The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[Seggy]

Tell me something....how would more gun control have prevented Sandy Hook?

Maybe? Maybe not?

These gun tragedies remind me a lot like aircraft accidents, one break in the chain leading up to the event, you may have a different outcome. Don't we owe it to society to look at laws that can be used to break the chain leading up to a mass shooting?

His Mother bought the Bushmaster legally at a shop two years prior. It was even locked up in a gun safe. Smaller magazines? They can be changed in an instant with practice. What if he had just brought home made pipe bombs with him or other types of explosives? Or carried in gasoline and doused everyone and set them on fire?

We can play this game all day instead of looking to a realistic use today of the 2nd Amendment.

No laws are going to protect the all of the innocent against every evil deed nor every evil person. Evil will find a way, sadly. I think we were just reminded of this in Boston.

True. However, look at the numbers killed by firearms vs. terroristic actions over the years.

 

[Stone Cold]

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, then change it. Otherwise, it's the law of the land and upheld by the Supreme Court. End of discussion!

 

[Hacker15e]

View attachment 23553&View attachment 23554
Killed 32 children. AWB wouldn't have stopped it.

A Glock and a Walther just leaped up and killed children?

 

[Hacker15e]

All these crazy shortages has got me thinking. Anyone here shoot any air rifles? I'm thinking of getting a Gamo for backyard plinking.

I shoot a Crosman 2100 for backyard plinking with my kids.

 

[Hacker15e]

These gun tragedies remind me a lot like aircraft accidents, one break in the chain leading up to the event, you may have a different outcome. Don't we owe it to society to look at laws that can be used to break the chain leading up to a mass shooting?.

What is a "gun tragedy" anyway? I think that's when someone finds their grandpa's mint Singer M1911 that he brought home from the war and they have it pimp-chromed because they hate that ugly gray finish.

Anyway, you're right -- we should be looking at the chain of events, trying to identify root causes, and find ways to break the chain of events. The problem is when people stop trying to actually identify the elements of that chain, and instead zero in on the weapon used as the sole object of cause and the sole method of solution. Any logical, rational person would see that response as a complete fallacy and a travesty.

If an aircraft accident investigator did that, they'd be tarred and feathered and never work in that avocation again.

 

[MQAAord]

I think we need to ban pressure cookers & backpacks. They were obviously instrumental in the Boston bombings. They're dangerous. And nails, and ball bearings too.

We can't have this happen again!!

<Insert gratuitous gory picture of injured Boston person>



/sarcasm (If it was really needed)

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Like when they trot out Gabby anytime they need a reliable, cheap applause mechanism.

Yep, pretty tacky. But I can't say as I blame them. It's good politics. When you don't have good policy to back up your irrational fears, just trot out some emotion.

Liberals have no dignity at all. ATN is beginning to see this.

Uh, no. The problem with my fellow liberals on this issue is irrational fear. I would say a good 90% of them have never shot a handgun or "assault rifle," let alone carried one or gone through firearms training. People fear what they don't understand. It's human nature.

I'm simply wondering when the rest of the ether will wear off and he will start seeing that arguments he is for are handled the same way by the dems. When he realizes that he'll become republican.

Sorry, Waco, but I get more and more liberal with each passing day. It's only two issues that I side with the conservatives: abortion and gun control. It's always been that way, ever since I became a Democrat in my mid-20s. I don't see that changing. My entire moral belief structure would have to change first.

 

[RRPower]

Maybe? Maybe not?

These gun tragedies remind me a lot like aircraft accidents, one break in the chain leading up to the event, you may have a different outcome. Don't we owe it to society to look at laws that can be used to break the chain leading up to a mass shooting?.

Yes we do owe it to society...so, riddle me this...why is it that you want to put so much emphases on the method in which these people commit these atrocities instead of why or how they snapped in the first place? I see no one offering up a way to prevent this person from wanting to do this. Ok so you ban guns...he would have gone into that school with a pressure cooker bomb instead...or a knife...or a bat...or a car. Doesn't matter, maybe you cut down on the amount of children killed, maybe not...but you have done nothing to stop him from WANTING to kill these kids.

So...you gun grabbers start actually trying to help this situation and stop trying to screw with all the law abiding people...how bout that?

 

[Seggy]

What is a "gun tragedy" anyway? I think that's when someone finds their grandpa's mint Singer M1911 that he brought home from the war and they have it pimp-chromed because they hate that ugly gray finish.

When people are killed by firearms.

Anyway, you're right -- we should be looking at the chain of events, trying to identify root causes, and find ways to break the chain of events. The problem is when people stop trying to actually identify the elements of that chain, and instead zero in on the weapon used as the sole object of cause and the sole method of solution. Any logical, rational person would see that response as a complete fallacy and a travesty.

Look at how the homicide rates in Australia after their assault ban. Guns are part of the root cause, you can't deny that

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

If an aircraft accident investigator did that, they'd be tarred and feathered and never work in that avocation again.

As you bring this up, investigators have grounded entire fleets of aircraft due to safety issues of individual components. We should get rid of certain guns due to individual people's actions with them. It would be the same concept.

 

[Seggy]

Yes we do owe it to society...so, riddle me this...why is it that you want to put so much emphases on the method in which these people commit these atrocities instead of why or how they snapped in the first place? I see no one offering up a way to prevent this person from wanting to do this. Ok so you ban guns...he would have gone into that school with a pressure cooker bomb instead...or a knife...or a bat...or a car. Doesn't matter, maybe you cut down on the amount of children killed, maybe not...but you have done nothing to stop him from WANTING to kill these kids.

So...you gun grabbers start actually trying to help this situation and stop trying to screw with all the law abiding people...how bout that?

To put it simply.

The law abiding people aren't doing enough. They are more wrapped around the axle of their damn guns rather than the loss of life.

Case in point...

What is a "gun tragedy" anyway? I think that's when someone finds their grandpa's mint Singer M1911 that he brought home from the war and they have it pimp-chromed because they hate that ugly gray finish.

 

[Seggy]

The aftermath of gun control in Australia...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath

 

[SteveC]

Look at how the homicide rates in Australia after their assault ban. Guns are part of the root cause, you can't deny that

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

edit to add: beat me by just seconds!!!

 

[Seggy]

SteveC, beat you by a second

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

When people are killed by firearms.

So, when someone is knifed to death, is that a "knife tragedy?" If someone gets beaten to death with a tire iron, is that a "tire iron tragedy?" The rhetoric is just so ridiculous, it's difficult not to laugh at you.

Look at how the homicide rates in Australia after their assault ban. Guns are part of the root cause, you can't deny that

You've been watching too much Daily Show. What Oliver failed to bring up (probably intentionally) during his three-part series is that while gun violence has gone down, the overall rate of violent crime has skyrocketed. Rape and assault are up almost 50%, for example. He also failed to mention that the rate of gun ownership pre-ban in Australia was a small fraction of what it is in America, where there is one gun for every man, woman, and child. And, of course, there's the difference in culture. When the government told people to hand in their guns in Australia, people actually did. In America, if someone tells me to hand in my gun, I'm going to say "what gun? I don't have any guns." And so will millions upon millions of other Americans. The guns aren't going anywhere in a country filled with over 300 million of them. You're living in a fantasy world, and so is the Daily Show.

 

[Seggy]

You've been watching too much Daily Show. What Oliver failed to bring up (probably intentionally) during his three-part series is that while gun violence has gone down, the overall rate of violent crime has skyrocketed. Rape and assault are up almost 50%, for example.

If you want to use that for the keystone of your argument go right ahead, but it's wrong...

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://bill4dogcatcher.wordpress.co...floating-around-the-internet-and-on-facebook/

 

[MercFE]

As you bring this up, investigators have grounded entire fleets of aircraft due to safety issues of individual components. We should get rid of certain guns due to individual people's actions with them. It would be the same concept.

So, an investigative team finds a safety problem with an aircraft component that grounds a fleet of aircraft...

Would you say that when the same investigative team finds that the pilot of an incident is to be a "problem," we should then ground all aircraft until that pilot can be fixed? That's what your second sentence sounds like to me... "Same concept" after all.

 

[WacoFan]

You know, people delude themselves by not communicating with themselves clearly - I think it is due to human nature and not wanting to believe the worst in people. Some examples:

Islam is "the religion of peace" - um, no it really isn't. Not saying it is "more" or "less" peaceful - but it certainly doesn't deserve the title of "THE" religion of peace.

Abortion is a "women's health issue" - um, no - it's really about getting rid of an inconvenient child in a vast majority of cases.

Liberals may be wrong, but they have their heart in the right place - um, no...they are totalitarian goons who want to implement controls on peoples lives and restrict liberty for whatever reason, be it power, ego or simply that they are totalitarian goons. Has nothing to do with their "heart being in the right place". Actually it has more to do with their "head being in the wrong place" as in, firmly wedged up their ass.

The question is why ATN finds their efforts to control the gun population so egregious but their efforts to restrict liberty in other ways (like say...forcing you to buy a product from a private company or face a government fine) is okay with him?

 

[Boris Badenov]

they are totalitarian goons who want to implement controls on peoples lives and restrict liberty for whatever reason, be it power, ego or simply that they are totalitarian goons.

With you on the rest, but I think in many cases "Liberals" (whatever those are) want to implement gun control because they genuinely believe that if there were more and greater state controls on gun ownership, people would somehow magically be made nicer and less prone to killing each other.

It's the same sort of blind, superficial logic that's behind the apparent "Conservative" belief that if abortion and contraception were made illegal, people would suddenly stop screwing people they probably shouldn't under circumstances in which they probably shouldn't. IMHO, it's a symptom of the fact that more than ever before, our connection to reality is mediated. Everyone the king of their own skull-sized kingdom, confronting enormous questions that involve hundreds of millions of people from the perspective of what they immediately see and hear and the, what, maybe 30 people they know well? And what they're told by the mediating organs to which they choose to listen. More than anything else it's the cart before the horse. The desire to hear before the desire to listen. We're at the point of literally choosing what to believe, but not in the important, meaningful sense of Choice. Real Choice isn't a child "choosing" to throw a tantrum because he feels like it.

It's sort of like putting an apple and a candy bar in front of a kid and asking them which one they want to eat. The kid will, obviously, choose the candy bar. And like the kid, we'll generally choose the mediated reality which best suits our predisposition ("Guns are for killing, killing is bad, why should anyone have guns when killing is bad" or "candy bars taste good, why would they taste good if they were bad?)

Look no further than Seggy's sort of hamfisted ad hominem in this thread. Functionally, 99% of the human race is now convinced that whatever they FEEL is right...as far as they're concerned, the work is in figuring out how to explain to everyone else the obvious, immutable fact of how right their immediate, easy, unnuanced and halfbaked opinion must be.

That's not the work (it's not work at all, that's what's so pernicious about it), but this laziness isn't endemic to any particular political party or leaning.

Edit: Grammar and clarity.

 

[RRPower]

To put it simply.

The law abiding people aren't doing enough...

But I'm asking YOU...what are YOU and your gun grabbers doing to keep that kid from ever entering the school with ANY weapon wanting to do harm to kids? (Or anyone for that matter)

What part of any GUN bill is doing something to stop someone else from hurting others with pressure cooker bombs, or knives, or cars...you can't ban everything in life.

 

[darrenf]

With you on the rest, but I think in many cases "Liberals" (whatever that is) want to implement gun control because they genuinely believe that if there was more and greater gun control, people would somehow magically be made nicer and less prone to killing each other. It's the same sort of blind, superficial logic that's behind the apparent "Conservative" belief that if abortion and contraception are made illegal, people will suddenly stop screwing people they probably shouldn't under circumstances in which they probably shouldn't. IMHO, it's a symptom of the fact that more than ever before, our connection to reality is mediated. Everyone the king of their own skull-sized kingdom, confronting enormous questions that involve hundreds of millions of people from the perspective of what they immediately see and hear and the, what, maybe 30 people they know well? And what they're told by the mediating organs to which they choose to listen. More than anything else it's the cart before the horse. We're at the point of literally choosing what to believe, but not in the important, meaningful sense of choice.

It's sort of like putting an apple and a candy bar in front of a kid and asking them which one they want to eat. The kid will, obviously, choose the candy bar. And like the kid, we'll generally choose the mediated reality which best suits our predisposition ("Guns are for killing, killing is bad, why should anyone have guns when killing is bad" or "candy bars taste good, why would they taste good if they were bad?)

Look no further than Seggy's sort of hamfisted ad hominem in this thread. Functionally, 99% of the human race is now convinced that whatever they FEEL is right...as far as they're concerned, the work is in figuring out how to explain to everyone else the obvious, immutable fact of how right their immediate, easy, unnuanced and halfbaked opinion must be.

That's not the work, but this laziness isn't endemic to any particular political party or leaning.

Great post Boris.