News Stories

[flying ^]

the shooter's leanings just unveiled!

caitieparker I can't manage all these media requests & @ replies. Too much too fast, can't keep up.
41 minutes ago

caitieparker This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me.
about 2 hours ago

caitieparker @antderosa it's loughner just checked my year book.
about 2 hours ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @lakarune I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing.
about 3 hours ago in reply to lakarune

caitieparker @noboa more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive.
about 3 hours ago in reply to noboa

caitieparker @antderosa he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical.
about 3 hours ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.
about 3 hours ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @antderosa he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class
about 3 hours ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @antderosa He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"

http://mobile.twitter.com/caitiepark...79901883682816

[Asuras]

Hm... To sum it all up, your reasoning is sound (except for the tyrannical government thing, though ), but I still feel guns should be banned everywhere. For everyone. It seems impossible in todays society, but dreaming is fine by me.

Sorry if I came off as anything but considerate.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Shit, I didn't see that before I posted. Sorry.

Anyway, concerning that incident, I was attacked by a man with a knife a few years ago. I didn't shoot him, I just pointed it at him, but had I been unarmed, I'd be extremely lucky to have gotten away without being at least seriously wounded. Not making it up, not a story, but what actually happened.

It's quite beliveable.
You used your gun responsiblely to a threat, nobody would be agains that.
But I don't think than putting a gun into the hand of every american would make America more safe, a lots of peopless wouldn't use it safely or aren't responsible/ sane/ stable enough to have one.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

How can you tell if it works or not? Rather, how do you even define "working"?

Anecdote time: a few years ago, a nutjob tried to kill one of our politicians. I don't really remember why, and I guess it doesn't matter. He didn't use a car as a weapon. He didn't make a pipe bomb. No, he just stabbed the guy. Harder to kill random people with a knife. Maybe that little girl'd be alive if they nutso had had a knife instead of a gun - I mean, he was crazy, but he didn't purposely kill her, did he? And hey, it'd harder to pull a big rampage with a knife.

Now, does that mean I'd support gun control for the US? Not really. I mean, it was just an anecdote. It doesn't prove anything. Even if it bears thinking about... Maybe the main difference is cultural. Americans like to shoot people, when they decide to murder them. Maybe, with stricter gun control laws, he'd just have made more of an effort to get a gun anyway. Got it, too, in the end, and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Then again, I don't really believe in the armed average joe doing any good either, whether it's to stop crimes or rogue governments.

If it did what it was supposed to do and deter or stopped crime then I would say it works, but as I've illustrated above the crime continues to happen irregardless of how many laws are on the books.
The biggest problem with gun control is there are already too many guns on the black market [worldwide] with no real way to collect/confiscate them.
Thus I've learned that trying to do so is an excercise in futility.
What we need in the US is mandatory training, not more useless bans.
The UK has tried the total ban angle and they're still having mass shootings.

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Gunman-k...e-2705514.html

Germany has very strict gun laws, but also has problems with these kinds of mass shootings:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5888453.ece

There are more, but the bottom line is that banning guns is a total failure when trying to stop these types of mass shootings.

A better approach to prevention of this type of thing is mandatory training within an organized group so that these types of people can get weeded out (though some will no doubt still slip through).

Theadore Roosevelt already tried to address this issue (training) back in 1903 with the "Dick Act."
That set up the Department of Civilian Marksmenship which was supposed to educate the public on the use and responsibility of gun-ownership in the United States through organized community shooting groups.
This organization still exists as the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program).
We don't need more gun-control, what we need is a comprehensive militia training program in the United States.

What aggrivates me most about this issue is that the right-wing has totally claimed the right to keep and bear arms and turned it into somekind of redneck mantra of "from my cold dead hands" when the 2nd Amendment is supposd to enhance the power of the Federal Government not undermine it.
The militia (every abled bodied male 18-45) exists to serve the Congress in time of need, THAT is why we have the right to keep and bear arms.
Not sport shooting, not just self-defense, but national defense for three missions: uphold the laws of the union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Liberals in this country have (excluding the growing number of exceptions like myself) allowed them to do it.
It's infuriating, since this right belongs TO ALL OF US that are US citizens.

[Asuras]

Yes, lets train the potential homicidal maniacs.

[synaesthetic]

I'm not really saying that our guns would absolutely 100% save us from a dystopic future, but that was one of the intents the founding fathers had when they penned the amendment. Back in those days, the weapons of the common man were basically identical to those of the military.

The gap's gotten a looooot wider nowadays.

Also, I absolutely support mandatory training. Even if you have a gun, it doesn't do you much good in a life-threatening situation if you don't know how to use it properly, and it might do a lot of bad.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Yes, lets train the potential homicidal maniacs.

They're supposed to make sure you aren't a homicidal maniac before selling you a weapon.

[GundamFan0083]

Yes, lets train the potential homicidal maniacs.

Now you're just being nasty.

My point is that forcing people to join the CMP to buy a gun (and thus become part of a much larger whole) will allow other people to weed out some (not all) of these individuals.

There are always going to be nutjobs that kill.
Even a knife can be used to commit mass murder as Japan has taught us.

http://breakingnews.ie/world/?jp=mhgbojmheyid

The fact is these kinds of lunatics are part of the human condition--it sucks I know--but we have to live with it until we find a way to effectively identify, stop, and treat these mentally ill people.

[Asuras]

I know, I know. I know what you mean.

I just mean that those few that will make it out with their insanity unnoticed will now be trained.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Yes, lets train the potential homicidal maniacs.

No, ''let's weed out the potential homicidal maniacs''... and reduce collaterals victimes shoot by self-defending honnest citizens.

[Asuras]

Direct your attention to the post above yours, please.

[GundamFan0083]

No doubt they will, but it's not really much different than what's already happened.

Hassan was trained by the US military.
Charles Whitman was a US Marine and this Jared guy claims to have been enlisted and attending MEPS (Military Enlistment Processing Station), thus he would have gone into the military and been trained as well.

It really sucks (and can't stress this enough) that we have people in our society that are suffering from antisocial disorders such as schizophrenia and psychopathy, but there are and they are very hard to detect.

[Asuras]

We should purge them from existence.

[GundamFan0083]

The guns, the nutjobs, or both.

[Asuras]

Maybe we'll find a mental cure to everything soon. That'd be the day, sure as hell.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Asuras

An M16 even means nothing when a Sherman rolls around the corner.

But it's sure useful when you've trapped the Sherman in a pit and the crew is trying to get out.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Your culture and education is your most potent check against a tyrannical government (which by all right ought to scare the piss out of you, considering). It's impossible to establish such a government without the cooperation of the army. Which means that as long as your soldiers feel strongly against such a course of action, well, you can't make them.

But really, assuming the worst, how would one even go about pulling off such a coup d'état? And how relevant would privately owned small arms be, against trained soldiers in body armor?

The point is that nowadays, compared to the total population of a country, the size of the military is in general relatively small: 1% at most, counting all combat and non combat staff. And even then special equipment such as body armor isn't widely distributed.

Now, if only 10% of the population was to be armed and not being fine with some kind of dictatorship being enforced on them, what do you think will happen?

There are of course the exceptions of "entrenched" Nations, which rely on a long or distributed conscription to boast it's maximum force, resulting in most if not all citizens going trough the military, thus negating the formation of a military caste. While the political system may not be democratic, coup and the like are virtually impossible.


The US are a special case, for there gun culture appears to be relatively free but chaotic (resulting in way too many untrained peoples), and on the other hand, the military is getting less and less consubstantial with the population (fueling the concerns if not paranoia about potential tyranny).

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If it did what it was supposed to do and deter or stopped crime then I would say it works, but as I've illustrated above the crime continues to happen irregardless of how many laws are on the books.
The biggest problem with gun control is there are already too many guns on the black market [worldwide] with no real way to collect/confiscate them.
Thus I've learned that trying to do so is an excercise in futility.
What we need in the US is mandatory training, not more useless bans.
The UK has tried the total ban angle and they're still having mass shootings.

I cannot agree more.

While in my country the right to possess arms is also seen as the mark of free men and the rampart against tyranny, our culture is widely different as for us gun possession is an institution (and that since the middle ages): virtually all (male) citizen is trained and entrusted with a full auto rifle, which it keeps at home.
Anyone can even ask to start as young as 14: training and shooting for sport with a military issued rifle.

Now of course lefties want to end this in hope (or so they say) to put an end to the 1% or so of homicides attributed to guns (most of them suicides, or crimes using illegally held weapons). Now don't you worry, Nanny-State is gonna take care of you,so you don't hurt yourself, and will protect you from the bully...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If it did what it was supposed to do and deter or stopped crime then I would say it works, but as I've illustrated above the crime continues to happen irregardless of how many laws are on the books.

Yeah... If to you, "working" means zero crime, then never mind. Nothing works. Nothing short of extinction will ever work.

The biggest problem with gun control is there are already too many guns on the black market [worldwide] with no real way to collect/confiscate them.

"Worldwide" would mean that every country's got the same kind of gun problem as the US. Which just isn't true.

Thus I've learned that trying to do so is an excercise in futility.
What we need in the US is mandatory training, not more useless bans.
The UK has tried the total ban angle and they're still having mass shootings.

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Gunman-k...e-2705514.html

Germany has very strict gun laws, but also has problems with these kinds of mass shootings:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5888453.ece

There are more, but the bottom line is that banning guns is a total failure when trying to stop these types of mass shootings.

But are mass shootings the only thing worth fighting? Yes, I know they grab the imagination and crystalise the gun control debate. But the real point of gun control laws is to have fewer gun-related fatalities. Whether it's because of lone crazies finally snapping, or other crimes. (Which brings up the question - yes, gun control doesn't stop them entirely. Does it make them less frequent? How could we tell?)

We regularly have riots. I don't dare imagine what they'd be like if everyone went there with firearms. Then again, maybe they wouldn't, even if guns were more accessible.

Originally Posted by JMvS

But it's sure useful when you've trapped the Sherman in a pit and the crew is trying to get out.



The point is that nowadays, compared to the total population of a country, the size of the military is in general relatively small: 1% at most, counting all combat and non combat staff. And even then special equipment such as body armor isn't widely distributed.

Now, if only 10% of the population was to be armed and not being fine with some kind of dictatorship being enforced on them, what do you think will happen?

I can't imagine a situation where the 10% of gun owners are against tyranny, and the 1% of soldiers are for it.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Maybe we'll find a mental cure to everything soon. That'd be the day, sure as hell.

There's one, but it isn't always the right solution.

BTW, I am a slow typer, so I didn't read your comment before posting mine because you where posting it while I was still typing

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Germany has very strict gun laws, but also has problems with these kinds of mass shootings:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5888453.ece

BTW, in the criminal register, despite strict regulations, France has a serious problem of weapon traffic: now gangsters are using AK47 and even RPGs smuggled from the Balkans, which they use in their turf wars or to attack banks and convoys.

Some have even started to bring their activities across the border in Switzerland and other neighboring countries...

...maybe this will end like the Letten: during the early 90's, it was one of the largest Drug Open Scene in Europe, poisoning the Rail Station area in the country's largest City, until someone started sniping the dealers from afar.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah... If to you, "working" means zero crime, then never mind. Nothing works. Nothing short of extinction will ever work.

Your straw maning is burning.
I've already illustrated in detail what I meant.

"Worldwide" would mean that every country's got the same kind of gun problem as the US. Which just isn't true.

Compared to what?
Europe has had its fair share of gun crime as reported by the NY Times back in 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/in...pe/11SHOO.html

China has a gun problem:

http://shanghaiist.com/2010/06/25/gu...n_the_rise.php

Russia also has its fair share (this happened today, Jan 9th 2011):

http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_...e/1950184.html

What about Mexico?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36485196...news-americas/

I'd say the US is pretty peaceful in comparison to many places in the world despite having an armed civilian population.

But are mass shootings the only thing worth fighting? Yes, I know they grab the imagination and crystalise the gun control debate. But the real point of gun control laws is to have fewer gun-related fatalities. Whether it's because of lone crazies finally snapping, or other crimes. (Which brings up the question - yes, gun control doesn't stop them entirely. Does it make them less frequent? How could we tell?)

We regularly have riots. I don't dare imagine what they'd be like if everyone went there with firearms. Then again, maybe they wouldn't, even if guns were more accessible.

Riots have nothing to do with the dynamics of gun-crime in the US.
That's a red herring so I won't address it.

The argument isn't how poorly gun-control effects crime, or it's ability to prevent fatalities.
The argument is that gun-control doesn't have any measurable effect at all except to deprive lawful individuals access to the tools that could save their lives in the event of an attack by a criminal.
If gun-control did in fact have a real effect on homicides then Washington DC would be the safest city in the world, and it's not.
Why?
It's because guns don't have anything to do with the motives behind the criminals actions.

I'm not saying that more guns equals less crime, what I'm saying is that guns don't factor into why crimes are committed.
Private ownership may play a role as a deterent in states where lawful owners can use deadly force for self-defense without fear of repercussions, but the exact effect of said ownership is the subject of much heated debate.
The trend has been that in states where gun ownership is widespread and castle doctrines exist, violent crime is down, but that isn't always the case and the statistics fluctuate over decades of time.

[MeoTwister5]

Eh... as long as people want to kill each other they'll always find ways to do it. People act like gun control laws won't throw us back three hundred years when we used swords because muskets were silly and pistols were just ridiculous to use, because it will. You'd be surprised how far people will go just to kill someone, and as long as the bloodlust exists, people will kill people regardless of available methods.