In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[4588686]

There are some very curious and scary things being said about this event. Things like it was planned, more than one shooter, connection with LIBOR scandal and UN Small Arms Treaty.  Has anyone encountered them?   I dismiss conspiracy theories, but I am drawn to this one b/c of its scariness. I hope it is all nonsense.

 

The LIBOR scandal and UN small arms treaty?  What the duck? 

[homeschoolmom]

:blink:

[Winchester]

The only human rights are the ones that humans are willing to demand and enforce.  If you want to say that you have a right to private property and are willing to use violence to appropriate a piece of the common world to your private use and the means the enforce that claim then I guess that you have a right to private property.  That's more or less how the system of private property got started in the first place.  

That would be a 'yes', then. You are arguing that might makes right.

[4588686]

That would be a 'yes', then. You are arguing that might makes right.

 

That's not what I'm arguing.  Those are words that you're putting in my mouth in an attempt to kick up dust.  

Where do you get a right to take a piece of the common world and appropriate it to your exclusive use?  

[Anomaly]

I wouldn't say that there was a right to create a state.  There are no transcendent rights.  You have a legal right to property.  That's it. 

 

If he had three shot guns then it would take him a lot longer to kill 90 people than if he had three bushmasters with high capacity magazines.  Gun control can work.  Unless Americans are just massively more violent than Western Europeans, Canadians, and UKers.  A guy with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a ride home on any particular school bus.  That's not what the fact that more kids are killed by vehicles than mass shooters means.  

 

If you want to make up your own 'facts' then carry on. 

There have been no mass shootings of 90 people in the US. 

US has a higher rate of murder than the UK even if you remove all gun deaths.

Cars are many times more deadly and dangerous than a guy with a gun.  That IS what the fact that more kids are killed by vehicles than mass shooters means.

 

Gun control of high capacity weapons is only about emotions and politics and is using the lie that children's safety is the primary reason.  Considering that over 115 children died in bicycle accidents in 2006, assault weapons aren't as big a threat. 

 

The real problem is people who WANT to kill children.

[4588686]

If you want to make up your own 'facts' then carry on. 

There have been no mass shootings of 90 people in the US. 

 

Never said there were.

 

 

US has a higher rate of murder than the UK even if you remove all gun deaths.

 

 

So?  Is it only possible to work on one issue at a time?  

 

 

Cars are many times more deadly and dangerous than a guy with a gun.  That IS what the fact that more kids are killed by vehicles than mass shooters means.

 

Gun control of high capacity weapons is only about emotions and politics and is using the lie that children's safety is the primary reason.  Considering that over 115 children died in bicycle accidents in 2006, assault weapons aren't as big a threat. 

 

The real problem is people who WANT to kill children.

 

 

Ok.  Kid A gets on a bus.  Kid B is in that school with the shooter.  All things being equal kid B is in more danger.  More kids does in traffic than in mass shooting.  That is true.  That does not mean that any given bus is more dangerous than any given guy with a gun.  But again, I agree, there is a lot we should do to make traffic safer.  

[Kevin]

I disagree.

 

 

When the Titanic sank, was it terrible how that event was used to discuss changes to current shipping standards?

 

It is inevitable and proper that people will cite an event to argue what should or should not have been done to help prevent it.

 

 

The difference is whether logistical reasoning is used.  The anti-gun movement does not use this while the pro-gun movement does.

 

 

The anti-gun movement will come in bellows of tears and emotion to argue that guns should basically be banned.  Using the same logic, cars should be banned, and people should not be allowed to vote......to many deaths come from car accidents and the voting booth.

 

The pro-gun movement will remain cool and correctly point out that criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow.  They will also point out how criminals strangely refuse to follow the law.  In the Connecticut case, the only way to prevent this near massacre would be to outright ban guns of all types and literally makes all guns disappear   No gun law in Connecticut saved those lives.  The firearms were legally bought, but were then stolen and their owner killed.  The killer was underage to use handguns, but he still used them.  Perhaps there should be a law about not bringing guns into a school?  Maybe a sign would have stopped the killer?!?

 

The only person to charge for gun negligence is already dead and unfit for trial.  There is no reasonable or logical gun control law to follow from this incident.

 

 

The only opportunistic people are the anti-gun people as their arguments do not follow from the incident.  The pro-gun people recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and act accordingly.

 

Here is an article basically showing that everything you say is incorrect. There is, in fact, a strong correlation between lower violent crime rates and stricter gun control laws.

 

Also, with what do you back up the statement "criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow"? In countries like Japan where gun control laws are very tight, it is almost impossible to get a gun, even if you are a criminal. And yes, there is still crime - but using knives and bats in crime much less efficient as far as getting people killed.

 

I think that, if nothing else happens, there has to be a ban on semi-automatic weapons. If you say that criminals will get them anyway, I will point out that these shootings are being performed by people who bought these weapons legally, and that it would have been much more difficult for them to get these weapons if they couldn't get them from a sporting goods store.

 

As to the claim that you need something as strong as what someone trying to attack your home might be using - first I will ask, how may cases have there been of someone repelling a home invader who had a semi-automatic weapon with a semi-automatic weapon of their own? Would it even make sense for a burglar to use such a large, unwieldy weapon instead of a pistol, if all he needs to do is prevent an attack at inside a house, which is always a close-quarters situation? And if we have the right to anything that might potentially be used on us, do we have a right to own chemical weapons or high powered explosives, since someone might use them on us?

 

The fact is that it doesn't happen. There is no need for a private citizen to have access to that kind of firepower. The only reason I can imagine for these people believing they need these weapons would be to stage some sort of violent political uprising, which given their rhetoric would not surprise me in the least.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kevin

[Papist]

The LIBOR scandal and UN small arms treaty?  What the duck? 

 

Exactly. Very weird. 

[4588686]

Here is an article basically showing that everything you say is incorrect. There is, in fact, a strong correlation between lower violent crime rates and stricter gun control laws.

 

Also, with what do you back up the statement "criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow"? In countries like Japan where gun control laws are very tight, it is almost impossible to get a gun, even if you are a criminal. And yes, there is still crime - but using knives and bats in crime much less efficient as far as getting people killed.

 

I think that, if nothing else happens, there has to be a ban on semi-automatic weapons. If you say that criminals will get them anyway, I will point out that these shootings are being performed by people who bought these weapons legally, and that it would have been much more difficult for them to get these weapons if they couldn't get them from a sporting goods store.

 

As to the claim that you need something as strong as what someone trying to attack your home might be using - first I will ask, how may cases have there been of people repelling a home invader who had a semi-automatic weapon with a semi-automatic weapon of their own? Would it even make sense for a burglar to use such a large, unwieldy weapon instead of a pistol, if all he needs to do is prevent an attack at inside a house, which is always a close-quarters situation?

 

The fact is that it doesn't happen. There is no need for a private citizen to have access to that kind of firepower. The only reason I can imagine for these people believing they need these weapons would be to stage some sort of violent political uprising, which given their rhetoric would not surprise me in the least.

 

Your reasoning is flawed since you forgot to begin with the premise that criminals will magically apparate guns no matter what and that the arms industry is a god given right because Jesus just loves Viktor Bout.

[Winchester]

That's not what I'm arguing.  Those are words that you're putting in my mouth in an attempt to kick up dust.  

 

No, I'm not trying to kick up dust. What you're saying is that the only rights that exist are those defended by force. I suppose you could say that unsuccessful defense qualifies to create a right. I'm trying to understand.

 

 

Where do you get a right to take a piece of the common world and appropriate it to your exclusive use?

First use. Can I prove to you that some intangible thing exists, some claim? No. If you don't accept ownership as possible, nothing will prove it to you.

 

Do you believe you own yourself?

[Kevin]

Your reasoning is flawed since you forgot to begin with the premise that criminals will magically apparate guns no matter what and that the arms industry is a god given right because Jesus just loves Viktor Bout.

 

Friend, I am with you, I am supporting stricter laws...unless you are being facetious...or unless there is some flaw in my logic I don't understand.

 

 

No, I'm not trying to kick up dust. What you're saying is that the only rights that exist are those defended by force. I suppose you could say that unsuccessful defense qualifies to create a right. I'm trying to understand.

 

 

First use. Can I prove to you that some intangible thing exists, some claim? No. If you don't accept ownership as possible, nothing will prove it to you.

 

Do you believe you own yourself?

 

 

 

I don't get what the hubbub is about. This is how I think of it: it's all social contract. I remember learning that 9th grade, and realizing, my God, there it is, the basis for all our laws.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kevin

[4588686]

Friend, I am with you, I am supporting stricter laws...unless you are being facetious...or unless there is some flaw in my logic I don't understand.

 

I was being facetious.   

[Kevin]

I was being facetious.   

 

Oh good, I thought I might have said something stupid. Teaching has made me suspicious of myself, because sometimes I think I have made a point very clearly and it turns out no one understood what I was saying.

[Anomaly]

There is no need for a private citizen to have access to that kind of firepower. The only reason I can imagine for these people believing they need these weapons would be to stage some sort of violent political uprising, which given their rhetoric would not surprise me in the least.

I read the article.  I used data from Mother Jones in my posts and came to a different conclusion.

 

Note that the author of the article claims that it's not emotion and said if people were being killed on collapsing roads, something would be done.  I pointed out the reality of teen drivers and bicyclists being killed more often by a magnitude of hundreds or thousands more deaths and injuries.  There is no need for a high powere sports car on US roads.  There is no need for children to be riding bikes and averageing two deaths a week just for recreation.

 

If the outcry is a rational response to providing child safety and saving lives, where are the laws eliminating teen drivers and bicycles?  Also, from the Mother Jone's data, most of the shooters were identified as being mentally ill BEFORE they went on the rampages.  Also from Mother Jone's data, only 25% of these rampages were done with "assault weapons". 

 

Noting that most of these people who comitted these crimes were mentally ill and many committed suicide, would a simple restriction on a particular device of death not just lead them to something else?  Tim McVeigh killed children in a pre-school with a bomb.  In China, they attached school children with knives.  In Soviet Georgia, people used explosives.  In Columbine, they had small bombs as well as guns.  In Tampa, just last week http://abcnews.go.com/US/tampa-school-attack-thwarted/story?id=14324520 a boy was just sentenced http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/thwarted-freedom-high-school-bomb-plot-gets-tampa-teen-jared-cano-15-years-in-prison for a plot to attack his schoolmates with bombs.

 

What magic new gun law will make 200,000,000 (two hundred million PLUS) guns disappear and identify and incarcerate mentally ill people with homicidal intent before they act?

Edited December 19, 2012 by Anomaly

[Winchester]

What magic new gun law will make 200,000,000 (two hundred million PLUS) guns disappear and identify and incarcerate mentally ill people?

 

I suppose they would base it off the highly successful drug prohibition laws.