I can only describe what I have heard and am not expecting I will convince you that I am relating this correctly. We'll have to let that aspect stand as it is.


Interesting and I'm not doubting your word.. only the context. 

When you suggest that, if US citizens were not allowed to carry guns, that brawn and lower IQs would rule the streets, homes, schools etc is, in my opinion, fear  mongering. The majority of your posts have been well set out and reasonable, however, this (and the other quote) are way out there and serve no purpose other than to scare people.

Are you saying that this isn't true and is in fact not happening now?  Who have you been arresting? 
I disagree.  It's the truth.  But if you think it's fear mongering to warn people of dangerous situations to influence action then all it what you will.  But it would be far more productive if you either agreed or disagreed and didn't try to label it for effect.


Yes, 30 years on the job and I just can't see this. I presumed we were talking about civilian guns, not military, as your response perhaps suggests.

It would help if you quoted.. I've answered a lot of posts in this thread and I'm afraid I can't remember this one well enough to respond.


Well trained teachers do not scare me. The idea that a solution that uses armed teachers scares me. As you know, marshals and cops are chosen through serious scrutiny of their abilities and thought processes, and are trained to make the best out of those attributes. A teacher is hired because they can teach.
So.. you're scared because someone accepted and is trained for a job they didn't initially sign up for?  I still don't understand.  What part of this "scares" you?  That society has to go there?  If that's the case I agree.


Marv


[/quote]
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #168 on: December 18, 2012, 06:50:49 pm »

As a Chinese saying goes: "even a thousand miles journey starts with the first step"  ;)

I've lived overseas nearly 25 years of my adult life.. and during all that time I've never found a country I felt was better or more desirable to live in then the USA..   I have no desire to make America like other countries.. especially when their failures from certain actions (like gun control) are so apparent.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

WalterEG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #169 on: December 18, 2012, 07:06:28 pm »

I've lived overseas nearly 25 years of my adult life.. and during all that time I've never found a country I felt was better or more desirable to live in then the USA.

Then why deny yourself at this advanced stage of life ..... go back home.

Logged

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #170 on: December 18, 2012, 07:54:26 pm »

Steve,

I fear we will go on with this forever, with no real resolution. I don't think it matters who I have arrested or whether I carried a gun.

I think the bottom line is we've had a different upbringing and have lived in different countries with some great differences in perspectives, even though our countries are side by side. I happen to be uncomfortable with a proliferation of firearms and have been lucky to live in a society where they are not as central to things as in your country. And you have been quite eloquent and clear on your thoughts and position.

Let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Marv
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #171 on: December 18, 2012, 07:54:48 pm »

No.. the purpose of guns it to protect life.. or take life.  Offence/Defence    So I suppose neutral too.  If you doubt me ask for the doctrine of any police force.. it's mindset.  When the cop shoots the person who is shooting innocents is he thinking "I'm killing that SOB" or is he thinking "I'm saving those poor folks "

Guns provide choices we wouldn't otherwise have.  For the overwhelming majority of us..  our choices are honourable.

You are trying to spin this. "To protect life" is a just a euphemism for killing. The first and foremost purpose is to kill. If that results in saving something more valuable, or is otherwise justifiable, that is secondary. You first have to kill, in order to protect.

As for what cops think, they are trained to shoot to kill, right? Two pops in the chest, just to be sure (because one may not be enough). And, for the sake of mine and the rest of the public safety, I hope they don't get too poetic and teary-eyed about it (as in "I'm saving those poor folks "), but coldly efficient (as in  "I'm killing that SOB").
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 08:33:49 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #172 on: December 19, 2012, 04:24:41 am »

1.  You're speaking of your own country in the first 5-6 sentences?  

2.   No.  If you go by the stats they will rape, kill, car jack, and much more.  Consider signing up for a ride-along with your local PD..

3.   Your entire post centers around "robbers."  I've never worried about robbers.  Never.    I worry about killers, rapists, gang members, etc..   We have very few "robbers" going around trying to get a few bucks.  There are far more profitable low risk ways to make money.  Like selling drugs for the gangs.   Does your country have a problem rounding up robbers?

4.  What makes you think a criminal will have more skill with a gun than a private citizen?  Private citizens can take their legal guns and go to legal gun ranges and/or gun clubs and practice all the time.  And many do.  Criminals RARELY practice with a gun that will bring attention to them.

5.  Oh my.. your country again?

Steve, I think this is where I leave this discussion.  You make many valid points but I fear it is like having a discussion with a deeply religious person ( I'm not) in that we are just never going to agree on any of this.  Yes I live in the UK where we have a very different experience of guns.  But that was the point I was trying to make.  Are you Americans so very different from us Europeans.  We who have managed to have some of the bloodiest wars in history and yet somehow now get by with the strictest gun laws.  Whenever I meet US citizens they seem to be the most decent of people.  And yet it would seem that lying just beneath the surface is a pathological fear that a stranger is going to come and steal their possessions or rape or murder them.  This means that everyone needs to be armed, and yet the very fact that so many arms are around means that they are freely available to almost anyone on a whim to pick one up and use it on their neighbour.  I hope you do not speak for the majority of US citizens because it leaves me very sad.

Yes we have crime here.  My grandfather used to sleep with a wooden hammer shaft next to his bed and he had been a shipbuilder so new how to use it.  We were burgled two years ago and had around £15000 of stuff taken.  I cannot tell you the rage I felt about some low-life coming into my home and taken things that we owned and treasured.  All I could think was I wish I'd been here and caught the perpetrator because I would have given them a good kicking.  But the last thing I would have feared would be that the burglar would have a gun with him.  Because he wouldn't have.  If home owners all have guns, the burglars would have them too.

The US may well be a great country, but if you all live in that fear then you cannot be that happy.  I hope the population rises up and says enough is enough, and forces the politicians to act.  As Slobodan says, you have to start somewhere, and perhaps the first steps need to be taken now.  The received wisdom may well be that it just won't happen because of your constitution, but as much as I hate the phrase, have you heard 'Thinking outside the box'.

And as this seems to have become a Steve versus almost everyone else debate, and I'm sure we can agree to disagree, I will bow out and get back to printing some lovely baby pictures for a customers Christmas!

Jim
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #173 on: December 19, 2012, 06:14:43 am »

It's certainly been an interesting and informative discussion. Ultimately, I guess, America has to follow that pragmatic advice expressed by Otto von Bismarck, "Politics is the art of the possible." There's no point in spending valuable resources attempting the impossible.

In a society where there are already so many guns in circulation, I can understand the psychological insecurity that would be felt if law-abiding citizens were asked to surrender their weapons knowing that many others, including all the criminals and potential criminals, would do their utmost to keep and hide their own weapons.

It did occur to me that a multi-faceted approach might work. Amend the Constitution to remove the right of citizens to hold arms; retrieve all the guns already in circulation, through a buy-back scheme or whatever, and bring in the army to perform thorough searches to forcibly retrieve guns from those who insist on keeping them.

Those found in possession of a gun after the deadline for surrender would face a jail sentence.

However, this idea did not seem so great when I came across some statistics relating to the current incarceration rates in US prisons. Whilst the homicide rates in the US are not even nearly the highest in the world, only the highest amongst all the other fully developed democratic nations, your prison incarceration rates actually are the highest in the world.

I'll just quote a few stats from following New York Times article, which I found quite astonishing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote
The United States ...... has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

It seems that for the past few decades you've already been getting tough on crime, locking people up for much longer periods, and getting particularly tough on drug use.

It seems that in 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are around 500,000.

If you were to start jailing people for refusing to surrender their firearms, you'd not only have to build more prisons, but the annual cost of housing the additional prisoners would significantly add to the current ridiculously high estimates of $65-80 billion per year.

Gosh! You sure do have problems, America.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
Logged

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #174 on: December 19, 2012, 07:03:23 am »

Okay, Ray, you forced me to say what I didn’t want to say.  Our war on drugs has had some devastating consequences.  It’s largely responsible for our gun violence (and a lot of other non-drug crime), our high rate if incarceration, corruption, devastation of other countries (such as Mexico), and general disrespect for the law.  After a generation of the drug war, however, drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever.  And, we’ve spent trillions of dollars for this outcome, with no end in sight.

Ending the war on drugs is such a contentious issue that I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire of the gun control debate, but I don’t believe that we can ever solve our gun violence problem as long as our war on drugs continues.   
Logged
Dean Erger

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #175 on: December 19, 2012, 09:19:27 am »

As others have suggested, this discussion may have run its course. Positions seems to have become entrenched and the debate is acquiring religious overtones, in the sense that positions come down to belief. Once you hit that point, "negotiation" seems pointless, although I believe that just hearing other positions has value.

But I just want to add one thing. If you live in a society where you're convinced that you are in so much danger that regular citizens need to arm themselves and take firearms training, isn't that a red flag that things have gone sort of wrong and that what you're doing to fix it isn't working? Once you reach the point where you advocate the arming of primary school teachers, isn't that a sign that you need to rethink things, that maybe the series of decisions that you made that got you to this point may have led you in the wrong direction?
Logged
--
Robert

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #176 on: December 19, 2012, 09:23:26 am »

- he might have had a bad burrito the night before and is spending the day in and out of school's restrooms
- he might have been preparing for his class in his cabinet or school's library
- he might have stepped out for a smoke
- he might have been making out with a colleague or student in a discrete corner of the school

But he wasn't doing any of those things, Slobodan. He was holding the door and saving the kids' lives at the expense of his own. "No greater love hath any man. . ." And if a man as resolute as this man had been armed the shooting spree would have ended.

It strikes me that those in this thread convinced that passing a couple laws will solve this kind of violence never have been exposed to serious violence. But even in the absence of that kind of unpleasant experience a bit of research, or better yet research going all the way back to the beginning of recorded history should penetrate even the most resistant mind with the fact that humans know of no way to prevent this kind of evil -- never have. . . never will.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #177 on: December 19, 2012, 10:01:27 am »

The purpose of spoons is neutral, to feed people. The purpose of guns is single-minded, to kill.


That's ridiculous; guns are a deterrent, first of all, and a final arbiter if and when that primary function or a lower-grade use of the available gun-use choices might fail. To bring in your magical spoons, Slobodan, one could indeed say that the purpose of the spoon is to feed; what, then, of the spoon that heats the fix that drives the addict to get the money to continue the cycle? Do you condemn the spoon, too, banish it to the cupboard and permit only knives and forks the priviledge of survival? Speaking of knives...

It's all too easy to make sweeping statements, emotional claims and use figures to promote whichever point of view one chooses to support.

All in all, I wish that I had the legal right to own a pistol here, in my home. As it is, I enjoy little security that would keep any determined thug out of my place. I live on the ground floor; day or night, I never go into the rooms out of sight of my terrace which leads to the garden without closing and turning the key in the french windows. When the occasional gale starts to blow my terrace furniture around at night, my first thought when the noise wakens me is Christ! who's trying to get in? And that's not based on indigestion; it comes from repeated break-ins in the neighbourhood, including my own car in the carpark some years ago, when  both doors were gripped at the top and pulled downwards and out, with the perp's foot planted in the middle to provide a fulcrum. It cost the insurance company two new doors; it cost me a pair of Polaroids. The Guardia Civil? They cheefully informed me that I was the fifth victim of that night. In all honesty, what else can they do? As with other countries, the jails are full - who needs more guests?

Yes, I should get another alsabrador or even a baby pitbull; but at my age and life-expectancy that would be cruel for the animal, not to mention the possibility of danger when family comes to visit. Dogs are as possessive as are people.

Rob C

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #178 on: December 19, 2012, 10:03:00 am »

Okay, Ray, you forced me to say what I didn’t want to say.  Our war on drugs has had some devastating consequences.  It’s largely responsible for our gun violence (and a lot of other non-drug crime), our high rate if incarceration, corruption, devastation of other countries (such as Mexico), and general disrespect for the law.  After a generation of the drug war, however, drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever.  And, we’ve spent trillions of dollars for this outcome, with no end in sight.

Ending the war on drugs is such a contentious issue that I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire of the gun control debate, but I don’t believe that we can ever solve our gun violence problem as long as our war on drugs continues.

Hi Dean,

You are correct, is is demonstrably not the way to handle the issues.

And I've been holding back my comments because it is very hard to convince people of concepts that they have little recognition with, not you, but rather the general public. However, how long does it take to recognize a pattern? The underlying problem is a cultural one, and that's a hard one to change!

The US (legal) system is quite good at setting boundaries and limitations, and (huge) penalties, but the root cause of the issues is not addressed adequately, so the problems do not go away. The 'solutions' used, are symptomatic reactions, not etiological cures. That is a very obvious difference with most other countries that use a more pragmatical approach, addressing the root cause.

Stricter penalties do not reduce crime. The US system is the living proof of that, look at the growing number of the prison populations. For instance the death penalty doesn't prevent individuals to do what they do, because many of them have mental issues and suffer from a reduced sense of empathy. Others just have inadequate legal support, and are killed unjustly anyway in the name of the people.

Long term imprisonment (getting them off the street) creates a false sense of security, because when they come back they're better criminals than before, and with even less of a prospect of making something of their lives. Besides it's a very costly proposition having to house and feed an increasing number of people, especially when it doesn't really solve anything. It's a symptomatic reaction, as usual, not a solution.

More guns does not improve safety, how many times needs that to be proven. How many firearms does a person need to even 'feel' safer anyway? And why does an individual need a semi-automatic assault weapon, or a clip that holds huge numbers of rounds, in the first place? Ludicrous, and the numbers prove it. Guns are a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.

Drinking alcohol in public spaces is prohibited, but I've seen plenty people drinking out of a brown paper bag, so that prohibition doesn't prevent abuse, because it's a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.

Prostitution is not allowed, but that just reminds me of of a decrete by the former president of Uganda, Idi Amin, who declare unemployment illegal. It's a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.

The US system is quite good at setting boundaries and limitations, and penalties, but the root cause of the issues is not addressed adequately. For some (cultural) reason people seem to have a problem understanding the difference between symptomatic reactions, and etiological cures. It goes much deeper than just violence. Look at the reaction to fuel shortages. Not reducing the need for oil or coal is a priority, but pumping more oil from environmentally dangerous environments, and using part of the food production potential to produce biofuels. Symptomatic reactions, not etiological cures.

These shooting sprees are the symptom of a larger issue, and it's unlikely that a cure is going to be put in place any time soon. Changing a culture takes time, but one does have to start sometime, now seems not a bad moment, but I'm not holding my breath.

There are of course also many parties that benefit from that situation, (gun) lobbyists, defense industry, politicians (not touching sensitive issues is easier than addressing them, and better for re-election). Governing by the FUD principle is easier to get things done, even if they are no solution (remember Iraq, WMDs and all lies at a huge (personal and collective) cost to so many Americans and others, good for Halliburton and the defence industry though). Symptomatic reactions ...

How many lives have to be wasted, before people start to understand the real issue ..., and address it at its core.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #179 on: December 19, 2012, 10:09:23 am »

...  My point being that mass killing are very rare and infrequent, most are planned well, and who says we can eliminate them just by removing one tool out of many which they can use?

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?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 12:19:58 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Up