PDA

View Full Version : Yet another school shooting, this time at an Elementary.



garhkal
12-14-2012, 07:03 PM
What is the US coming to? All the news channels are nothing but the school shooting, at an elementary up in Connetticut. 27 dead inc the shooter.
YES its big news, YES my thoughts go out to the families of the victims, but why do they show NOTHING BUT this? Does the rest of the world take a halt cause we get a shooting?

sandsjames
12-14-2012, 07:14 PM
What is the US coming to? All the news channels are nothing but the school shooting, at an elementary up in Connetticut. 27 dead inc the shooter.
YES its big news, YES my thoughts go out to the families of the victims, but why do they show NOTHING BUT this? Does the rest of the world take a halt cause we get a shooting?

They show it because it gets ratings. Everyone will voice their outrage to show they care, pundants will have their say about gun rights/control, and in two days we will move on to something else.

Honestly, it's tragic for the families and everyone involved. However, in my little part of the world, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Is it sad? Sure. 18 kids dies. How many kids starved to death yesterday in the U.S? Was that reported anywhere?

And, of course, this story is much more important that us moving Patriot Missiles in to Syria to "deter" Syria.

The story will last a couple days, maybe. Reporters will "shock" us with their "BREAKING NEWS" reports when the number changes from 18 to 19, or whatever it is. Parents in Oregon will rush to get their kids out of school because someone was shot 3000 miles away. Then, in a day or to, it will die down and we can get back to important stuff, like the fiscal cliff.

garhkal
12-14-2012, 11:55 PM
True it is all a shock tactic to get ratings, but when imo more important info (such as a 6.3 quake of the CA coast) is relegated to just a little ticker line and nothing more about it is said, it shows WHY so many (imo) shooting happen.. it gets the shooters notoriety.

sandsjames
12-15-2012, 12:07 AM
True it is all a shock tactic to get ratings, but when imo more important info (such as a 6.3 quake of the CA coast) is relegated to just a little ticker line and nothing more about it is said, it shows WHY so many (imo) shooting happen.. it gets the shooters notoriety.

Exactly. It's still tragic, don't get me wrong, but stop giving these people notoriety and it won't keep happening as often.

Banned
12-15-2012, 03:25 AM
True it is all a shock tactic to get ratings, but when imo more important info (such as a 6.3 quake of the CA coast) is relegated to just a little ticker line and nothing more about it is said, it shows WHY so many (imo) shooting happen.. it gets the shooters notoriety.

In that case, try to be that one network not talking non-stop about the shooting, and see how long you keep your job. ;)


Exactly. It's still tragic, don't get me wrong, but stop giving these people notoriety and it won't keep happening as often.

I don't think there's particularly strong evidence to suggest any of those imbeciles were motivated by fame.

A better deterrent might be to quit letting these morons arm to the teeth with perfectly legal weapons.

garhkal
12-15-2012, 04:25 AM
While i would much prefer ENFORCEMENT of existing gun laws, with the spate of recent shootings i can finally see the anti gun crowd getting their way with laws to stop guns being sold.
Though i wonder, if the AFT was able to check MEDICAL records to check for mental issues, like they do legal side for criminal issues, would that prevent this stuff.

Banned
12-15-2012, 05:53 AM
From what I understand, this dude was heavily medicated.

The VA offers to dispose of weapons turned in by vets fearing they are suicidal or violent thoughts. To me, if someone is taking mind altering medications, he really shouldn't be purchasing weapons and ammunition at all.

technomage1
12-15-2012, 06:45 AM
From what I understand, this dude was heavily medicated.

The VA offers to dispose of weapons turned in by vets fearing they are suicidal or violent thoughts. To me, if someone is taking mind altering medications, he really shouldn't be purchasing weapons and ammunition at all.

He didn't purchase them, he killed his mother and stole them.

Having said that, when are we as a nation finally going to grow up and have an intelligent discussion about weapons? How many more have to die before we say "enough"?

I'm not anti weapon but it's obvious something has to be done.

Banned
12-15-2012, 08:14 AM
He didn't purchase them, he killed his mother and stole them.

Having said that, when are we as a nation finally going to grow up and have an intelligent discussion about weapons? How many more have to die before we say "enough"?

I'm not anti weapon but it's obvious something has to be done.

Thanks for the clarification.

As for discussion... don't know. People keep insisting that guns are what's stopping us from being killed by criminals... too bad killers don't announce ahead of time when they're planning on shooting you in the back, or in your sleep.

sandsjames
12-15-2012, 02:52 PM
My question is, in a situation like this, was the gun not locked up in a safe? With a combination not known by her son? If it had been, he wouldn't have had access. Not saying he wouldn't have found some other way to get a weapon, but there are ways to deter what happened that don't require taking any weapons away from anyone.

garhkal
12-15-2012, 07:39 PM
From what I understand, this dude was heavily medicated.

The VA offers to dispose of weapons turned in by vets fearing they are suicidal or violent thoughts. To me, if someone is taking mind altering medications, he really shouldn't be purchasing weapons and ammunition at all.

That is one addition to gun control i can get 'down with'.


My question is, in a situation like this, was the gun not locked up in a safe? With a combination not known by her son? If it had been, he wouldn't have had access. Not saying he wouldn't have found some other way to get a weapon, but there are ways to deter what happened that don't require taking any weapons away from anyone.



Very true. Also why did he have his brother's school access badge and why is said brother not getting charged?

Ted^Maverick
12-16-2012, 09:18 PM
The resulting gun control debate from this shooting and the calls for stricter sanctions on guns will be another example of forcing everybody to wear diapers because one person shit their pants.

garhkal
12-17-2012, 10:11 PM
Exactly. Which is why i commend obama for at least holding off. By them calling for gun laws so soon after, they expect a knee jerk response to smack all gun owners. BUT once again i fail to see a single news station reporting figures on how many crimes are prevented each year BY legal gun owners.

drc100882
12-17-2012, 11:21 PM
BUT once again i fail to see a single news station reporting figures on how many crimes are prevented each year BY legal gun owners.

There's also a huge lack of reporting on gun crimes in cities like Detriot and Chicago. My suggestion would be to solve the gun crimes there, and then work on the rest of the population. There's not a national outrage when people are shot and killed in the dougle digits in cities like these in a weekend. Gun control only works if guns are controlled. For the majority of the legal and responsible gun owning population, the guns are controlled.

As for the "mental illness" part of it: you can't screen against mental illness, and I don't think they should. If that was the case, my meds for mild anxiety issues would deem me on the "No" list for owning my .380 and 9mm and my husband's .45 and shotguns wouldn't be allowed in the house either. That wouldn't fly for either of us.

As for the mom locking up the guns, I'm a little split on that. If the son had that many issues, then yeah, the guns should be locked up. If any of the reports about the mom are true, she may have had a few "doomsday" issues herself. But children will never know responsible gun ownership if they're not allowed near guns. Taking a child to a range and teaching them appropriate handling and situational use is perfectly fine in my book. The more educated, the better.

garhkal
12-18-2012, 05:32 AM
My mother was asking about that issue.. If a parent is required by law to have gun locks/safes at home where they keep their guns, why are they allowed to take their kids to ranges?

garhkal
12-18-2012, 05:35 AM
Also as a related point for those advocating more gun laws (vice Enforcing the ones we already have). Why is it when i go to a car dealership (like the gun dealers) i have to go through the paperwork (showing insurance, license etc) to get the car (or gun after the waiting period) but when i do so from private dealers (gun shows/pawn shops) i don't? Would it not make more sense to stop THAT practice first?

technomage1
12-18-2012, 09:56 AM
Here's my stance on gun control. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Now, back when that was written, that was limited to muskets, crappy pistols, knives, and cannon. Even if you wanted a cannon back then they were expensive and their sole purpose was killing people in war. So not many people had one. Muskets were not killing machines, heck if you could fire 3 rounds a minute you were good.

Fast forward to today, where we have a large selection of arms that the founding fathers wouldn't have imagined in their wildest nightmares. Nuclear weapons, chemical and biological agents, mines, machine guns, etc all whose sole function it is to kill large numbers of people. Now, we as a society have already agreed that we must limit the sales if certain types of arms. I don't think anyone will or would argue they had a right to buy a nuke, even if they could afford it. Same with chemical bombs, and on down the list. So we already, by common consent, limit the right to bear arms. Given that, we can, as a society, add or subtract items from that list as we agree upon, likely based on their practical use vs. destructive power.

I would never support removing hunting rifles from that list, but who really NEEDS a semi automatic assault rifle? Maybe if you're planning a visit to a war torn country, but most Americans are not. Those weapons solely exist to kill people. Given that, and given the role such weapons have played in the incident and others, isn't it time we talked about adding them to the list?

CJSmith
12-18-2012, 12:22 PM
Also why did he have his brother's school access badge and why is said brother not getting charged?

These questions are raising eyebrows in the tin hat wearing club (then again, what doesn't). Also, this was the same date in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was adopted. Unlikely coincidence? Maybe. But of all days in the year it was this one?

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-18-2012, 12:38 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

As for discussion... don't know. People keep insisting that guns are what's stopping us from being killed by criminals... too bad killers don't announce ahead of time when they're planning on shooting you in the back, or in your sleep.

Lives can be saved from those with weapons. How many deaths were avoided because of the action and skilled shot of this lady carring a gun to protect herself? (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/)

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-18-2012, 12:59 PM
As for the "mental illness" part of it: you can't screen against mental illness, and I don't think they should. If that was the case, my meds for mild anxiety issues would deem me on the "No" list for owning my .380 and 9mm and my husband's .45 and shotguns wouldn't be allowed in the house either. That wouldn't fly for either of us.

Wouldn't keeping those on mentally stabalizing drugs banned from owning fire arms be an act of discrimination?

drc100882
12-18-2012, 04:23 PM
Wouldn't keeping those on mentally stabalizing drugs banned from owning fire arms be an act of discrimination?

Therein lies the question... Who would be banned from being able to buy a gun? How do we determine who is deemed "safe" enough? I get anxiety which I take medication for every now and then. Would I be totally banned from having a gun, or just sometimes? You can't have a difinitive answer to that question because everyone's circumstances are different.


I would never support removing hunting rifles from that list, but who really NEEDS a semi automatic assault rifle? Maybe if you're planning a visit to a war torn country, but most Americans are not. Those weapons solely exist to kill people. Given that, and given the role such weapons have played in the incident and others, isn't it time we talked about adding them to the list?

No one NEEDS a gun. It's about being allowed to have one if you want one. I have several in my home. Are we going to start limiting the number of guns a person can have too? How would that work? And yes, those weapons exist to kill people. And that's what my weapons would be used for should I ever have a situation where I have to defend myself from someone in my home. If I'm more comfortable shooting an M4 than my husband's shotguns, then I'm going to own an M4 and use it if I need to.

garhkal
12-18-2012, 08:37 PM
I would never support removing hunting rifles from that list, but who really NEEDS a semi automatic assault rifle? Maybe if you're planning a visit to a war torn country, but most Americans are not. Those weapons solely exist to kill people. Given that, and given the role such weapons have played in the incident and others, isn't it time we talked about adding them to the list?

All firearms solely exist to kill people. BUT i do agree, no one needs fully automatic/semi automatic rifles, 'cept the police' to stave off the criminals who always seem to have them via the black market.
I would also like to see the govt go after both the companies which SELL the full automatic modification kits (which iirc are illegal!) and the shipping firms for moving them.

technomage1
12-19-2012, 09:47 AM
All firearms solely exist to kill people. BUT i do agree, no one needs fully automatic/semi automatic rifles, 'cept the police' to stave off the criminals who always seem to have them via the black market.
I would also like to see the govt go after both the companies which SELL the full automatic modification kits (which iirc are illegal!) and the shipping firms for moving them.

I don't know that I agree that all firearms exist to kill people. Some exist for hunters or protection from wild animals - and yes, there are still some parts of the country where this is a legimate need. So wouldn't support a ban on those. But to me, semi automatic rifles like the Bushmaster, their sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time. Unless you live in a REALLY, REALLY bad neighborhood or have pissed off a gang, the likelihood of you needing that is slim to none. The vast majority of people's defense needs could be meet by a pistol or shotgun. And I do think some people have legitimate defense needs. Off duty law enforcement and battered women come immediately to mind, although I'm sure there are more.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-19-2012, 01:23 PM
All firearms solely exist to kill people. BUT i do agree, no one needs fully automatic/semi automatic rifles, 'cept the police' to stave off the criminals who always seem to have them via the black market.
I would also like to see the govt go after both the companies which SELL the full automatic modification kits (which iirc are illegal!) and the shipping firms for moving them.

Those that have the power to enslave you have semi- and full automatic weapons, so why cant the civilian population? Some times the best defence is the fact that your advisary is too afraid to attack cause you poses the same weaponary as they do. M.A.D. is not a new concept, it was the key stone of the second ammendment and why the founders kept cannons on their front lawns to show the civilian population had the ability to match the government force and to keep those making the rules in check from making laws that grew their power and weakend the civilians.

Banned
12-19-2012, 01:36 PM
Those that have the power to enslave you have semi- and full automatic weapons, so why cant the civilian population?

I used to agree with this, WJ. I used to buy this argument.

Then it dawned upon me that if tyranny did come to America - it would be draped in a flag and carrying a cross. Most of these assholes would pick up their guns and fight right alongside the government to kill or oppress a disliked minority group.

If the government needed some people to patrol the streets, or run a concentration camp - again, most of these "freedom loving" assholes would be lining up around the block to volunteer for the job.

Maybe it wasn't always like that. But the Long War has changed us, made us bloodthirsty. We like killing, we like doing the bidding of the government - at least when it comes to killing and enslaving people... even other Americans.

Look at how much people cheered when we got bin Laden. Okay, he was an asshole, I get it. But the euphoria over storming an old house of an old man and some women? What is the glory of this exactly?

Then it came out that torture was used to find bin Laden... again... we not only accepted this, we CHEERED. Now a movie is coming out gloating about the torture. Again, all the reviewers, both left and right, are cheering

As a culture, as a society, we've gotten sick.

garhkal
12-19-2012, 08:54 PM
I don't know that I agree that all firearms exist to kill people. Some exist for hunters or protection from wild animals - and yes, there are still some parts of the country where this is a legimate need. So wouldn't support a ban on those. But to me, semi automatic rifles like the Bushmaster, their sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time. Unless you live in a REALLY, REALLY bad neighborhood or have pissed off a gang, the likelihood of you needing that is slim to none. The vast majority of people's defense needs could be meet by a pistol or shotgun. And I do think some people have legitimate defense needs. Off duty law enforcement and battered women come immediately to mind, although I'm sure there are more.

I would be ok with the following list of weaponry for 'non mil/police'..
Pistols, whether semi autos or revolvers
shotguns
hunting rifles.

IF kept at an armory/shooting range and ONLY used there under guard, i could see letting someone own an assault rifle/machine gun.

Banned
12-20-2012, 12:11 AM
That is one addition to gun control i can get 'down with'.



Very true. Also why did he have his brother's school access badge and why is said brother not getting charged?

???????? What crime would he be charged with? "Failure to secure school badge from family members"?

Don't you think the brother has already been through enough? He already has a strong case to sue every involved media outlet for libel - for accusing him of the crime before it was properly verified.

giggawatt
12-20-2012, 08:10 AM
Look at how much people cheered when we got bin Laden. Okay, he was an asshole, I get it. But the euphoria over storming an old house of an old man and some women? What is the glory of this exactly?

Because it wasn't just an old man and some women. It was an old man that was the leader of the most dangerous terrorist orginazation in the world. Of course we cheered. Why wouldn't we? People, not just Americans, like revenge. When some one that is responsible (not alone of course) for the death of thousands of Americans finally bites the bullet, of course people will cheer. Some would say he got off light. I don't think it's about being blood thirsty.

I'd bet that a lot in the Arab world would cheer if W was killed.

CJSmith
12-20-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm pretty sure the world over cheered the day Hitler took his last breath.

CJSmith
12-20-2012, 09:12 AM
GD double posting.

Blue Warrior
12-20-2012, 10:50 AM
I would never support removing hunting rifles from that list, but who really NEEDS a semi automatic assault rifle? Maybe if you're planning a visit to a war torn country, but most Americans are not. Those weapons solely exist to kill people. Given that, and given the role such weapons have played in the incident and others, isn't it time we talked about adding them to the list?

The assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 did not reduce gun crimes. Google SA-85M, and you'll see a perfectly legal assault rifle that met the requirements of the ban. Also, I predict any REAL assault ban will have little impact on crime. If you were able to make them disappear completely, you'll still have crimes committed with handguns. First time the media reports a bunch of kids killed with a revolver (yes, you can quickly reload), guess what the gun-control people will want next....a ban on handguns! Think it won't happen?

If you care about gun rights at all, then you need to draw a line in the sand.

technomage1
12-20-2012, 11:42 AM
The assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 did not reduce gun crimes. Google SA-85M, and you'll see a perfectly legal assault rifle that met the requirements of the ban. Also, I predict any REAL assault ban will have little impact on crime. If you were able to make them disappear completely, you'll still have crimes committed with handguns. First time the media reports a bunch of kids killed with a revolver (yes, you can quickly reload), guess what the gun-control people will want next....a ban on handguns! Think it won't happen?

If you care about gun rights at all, then you need to draw a line in the sand.

I have. It's just further over than yours.

I don't believe weapons whose sole and only use is killing mass numbers of people should be legal for private use. That includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, RPGs, grenades, mines, and assault weapons.

As I've noted, pistols and rifles, to name two categories, have practical uses. Yes, it's possible to rack up a high body count with a pistol, but it does take more time, and this gives more repsonse time for law enforcemtent.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-20-2012, 01:01 PM
I used to agree with this, WJ. I used to buy this argument.

Then it dawned upon me that if tyranny did come to America - it would be draped in a flag and carrying a cross. Most of these assholes would pick up their guns and fight right alongside the government to kill or oppress a disliked minority group.So you are saying that the only group of people that would try to take over America through the government are religious fanatics? You really are loony. Nothing like Moa or Stalin can ever be here huh? Are you selectively ignorant or just trolling?


If the government needed some people to patrol the streets, or run a concentration camp - again, most of these "freedom loving" assholes would be lining up around the block to volunteer for the job.Yeah, cause FDR was a religious wing nut that used Christianity to lock up Japanese.


Maybe it wasn't always like that. But the Long War has changed us, made us bloodthirsty. We like killing, we like doing the bidding of the government - at least when it comes to killing and enslaving people... even other Americans.I believe there has been an opposite effect honestly. Look at the group that has formed with libertarians to stop the wars and bring our troops home. Gary Johnson got the most votes for the libertarian party than the last 4 candidates combined. And the military is certainly getting tired of these "wars".


Look at how much people cheered when we got bin Laden. Okay, he was an asshole, I get it. But the euphoria over storming an old house of an old man and some women? What is the glory of this exactly?Was there the same jubilation when Obama used the drones against an American citizen, Anwar?


Then it came out that torture was used to find bin Laden... again... we not only accepted this, we CHEERED. Now a movie is coming out gloating about the torture. Again, all the reviewers, both left and right, are cheeringAgain, one example for the person that killed thousands of Americans.


As a culture, as a society, we've gotten sick.
But you think it because of religion when the US is becoming more and more secular every ACLU victory over religion in public...ok.

garhkal
12-20-2012, 08:31 PM
???????? What crime would he be charged with? "Failure to secure school badge from family members"?

well, if he is being honest about the brother stealing it, then no. BUT i am not so sure he is that innocent.



Don't you think the brother has already been through enough? He already has a strong case to sue every involved media outlet for libel - for accusing him of the crime before it was properly verified.

Which from what we have seen won't go anywhere. I can't remember the last time someone got hounded/labled by the press as being X when they were NOT that, and successfully suing for libel.

Banned
12-21-2012, 01:51 AM
Because it wasn't just an old man and some women. It was an old man that was the leader of the most dangerous terrorist orginazation in the world. Of course we cheered. Why wouldn't we? People, not just Americans, like revenge. When some one that is responsible (not alone of course) for the death of thousands of Americans finally bites the bullet, of course people will cheer. Some would say he got off light. I don't think it's about being blood thirsty.

I'd bet that a lot in the Arab world would cheer if W was killed.


I'm pretty sure the world over cheered the day Hitler took his last breath.

I disagree. People cheered that the war was over and tyranny had defeated. I don't think Americans have ever had this level of infatuation with violence before.

Greg
12-21-2012, 02:26 AM
I disagree. People cheered that the war was over and tyranny had defeated. I don't think Americans have ever had this level of infatuation with violence before.

I quit going to multiplex, o.k., I did run out to see "Act of Valor," but most movies lack a plot, that to me, is interesting, holds my attention and is riveting. Horror movies had suspense, and didn't have gobs of blood and gore. There were actual twists and turns, and a surprise ending.

Most TV programs hold no interest for me, nothing but juvenile humor, and some T and A to hold your attention.
I think attention spans have shortened with all the technology available it's very easy to just clink or link on to something else instead being patient to see how it all unfolds.

Anyways that's me, here's something I googled real quick (ha-ha-ha.)

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/20/what-we-should-be-thinking-about-violence-in-pop-culture-and-what-we-will-probably-do-instead/

"All of which is to say: as someone who consumes a lot of pop culture for a living, I think there are plenty of good reasons to be critical of the violence in it: its ubiquity, its extremity and its use as a dramatic crutch. Many of the greatest dramas I’ve loved and admired most in the last decade have been violent, to intelligent, even artistic purpose. But a lot of not-so-greatest dramas lean on blood and gore too. There’s a monotone to a certain section of our culture right now, and that tone is: AUUUUUUUGGGH!"

Greg
12-21-2012, 02:37 AM
Should have read this one first:

"The harsh reality is that the violence that is deeply entrenched in American culture is inextricably tied to our economic and political systems, which profit from the death and suffering of others, create massive inequities in wealth and economic power, thereby encouraging and necessitating violence, and emphasizes material gain at all costs. Of course, the media, the politicians, and the pundits will use the tragedy in Connecticut to push their respective political agendas on gun control, and the American public will follow in lock step, but the reality is that gun control is a giant red herring."

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/419-gun-control-/15078-violence-in-american-culture-lets-get-real

Banned
12-21-2012, 04:10 AM
Agree on all counts. I just think that 10 years of the "long war" has taken its toll on the public. Its no longer shocking, our tolerance for gore not only goes up, we start to get a taste for it, like mice on garlic water.

Pullinteeth
12-27-2012, 05:14 PM
The story will last a couple days, maybe. Reporters will "shock" us with their "BREAKING NEWS" reports when the number changes from 18 to 19, or whatever it is. Parents in Oregon will rush to get their kids out of school because someone was shot 3000 miles away. Then, in a day or to, it will die down and we can get back to important stuff, like the fiscal cliff.

Kinda like THIS little gem;

"Police traded gift cards for guns in Los Angeles on Wednesday, in a buyback program Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced as a crime-fighting response to the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Connecticut.
Los Angeles normally has its gun buyback in May, but Villaraigosa announced last week that the city would have this special buyback in response to the Newtown tragedy."


All firearms solely exist to kill people. BUT i do agree, no one needs fully automatic/semi automatic rifles, 'cept the police' to stave off the criminals who always seem to have them via the black market.I would also like to see the govt go after both the companies which SELL the full automatic modification kits (which iirc are illegal!) and the shipping firms for moving them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are quite a few firearms that are designed specifically for hunting, target shooting, or sporting clays. There are even firearms designed specifically to be non-lethal to humans...


I would be ok with the following list of weaponry for 'non mil/police'..
Pistols, whether semi autos or revolvers
shotguns
hunting rifles.

IF kept at an armory/shooting range and ONLY used there under guard, i could see letting someone own an assault rifle/machine gun.

Riddle me this Batman. Why do you permit semi-auto handguns but not semi-auto rifles? Say you were wandering around in AK and a pissed off moose decided to charge. Would you rather have a single shot rifle, a bolt action rifle that you have to manually eject the shells, or a semiautomatic rifle?

garhkal
12-27-2012, 08:33 PM
If you are that close to a pissed off moose, then your done for!

MilPhD
12-27-2012, 10:08 PM
How many realize a civilian "assault rifle" is the exact same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle with the exception of a few plastic pieces to make the rifle appear "military?"

Know the difference in firing off 30 rounds with three (10) round clips versus two (15) round clips? About 3 seconds.

How about we make some very strong anti-gun laws. Commit a violent crime with a gun and you receive automatic life in prison. Commit a murder with a gun and you receive the death penalty. Then allow everyone who wants a gun, with exception to those deemed mentally unstable, a felon, or convicted of violent crimes, to own one.

The media is driving the lemming masses into a state of hysteria and as usual missing the real problem and solution.

drc100882
12-27-2012, 11:29 PM
How many realize a civilian "assault rifle" is the exact same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle with the exception of a few plastic pieces to make the rifle appear "military?"

Know the difference in firing off 30 rounds with three (10) round clips versus two (15) round clips? About 3 seconds.

How about we make some very strong anti-gun laws. Commit a violent crime with a gun and you receive automatic life in prison. Commit a murder with a gun and you receive the death penalty. Then allow everyone who wants a gun, with exception to those deemed mentally unstable, a felon, or convicted of violent crimes, to own one.

The media is driving the lemming masses into a state of hysteria and as usual missing the real problem and solution.

To the mass media and anti-gun politicians gun = bad. Lets not confuse the uneducated masses with the semantics of "semi-automatic weapon".

And we can't make strong gun laws because we allow criminals too many rights. Do you know how long the average killer sits on death row waiting for appeal after appeal? We can't just sentence someone to death and then actually carry out that punishment! You can't put a first-time offender in prison for life! That's a violation of their rights... Do you see where I'm going with this? Columbine, Va Tech, Aurora, Oregon, Newtown... those aren't about the criminals that killed people. It's about the gun.

I had a conversation with a co-worker about semi-automatic weapons and he said that only handguns should be allowed. I explained that most handguns are semi-automatic and he laughed in my face. You can't educate those unwilling to learn.

Banned
12-28-2012, 12:09 AM
To the mass media and anti-gun politicians gun = bad. Lets not confuse the uneducated masses with the semantics of "semi-automatic weapon".

And we can't make strong gun laws because we allow criminals too many rights. Do you know how long the average killer sits on death row waiting for appeal after appeal? We can't just sentence someone to death and then actually carry out that punishment! You can't put a first-time offender in prison for life! That's a violation of their rights... Do you see where I'm going with this? Columbine, Va Tech, Aurora, Oregon, Newtown... those aren't about the criminals that killed people. It's about the gun.

I had a conversation with a co-worker about semi-automatic weapons and he said that only handguns should be allowed. I explained that most handguns are semi-automatic and he laughed in my face. You can't educate those unwilling to learn.

Mentally unstable people are going to happen regardless of what we do. However, we can control whether or not a psychopath can pick up a gun and kill two dozen people.

So you believe the death penalty is a good deterrent against shooters who commit suicide? Interesting.

drc100882
12-28-2012, 12:31 AM
Mentally unstable people are going to happen regardless of what we do. However, we can control whether or not a psychopath can pick up a gun and kill two dozen people.
We can? Do explain. Is this a reasonable approach you're thinking of or just a "ban all the scary looking guns" approach that seems to be spewed from every left leaning news outlet in the country?

[/QUOTE] So you believe the death penalty is a good deterrent against shooters who commit suicide? Interesting.[/QUOTE]

What? How did you get that out of what I just wrote? Perhaps you missed the sarcastic undertones of my previous posting.

Pullinteeth
12-28-2012, 01:38 PM
Mentally unstable people are going to happen regardless of what we do. However, we can control whether or not a psychopath can pick up a gun and kill two dozen people.

The first sentance...true... However, I can't see how it possibly applies to the second. Generally psychopaths (unlike the guy in CT), live relativley normal lives until they get caught. How exactly would doing anything to prevent mentally unstable people from having guns do anything to help control whether a psychopath has a shitload of guns or not?

garhkal
12-28-2012, 09:40 PM
And we can't make strong gun laws because we allow criminals too many rights. Do you know how long the average killer sits on death row waiting for appeal after appeal? We can't just sentence someone to death and then actually carry out that punishment!

Well said. Looking at this site, we have increased the ave time someone sits on death row, to where its well over a decade. ALL in effective solitary confinement.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row
IMO they should get 1 appeal only. If the appeal is done and comes back negative, then at the 5yr mark they should get it carried out.. It should not take 5 years or more to get one appeal heard.



I had a conversation with a co-worker about semi-automatic weapons and he said that only handguns should be allowed. I explained that most handguns are semi-automatic and he laughed in my face. You can't educate those unwilling to learn

Yup. Heck, i was talking to a fellow gamer about guns and semi automatics.. and he didn't realize that BY the definition of semi auto, REVOLVERS are also semi-autos.

Measure Man
12-28-2012, 10:36 PM
Well said. Looking at this site, we have increased the ave time someone sits on death row, to where its well over a decade. ALL in effective solitary confinement.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row
IMO they should get 1 appeal only. If the appeal is done and comes back negative, then at the 5yr mark they should get it carried out.. It should not take 5 years or more to get one appeal heard.

So, someone trying to get married to another of their same sex, or get out of buying health insurance gets to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but someone with their life on the line doesn't?

That's whack.

garhkal
12-29-2012, 07:55 PM
Well what do you suggest? Get rid of death row? Allow them to linger 20+ years?

Greg
12-29-2012, 08:07 PM
The appeals process is more costly for those with a death sentence the it is for life in prison:


"Financial Facts About the Death Penalty

California

Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)

The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:

$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

garhkal
12-31-2012, 02:20 AM
Which is part of my point. Why should it be so costly for those on death row?

Pullinteeth
01-02-2013, 05:41 PM
The appeals process is more costly for those with a death sentence the it is for life in prison:

"Financial Facts About the Death Penalty
California
Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)
The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:
$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

I for one would love to know where they get their savings data? The $1.94 Billion would stay the same because I assume you are still going to try them... The $1 Billion is going to go up because you have to continue to pay to keep them in prison except now the list won't get any smaller until they die of old age.. Crimminals will still appeal and still have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus whenever they want... I just don't see where they get that it would immediately save $170 million and $5 billion over 20 years. Of course they are lawyers not mathematicians to maybe they forgot to carry the 1?

garhkal
01-02-2013, 10:02 PM
Maybe the savings is cause if they are on death row, they are in solitary, vice open population.

Pullinteeth
01-04-2013, 01:46 PM
Maybe the savings is cause if they are on death row, they are in solitary, vice open population.

Really? So you theorize that they would just throw a serial killer or a child killer in with Gen Pop? I guess that would be a win-win. They could say we don't have the death penalty and the douchebag would be dead... Sounds like a plan!

Measure Man
04-26-2013, 06:06 AM
Well what do you suggest? Get rid of death row? Allow them to linger 20+ years?

Well, my personal opinion is that there should be a higher standard of proof for a death penalty.

Beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, sure.

for death....it should be beyond any shadow of a doubt...as in the guy got caught and apprehended at the scene, or was identified by someone who knew him, overwhelming evidence, etc.

For example....I think Scott Peterson should have been convicted, but should not have gotten the death penalty. He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...but we didn't catch him red-handed, dead-to-rights (no pun intended)...there is no reasonable doubt he did it, but there is some doubt.

garhkal
04-26-2013, 09:27 PM
I do agree there MM.. Conviction for death penalties should have a higher standard than just being convicted period. BUT once they are convicted, there should NOT be 10+ years of being allowed to appeal the appeal that went to the appelate court, that appealed the appeal crap. IMO 5 years from date of convction should be MORE than needed for an appeal. ONE.

Measure Man
04-26-2013, 09:31 PM
I do agree there MM.. Conviction for death penalties should have a higher standard than just being convicted period. BUT once they are convicted, there should NOT be 10+ years of being allowed to appeal the appeal that went to the appelate court, that appealed the appeal crap. IMO 5 years from date of convction should be MORE than needed for an appeal. ONE.

I can not explain why it takes so long to run through the court system...but, it seems to me if anyone should get the full use of all levels of appropriate appeal, it should be someone with their life on the line.

I would like think that if we have irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, that appeals wouldn't take that long.