|
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:29:40 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target assault rifles because of this. He used pistols. ------------------------------------------------------ My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one to kill the children and adults. He used a pistol to kill himself. Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10. So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1? There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass murders. Banning guns isn't the answer. I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine capacity that is "acceptable". How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off. Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined killer in any way. It will. Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round magazines quite rapidly. I have been watching videos of people put into situations where they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon, some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt... Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt. Right. A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is either for penis power, or offense... The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. I agree. I see no need for AR-15s or the like in the marketplace. My point is that outlawing them would have little effect on a determined killer, who could use a 'hunting rifle', like the ones I showed you, with 10-round magazines (or 30 if they're not outlawed) and accomplish the same thing. But, I'm all for outlawing assault weapons, and magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. I just don't think it would make much difference to a killer. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target assault rifles because of this. He used pistols. ------------------------------------------------------ My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one to kill the children and adults. He used a pistol to kill himself. Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10. So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1? There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass murders. Banning guns isn't the answer. I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine capacity that is "acceptable". How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off. Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined killer in any way. So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote: I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental hospital after 72 hours if they want to go. There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after a few days. Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights" groups who will file the motion for you. There are at least three large mental health facilities with forensic wards in your state of Florida. My wife did her internship at one of them, a 650-bed facility. At the time she worked there, there were several hundred persons resident who had been committed for substantial or even indeterminate terms as a result of serious, violent criminal activities in which they had engaged. Your "guy around the corner" sounds like someone who is a drug addict and who gets out of control but is not judged a threat to others. A "Baker Act" commitment is for 72 hours, after which a judge determines if cause can be demonstrated for a longer commitment. If not, as is usually the case, the individual is released. Most communities these days simply don't have out-patient treatment available for the indigent, so they end up hospitalized. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote: It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as this story goes on. There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like you from this waste of oxygen. I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the "symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child. I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do these things. Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations. He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors. It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him? He was certainly "nuts". It's rather confusing but it seems like now that she's not affiliated with the school. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive..._not_a_teacher. php |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife. But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh? Who says I don't like raising taxes? Surely, Kevin, you can show the cite - right? You are a hard core narrow minded right winger. As such, they don't like to raise taxes, Racist John. Are you saying that you DO want to raise taxes? Why have the Democrat presidents and Congress not opened your mental hospitals, Kevin? IF you are talking to ME, Racist John, I don't have any mental hospitals to open. It's funny that you bypass legitimate questions. Such as? |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife. But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh? I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental hospital after 72 hours if they want to go. There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after a few days. Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights" groups who will file the motion for you. Let's just say I know first hand what the cuts done. I was young at the time, but had a family member suffer from mental illness and required constant care. That fell into the hands of my 70 year old aunt because the state mental hospital was closed down. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/18/2012 4:21 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote: It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as this story goes on. There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like you from this waste of oxygen. I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the "symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child. I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do these things. Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations. He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors. It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him? Yes... He was certainly "nuts". Yes, what? She didn't work there. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan? What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin. Who held congress at the time the bill was passed? Republicans, why? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com