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.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote:

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.



The truth makes a lot of liberal lawyers and 'rights' groups sound pretty bad.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:18:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

I asked you a question. Did you answer it? Did the Democrats even try? No, 'cause they don't give a
****.

Here, this will indicate how much your beloved Democrats care about people: The Democrats have
contributed greatly to the poor - by keeping them poor.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a
Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.

And this has just WHAT to do with this thread, Racist John?

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.

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?