Who's worse, Adam Lanza or Andreas Lubitz?

[Amsterhammer]

Bild and Paris Match have released a verbal description of a short video they have seen, taken inside the plane during the last seconds. The film clip was apparently recovered from a SIM card recovered at the crash site. Since I can see no good reason except base, prurient interest, for releasing this clip to the public, I fully expect it to appear on the Bild site.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

10000 thank you's for proving my point. How'd those plane regs work out in this case?

But I'm the stupid one. Wow.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

You never mind a political debate as long as there's no disagreement. I find it impossible to believe you ever get very far in any debate on any topic. I'm betting most figure you out right off the bat and just walk away. To that end you're right, I should long ago have done the same.

I don't think I ever said guns were not created as a weapon. In fact I think I said the opposite. When you get wound up maybe read and comprehend before formulating your insults. Just a thought.

Merckx asked which things were designed solely to kill people or other living things, and you clearly denied that guns were in that category...now you say they're a "weapon." You're dancing like a $2 wh0re, but it doesn't change the fact that you wrote it. It's on the previous page. Maybe you were drunk posting again, I don't know?

As for debates, honesty is one of the single most important facets of one, and you simply can't manage to bring it to much of any topic.

So again, people aren't protesting planes, because planes were not created and designed to kill people. Guns however were, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure "for purposes of militia," that citizens had the right to own them. I don't howl about that too much, because I do believe in gun ownership. I also believe that people like you and the NRA are fighting restraints that would have an effect on gun violence that doesn't involve denial of protecting us from tyranny, which would still allow gun ownership. (Of course, in clown car land, Obama is a tryant, so maybe I need to rethink my position...)

I also note again that even with issues of the mental health of VETERANS (you know, those guys you love to send off to war, and then screw when they come home), people like you and the politicians you vote for restrict funding for programs that would help them. If you need confirmation, there are plenty of examples.

Merckx asked which things were designed solely to kill people or other living things, and you clearly denied that guns were in that category...now you say they're a "weapon." You're dancing like a $2 wh0re, but it doesn't change the fact that you wrote it. It's on the previous page. Maybe you were drunk posting again, I don't know?

For someone who FREQUENTLY gets **** wrong you mount your high horse pretty goddam fast. But hey, never waste an opportunity to show your ass.

I'm thinking "used for" when I read "designed." My *** mistake you Jackass.

As for debates, honesty is one of the single most important facets of one, and you simply can't manage to bring it to much of any topic.

What a load of crap. If you think I'm dishonest then why the **** would you engage (if that is most important to you)? You just can't stand opposing arguments. That's what this is about.

So again, people aren't protesting planes, because planes were not created and designed to kill people

Turns out they are pretty effective at killing people when in the wrong hands... notwithstanding their DESIGN.

I also believe that people like you and the NRA are fighting restraints that would have an effect on gun violence that doesn't involve denial of protecting us from tyranny, which would still allow gun ownership. (Of course, in clown car land, Obama is a tryant, so maybe I need to rethink my position...)

Don't lump me with the NRA. I don't lump you in and you have 10,000 times more experience with guns than do I.

You believe in gun ownership? How DO you sleep at night. What a conflict.

If you made a mistake or misspoke, I have absolutely no issue with that. I have been wrong on many occasions, and I have a track-record of admitting that unequivocally, and publicly. I may be a complete jackass, and infuriatingly condescending, but I am also brutally honest, and that extends to when I am in the wrong. I don't think anyone on this forum would accuse me otherwise.

As for gun ownership, I am certainly a believer in keeping arms in the spirit of the Second Amendment. What I also recognize is that logical and warranted restraints on that right don't hinder the purpose of the amendment. The NRA fights any restraints tooth and nail, but worse, they celebrate a gun culture. I don't celebrate the fact that part of the reason I own firearms is for possible protection of my family, but it isn't because I jack-off to thoughts of killing people. I know a lot of good, sane gun owners. I also know a lot of people who get off on the idea of getting the opportunity to use their weapons against someone or the government. Holding NRA rallies in places that just had mass shootings, sometimes immediately after the shooting is disgusting. The "I want you to try to come take my gun, you'll do it from my cold dead hands" mentality is disgusting. I'm not a fan of concealed carry or open carry laws. Based on the intent of the Second Amendment, if the time comes to use weapons for the purpose it was enacted, concealed or open carry prohibitions will be a moot point.

I also recognize that banning guns in the United States would end our nation. The ban itself would not be the vehicle, it would be the armed resistance to that law that would be, and that is not hyperbole. But stronger laws regarding usage, types, and more stringent assessment of who can own weapons will not thwart the purpose of the Second Amendment, and it wouldn't signal the end of gun ownership. I sleep just fine with those beliefs.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

10000 thank you's for proving my point. How'd those plane regs work out in this case?

But I'm the stupid one. Wow.

How well has the restriction on dynamite worked? I can tell you that, if you can get a permit to purchase, your usage of that will be closely monitored...

As for planes, how many lives have been saved by stringent regulation of planes...dude, think that one through, and then reassess your "you proved my point" celebration...because the number of people saved is quite high.

Lastly, neither of those instruments was designed to kill people or living things, guns were...yet they're less regulated. Thanks for proving my point...

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

10000 thank you's for proving my point. How'd those plane regs work out in this case?

But I'm the stupid one. Wow.

How well has the restriction on dynamite worked? I can tell you that, if you can get a permit to purchase, your usage of that will be closely monitored...

As for planes, how many lives have been saved by stringent regulation of planes...dude, think that one through, and then reassess your "you proved my point" celebration...because the number of people saved is quite high.

Lastly, neither of those instruments was designed to kill people or living things, guns were...yet they're less regulated. Thanks for proving my point... [/quote]

How well has the restriction on dynamite worked? I can tell you that, if you can get a permit to purchase, your usage of that will be closely monitored...

As it should be. Do you realize that if you bought a gun today in Cali, wait your 10 days, pick it up and go shoot somebody with it that the bullet has your info stamped on it?

Here's the initial screen process to buy a gun in Cali;

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/text-regs.pdf?

It's 17 pages long and contains significantly more safeguards than do the regs to buy dynamite. I'll post those if you want...

Lastly, neither of those instruments was designed to kill people or living things, guns were...yet they're less regulated

Honestly, I don't really care for the distinction. Despite the design guns are rarely used to kill people (relative to the number of guns in circulation). Violent video games were designed to entertain. But, they are contributory to all sorts of ***.

The design isn't what's critical.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

As it should be. Do you realize that if you bought a gun today in Cali, wait your 10 days, pick it up and go shoot somebody with it that the bullet has your info stamped on it?

Here's the initial screen process to buy a gun in Cali;

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/text-regs.pdf?

It's 17 pages long and contains significantly more safeguards than do the regs to buy dynamite. I'll post those if you want...

Lastly, neither of those instruments was designed to kill people or living things, guns were...yet they're less regulated

Honestly, I don't really care for the distinction. Despite the design guns are rarely used to kill people (relative to the number of guns in circulation). Violent video games were designed to entertain. But, they are contributory to all sorts of ****.

The design isn't what's critical.

First, you need you have to have a lisence to possess dynamite, HAZMAT lisence to move it, proper and inspected explosives magazine to store it, and paperowrk to prove you actually used it when where and how. So in short, no.

To the last point, it makes all the difference in the world as it relates to the 2nd Amendment, and that isn't even debatable. The design of certain weapons is a critical issue to me, and may people who believe in stricter gun laws, and I am grateful that I live in a state that recognizes the importance of stricter gun laws, so I don;t take away what you want me to from that.

If only the rest of the country would follow suit...

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Lets also recognize that if killing people were an incidental effect sometimes associated with guns, and they had another utilitarian purpose, they would be much more heavily regulated (like planes, cars, dynamite, and buying 1000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel in proximity). However, they have the primary purpose of killing people and things, and are less regulated than all of those other things, which is the illogical hurdle the NRA, Ted Nugent, and you want to avoid.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

As far as which of the men is worse, I have absolutely no idea. Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see. People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.

....a major problem here is how the Wrong Wing has framed this debate ( which ends up being the intractable impediment when one tries to devise reasonable solutions )...

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

Be careful now. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

As far as which of the men is worse, I have absolutely no idea. Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see. People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

I'm comparing the reaction to mass murder. I find it telling.

Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see.

Oh, but it does. You'll witness what I'm talking about the very next time there's a mass gun killing - particularly if an AR is used.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

Do you have any idea how much more regulated dynamite is than guns?

Do you have any idea how much more regulated planes and pilots are than guns?

Be careful now. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

Joke telling isn't for everyone. You have my pity.

 

[Jspear]

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

 

[BigMac]

Re:

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

What other object besides guns, from those available with releative ease, allow the mass murdering of people? How much children do you think Adam Lanza would have killed if he stormed inside Sandy Hook armed with a knife or a baseball bat? Certainly a lot less, if any at all, because the chance of him being neutralized would be high. But even so, let us not just measure it by the amount of people that can be killed, as killing one is equally wrong as killing two, five or twenty, it's the act in itself that's evil - and to that I'd say that no, [most] people wouldn't resort to other types of killing or weapons if seen deprived of guns. See, guns are not by any means the easiest object to acquire, yet the causers of most murders (or what's used the most by murderers, if you will) - if you say guns are as much equally predisposed to be used to kill and as much subject of consideration for tool of the trade as, say, cutlery or DIY tools, then why don't the latter get used more frequently, considering they are of much easier access? Sure you could say that most people already own a gun, but not always things are like that, are they? Sometimes guns are bought for the occasion. And like many others, Lanza likely premeditated the assault bearing his rifle. I see him thinking of how to shoot all those people dead using a nail gun... not. But that preposition would raise another issue. That is, if someone owns a gun and a sharp set of knifes, and, imagine, they are both equally on hand, why will, on the overwhelming majority of times, the person opt for the gun? That's because guns give people an extraordinary sense of control and twisted courage that the knife, or anything else for that matter, do not. Not just that, the fact that it is an ''indirect'' sort of killing makes one feel more distanced from the act itself; the guilt sentiment will always be inferior, and then there is the ''clean death'' factor absent in stabbing someone - I'm saying this last part from common sense, but I'm fairly sure any psychologist would tell you the same. People are more likely to hesitate, think twice or even backtrack on their resolution if they don't have a gun at their disposal or a way to get their hands on one.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

As far as which of the men is worse, I have absolutely no idea. Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see. People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

I'm comparing the reaction to mass murder. I find it telling.

Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see.

Oh, but it does. You'll witness what I'm talking about the very next time there's a mass gun killing - particularly if an AR is used.

You're not comparing the reaction to mass murder. You area comparing the reaction to the lack of regulation of firearms, following a mass murder, to the reaction to the regulation of airplanes following a mass murder. The reaction to the mass murder itself is one of shock and horror for most people. You and the NRA want to frame this as people blaming guns, when the reality is that it is people blaming a lack of laws limiting access to weapons that are intended to kill people and living things. You and the NRA have also learned that the easiest way to avoid a deeper examination of the issue, is to dilute the issue down to a bumper sticker sized soundbite.

You also compared guns to knives, completely forgetting that the day of Sandy Hook, a man in China walked into a school with a knife, and attacked students. 22 to be exact. The difference between the attacks is that all of the students in China lived. The difference was access to weapons, and the laws that regulate who can obtain such weapons. As I've said, I am not in favor of banning firearms, but I am definitely in favor of much more strict access to them, no open or concealed carry, and a limitation on things like magazine size, etc.

You wrote a post where you seemed to be complaining about the firearm laws of California. How anyone could be against things like firing pin distinctions that will ID who owned the gun, or etching onto a bullet when it is fired is beyond me? And the 17 pages of regulation isn't overly obtrusive either. (if you actually read the regulations, they are anything but obtrusive...but I can understand how just posting a link to something, without actually addressing the actual regulation contained therein is a typical intertubes ploy to feign legitimacy to your argument [Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't]...too bad the actual regulation as it compares to dynamite is SIGNIFICANTLY less...but lets not let reality enter into this debate too much, it spoils the fun...)

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re:

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

I don't think anyone is against greater help for the mentally ill...except for many of the same politicians who defend the NRA, who have an abysmal record of voting as it relates to help for the mentally ill (including help for mentally ill veterans, who many of those same lawmakers sent to war). However, greater treatment for the mentally ill is only part of the solution.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

As far as which of the men is worse, I have absolutely no idea. Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see. People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

I'm comparing the reaction to mass murder. I find it telling.

Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see.

Oh, but it does. You'll witness what I'm talking about the very next time there's a mass gun killing - particularly if an AR is used.

You're not comparing the reaction to mass murder. You area comparing the reaction to the lack of regulation of firearms, following a mass murder, to the reaction to the regulation of airplanes following a mass murder. The reaction to the mass murder itself is one of shock and horror for most people. You and the NRA want to frame this as people blaming guns, when the reality is that it is people blaming a lack of laws limiting access to weapons that are intended to kill people and living things. You and the NRA have also learned that the easiest way to avoid a deeper examination of the issue, is to dilute the issue down to a bumper sticker sized soundbite.

You also compared guns to knives, completely forgetting that the day of Sandy Hook, a man in China walked into a school with a knife, and attacked students. 22 to be exact. The difference between the attacks is that all of the students in China lived. The difference was access to weapons, and the laws that regulate who can obtain such weapons. As I've said, I am not in favor of banning firearms, but I am definitely in favor of much more strict access to them, no open or concealed carry, and a limitation on things like magazine size, etc.

You wrote a post where you seemed to be complaining about the firearm laws of California. How anyone could be against things like firing pin distinctions that will ID who owned the gun, or etching onto a bullet when it is fired is beyond me? And the 17 pages of regulation isn't overly obtrusive either. (if you actually read the regulations, they are anything but obtrusive...but I can understand how just posting a link to something, without actually addressing the actual regulation contained therein is a typical intertubes ploy to feign legitimacy to your argument [Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't]...too bad the actual regulation as it compares to dynamite is SIGNIFICANTLY less...but lets not let reality enter into this debate too much, it spoils the fun...)

You're not comparing the reaction to mass murder. You area comparing the reaction to the lack of regulation of firearms, following a mass murder, to the reaction to the regulation of airplanes following a mass murder.

No. I'm comparing the response. Here's my first comment to the OP;

"It's an interesting question. I'm not buying the idea Lanza's act was motivated by hate any more or less than Lubitz. It sure looks like, if not flat out crazy, both sure had major mental issues.

I'm just wondering when we are supposed to start blaming the plane."

You and the NRA

I'm as much a member of the NRA as you. Forget the NRA.

when the reality is that it is people blaming a lack of laws limiting access to weapons that are intended to kill people and living things

I only wish you were as aggressive with the perp(s).

You and the NRA

The difference was access to weapons, and the laws that regulate who can obtain such weapons.

We are a gun culture, for better or worse. You have said confiscation will be the end of our nation. It's interesting that we rarely hear from the left regarding hand guns and the carnage that is happening in the inner cities. If the left was interested in change one would think that's where they might start. But have something like Sandy Hook happen and there's a big rush to ban "assault rifles."

You wrote a post where you seemed to be complaining about the firearm laws of California. How anyone could be against things like firing pin distinctions that will ID who owned the gun, or etching onto a bullet when it is fired is beyond me? And the 17 pages of regulation isn't overly obtrusive either. (if you actually read the regulations, they are anything but obtrusive...but I can understand how just posting a link to something, without actually addressing the actual regulation contained therein is a typical intertubes ploy to feign legitimacy to your argument [Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't]...too bad the actual regulation as it compares to dynamite is SIGNIFICANTLY less...but lets not let reality enter into this debate too much, it spoils the fun...)

Not complaining but then you are very good at assigning *** to me that fits your perspective. I happen to know about the regs because I just went through the process for the first time in my life. If you've been through it then you know that most of the written directives apply to the dude on the other side of the counter. It kinda flies in the face of the "we need more gun laws" hysterical hyperbole. What we need are fewer criminals and fewer crazy people and more sane people interested in a solution rather than politics. Always interesting to watch you accuse me of doing what you are doing.

Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't

Another brilliant conclusion.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

[quote="[/quote]

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.[/quote]

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

As far as which of the men is worse, I have absolutely no idea. Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see. People end up equally dead whether you use a plane or a gun.[/quote]

I was just pointing out that you can not compare guns and planes in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

I'm comparing the reaction to mass murder. I find it telling.

Using a gun or not using a gun has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can see.

Oh, but it does. You'll witness what I'm talking about the very next time there's a mass gun killing - particularly if an AR is used.[/quote]

You're not comparing the reaction to mass murder. You area comparing the reaction to the lack of regulation of firearms, following a mass murder, to the reaction to the regulation of airplanes following a mass murder. The reaction to the mass murder itself is one of shock and horror for most people. You and the NRA want to frame this as people blaming guns, when the reality is that it is people blaming a lack of laws limiting access to weapons that are intended to kill people and living things. You and the NRA have also learned that the easiest way to avoid a deeper examination of the issue, is to dilute the issue down to a bumper sticker sized soundbite.

You also compared guns to knives, completely forgetting that the day of Sandy Hook, a man in China walked into a school with a knife, and attacked students. 22 to be exact. The difference between the attacks is that all of the students in China lived. The difference was access to weapons, and the laws that regulate who can obtain such weapons. As I've said, I am not in favor of banning firearms, but I am definitely in favor of much more strict access to them, no open or concealed carry, and a limitation on things like magazine size, etc.

You wrote a post where you seemed to be complaining about the firearm laws of California. How anyone could be against things like firing pin distinctions that will ID who owned the gun, or etching onto a bullet when it is fired is beyond me? And the 17 pages of regulation isn't overly obtrusive either. (if you actually read the regulations, they are anything but obtrusive...but I can understand how just posting a link to something, without actually addressing the actual regulation contained therein is a typical intertubes ploy to feign legitimacy to your argument [Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't]...too bad the actual regulation as it compares to dynamite is SIGNIFICANTLY less...but lets not let reality enter into this debate too much, it spoils the fun...) [/quote]

You're not comparing the reaction to mass murder. You area comparing the reaction to the lack of regulation of firearms, following a mass murder, to the reaction to the regulation of airplanes following a mass murder.

No. I'm comparing the response. Here's my first comment to the OP;

"It's an interesting question. I'm not buying the idea Lanza's act was motivated by hate any more or less than Lubitz. It sure looks like, if not flat out crazy, both sure had major mental issues.

I'm just wondering when we are supposed to start blaming the plane."

You and the NRA

I'm as much a member of the NRA as you. Forget the NRA.

when the reality is that it is people blaming a lack of laws limiting access to weapons that are intended to kill people and living things

I only wish you were as aggressive with the perp(s).

You and the NRA

The difference was access to weapons, and the laws that regulate who can obtain such weapons.

We are a gun culture, for better or worse. You have said confiscation will be the end of our nation. It's interesting that we rarely hear from the left regarding hand guns and the carnage that is happening in the inner cities. If the left was interested in change one would think that's where they might start. But have something like Sandy Hook happen and there's a big rush to ban "assault rifles."

You wrote a post where you seemed to be complaining about the firearm laws of California. How anyone could be against things like firing pin distinctions that will ID who owned the gun, or etching onto a bullet when it is fired is beyond me? And the 17 pages of regulation isn't overly obtrusive either. (if you actually read the regulations, they are anything but obtrusive...but I can understand how just posting a link to something, without actually addressing the actual regulation contained therein is a typical intertubes ploy to feign legitimacy to your argument [Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't]...too bad the actual regulation as it compares to dynamite is SIGNIFICANTLY less...but lets not let reality enter into this debate too much, it spoils the fun...)

Not complaining but then you are very good at assigning **** to me that fits your perspective. I happen to know about the regs because I just went through the process for the first time in my life. If you've been through it then you know that most of the written directives apply to the dude on the other side of the counter. It kinda flies in the face of the "we need more gun laws" hysterical hyperbole. What we need are fewer criminals and fewer crazy people and more sane people interested in a solution rather than politics. Always interesting to watch you accuse me of doing what you are doing.

Note, after reading the link, it's incredibly obvious that you didn't

Another brilliant conclusion. [/quote]

I'm still convinced, Scott, that a culture that promotes non-violence, also with gun laws, results in a less violent society. All the evidence indicates this, but when market interests married with ideology takes over, well, analogously the results are not surprising. It is thus a condition of applied mental habits over others.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

What other object besides guns, from those available with releative ease, allow the mass murdering of people? How much children do you think Adam Lanza would have killed if he stormed inside Sandy Hook armed with a knife or a baseball bat? Certainly a lot less, if any at all, because the chance of him being neutralized would be high. But even so, let us not just measure it by the amount of people that can be killed, as killing one is equally wrong as killing two, five or twenty, it's the act in itself that's evil - and to that I'd say that no, [most] people wouldn't resort to other types of killing or weapons if seen deprived of guns. See, guns are not by any means the easiest object to acquire, yet the causers of most murders (or what's used the most by murderers, if you will) - if you say guns are as much equally predisposed to be used to kill and as much subject of consideration for tool of the trade as, say, cutlery or DIY tools, then why don't the latter get used more frequently, considering they are of much easier access? Sure you could say that most people already own a gun, but not always things are like that, are they? Sometimes guns are bought for the occasion. And like many others, Lanza likely premeditated the assault bearing his rifle. I see him thinking of how to shoot all those people dead using a nail gun... not. But that preposition would raise another issue. That is, if someone owns a gun and a sharp set of knifes, and, imagine, they are both equally on hand, why will, on the overwhelming majority of times, the person opt for the gun? That's because guns give people an extraordinary sense of control and twisted courage that the knife, or anything else for that matter, do not. Not just that, the fact that it is an ''indirect'' sort of killing makes one feel more distanced from the act itself; the guilt sentiment will always be inferior, and then there is the ''clean death'' factor absent in stabbing someone - I'm saying this last part from common sense, but I'm fairly sure any psychologist would tell you the same. People are more likely to hesitate, think twice or even backtrack on their resolution if they don't have a gun at their disposal or a way to get their hands on one.

There are several assumptions going on here. Your assuming the insane man who wants to kill lots of people will only do so if a gun is available to him. That's not human nature (in the depraved sense that we are talking about); the available gun might encourage him to go and kill people, but he will have those thoughts with or without the gun. A gun is simply a tool that shoots a piece of lead...it doesn't cause people to want to kill (it can aid). A gun doesn't make someone want to kill another - hatred or pain of another sort in the heart of the killer causes him to murder. As to the question of what people could use if guns weren't around...it only takes someone with a high school level of education to make extremely dangerous explosives, ect. People who want to do harm have more available to them than just guns. I could do a lot with just some gasoline and fire. I mean invite a whole bunch of people to my house for a party, board up the doors, light the house up, that should do the job. I agree with you guns can make it easier. My main point was that guns aren't the root of the problem. Banning guns will only help things slightly. Deranged people will quickly adapt. If what we are really after is the stopping of tragic deaths (and not some crusade against guns, gods, and gold folk) than the issue has to do with the actual people.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

Wow. That is myopic as it gets. Because your experience is what it is then everyone's must be like yours.

I shoot at clay pigeons to see if I can hit the ***. It's entertainment and nothing more. I don't shoot birds and never will.

Holy ****. My experience is different than yours.

When you're full of sh!t, it's best to just shut the fu*k up. I shoot clay pigeons too, and the purpose that sport was created for, and flourishes because of, is to be a better hunter of birds.

But that's really beside the point when you consider the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment...and it sure as fu*k isn't to shoot trap...

Hey man, you're bringing the second amendment to this, not me.

Full of ****? I point out that you would be screaming about the horrors of current gun laws had Lubitz used one. Sit back and deny as smug as you like. You are the one full of ****.

In both instances, mental health of each 'should' have been considered before one had access to guns( his mom) and the other access to a commercial pilot license. Both 'systems' failed. But it's gonna get expensive for Lufthansa, their insurance company since it appears this guy had mental health issues that would have prevented him from getting a U.S. ATP but not the German equivalent.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

What other object besides guns, from those available with releative ease, allow the mass murdering of people? How much children do you think Adam Lanza would have killed if he stormed inside Sandy Hook armed with a knife or a baseball bat? Certainly a lot less, if any at all, because the chance of him being neutralized would be high. But even so, let us not just measure it by the amount of people that can be killed, as killing one is equally wrong as killing two, five or twenty, it's the act in itself that's evil - and to that I'd say that no, [most] people wouldn't resort to other types of killing or weapons if seen deprived of guns. See, guns are not by any means the easiest object to acquire, yet the causers of most murders (or what's used the most by murderers, if you will) - if you say guns are as much equally predisposed to be used to kill and as much subject of consideration for tool of the trade as, say, cutlery or DIY tools, then why don't the latter get used more frequently, considering they are of much easier access? Sure you could say that most people already own a gun, but not always things are like that, are they? Sometimes guns are bought for the occasion. And like many others, Lanza likely premeditated the assault bearing his rifle. I see him thinking of how to shoot all those people dead using a nail gun... not. But that preposition would raise another issue. That is, if someone owns a gun and a sharp set of knifes, and, imagine, they are both equally on hand, why will, on the overwhelming majority of times, the person opt for the gun? That's because guns give people an extraordinary sense of control and twisted courage that the knife, or anything else for that matter, do not. Not just that, the fact that it is an ''indirect'' sort of killing makes one feel more distanced from the act itself; the guilt sentiment will always be inferior, and then there is the ''clean death'' factor absent in stabbing someone - I'm saying this last part from common sense, but I'm fairly sure any psychologist would tell you the same. People are more likely to hesitate, think twice or even backtrack on their resolution if they don't have a gun at their disposal or a way to get their hands on one.

There are several assumptions going on here. Your assuming the insane man who wants to kill lots of people will only do so if a gun is available to him. That's not human nature (in the depraved sense that we are talking about); the available gun might encourage him to go and kill people, but he will have those thoughts with or without the gun. A gun is simply a tool that shoots a piece of lead...it doesn't cause people to want to kill (it can aid). A gun doesn't make someone want to kill another - hatred or pain of another sort in the heart of the killer causes him to murder. As to the question of what people could use if guns weren't around...it only takes someone with a high school level of education to make extremely dangerous explosives, ect. People who want to do harm have more available to them than just guns. I could do a lot with just some gasoline and fire. I mean invite a whole bunch of people to my house for a party, board up the doors, light the house up, that should do the job. I agree with you guns can make it easier. My main point was that guns aren't the root of the problem. Banning guns will only help things slightly. Deranged people will quickly adapt. If what we are really after is the stopping of tragic deaths (and not some crusade against guns, gods, and gold folk) than the issue has to do with the actual people.

Dude you don't consider the exponential potent factor, which is only common sense. This, and I shall refrain here, should be intrinsic to you. Everything else is a market and/or ideologically driven factor. I shall dispense with the rest.

 

[blackcat]

does Boeing have a village idiot like Charleton Heston to roll out?

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

A report on the news last night showed that you are more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.

Plane crashes are spectacular, and the media and politicians love them, but the real killer out there is cars. Much less newsworthy when people die one by one or two by two, even if the total suffering is much greater. Texting drivers kill way more people than suicidal pilots, yet we are a long way from considering them to be attempted murderers as they should be.

Like Rhubroma I too am convinced that a culture that promotes non-violence results in a less violent society. Just a gut feeling, but seems like common sense to me.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

Things would also have been different if they didn't have easy access to guns. The fact that these massacres happen so much more in the US- a country that legalizes them, tells you everything