|
Snickering Snotty
On 12/16/2012 8:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
"Califbill" wrote: So? Why did he have the insane desire to kill a bunch of small, innocent children? That is what we need to discover. Why so many more are going off the deep end. Is it all the additives in the diet? Too many people congesting an area? Why? Interesting article: http://tinyurl.com/924c7d6 Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_II:_The_Chosen Here's a whole list of games the kids can play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...erson_shooters I'm no doctor, but I think the emergence of these and other computer games add greatly to the ADD and ADHD problems in this country. Correlation is not causation but there are some interesting correlation coefficients cited in this article. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/ |
Snickering Snotty
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26*pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. |
Snickering Snotty
On Dec 16, 10:52*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26*pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with *State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then *do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. Ok, but that isn't relivant to your question. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
In article , says...
On 12/16/2012 3:57 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 12/16/2012 2:00 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:20:27 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 16, 7:08 am, ESAD wrote: On 12/16/12 7:59 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 07:33:05 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/15/12 7:31 AM, jps wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:35:17 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 3:47 am, jps wrote: He had his mother's guns. He had mental problems. I wonder whose knives did this guy borrowed? http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-chi...065-20121213,0,... 22 injured vs 27 dead. Knife vs. guns. I know you're for real but I can't believe you're really that dense. The United States has the most violent society in the modern western world. That's probably not what most Americans want to hear or believe. It's due to the European influence in our population. Just look at the demographics of our prison populations. You'll get my point. Ever the racist, hey, John the Racist? What race was the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut? Maybe I missed something in John's post, but I didn't see anything 'racist' in it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough... When he can't respond to the subject of the post, he resorts to name-calling. Best to disregard it. Krause was hand picked and trained by Al Sharpton. In more ways than you know. Al Sharpton has taxes issues too. ...and Sharpton is slightly more credible... snerk Certainly more credible that your tales. |
Snickering Snotty
On Dec 17, 7:47*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26*pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with *State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then *do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. |
Snickering Snotty
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... Some questions have no easy answers. In China there have been a series of mass killings of children using knives. What is the psychological appeal to killing a room full of children? How do we make the schools safe short of posting an armed guard in every class room? How do we detect and isolate the mentally disturbed amongst us who are capable of such acts, without giving up our basic freedoms? Has something changed in our society which inspired these crimes - media, culture, video games, etc. ? Like I said, some questions have no easy answers. --------------------------------------------------------- So true. Like most I am sure, I was horrified and deeply saddened by the events of last Friday in Connecticut. The shear insanity of this 20 year old's actions are unfathomable. Also like most, I have watched and listened to the 24 hour a day coverage of the horrific event, mostly on cable news channels (MSNBC and CNN) and on the Internet. I was angry, sad, frustrated and depressed, depending on what specific aspect of the events were being discussed and/or analyzed. I tried to remember what our society was like back when I was a youngster. I came into this world in 1949. I found a website that provides (for a fee) statistical information on virtually any subject you are interested in. Since these mass murders seem to always involve someone who ultimately takes their own life as well, I searched for: number of suicides in USA since 1950 and the number of homicides in the USA since 1950. I fully expected to see an upward trend in these categories over the decades since 1950. To my surprise, there was not an upward trend. The data was presented in terms of male and female suicides and homicides per 100,000 in the overall population. Firearms were involved in the majority for both categories, but at the same relative level (percentage) for each decade. The number of suicides and homicides committed per 100,000 in 1950 and then for every decade since was about the same as those today, give or take a handful. Furthermore, the numbers were actually considerably higher than today for both categories in the 1980 - 1990 decades. I've heard arguments that lay blame on violent, gory video games, easy access to guns, drugs, poor parenting, mental health, etc. I am sure all have some level of contribution to violent crime and steps should be taken to address them. (Having just gone through the permitting process in Massachusetts for a firearm permit, I am completely in favor of the overall tightening of gun control laws and the banning of military type assault rifles. Massachusetts has one of, if not *the* most restrictive gun laws of all the States in the USA but I was still amazed at how easy it is to get a permit with very little training.) My conclusion is that no suicide or homicide is justified or acceptable in a society however the numbers are *not* increasing, contrary to what we may be led to believe or assume. From 1950 to the 1970/1980 decades we didn't really have the media information available to us that exists today. MSNBC and CNN have had 24 hour a day coverage of the horrible events since last Friday. Yahoo News on the Internet reports every shooting that takes place anywhere in the country, 15 minutes after it happens. (there's a new one today in Texas, involving one person). I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years. But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
On 12/17/2012 7:43 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years. But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. Indeed. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103186662 "angry about property taxes" |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre. I hope the following happens: 1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense. These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee for the turn-in. 2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check. No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or sales of firearms without a waiting period. 3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
One thing that would certainly help is to hold the legal gun owners accountable if someone steals their guns. If you allow someone to steal or "borrow" your gun, and it is used to commit a crime, you would be an accessory to that crime and pay the consequences. That's completely idiotic. No one "allows" their possessions to be stolen, a criminal has to steal them, and there is no way to absolutely prevent their theft. And, this is the classic liberal view of blaming others for something that a person does. Lack of personal responsibility, like not paying your taxes and debts. I have a better idea... If a criminal commits a crime with a stolen gun, it's an automatic death penalty. Far less people behind bars than your idea, much less of a drain on society, and no repeat offenders! |
Snickering Snotty
In article , lid says...
On 12/17/2012 7:43 AM, Eisboch wrote: I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years. But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. Indeed. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103186662 "angry about property taxes" That may make Harry go nuts and do the same, he owes a lot in property taxes and other debts and liens. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:49:00 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: One thing that would certainly help is to hold the legal gun owners accountable if someone steals their guns. If you allow someone to steal or "borrow" your gun, and it is used to commit a crime, you would be an accessory to that crime and pay the consequences. That's completely idiotic. No one "allows" their possessions to be stolen, a criminal has to steal them, and there is no way to absolutely prevent their theft. And, this is the classic liberal view of blaming others for something that a person does. Lack of personal responsibility, like not paying your taxes and debts. I have a better idea... If a criminal commits a crime with a stolen gun, it's an automatic death penalty. Far less people behind bars than your idea, much less of a drain on society, and no repeat offenders! The weight is on the owner to make sure his guns don't get stolen. And the problem is... that's impossible. And it takes some of the responsibility off the criminal (who's now broken at least *two* laws), and puts it on the law-abiding gun owner. |
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:
the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. |
Snickering Snotty
In article ,
says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:49:00 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: One thing that would certainly help is to hold the legal gun owners accountable if someone steals their guns. If you allow someone to steal or "borrow" your gun, and it is used to commit a crime, you would be an accessory to that crime and pay the consequences. That's completely idiotic. No one "allows" their possessions to be stolen, a criminal has to steal them, and there is no way to absolutely prevent their theft. And, this is the classic liberal view of blaming others for something that a person does. Lack of personal responsibility, like not paying your taxes and debts. I have a better idea... If a criminal commits a crime with a stolen gun, it's an automatic death penalty. Far less people behind bars than your idea, much less of a drain on society, and no repeat offenders! The weight is on the owner to make sure his guns don't get stolen. And the problem is... that's impossible. And it takes some of the responsibility off the criminal (who's now broken at least *two* laws), and puts it on the law-abiding gun owner. No, I didn't say that the criminal gets off... |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/17/12 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. W'hine, I don't give a **** what you think or, even, whether you live or die. Save your energy for your fellow righties and reach-around partners: Meyer, Earl, Robbins, Herring, NoPoonTang and, of course, Snotty Scotty. And, of course, "**** off, W'hine." Have nice day. |
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:04:51 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. W'hine, I don't give a **** what you think or, even, whether you live or die. Save your energy for your fellow righties and reach-around partners: Meyer, Earl, Robbins, Herring, NoPoonTang and, of course, Snotty Scotty. And, of course, "**** off, W'hine." Have nice day. ======== Q.E.D. I rest my case. |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/17/12 6:40 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:04:51 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. W'hine, I don't give a **** what you think or, even, whether you live or die. Save your energy for your fellow righties and reach-around partners: Meyer, Earl, Robbins, Herring, NoPoonTang and, of course, Snotty Scotty. And, of course, "**** off, W'hine." Have nice day. ======== Q.E.D. I rest my case. No, you haven't. |
Snickering Snotty
On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:13:34 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
=== Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. That's a keeper. Pegged to the wall, krause is. : |
Snickering Snotty
ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. W'hine, I don't give a **** what you think or, even, whether you live or die. Save your energy for your fellow righties and reach-around partners: Meyer, Earl, Robbins, Herring, NoPoonTang and, of course, Snotty Scotty. And, of course, "**** off, W'hine." Have nice day. Proof the tax cheat *does* read every post. |
Snickering Snotty
|
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote: On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre. I hope the following happens: 1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense. These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee for the turn-in. Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him. 2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check. No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or sales of firearms without a waiting period. So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart idea, krause. 3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. **** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink (like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems it warranted. Go pay your f'ing taxes krause. You've reached your wit's end. - More truth from 'Racist John' |
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:40:11 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:04:51 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:04:53 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. === Just on the off chance that you are "one who doesn't know it", you should run right out to the nearest counseling center. **** off, w'hine. That's all you get. === Harry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but everything I know about you spells emotional train wreck. You are in denial - no joke - and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. No mature, stable individual behaves in the manner that you do. W'hine, I don't give a **** what you think or, even, whether you live or die. Save your energy for your fellow righties and reach-around partners: Meyer, Earl, Robbins, Herring, NoPoonTang and, of course, Snotty Scotty. And, of course, "**** off, W'hine." Have nice day. ======== Q.E.D. I rest my case. LMAO!! But, you shouldn't partake in such simple pleasure. I'm disappointed in you. Choose a more worthy opponent, like Kevin. |
Snickering Snotty
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . Some questions have no easy answers. In China there have been a series of mass killings of children using knives. What is the psychological appeal to killing a room full of children? How do we make the schools safe short of posting an armed guard in every class room? How do we detect and isolate the mentally disturbed amongst us who are capable of such acts, without giving up our basic freedoms? Has something changed in our society which inspired these crimes - media, culture, video games, etc. ? Like I said, some questions have no easy answers. --------------------------------------------------------- So true. Like most I am sure, I was horrified and deeply saddened by the events of last Friday in Connecticut. The shear insanity of this 20 year old's actions are unfathomable. Also like most, I have watched and listened to the 24 hour a day coverage of the horrific event, mostly on cable news channels (MSNBC and CNN) and on the Internet. I was angry, sad, frustrated and depressed, depending on what specific aspect of the events were being discussed and/or analyzed. I tried to remember what our society was like back when I was a youngster. I came into this world in 1949. I found a website that provides (for a fee) statistical information on virtually any subject you are interested in. Since these mass murders seem to always involve someone who ultimately takes their own life as well, I searched for: number of suicides in USA since 1950 and the number of homicides in the USA since 1950. I fully expected to see an upward trend in these categories over the decades since 1950. To my surprise, there was not an upward trend. The data was presented in terms of male and female suicides and homicides per 100,000 in the overall population. Firearms were involved in the majority for both categories, but at the same relative level (percentage) for each decade. The number of suicides and homicides committed per 100,000 in 1950 and then for every decade since was about the same as those today, give or take a handful. Furthermore, the numbers were actually considerably higher than today for both categories in the 1980 - 1990 decades. I've heard arguments that lay blame on violent, gory video games, easy access to guns, drugs, poor parenting, mental health, etc. I am sure all have some level of contribution to violent crime and steps should be taken to address them. (Having just gone through the permitting process in Massachusetts for a firearm permit, I am completely in favor of the overall tightening of gun control laws and the banning of military type assault rifles. Massachusetts has one of, if not *the* most restrictive gun laws of all the States in the USA but I was still amazed at how easy it is to get a permit with very little training.) My conclusion is that no suicide or homicide is justified or acceptable in a society however the numbers are *not* increasing, contrary to what we may be led to believe or assume. From 1950 to the 1970/1980 decades we didn't really have the media information available to us that exists today. MSNBC and CNN have had 24 hour a day coverage of the horrible events since last Friday. Yahoo News on the Internet reports every shooting that takes place anywhere in the country, 15 minutes after it happens. (there's a new one today in Texas, involving one person). I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years. But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" Here is a rifle, but is it an assault weapon? http://www.basspro.com/Ruger-Mini14-...duct/10218139/ It looks to me like it would be a nice varmint or small game hunting rifle. But, what if I add these: http://andean-inc.com/Merchant5/grap...1/MA1430_s.jpg They a Promag Industries' .223 caliber, 30 round magazine for Ruger Mini-14 and Ranch Rifles. Or what if I just become very proficient at changing magazines? It might add a whole two seconds to the time it takes me to fire twenty rounds from 10-round magazines. I wouldn't mind the banning of assault style weapons simply because it would make some of the anti-gun crowd happy - until the same thing happens again with a 'normal' looking rifle, or a 'normal' looking pistol. |
Snickering Snotty
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. |
Snickering Snotty
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense. In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that. |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote: On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre. I hope the following happens: 1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense. These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee for the turn-in. Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him. 2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check. No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or sales of firearms without a waiting period. So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart idea, krause. 3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. **** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink (like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems it warranted. Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying. |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc in schools and let them carry. Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom. We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system... |
Snickering Snotty
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:50:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. I've given my take on 10-round magazines. It would make the killer waste a few seconds changing magazines - that's it. But, I have no problem with laws banning the 'assault style weapon' - providing they can be defined. You didn't address the questions I posted with the pictures. |
Snickering Snotty
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:30:49 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote: On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre. I hope the following happens: 1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense. These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee for the turn-in. Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him. 2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check. No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or sales of firearms without a waiting period. So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart idea, krause. 3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. **** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink (like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems it warranted. Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying. That's the best you can do? As stated earlier - you've reached your limit, now you must resort to name-calling. - Another truism from 'Racist John' |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote: "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc in schools and let them carry. Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom. We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system... And to be clear... These folks are not hired to be security, or to sit around collecting a check for nothing. They are hired for already existing jobs within the facility, to push pencils in the office, coach gym, janitorial, cook food... It would be a second career for them, just that retired PoPo might be enticed by the town to fill some of those every day jobs involved in the running of a school... |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/18/12 4:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:30:49 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote: On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote: And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly? Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener... We are a nation of desperate people, And why is that? Think making guns real available is a good idea? No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what you can to change the law. Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally. That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either "borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people and children. Yep! "Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained legally." Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner. I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre. I hope the following happens: 1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense. These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee for the turn-in. Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him. 2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check. No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or sales of firearms without a waiting period. So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart idea, krause. 3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether they know it or not. **** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink (like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems it warranted. Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying. That's the best you can do? As stated earlier - you've reached your limit, now you must resort to name-calling. - Another truism from 'Racist John' There's no need to respond tit for tat to your idiotic opinions. Certain licensed mental health professionals can have a person hospitalized for 72 hours for evaluations, but as soon as those hours are over, there's a hearing before a judge, and judges typically are reluctant to hospitalize someone beyond that without substantial evidence the person is about to hurt others or him/her self. On the other hand, too many individuals with mental illnesses are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prisons because there is a tremendous shortage of beds at psychiatric hospitals. Which member(s) of your family have been judged mentally incompetent and needed long-term hospitalization? |
Snickering Snotty
On 12/18/2012 4:57 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:50:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today. I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make us look better. However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault weapon?" ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. I've given my take on 10-round magazines. It would make the killer waste a few seconds changing magazines - that's it. But, I have no problem with laws banning the 'assault style weapon' - providing they can be defined. You didn't address the questions I posted with the pictures. I have no answers, that's why I am asking questions... |
Snickering Snotty
wrote in message ... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote: "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: ------------------------------------------ "Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use. For private citizens: Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity. Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No more than 5-10 rounds. Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on background check. Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled. For Law Enforcement and Military: Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use. Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity. The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth to protect themselves from their own government are long over. That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons. Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense. In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that. -------------------------------------------------------------- I know, but it seems we have to draw some kind of distinction, which is why I used the terminology, "specifically designed for". Have to start somewhere. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com