2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Nope. But if Lanza didn't have access to a gun, we'd be talking about a much lower death count.

At the very least, it should come into question the types of guns he has access to.

 

[burd]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I would use a chainsaw if guns were banned (assume I could start it). Since it makes a louder noise than a swinging knife it would increase the fear and discombobulate any would-be hero trying to disarm me with a broom or bat.

I would think you would use that 9.5* R11 in your bag, though God knows you would probably hook a body part.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

We can't control psychotic behavior... so change nothing about the potential consequences of psychotic behavior?

Listen, I get that there's nothing our current laws could have done about Sandy Hook, but I truly don't get why there is so much hesitance to revisiting the federal assault weapons ban.

Perhaps, when I get out of this state so that it's legal, I should greet you by putting my thumb to my nose and wiggling my fingers. Yes, that is actually illegal in NYS. The point is that just because an event happened that seems to have been disliked, it doesn't mean that we need mommy and daddy government to tell little boy and girl citizens what to do. That's called the abuse of government power, and is exactly why this country has freedom when it comes to armaments, so that we, the citizens, have the power to overthrow an unruly government. I'm sure you would have wanted your guns when GWB was in office.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I would think you would use that 9.5* R11 in your bag, though God knows you would probably hook a body part.

Chainsaw and a boom stick. Stops anyone - anytime..

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

At the very least, it should come into question the types of guns he has access to.

...or who can purchase them...or where they are allowed.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Nope. But if Lanza didn't have access to a gun, we'd be talking about a much lower death count.

Really? How much lower? How many would have died if he didn't have the assault rifle? How many if he didn't have any guns at all? I assume there is some sort of mathematical formula we can apply to give us this precise answer, and we don't just have to pull it out of our azzes.

And these new laws that are going to save us, but not effect a complete ban on the sale of guns. Mrs. Lanza would have been stopped at the gun counter exactly how again?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Perhaps, when I get out of this state so that it's legal, I should greet you by putting my thumb to my nose and wiggling my fingers. Yes, that is actually illegal in NYS. The point is that just because an event happened that seems to have been disliked, it doesn't mean that we need mommy and daddy government to tell little boy and girl citizens what to do. That's called the abuse of government power, and is exactly why this country has freedom when it comes to armaments, so that we, the citizens, have the power to overthrow an unruly government.

Why is that abuse of power any more than any of the other things that are illegal? We don't use that as an argument to make murder legal, so we know that the principle isn't what's at stake here, merely where we draw the line. And I won't take seriously anyone who thinks that personal armaments are going to make one bit of difference against a military that's has never been told "no" when it comes to funding/arming itself.

The way things are, the only "safety" you can have is by packing heat yourself. Even if the Wild West "anything goes" model of law enforcement is an effective deterrent to people like Adam Lanza, it will also be an effective deterrent towards our society living a life without fear of every single person you meet.

I'm sure you would have wanted your guns when GWB was in office.

No more than usual. Feel free to keep making what ever snide ****ing judgements you want, though, as that's the norm for our political posters.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

And these new laws that are going to save us, but not effect a complete ban on the sale of guns. Mrs. Lanza would have been stopped at the gun counter exactly how again?

This line of argument is just getting frustrating. Lefties need to acknowledge the truth of this question and recognize that gun control laws are NEVER going to stop these situations on their own, there are other far more difficult problems that have to be addressed to successfully put a stop to this massacres.

Righties need to grow up and recognize that "gun control laws can't stop these disasters" =/= "we really shouldn't be bothering with gun control period... let the psychos have the most lethal weapon they can find". I'll go so far as to say that no one in favor of the legality of assault weapons should be taken seriously.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

This line of argument is just getting frustrating. Lefties need to acknowledge the truth of this question and recognize that gun control laws are NEVER going to stop these situations on their own, there are other far more difficult problems that have to be addressed to successfully put a stop to this massacres.

Righties need to grow up and recognize that "gun control laws can't stop these disasters" =/= "we really shouldn't be bothering with gun control period... let the psychos have the most lethal weapon they can find". I'll go so far as to say that no one in favor of the legality of assault weapons should be taken seriously.

Some of us have learned from the means of Hitler, where the definition of "psycho" in the quotation you made seemed to change to all non-military personnel.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Some of us have learned from the means of Hitler, where the definition of "psycho" in the quotation you made seemed to change to all non-military personnel.

Ah, yes. Comparisons to Hitler. Always the hallmark of a well-reasoned argument.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Ah, yes. Comparisons to Hitler. Always the hallmark of a well-reasoned argument.

I've always liked reading your opinions on things, but I'm getting pretty close to updating my ignore list.

Comparisons to Hitler are always good. They remind us what unchecked power can lead to.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Drunk driving laws are a perfect analogy. While you don't stop every fatality, if you get pulled over (before hitting someone) and are found to be over the limit, the cops don't send you on your merry way until you slam into somebody. That saves lives. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Similarly, if you're doing background checks on everyone, that will save lives. Why? Because some of these people will get spotted. Now, much like how every DUI case doesn't get bagged before the accident, you also won't stop every wrongdoer from getting guns. However, by utilizing a system already in place you will get some of them, hence the need to pass the law. I'd prefer action that actually has an impact to a sackless "nothing we can do" attitude. Tell that to the parents of the 20 kids.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Comparisons to Hitler are always good. They remind us what unchecked power can lead to.

They also remind us how stupid it is to rely on hyperbole.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I'd prefer action that actually has an impact to a sackless "nothing we can do" attitude.

This. Even if the impact is minimal, it's just pathetic to see how much of a fight people are willing to put up. Especially when it comes to background checks and assault weapon bans.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

This line of argument is just getting frustrating. Lefties need to acknowledge the truth of this question and recognize that gun control laws are NEVER going to stop these situations on their own, there are other far more difficult problems that have to be addressed to successfully put a stop to this massacres.

Righties need to grow up and recognize that "gun control laws can't stop these disasters" =/= "we really shouldn't be bothering with gun control period... let the psychos have the most lethal weapon they can find". I'll go so far as to say that no one in favor of the legality of assault weapons should be taken seriously.

I guess my view on assault rifles is that they are objects. I don't own one. Don't have a need or desire to own one. Don't have any use for one, and not interested in spending the cash just to say I own one.

But I recognize that it is a lawfully manufactured product, no different in that respect than a shotgun, handgun, knife, rope, snowmobile, crossbow, motorcycle, on and on. Most of that stuff I have no need or desire to own. Used lawfully those objects may be useful or enjoyable to others. Used unlawfully they can kill or create great mayhem.

I'm all in favor of a peaceful society. But I think it's more effective to criminalize consequences. You kill someone, you go to jail. You run over someone on your snowmobile and cause them harm, you may go to jail. Just saying that no one should be able to own a snowmobile because someone got killed by one seems kind of silly. In my view, it's the same way with a gun, any gun.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Drunk driving laws are a perfect analogy. While you don't stop every fatality, if you get pulled over (before hitting someone) and are found to be over the limit, the cops don't send you on your merry way until you slam into somebody. That saves lives. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Similarly, if you're doing background checks on everyone, that will save lives. Why? Because some of these people will get spotted. Now, much like how every DUI case doesn't get bagged before the accident, you also won't stop every wrongdoer from getting guns. However, by utilizing a system already in place you will get some of them, hence the need to pass the law. I'd prefer action that actually has an impact to a sackless "nothing we can do" attitude. Tell that to the parents of the 20 kids.

By your analogy, though, I'm sure you would still recognise that what happened would still be like one of those DUI cases that didn't get bagged before the accident. Remember that the mother purchased the armaments legally. The son stole them from her. Unless the glass was broken on the case, you'd think there'd be an issue with leaving the weapon out in plain grabbing ability. Obviously we won't know, because the owner herself became a victim. If the case was broken when the guy stole the firearms, obviously owning the guns is not the problem. Sure, it's easy to blame that because that's where the issue was detected, but that doesn't mean that the issue was originated there.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Drunk driving laws are a perfect analogy. While you don't stop every fatality, if you get pulled over (before hitting someone) and are found to be over the limit, the cops don't send you on your merry way until you slam into somebody. That saves lives. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Similarly, if you're doing background checks on everyone, that will save lives. Why? Because some of these people will get spotted. Now, much like how every DUI case doesn't get bagged before the accident, you also won't stop every wrongdoer from getting guns. However, by utilizing a system already in place you will get some of them, hence the need to pass the law. I'd prefer action that actually has an impact to a sackless "nothing we can do" attitude. Tell that to the parents of the 20 kids.

I agree. Drunk driving laws are the perfect analogy. You drive drunk, you go to jail. You kill someone, you go to jail. When some idiot drives drunk into a crowd of people and kills them, we don't pass a law making it illegal to sell or possess any alcohol, or own a car. We don't make people take background checks everytime they want to buy a car. We legislate the behavior, not the object. And that's what really bothers people in this case. We probably have all kinds of legislation dealing directly with what happened in Conn. Everything from making it illegal to shoot or kill someone, to possession of a firearm in a school, to probably driving with a firearm improperly cased, etc... Of course, none of it prevented the actions of this nut. But if he were still alive, he'd be prosecuted.

 

[Rover]

Rover

I agree with you. Boehner makes the deal (he's negotiating with himself. He should hire Don Fehr or Scott Boras) that is currently being reported, he's toast. I wonder if it will pass the House even with his "backing".

Now let's have some fun -- IIRC the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House, so let's put Newt in there (a) just to tweak El Presidente and (b) we may actually get a meaningful legislation done.

Been thinking about that, and the only way I see this working is if he cobbles together about 30 old school Republicans like himself along with the Dems. Problem is for Pelosi to agree it would have to be a largely Democratic bill in nature, which again would be the end of the line for Boehner. Cantor won't vote for a tax hike because he wants to be Speaker. Ryan won't because he's running for Prez. Teaparty types won't nor will libertarian wannabees. So he'd need the Peter Kings & Don Youngs of the world and maybe some of those older California reps who surely see the writing on the wall to put together enough votes to make the difference.

I'm not sure I'm expecting a deal to happen at this point though before the 1st of the year. I'm real curious to see how the coalition to pass anything gets put together unless a tanking stock market forces action (like what happened when the bailout passed).

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Snowmobiles and motorcycles killing people happen because of an accident. They have a primary function to move people from point A to point B.

A gun's only function (short of starting a race) is to fire a bullet at something. That's what it does. The only x-factors are whether the target is stationary, moving, living, inanimate, human or animal.

We're really dragging the conversation down if we insist that snowmobiles/motorcycles are the same as guns.

 

[Rover]

By your analogy, though, I'm sure you would still recognise that what happened would still be like one of those DUI cases that didn't get bagged before the accident.

Yes, it would not be a foolproof system. But as the old expression goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We don't make people take background checks everytime they want to buy a car.

We do make people take background checks to legally operate a car though. That's getting your license and insurance. Both of which you can't drive legally without. This is the difference between some gun ownership/usage and cars where car usage is actually more restrictive or better monitored.