U.S. Politics - Page 576 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5751  
Old 12-19-12, 14:03
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The picture is becoming pretty clear that Lanza didn't just snap... there are signs that this was planned.

Without access to guns, what would he have done? It's a good question. MikeNphilly posted this;

1927 School Bombing Was Deadliest In American History









http://www.inquisitr.com/442729/1927...rican-history/


So if Lanza had no access to guns what might he have done? It's impossible to say but another method of mass killing is not out of the realm of possibility.
I thought people were mad about tax's now...
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5752  
Old 12-19-12, 16:03
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
The second amendment gives the people to means to force change if the first method fails and the situation becomes intolerable.
Define "the people" and "intolerable".
Reply With Quote
  #5753  
Old 12-19-12, 18:29
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
....would never want to speak for another but in this case the answers are fairly obvious....so to save everyone a lot of time and bother, the people, who in this case are assumed to have the means, refers to paranoid wrong wing wackos who own most of the really good guns ( the means) and lots and lots of ammo....and intolerable refers to absolutely anything that the aforementioned paranoid wrong wing wackos do not believe in ( see The Most Holy Moranic Gospels for clarification )....

Cheers

blutto
I reckon that covers it pretty exactly, Sir blutto.

I wonder how the wingnuts will react to the speech made by the POTUS a short time ago? I wonder if, despite his repeated reference to that damn SA, the wrong wing will start screaming that he's coming for their guns? I expect very little, too little, to come from this Biden 'study group' initiative or whatever it is. But, I suppose any step at all is a step in the right direction.

Glad to hear him say 'no more concessions' on tax breaks for the wealthy - the problem is, avoiding the precipice to destruction means that members of Congress have to vote 'against' their own wallets, since most of them are already millionaires.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5754  
Old 12-19-12, 19:45
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The picture is becoming pretty clear that Lanza didn't just snap... there are signs that this was planned.

Without access to guns, what would he have done? It's a good question. MikeNphilly posted this;

1927 School Bombing Was Deadliest In American History









http://www.inquisitr.com/442729/1927...rican-history/


So if Lanza had no access to guns what might he have done? It's impossible to say but another method of mass killing is not out of the realm of possibility.
Why bother with anything else when you can just walk into a Walmart or ****'s Sporting Goods and buy a Bushmaster or a Sig and as much ammunition as you like?

http://www.thenation.com/article/171...walmart-photos

It's no coincidence that these guys always use guns - if it were just as easy to use something else, they'd be using it. But why bother when guns are easy to get, convenient, inexpensive, reliable, and completely legal? Why would anyone go to all the trouble to use something else?

Personally I don't really give a **** if stricter gun laws make it more difficult and more inconvenient for people to purchase a gun - we make the tradeoff between individual rights and public safety everyday, in just about every facet of society (speed limits, airport security, yelling fire in a theater, etc), yet for some insane reason we've bent over backward to accommodate the NRA and the gunfreaks. Way past time to stop doing that.
Reply With Quote
  #5755  
Old 12-19-12, 20:32
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

We don't like Obamacare and anyone who disagrees with us should go to jail. So there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2329425.html

Man, next thing you know Republicans will try to legislate sea-level rise out of existence...oh wait. Right.
Reply With Quote
  #5756  
Old 12-19-12, 20:41
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Why bother with anything else when you can just walk into a Walmart or ****'s Sporting Goods and buy a Bushmaster or a Sig and as much ammunition as you like?

http://www.thenation.com/article/171...walmart-photos

It's no coincidence that these guys always use guns - if it were just as easy to use something else, they'd be using it. But why bother when guns are easy to get, convenient, inexpensive, reliable, and completely legal? Why would anyone go to all the trouble to use something else?

Personally I don't really give a **** if stricter gun laws make it more difficult and more inconvenient for people to purchase a gun - we make the tradeoff between individual rights and public safety everyday, in just about every facet of society (speed limits, airport security, yelling fire in a theater, etc), yet for some insane reason we've bent over backward to accommodate the NRA and the gunfreaks. Way past time to stop doing that.
Ok, fine. What would your gun laws look like and how would they have stopped Lanza or any other mentally ill mass murderer?

That is the point, right?

Lay out something that you think would effectively reduce or eliminate Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. Be specific.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5757  
Old 12-19-12, 21:00
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Ok, fine. What would your gun laws look like and how would they have stopped Lanza or any other mentally ill mass murderer?

That is the point, right?

Lay out something that you think would effectively reduce or eliminate Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. Be specific.
Don't forget Tucson. And in saying that, I am distinctly not trying to steer the discussion towards issues of political party, but to underscore the lack of the sort of complicated controls that would need to be in place.

I find the nation mostly unreadable, but their little expose does point back towards Wal-mart's overall ethical deficit as well.

@velo: I'm not sure the old airport checks are keeping us much safer on the whole.
Reply With Quote
  #5758  
Old 12-19-12, 21:23
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
....while the above was done somewhat in jest the following exerpt is proof positive that the jest was not too far off the mark...

Whether someone owns a gun is a more powerful predictor of a person’s political party than her gender, whether she identifies as gay or lesbian, whether she is Hispanic, whether she lives in the South or a number of other demographic characteristics.

...from... http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...vide-is-sharp/

Cheers

blutto
This seems to be the relevant paragraph. I wonder what all the metrics are for "location", how sophisticated and so forth, and how those differences then translate back into other areas.

"The differences are most apparent in suburban areas. There, 58 percent of Republican voters said there was a gun in their household, against just 27 percent of Democrats."

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-19-12 at 21:33.
Reply With Quote
  #5759  
Old 12-19-12, 21:49
patricknd's Avatar
patricknd patricknd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
This seems to be the relevant paragraph. I wonder what all the metrics are for "location", how sophisticated and so forth, and how those differences then translate back into other areas.

"The differences are most apparent in suburban areas. There, 58 percent of Republican voters said there was a gun in their household, against just 27 percent of Democrats."
it just means the dems bought theirs illegally and can't admit it
Reply With Quote
  #5760  
Old 12-19-12, 23:51
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Ok, fine. What would your gun laws look like and how would they have stopped Lanza or any other mentally ill mass murderer?

That is the point, right?

Lay out something that you think would effectively reduce or eliminate Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. Be specific.
1) Ban assault type weapons, guns that can fire off multiple rounds in a short time.

2) Ban any and all other types of guns in public, except by police officers and others officially permitted to use weapons by the nature of their job. Certain types of guns may be allowed in the privacy of your home and property, but are not allowed to be carried in any public place. Certainly not in urban areas, where there is no question of hunting. Criminals and others with possible intent to murder may walk around on the streets carrying concealed weaponsóno way that can feasibly be prevented--but if they attempt to enter any large public building they will be checked, and if found to carry a gun, it will be confiscated, they will be issued a ticket, and denied entry.

3) Schools would be included in the public places where guards check everyone entering for weapons. This is done now in government buildings in the U.S., and in some countries it is done in virtually all public places, e.g., shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. Iím familiar with the way itís done in one such country. Itís very quick, it doesnít involve metal detectors or all the other hassle that airport security involves now, and it would be much easier to implement, and be much safer, than arming teachers, most of whom might not even know how to use a gun.

Granted, a psycho may kill the guard. All right, if that is a serious concern, have a backup guard, inside the building, who is watching the guard outside at all times. Itís also possible that if this is successful, the perps will try to find some other destructive weapon that avoids simple detection, e.g., a disguised bomb. This could eventually escalate to the point where we are faced with having to have airport-like security systems at schools. But I would cross that bridge when we come to it. A simple check should be very effective right now. I am sure there are security experts who can work out the details.

Edit: Note that if it were politically impossible to ban the carrying of all guns in public, we could still implement 3) as a way of keeping guns out of schools.

Quote:
Expect a huge sales surge this weekend. News reports on this any day now.
You're right, BroDeal, and you must be very surprised. You were the one who said that mass shootings are so rare that it's over-reacting to ban guns in response to them. But that argument cuts both ways. If mass shootings are so rare, then surely no one needs a gun to protect himself against an event no more likely than getting struck by lightning?

Last edited by Merckx index; 12-20-12 at 00:11.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.