|
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:46:53 -0500, wrote:
Why don't we just make theft illegal? That should stop it, === The Taliban know how to deter theft. Maybe that Sharia law isn't such a bad thing after all. :-) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/pakistan-taliban-amputates-hands-of-three-men-accused-of-theft.html |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:46 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote: Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved. Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia. We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their enforcer/hit man. You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are more than happy to oblige. The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar. We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids are "collateral damage". . It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims, the bigger splash you get. Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"? Isn't every debate driven by psychobabble? There is no shortage of people who make penis references to guns, fast boats, fast cars or just about anything else they are opposed to? Isn't that psychobabble? 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. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm From that site: "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993." "According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those posessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% - a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% - family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%" Where's that 90% you claim are stolen? No cite for that? Sure!! http://extranosalley.com/?p=12198 Which states: The same studies found that 11% of persons arrested for a gun crime were armed with a gun from ?unknown sources.? That is interesting but not extremely informative. Those studies also found that 82 percent of those arrested for a gun crime were armed with a stolen gun. Which is interesting and informative. So depending on how you want to slice the ?unknown 11%? the percentage of gun toting criminals arrested with a stolen gun runs between 82 and 93%. Conventional wisdom has it that 92% of all gun criminals are armed with a stolen gun. Something that is not unreasonable, although in fact it may be a percent or two high. But all this talks begs the question; ?What percentage of crimes are committed with stolen guns? is the question. The fact is that a very high percentage of gun related crimes are never solved. We know from other studies that a typical criminal will commit a ?major crime? every 48 hours or so to cover living expenses. We know that a typical criminal will ?be on the street? for more than four months before they slip up and are arrested. That would place a typical criminal?s run at around 65 serious crimes before they are arrested. But since it is not to the criminal?s interest to confess, we do not know how many of those are gun crimes and how many are not. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Probably closer to a dozen. But until all the crimes get solved, we can only guess. The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread. Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention. Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all. Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of being able to comprehend the whole story. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:01:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Since 1973? OK. Do you want to talk about what killed the most kids since then? Hint, more kids were killed in cars since Newtown than were killed at Newtown (as of this afternoon) You can find that stat at CDC (1702 a year 0-14 in the last year on their site. 20 every 107 hours) Why doesn't that make the news? Hint, who said "kids" only? If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the drug war. That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a legal owner. Why don't we just make theft illegal? That should stop it. That's just stupid on so many levels. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:34:25 -0800, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” What's 'high calibre' about a ,223 rifle? Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:41:45 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to. ~snerk~ "The best guess I can come up with..." You left out the last two entries on that page: "But the lack of information makes all this pretty murky." "Stranger" Signed by "Stranger"? This is your researched, footnoted, reliable info? You are truly a laugh a minute! http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread. Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention. Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all. Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of being able to comprehend the whole story. The sad thing is, I really do believe you think they do. |
Scarborough gets it right
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. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, .22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy. The 'styling' of the rifle changed big time during the Vietnam war. However, the style didn't seem to interfere with our ability to go to war *before* Vietnam. Is this a hunting rifle or a 'go to war with the perceived enemy' rifle: http://tinyurl.com/c6jno2d |
Scarborough gets it right
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com