Scarborough gets it right
 

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.

Scarborough gets it right
 

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. 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...

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...

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

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!

Because it's "murky" means it isn't true? "Stranger"? Are you like Harry
and think that it's prudent to use your real name on the net? Do you
realize that "Stranger" was just presenting before said data?



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.

I KNOW that you cherry pick your data.

Scarborough gets it right
 

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?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Are you really saying that because we've had democratic presidents and
democratic congress since Reagan that the Republicans would have voted
with them to re-open these facilities?

What a stupid ****ing thought, Racist John.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.

He had LOTS of ammo:

http://tinyurl.com/c3g7mhm

Scarborough gets it right
 

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".

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:43:05 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

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.


Then I suppose gun laws are even stupider. You are the one who says
most criminals have stolen guns. Why bother with all of the laws about
the legal sale?

Yeah, those grade school kids should be armed to the teeth with
automatic weapons. And yes, most crimes committed with guns are with
stolen guns. I've shown that.

Scarborough gets it right
 

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".

Scarborough gets it right
 

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?