Gunman Kills 4 in TN

SilverSeed

jeffbr wrote:

Did this incident involve an "assault rifle"? I didn't see mention made. Do you know what incredibly low percentage of shootings involve "assualt rifles"? It is mostly a media creation due to how scary they look.



I understand that you'd rather run around creating new laws against scary looking guns instead of enforcing existing gun laws, or looking at the root cause of the shooters issue. Clearly something drove him to this. But let's ignore that and focus on the gun.




This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in a long time. I am not defending the perpetrator of this shooting. I'm quite glad he's dead, and am saddened that whatever troubles led up to this incident were ignored rather than addressed.

And since you are apparently confused I'll go ahead and answer your silly question - No, the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect the rights of an agressor committing homocide. There is nothing in the 2nd ammendment that could be construed to do so. In fact, there are many laws on the books outlawing all sorts of crimes against people, none of which violate the 2nd ammendment. Christ.

Ok first I'll apologize for not having the time to address everything. I typically only come on here at work and for short bursts at a time.

Jeff- I can tell this issue gets you pretty worked up. My only suggestion is when you say "This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in a long time" and "Since you are apparently confused" you spell things correctly in the surrounding sentences.

Moving on. No this didn't involve an assault rifle. I was merely giving a specific example of something we should do. I really can't find any rationalization for an assault rifle in our society.

Do I think guns are the sole problem? No. Obviously this guy, and the others, have problems. The issue is that they are able to get guns easily. Do I have the answer to keep guns out of their hands? No. But just because the situation is complex doesn't mean it can't be solved. To trivialize the role of guns ("scary looking guns") in the shootings is to be terribly naive. You think if these guys only had hatchets they'd do the same things? Come on...

I don't believe the 2nd amendment question is the dumbest thing I've said or the dumbest thing you've heard in a long time. The 2nd amendment is the lifeline you and the NRA cling to. Without it we would have seriously different gun laws. The rest of your arguments are only held up by the staying power of the 2nd.

To sum up: I believe your issue is with the general statements that we against guns make. Maybe it sounds like pie in the sky craziness to you. Maybe you're next in the clock tower. Who knows? But you don't put forward any argument that guns NEED to be legal, or need NOT be more heavily legislated. You merely poke detailed, minute holes in more general arguments, without reaching a conclusion on your own. You seem very pro guns but I still can't see why.

Going forward: I'm all for a frank discussion on guns, as you and soulsinging seem to be able to have. I don't why I earned your ire, I didn't say anything as outlandish as half the things I read here. Anyway you can write back with angry bullshit or you can put together a coherent argument. Either way, I probably won't be back on til tomorrow. Peace I'm outta here!

jeffbr

SilverSeed wrote:

Going forward: I'm all for a frank discussion on guns, as you and soulsinging seem to be able to have. I don't why I earned your ire, I didn't say anything as outlandish as half the things I read here. Anyway you can write back with angry bullshit or you can put together a coherent argument. Either way, I probably won't be back on til tomorrow. Peace I'm outta here!

You earned my ire for suggesting that I was somehow defending the aggressor’s rights so adamantly, and that the 2nd amendment somehow leads to this sort of behavior. Just the opposite is true. I am a big proponent of prosecuting crimes used with weapons (of any kind) to the fullest. I am a big proponent of prosecuting to the fullest anyone who violates anyone else's rights.


And the scary guns comment is true. Long guns that are semi-automatic in nature and hold more than one round aren't anything new. But if they bear any resemblance to something that looks like it could belong in the military, it is immediately assumed to be scary, dangerous. In many cases those weapons are lower caliber and with the shorter barrel, less accurate than my hunting rifle. But simply because of its looks the gun banners capitalized on fear and called for their banning. They are used so infrequently in crimes as to be a non-issue, yet they consume so much time in congress and the media. That's why I called them "scary looking guns", because ultimately, that is all they are regardless of how Chuck Schumer might portray them. That is also why I jumped on your call for re-instating the ban on them. Again, they weren't involved in this particular incident, they aren't involved in any significant level of crime, and they aren't any more dangerous and powerful then the average hunting rifle.

One final comment regarding something you said in a different thread today (surveillance in schools) that I found interesting:

SilverSeed wrote:

Edit: Yes, BRY, taking away freedom of speech is a path to taking other rights. If it's gone, how can you voice disapproval to future change?

I happen to completely agree with you. As a civil libertarian I am passionate about this. I just happen to think that all of my rights deserve protection from government encroachment.

I apologize for lashing out, but didn't appreciate having any point I made misconstrued to mean that I support or condone in any what that shooter did. Lastly, I retract my comment about your post being one of the dumber things I've read. I'll save that category for the crazy conspiracy theorists around here.

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

as to the second paragraph, i don't buy it. becos the us military could still destroy you if it wanted. i don't buy that ideology unless it also demands the right to own mortars, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and fighter jets... a REAL militia to serve as a bulwark against the government. this isn't 1776. a few private citizens with handguns and rifles could not stop the us military.

Well, I suppose it depends on the government's objective. If their objective is to flatten a state, then you are correct. But as we can see from our Iraq experience, if their objective is more political in nature, rather than military, millions of armed citizens could have quite an impact. If the full force of the government wanted to destroy any particular individual's home, then I agree with you, having a couple of handguns will be completely ineffective.

soulsinging wrote:

i didnt know BAFTE was tracking gun sales now. that's interesting. i wonder how it works. but i also have to say i find it odd that on the one hand you talk about strict liability for crimes committed when you fence your weapon, but then think it should be perfectly legal to sell your handgun to anyone you want without any mechanism to review the legality of the sale. it leaves it wide open for abuse... like people who get prescriptions for painkillers and then farm them out to junkies.

Well, perhaps I should have been more clear. There are well defined record keeping requirements on every holder of a federal firearms license. The BATF has access to those records anytime they desire. In addition. the FBI was for years illegally keeping results of national instant background checks. They were supposed to destroy the records after 180 days, but weren't doing that for many years until they were caught. I talked about privacy earlier, and the DoJ exempted the FBI's NICS (national instant check system) from provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 pertaining to identifiable personal information. I have no faith that any registration system would be protected. In fact, I have a pretty strong suspicion that it would not be protected, and that it would be too easily accessible.

poto101

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/27/bus.stop.shooting/index.html


unbelievable

Im still here

Are the Guns the problem......?

Or is the State of our Mental Facilities the Root Problem???????

I wonder what it really is that they are coming in such rapid succession.....

I saw a story about a G.I. back from Iraq who tried to get help and they wouldn't help him. He ended up committing suicide. He probably needed help he couldn't get..... (even he knew he was gonna snap)

Nowadays, the Government houses the Mental Cases (alot anyway) as Criminal Cases. How can they get the help they need there???

My condolences go out to the families of these sensless victims.........

btw I'm voting Hillary March 4th

Hinny

Two people get into an argument. It becomes heated. They fight. One of them gets seriously pissed off. There is an object on the table closer to one of them which he could use to inflict some damage.

In universe A, that object is a block of tofu. In universe B, it's a gun.

A reporter looks on. In universe A the news item would be quite funny and become one of those stories that gets spread around on chain emails. In universe B, the guy is dead, but that's ok because he's just a statistic.

I'm supposed to have a point, but there's really no way to tell pro-gun rights Americans just how idiotic all these gun deaths without a serious debate on access to guns comes across to the rest of us. Can't even be bothered to argue anymore- it's like watching monkeys behind a cage throwing faeces around.- it's stupid, and there's nothing you can do about it.

dunkman

Im still here wrote:

Are the Guns the problem......?

Or is the State of our Mental Facilities the Root Problem???????

they are a part of the problem... if he didnt have a gun then it would just be a mentalist shouting *bang* at people... and that wont kill 35 kids in a school.