Gun Control fanatics keep pushing schemes that wouldn't have stopped mass shootings [Archive] - Debate Policy

Marcus Aurelius

12-17-2012, 01:45 PM

China is not a good example, but Australia is.

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html?fb_action_ids=101511849 08737199&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=sm_fb_like_blogpost&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A288 141827955028%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A%22sm_ fb_like_blogpost%22%7D

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf

Conclusion
This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement
on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest
that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there
also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may
have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.
Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted
much media attention in Australia. An incident on 21 October 2002 at Monash
University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the
National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to
December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of
approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on 18 June 2007, in which a lone
gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously
wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour,
renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun
buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

http://www.ic-wish.org/Mass%20shootings%20in%20Australia%20and%20New%20Ze aland%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand:
A descriptive study of incidence
Key Findings
• In the period 1980-1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate
did not differ significantly between countries.
• Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event.
• The results do not support the view that prohibiting certain types of firearms
explains the absence of mass shootings in Australia since 1996.
• Other factors may underlie the clustering of mass shooting events in the late
1980s and mid-1990s, followed by an absence of mass shooting events, in
both countries.
• In the late 1980s and early 1990s, both Australia and New Zealand
experienced high levels of unemployment, followed by a decade of relative
economic stability and growth from the mid-1990s onward.
• The clustering of mass shootings around a period of economic downturn and
high unemployment, followed by the absence of such events during a period
of economic stability and relatively low unemployment, may reflect broader
relationships between economic wellbeing and violence.

fj1200

12-17-2012, 02:10 PM

• In the late 1980s and early 1990s, both Australia and New Zealand
experienced high levels of unemployment, followed by a decade of relative
economic stability and growth from the mid-1990s onward.
• The clustering of mass shootings around a period of economic downturn and
high unemployment, followed by the absence of such events during a period
of economic stability and relatively low unemployment, may reflect broader
relationships between economic wellbeing and violence.

http://www.ic-wish.org/Mass%20shootings%20in%20Australia%20and%20New%20Ze aland%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

A connection that would be derided by the media if a conservative mentions it.

tailfins

12-17-2012, 02:15 PM

Marcus Aurelius

12-17-2012, 02:37 PM

If people want to kill other people, they will find a way. Removing one 'way' doesn't remove others.

darin

12-17-2012, 02:39 PM

I'd like to stop the mass shootings.........is that so radical?

The little 6-year-olds were shot 11 times each in the head with a Bushmaster, apparently, in some cases, from what I read. I was trying to figure out HOW the parents would identify them, as they were indeed asked to do -- decided to stop thinking about it.

Why do you feel the Brand of the weapon he stole matters to the facts?

Liberal Pansy voice = on:</SPAN>

http://washingtonexaminer.com/police-blotter-sleepy-driver-kills-pedestrian-another-springfield-groping/article/2515925</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> (http://washingtonexaminer.com/police-blotter-sleepy-driver-kills-pedestrian-another-springfield-groping/article/2515925)

Can you BELIEVE this guy was allowed to DRIVE an assault-Subaru? We need to stop the sale of Subaru! This guy was allowed to get inside a Subaru and MURDER the pedestrian. If we outlawed cars, and this guy only had a bicycle, this death would have been avoided. Think of the tens of thousands of lives we can save by outlawing Assault Cars. Nobody NEEDS a car that can drive at more than DOUBLE-DIGIT speeds. Look, I'm not saying we outlaw ALL cars - the Police and State-run agencies are the ONLY people properly trained to use these weapons of destruction. If I need a ride somewhere, let the state provided a qualified person to operate the very complex piece of equipment.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>

Robert A Whit

12-17-2012, 02:51 PM

Ever since the horrific shootings in Connecticut, we have heard the usual leftist fanatics demand gun bans, assault weapon bans, huge taxes on guns, on ammo, more background checks for purchasers, shutting down gun shows, all the usual schemes.

Not one of them, of course, would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings.

People with mass murder in mind, have no problem getting guns and ammo, planning out their crimes, and executing them. And they even (gasp) violate laws to do it. Only law-abiding citizens (the ones who never shoot people) obey those laws. The mass murderers are unaffected.

It is becoming increasingly clear, that stopping the mass shootings is NOT what the gun-control crowd wants.

You have to wonder what they DO want... and why.

Why do these people try so hard to restrict law-abiding citizens, when it's the lawbreakers who keep killing us? What is the gun-control crowd's real purpose?

(note -- you is not YOU the above poster, but is really Democrats)

Unless you rush us all with troops, you take our freedom away from us one step at a time. You even defy the constitution and contradict it's words and purpose, but the goal is to remove freedom.

While it's true that Obama won't see the day he is dictator, he wants his movement to be the dictator. Why just one man when man die anyway?

Make your movement dictator. Hitler did not live forever nor did Stalin. But they had total control.

That is the aim of democrats.

darin

12-17-2012, 03:01 PM

300 million firearms in the USA = 8,600 in 2011.

250 million cars = 32,000 deaths in 2011.

When Cars kill people it's a driver error - when Guns kill people it's the machine's fault.

Abbey Marie

12-17-2012, 03:10 PM

pete311

12-17-2012, 03:19 PM

If people want to kill other people, they will find a way. Removing one 'way' doesn't remove others.

great, can't wait to get my nuclear missile for xmas

pete311

12-17-2012, 03:42 PM

great, can't wait to get my nuclear missile for xmas

remember, nuclear missles don't kill people, people kill people

Little-Acorn

12-17-2012, 04:46 PM

pete311

12-17-2012, 04:48 PM

jimnyc

12-17-2012, 05:27 PM

Gun bans have been tried. The mass killings kept going right along.

"Assault weapon" bans have been tried. The mass shootings kept occurring, wigh dozens dead and injured.

Waiting period have been tried. Banning certain weapons have been tried. Insane murderers kept killing us just as freely, without letup.

So what do the government-can-fix-it people want to do now? Gun bans. Assault weapons bans. Waiting periods. Again.

It is getting clearer and clearer, that reducing or stopping these horrific mass shootings, is not what they're after.

What ARE they after?

And why do they keep using these horrible mass murders, to push an agenda that does nothing to stop them?

Not doubting, but I'm be very interested to read the sources you have for these claims. thanks!

Pete, you can more or less just do a google search on the red portions above. There have been areas, both in the States and out, where these have been tried. It didn't work. The best examples, IMO, are Chicago and Washington DC - where they have really clamped down the hardest at times on gun laws, and who can have them and where. Ask the citizens there how this helped the armed robbery and murder rates.

Robert A Whit

12-17-2012, 05:36 PM

I'd like to stop the mass shootings.........is that so radical?

The little 6-year-olds were shot 11 times each in the head with a Bushmaster, apparently, in some cases, from what I read. I was trying to figure out HOW the parents would identify them, as they were indeed asked to do -- decided to stop thinking about it.

I say, let the killers use knives like they do in Japan. There will still be psychotic rampage killers running into schools to kill little kids, but they won't kill so many of them as they do when they have an assault rifle.

I believe that there is not even one poster who does not want to save kids lives. And I amend that to also include adults lives.

But there are laws about murder.

There are even laws about guns.

How can you solve the problem and leave the rest of us alone?

I can't go for more laws that take away my freedom. Freedom is unique in this world. This country has already taken acts to depreive me and you of many freedoms.

They chip away bit by bit. So you don't notice. Suddenly you wake up.

i did.

Robert A Whit

12-17-2012, 05:40 PM

Pete, you can more or less just do a google search on the red portions above. There have been areas, both in the States and out, where these have been tried. It didn't work. The best examples, IMO, are Chicago and Washington DC - where they have really clamped down the hardest at times on gun laws, and who can have them and where. As the citizens there how this helped the armed robbery and murder rates.

San Francisco has tons of cops. And still they have to deal with murder in that city.

I am trying to recall a week that SF did not have killings.

Now, the secret is that they also have banned guns. And did that work out for the gun banners? Matter of fact before they banned guns, one can study Jose Canseco who had the nerve to have a gun inside his Ferrari and he got arrested and put into jail.

So, when you want guns banned, you will have legal citizens unarmed is all.

The crooks have no problem getting guns.

mundame

12-17-2012, 05:46 PM

remember, nuclear missles don't kill people, people kill people

Great writing style. [:-)

Good points writ short. There's probably a lesson there.......

pete311

12-17-2012, 05:54 PM

San Francisco has tons of cops. And still they have to deal with murder in that city.

I am trying to recall a week that SF did not have killings.

Now, the secret is that they also have banned guns. And did that work out for the gun banners? Matter of fact before they banned guns, one can study Jose Canseco who had the nerve to have a gun inside his Ferrari and he got arrested and put into jail.

So, when you want guns banned, you will have legal citizens unarmed is all.

The crooks have no problem getting guns.

" "A lot of the illegal guns used in crimes in San Francisco and Oakland are coming from states without the same level of gun laws like Nevada and New Mexico," she said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-francisco-gun-crime_n_2317901.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

mundame

12-17-2012, 06:12 PM

I live near a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation. (Baltimore)

But none of the murders lately were done with submachine guns or nukes or poison gas or cannon or shoulder-fired rockets or plastique explosives.

Perhaps that's just as well, or the drug dealers would take down whole blocks at a time rather than driving by a drug corner and popping whoever is standing there.

And then all those heavy weapons would find their way to my suburb to be used by some boy who couldn't figure how to fit in well with the guys in his gym class. Whooomp --- there goes the county seat.

Robert A Whit

12-17-2012, 07:59 PM

remember, nuclear missles don't kill people, people kill people

What do you want the USA to do about our nuclear missiles? Do you want the military to be banned from using them?

pete311

12-17-2012, 09:06 PM

What do you want the USA to do about our nuclear missiles? Do you want the military to be banned from using them?

* no, but why can't a civilian use them? if not a nuke, then they'd use a knife, so what's the difference. you can't stop a crazy from killing people.

* sarcasm

Gaffer

12-17-2012, 11:54 PM

* no, but why can't a civilian use them? if not a nuke, then they'd use a knife, so what's the difference. you can't stop a crazy from killing people.

* sarcasm

Only a civilian can authorize the use of a nuke. The military can't do a thing until the civilian tells them too. It's a Constitution thing.

Robert A Whit

12-18-2012, 12:11 AM

SassyLady

12-18-2012, 02:40 AM

remember, nuclear missles don't kill people, people kill people

First time I have to agree with you .... people kill people, using various implements to do it, even their bare hands if nothing else is available.

SassyLady

12-18-2012, 02:42 AM

" "A lot of the illegal guns used in crimes in San Francisco and Oakland are coming from states without the same level of gun laws like Nevada and New Mexico," she said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-francisco-gun-crime_n_2317901.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Which proves our point ... banning guns will not stop people from getting them to commit murder. The people using these guns for the crimes will get them illegally no matter what.

Marcus Aurelius

12-18-2012, 08:23 AM

great, can't wait to get my nuclear missile for xmas

Law says you have a right to own firearms. It does NOT say you have a right to own a nuke.

NEXT.

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 08:33 AM

It doesn't take a Professor of mathematics to put 2 and 2 together and get a result where less guns means less gun related massacres. True, it may not stop the most dedicated of nutcases from getting a weapon, but it may stop people who are normal one minute, then "snap" from grabbing their conveniently located weapons and go on a rampage.

Excellent... so you'll be calling for the disarming of the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank in an effort to keep them from going into Israel and blowing up schools and Pizzerias...

wont you Jaffar?

Dont call for Gun Control in the WEST when you advocate no Gun Control in Gaza and the middle East.

Makes you a Hypocrite...

pete311

12-18-2012, 09:04 AM

Dont call for Gun Control in the WEST when you advocate no Gun Control in Gaza and the middle East.

From what I've seen, they mostly throw rocks lol

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 09:08 AM

From what I've seen, they mostly throw rocks lol

Kassam Rockets are not ROCKS...

Neither are explosive Vests.

pete311

12-18-2012, 09:18 AM

Kassam Rockets are not ROCKS...

Neither are explosive Vests.

I thought we were talking about gun control

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 09:21 AM

I thought we were talking about gun control

We are talking about the use of WEAPONS to commit act of mass Murder.

A Kassam Rocket or a Suicide Vest accomplishes the same thing as a loaded AK-47.

and how many Criminals will follow the Gun Control Laws Pete311?

Please tell us how many...

pete311

12-18-2012, 09:33 AM

A Kassam Rocket or a Suicide Vest accomplishes the same thing as a loaded AK-47.

Please tell us how many...

You think that little retard twerp Lanza kid was going to head to the local drug lord and ask to buy an assault rifle? Instead he picks one up at his moms place like he's making a grilled cheese. We should at least make it a little difficult.

After school shootings in both Finland and Germany, the countries tightened laws and conditions have improved.

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 09:40 AM

You think that little retard twerp Lanza kid was going to head to the local drug lord and ask to buy an assault rifle? Instead he picks one up at his moms place like he's making a grilled cheese. We should at least make it a little difficult.

After school shootings in both Finland and Germany, the countries tightened laws and conditions have improved.

Answer the question: WILL CRIMINALS such as LANZA obey the laws or will those laws only really affect Law Abiding Gun Owners?

will you answer the question?

Will they or wont they? Stop spinning the question Pete311.

pete311

12-18-2012, 09:44 AM

Answer the question: WILL CRIMINALS such as LANZA obey the laws or will those laws only really affect Law Abiding Gun Owners?

will you answer the question?

Will they or wont they? Stop spinning the question Pete311.

Indirectly. If he can't find one, how will he use one? Even harder if bullets are scarce. And I couldn't give a crap if a few fringe gun owners can't use their Assault rifles anymore. oh boo hoo. Once the law is changed, you won't be so law abiding.

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 09:49 AM

Indirectly. If he can't find one, how will he use one? Even harder if bullets are scarce. And I couldn't give a crap if a few fringe gun owners can't use their Assault rifles anymore. oh boo hoo.

really? Thats your answer?

Did Alcohol Prohibition stop people from getting a drink of Booze?

NO IT DIDNT...

so I guess you and Gabby and all the rest of the Anti-Gun left will continue to ignore and not answer this question.

Fact remains that Gun control laws will only affect those that abide by and respect those laws...

another Fact...

The only thing that will stop a Criminal with a Gun is a GOOD GUY with a Gun...

you ignore that fact as well....

pete311

12-18-2012, 09:58 AM

really? Thats your answer?

I don't see these mass shooters using grenades, RPGs, land mines, missiles, machine guns. Why? Because they are generally available.

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 10:00 AM

I don't see these mass shooters using grenades, RPGs, land mines, missiles, machine guns. Why? Because they are generally available.

They are called HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, The PLO, Al-Qaeda, The Taliban

They use all of the Above....

pete311

12-18-2012, 10:04 AM

They are called HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, The PLO, Al-Qaeda, The Taliban

They use all of the Above....

Next time hezbollah fires rockets at a school in the US let me know.

Abbey Marie

12-18-2012, 10:27 AM

You think that little retard twerp Lanza kid was going to head to the local drug lord and ask to buy an assault rifle? Instead he picks one up at his moms place like he's making a grilled cheese. We should at least make it a little difficult.

After school shootings in both Finland and Germany, the countries tightened laws and conditions have improved.

Perhaps having to endure labels like "little retard twerp" are what set him off in the first place.

tailfins

12-18-2012, 10:32 AM

It's pretty safe to walk alone almost anywhere in Cuba. Is enduring the CDR a price worth paying for safety?

Dilloduck

12-18-2012, 10:35 AM

I don't see these mass shooters using grenades, RPGs, land mines, missiles, machine guns. Why? Because they are generally available.

What weapon do you think is appropriate for murder ? Are you foolish enough to believe that only an assault type weapon will do the job ? Weapons do nothing until someone uses them and what that person uses them for is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THAT PERSON'S STATE OF MIND.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2012, 11:03 AM

Indirectly. If he can't find one, how will he use one? Even harder if bullets are scarce. And I couldn't give a crap if a few fringe gun owners can't use their Assault rifles anymore. oh boo hoo. Once the law is changed, you won't be so law abiding.

^^^ Well forcing those that want to protect themselves into becoming criminals will not solve anything. No law can legally obliterate the 2nd Amendment. To do that it must be legally repealed! All laws infringing upon it are illegal. We have recently seen SCOTUS RULINGS GOING AGAINST SUCH EXTREME GUN REGULATIONS.
OBAMA now seeks to enrage the population enough for him to feel comfortable issuing another Executive Order perhaps? One illegally confiscating or restricting gun rights. After all , he managed to get obamacare rammed down our collective throats so why not go for broke, right? Except this has an Amendment especially written and ratified to prevent what he and his leftist friends want to now do. He wants a fight and if he goes too damn far he may just get one. One that the government may not win. Revolutions have been known to win against even formerly powerful governments.
The ffing traitor had better be careful what he wishes for IMHO!--:flyflag:
Some Americans are not cowardly nor are they afraid to fight to preserve the Constitutional Republic..
The lying , cowardly maggot had better consider that fact.. --Tyr

Gaffer

12-18-2012, 11:13 AM

Next time hezbollah fires rockets at a school in the US let me know.

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2012, 11:21 AM

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Quite likely , when one considers the going rate of denial the American citizens are being brainwashed into embracing.
Its simply amazing how easy it is to get people to do nothing! To get people to deny a threat. For denying brings with it the comfort of not having to react. Not having to fight back. Fighting back takes effort and requires independent thinking based upon solid and ethical moral principles. Sadly, our public education system destroyed most of that decades back. -Tyr

tailfins

12-18-2012, 11:24 AM

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Are you willing to stand by that assertion? I just don't see a big risk of that happening in the next ten years. As our nation crumbles, it's worth considering other parts of the world. While I don't question the anecdotal accounts of Islamic violence, I'm inclined to believe there are some corners of the Muslim world where conservative Christians can work, live, prosper and do business. I'm sure Jafar has an idea where some of those places are.

However, I'm planting a seed of an idea for my sons to consider, in the event of a worldwide societal collapse, re-assimilating with their ancestors in the Amazon basin.

Drummond

12-18-2012, 12:34 PM

China is not a good example, but Australia is.

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html?fb_action_ids=101511849 08737199&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=sm_fb_like_blogpost&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A288 141827955028%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%2210151184908737199%22%3A%22sm_ fb_like_blogpost%22%7D

How good an example is the UK, then ?

We had the Dunblane massacre. Tony Blair acted, once in power (yes, he's a Leftie) to make already tough gun control laws even tougher. Fact is that there's just no way Blair's tightening of gun law could be copied in the US without tearing up the Constitutional 'right to bear arms'.

But even despite THAT ... yes, we HAVE had more atrocities. See ...

http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bird-derrick.htm

The Cumbria shootings were a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in the county of Cumbria, North West England, United Kingdom. The series of attacks began in mid-morning in Lamplugh and moved to Frizington, Whitehaven, Egremont, Gosforth and Seascale, sparking a major manhunt by Cumbria Constabulary.

Bird, a 52-year-old local taxi driver, was later found dead in a wooded area, having abandoned his vehicle in the village of Boot. Two weapons that appeared to have been used were recovered. There were 30 different crime scenes investigated. Police confirmed it was the worst incident of mass shooting in Britain since the Dunblane massacre of 1996.

So, how come it happened, if gun control is the answer ? Bird was licensed to own firearms, even despite the stringency of the laws in place.

At the other end of the scale, we have Tony Martin, a farmer, who had an UNlicensed shotgun. This he used to defend his property from burglars .. burglars who'd repeatedly attacked his farm previously. So, folks, read of his diabolical treatment IN A SOCIETY INTOLERANT OF GUN OWNERSHIP, COURTESY OF SOCIALIST CONTROL-FREAKERY ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm

You'll see that at one point, your own Charlton Heston intervened to offer support to Martin.

Thanks to the INjustice of a society intolerant to gun ownership and its defensive usage, Martin, the VICTIM of burglary, had more done to him by the Establishment than the surviving burglars went through !!!

How's that for a Socialist 'paradise', folks ?

Finally ... I offer you an example of one of Britain's most disgusting serial killers .. Dennis Nilsen. He did not use guns to kill. However .. if his victims had had firearms to defend themselves with, could Nilsen's killing spree have been ended, lives saved ??

http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/nilsen-dennis.htm

Dennis Andrew Nilsen (born 23 November 1945, Fraserburgh, Scotland) also known as the Muswell Hill Murderer and the Kindly Killer is a British serial killer who lived in London.

Nilsen killed at least fifteen men and boys in gruesome circumstances between 1978 and 1983, and was known to retain corpses for sex acts. He was eventually caught after his disposal of dismembered human entrails blocked his household drains: the drain cleaning company found that the drains were congested with human flesh and contacted the police.

Due to the similarities between their crimes, sexuality and lifestyle, Nilsen has been referred to as the "British Jeffrey Dahmer.

Who wants to tell me that his victims DIDN'T DESERVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES WITH FIREARMS ?

Excellent... so you'll be calling for the disarming of the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank in an effort to keep them from going into Israel and blowing up schools and Pizzerias...

wont you Jaffar?

Dont call for Gun Control in the WEST when you advocate no Gun Control in Gaza and the middle East.

Makes you a Hypocrite...:clap::clap::clap::clap:

pete311

12-18-2012, 01:42 PM

tailfins

12-18-2012, 01:51 PM

I understand the freedom and personal responsibility stance. However, if you take that stance, you must put forth effort to develop a plan for improving our societal conditions. Such a stance can't be met with just rhetoric about how parents should be better raising kids etc. If you blame the people and not the tool, then it's YOUR responsibility to figure out how to improve the people. Otherwise you're just trying to put out a fire by yelling insults at it.

You can improve people by locking them up!

pete311

12-18-2012, 01:54 PM

You can improve people by locking them up!

so you're claiming that prison inherently rehabilitates people?

tailfins

12-18-2012, 01:56 PM

so you're claiming that prison inherently rehabilitates people?

If it doesn't they shouldn't get out. Some people choose to do life imprisonment on the installment plan.

pete311

12-18-2012, 01:58 PM

If it doesn't they shouldn't get out. Some people choose to do life imprisonment on the installment plan.

that seems to be trying to solve the problem after it's too late. we need a ground level plan. prison never has and never will deter a criminal.

darin

12-18-2012, 02:55 PM

prison never has and never will deter a criminal.

Nor have laws. Laws only keep honest people honest.

Robert A Whit

12-18-2012, 04:44 PM

First time I have to agree with you .... people kill people, using various implements to do it, even their bare hands if nothing else is available.

Why shore

Jist call the handy man. Hand him the chore. He has hands to use.:laugh:

Robert A Whit

12-18-2012, 04:48 PM

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 06:21 PM

Next time hezbollah fires rockets at a school in the US let me know.

Schools in Israel are less important?

Children are Children... all equally in need of the same assurances.

Glad to see your compassionate Liberalism extends only to some...

Hezbollah and Hamas routinely target schools and other soft targets....

I expect to hear your outcry against this practice as well......

if you're intellectually honest...

aboutime

12-18-2012, 07:11 PM

pete. Wouldn't it be more helpful if you came here to present some of the resolution, rather than highlighting, and adding to the problem?

If you can dish it out, and scold others as you are. Your time is wasted unless you have a SOLUTION you can offer. Otherwise. You are that person YELLING AT THE FIRE.

Robert A Whit

12-18-2012, 07:58 PM

Indirectly. If he can't find one, how will he use one? Even harder if bullets are scarce. And I couldn't give a crap if a few fringe gun owners can't use their Assault rifles anymore. oh boo hoo. Once the law is changed, you won't be so law abiding.

Might as well stop acting ignorant. The weapon used was not an assault weapon. Don't worry, we know that THEY know it. (clowns in congress) They want to ban all guns. Only our constitution stands between the congress and the people.

Voted4Reagan

12-18-2012, 08:04 PM

Gaffer

12-18-2012, 11:28 PM

Are you willing to stand by that assertion? I just don't see a big risk of that happening in the next ten years. As our nation crumbles, it's worth considering other parts of the world. While I don't question the anecdotal accounts of Islamic violence, I'm inclined to believe there are some corners of the Muslim world where conservative Christians can work, live, prosper and do business. I'm sure Jafar has an idea where some of those places are.

However, I'm planting a seed of an idea for my sons to consider, in the event of a worldwide societal collapse, re-assimilating with their ancestors in the Amazon basin.

Yes I stand by it. Just as soon as hostilities begin with iran you will see hezbo agents spring up in this country. They are already here, some are even in the govt.

logroller

12-19-2012, 12:32 AM

Indirectly. If he can't find one, how will he use one? Even harder if bullets are scarce. And I couldn't give a crap if a few fringe gun owners can't use their Assault rifles anymore. oh boo hoo. Once the law is changed, you won't be so law abiding.
Have you noticed that these active shooters, almost always, off themselves when an armed person shows up?

I don't see these mass shooters using grenades, RPGs, land mines, missiles, machine guns. Why? Because they are generally available.
I don't see anyone arguing for any of those things to be legal--Is this jeopardy...what is a strawman fallacy?

cadet

12-19-2012, 08:40 AM

....Not one of them, of course, would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings.....

I saw this picture, and wondered to myself "Why have we not done this????"
This would be a FANTASTIC way to stop them.
4164

fj1200

12-19-2012, 09:03 AM

Because we shouldn't act as though every school is under attack.

cadet

12-19-2012, 09:17 AM

Because we shouldn't act as though every school is under attack.

We lock our doors at home and keep our guns by our sides.
So... We act like every house is under attack. A family > 100 kids?

fj1200

12-19-2012, 09:25 AM

We lock our doors at home and keep our guns by our sides.
So... We act like every house is under attack. A family > 100 kids?

Locking your doors is a simple act, and hardly effective against a determined aggressor, which is far less costly than buying a false sense of security. What is the next level when that doesn't work?

cadet

12-19-2012, 09:28 AM

Locking your doors is a simple act, and hardly effective against a determined aggressor, which is far less costly than buying a false sense of security. What is the next level when that doesn't work?

You have fun with it and set up trip wires. :rolleyes:

Or, you do what I have planed if someone ever breaks into my house. Shoot for their knee's, and have them call 911 on themselves.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2012, 09:41 AM

I saw this picture, and wondered to myself "Why have we not done this????"
This would be a FANTASTIC way to stop them.
4164

obama government says hell no, our returning troops are likely future terrorists! They already put that lie out for public consumption.
However , I say start a program to retrain veterans to be school security personnel. Setting up a process to weed out those with stress or mental issues. A drastic step but not any more drastic than attempting to void our 2nd Amendment rights. With at least two at every public school the employment figures would change quickly . The advantage to this is that all these loons looking for easy kills and high body count would avoid going to public schools to murder for headlines and after death fame.-Tyr

fj1200

12-19-2012, 09:54 AM

Or, you do what I have planed if someone ever breaks into my house. Shoot for their knee's, and have them call 911 on themselves.

Well besides setting yourself up for a lawsuit... How much do we need to pay for a false sense of security? There are 100,000 public schools in the US, an armed guard costs $50,0000, you posit there should be three; that's $15BB per year for public for a reaction to a horrible but extremely rare occurrence.

In schools, where public angst over shootings is often highest, the truth is actually more definitive: Deadly shootings are rare and getting rarer.
School shootings have declined dramatically over the past few decades, even as attacks such as those at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 and Scotland's Dunblane Primary School in 1996 have loomed large in our imaginations. The early 1990s were among the worst years for school killings, as gang-related incidents "spilled over into schools," Fox said.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/287145/81/Stats-School-shootings-leave-legacies-but-not-on-the-rise

The advantage to this is that all these loons...

How many loons do you think there are?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2012, 10:08 AM

Well besides setting yourself up for a lawsuit... How much do we need to pay for a false sense of security? There are 100,000 public schools in the US, an armed guard costs $50,0000, you posit there should be three; that's $15BB per year for public for a reaction to a horrible but extremely rare occurrence.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/287145/81/Stats-School-shootings-leave-legacies-but-not-on-the-rise

How many loons do you think there are?

^^^^^^^^^^^ At least one too many is my take. AS THE NATION JUST RECENTLY SAW....
However , if we are to take steps to insure FAR GREATER school safety it will cost money and will have to be done at each school. No way around that IMHO.
Otherwise we just ignore this rare event and say what a tragedy and move on. I lean more towards this as its been the method used since forever. We see now a crusade by obama admin to take some action. Of course the obama crusade is on because they can use it to target and promote an anti-gun agenda ! Which clearly shows its not about attempting real solutions but is instead the adopting of Rahm's advice to never let a good crisis go to wait. First turn this one event into a national crisis, enrage the public into allowing any government action taken! We see this yet again happening.--Tyr

fj1200

12-19-2012, 10:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^ At least one too many is my take. AS THE NATION JUST RECENTLY SAW....
However , if we are to take steps to insure FAR GREATER school safety it will cost money and will have to be done at each school. No way around that IMHO.

$15BB per year for false security. How do you feel about the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security? We could federalize them as well or be sure that they are covered by a union.

Otherwise we just ignore this rare event and say what a tragedy and move on. I lean more towards this as its been the method used since forever. We see now a crusade by obama admin to take some action. Of course the obama crusade is on because they can use it to target and promote an anti-gun agenda ! Which clearly shows its not about attempting real solutions but is instead the adopting of Rahm's advice to never let a good crisis go to wait. First turn this one event into a national crisis, enrage the public into allowing any government action taken! We see this yet again happening.--Tyr

:rolleyes: Oh brother. This isn't about Obama and any mythical crusade other than liberals wanting to impose the same gun controls that they've always wanted. Leave the baseless rhetoric to them.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2012, 10:50 AM

$15BB per year for false security. How do you feel about the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security? We could federalize them as well or be sure that they are covered by a union.

But its for the kids! :rolleyes: Why quibble on the price? Remember?-;)-Tyr

:rolleyes: Oh brother. This isn't about Obama and any mythical crusade other than liberals wanting to impose the same gun controls that they've always wanted. Leave the baseless rhetoric to them.

Sure its about obama! Who do you think is spearheading this anti-gun movement, this new crusade? Who jumped on this immediately and started a teleprompter reading crusade to further restrict gun ownership? Apparently you need to pay more attention. eh?-Tyr

fj1200

12-19-2012, 11:15 AM

^:rolleyes: to your blathertastic ranting. BO jumped to the mic because that's what the POTUS does.

And how much for false safety? You're good with the TSA, Patriot Act, and Homeland then?

MtnBiker

12-19-2012, 11:24 AM

great, can't wait to get my nuclear missile for xmas

Yeah that would be effective. How would you point it at an intruder?

Drummond

12-19-2012, 12:35 PM

Because we shouldn't act as though every school is under attack.

So, which schools would you choose as not 'worthy' of protection ?

This is an 'either, or' argument. Either you beef up security at all schools (.. or prove which ones will NEVER be attacked, in advance ..) .. or, you accept that it's not always a nice world out there, and that it's impossible to try and guard all schools all the time.

Drummond

12-19-2012, 12:48 PM

:rolleyes: Oh brother. This isn't about Obama and any mythical crusade other than liberals wanting to impose the same gun controls that they've always wanted. Leave the baseless rhetoric to them.

In this case, I don't see much of a difference (.. if any difference at all). Obama is leading your version of a Leftie Party, and Obama shares the Left's destructiveness.

Obama is following an agenda which, if he could ever fully realise it, would greatly reduce the capability of the ordinary citizen to arrange his or her means of self defence. The Left want that, because, then, they can force citizens to rely on the State for all their security needs .. to the extent that the powers-that-be would be 'pleased' to 'confer' that (subject to other laws which may stymie the individual's right to take action in the first place !).

Obama has proven his enthusiasm for following policies which harm your interests. Should he go so far as to try and chip away at the authority of Constitutional rights, won't that be a direct attack on America's foundation ?

I've made this point before: in the UK, our gun laws WOULD tear up your Constitutional rights, if their equivalent could ever be enacted in the US. YET ... atrocities, here, STILL happen of this type, regardless.

So gun control isn't any answer. But it IS a treasured control-freakery measure that the Left would enjoy implementing.

Kathianne

12-19-2012, 12:49 PM

A few school districts are now considering arming school staff. Truth is, in all likelihood, the best deterrent may well be school districts throughout the country agreeing with the option of doing so. Far and away most, even all staff at certain schools would not avail themselves to this option. As long as schools don't release which are and aren't armed, I'm guessing there would be an effect.

It seems evident that those who commit these acts are suicide bound, but want a 'blaze of glory' for their end. If they think they'd be shot like a dog, they'd change targets.

Drummond

12-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Kathianne

12-19-2012, 12:56 PM

Sounds reasonable to me. I for one agree.

Far better that, than some sort of draconian ban that would be unworkable (as the UK's experience repeatedly proves).

Yep, there's reasons that US crime stats have declined with rulings that conceal carry and other laws are granted via the 2nd amendment. Truth is, most choose not to own any guns. The bad guys though, haven't a clue to who does and doesn't.

Our most trying problem is random shootings by gangs and nutters. None of these weapons are likely in a legal shooters hands.

Folks keep saying that the Newton shootings were 'legal guns' but for the mother, not the son.

fj1200

12-19-2012, 01:11 PM

So, which schools would you choose as not 'worthy' of protection ?

This is an 'either, or' argument. Either you beef up security at all schools (.. or prove which ones will NEVER be attacked, in advance ..) .. or, you accept that it's not always a nice world out there, and that it's impossible to try and guard all schools all the time.

It's not a matter of who is worthy, it's a matter of it being unnecessary. Nobody who is against the TSA should be for this. Besides, if BO had proposed a 300,000 strong school security force the cries of treason would be unceasing.

Obama is following an agenda...

Then you'd agree that the baseless rhetoric of the blame-Obama crowd is mere distraction?

Kathianne

12-19-2012, 01:34 PM

Most 'victims' have criminal backgrounds:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

Criminals target each other, trend shows  Posted <script type="text/javascript">document.write(niceDate('8/31/2007 12:58 AM'));</script>8/31/2007 12:58 AM

WASHINGTON — A spike in murders in many cities is claiming a startling number of victims with criminal records, police say, suggesting that drug and gang wars are behind the escalating violence.

Police increasingly explore criminal pasts of homicide victims as well as suspects as they search for sources of the violence, which has risen the past two years after a decade of decline, according to the FBI's annual measures of U.S. crime.

Understanding victims' pasts is critical to driving crime back down, police and crime analysts say. "If you are trying to look at prevention, you need to look at the lives of the people involved," says Mallory O'Brien, director of the Homicide Review Commission in Milwaukee.

In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.

...

cadet

12-19-2012, 03:02 PM

Drummond

12-19-2012, 03:03 PM

It's not a matter of who is worthy, it's a matter of it being unnecessary. Nobody who is against the TSA should be for this. Besides, if BO had proposed a 300,000 strong school security force the cries of treason would be unceasing.

I don't understand your reasoning.

Would those grieving for the slaughtered schoolchildren agree that protecting schools had been proved to be 'unnecessary' ?

I also don't understand what's 'treasonous' about a strong school security force ! Are you saying it's preferable for schoolchildren to be gunned down, rather than any (- baffling -) cry of 'treason' to be heard ??

Then you'd agree that the baseless rhetoric of the blame-Obama crowd is mere distraction?

Again, I don't understand your reasoning.

It's neither baseless nor mere 'rhetoric' to apportion blame to Obama. Obama already has a lot to answer for, from his first term as President. He'll make sure that there's more for him to answer for in the second one ! And ... he's got off to a flying start, hasn't he, by trying to use a grief-stricken period to advance the Leftie aim of citizen disempowerment !!

Dilloduck

12-19-2012, 10:10 PM

Make it illegal for the masses of potential victims to gather. We could easily pick another amendment to dismantle.

aboutime

12-19-2012, 10:29 PM

Reminder to all: "Those who sacrifice FREEDOM for security, deserve NEITHER."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2012, 10:36 PM

^:rolleyes: to your blathertastic ranting. BO jumped to the mic because that's what the POTUS does.

And how much for false safety? You're good with the TSA, Patriot Act, and Homeland then?

Really? Then how about you point to his crusade after the Fort Hood mass shooting that he never discusses and he made sure was called a "workplace violence" instead of the terrorist act that it was. Where was his anti-gun agenda there? It was never mentioned because barry boy didn't want the subject of the the Major going jihad against his fellow soldiers discussed .
Recently he blathered about other mass shooting events but not a word about the Fort Hood mass shooting.
You defend BO you had better be prepared to answer questions like this. Questions that point to his anti-American, anti-gun agenda !
Don't try to piss down my back Hoss and then tell me that its just raining. You defend the bastard then defend his hypocrisy and his malicious agenda too .

Who cares about false safety, there is no safety for any of us as long as that ffing trator is in charge. -Tyr

Voted4Reagan

12-19-2012, 10:44 PM

You have fun with it and set up trip wires. :rolleyes:

Or, you do what I have planed if someone ever breaks into my house. Shoot for their knee's, and have them call 911 on themselves.

A statement only made by someone with no idea how to safely handle a Firearm...

Rule one - Know your target and whats behind it.

Rule Two - if shooting at a person, SHOOT CENTER MASS... SHOOT ONLY TO KILL...NOT TO WOUND.

Shooting to wound ends up costing many a humanitarian their life... You'll be dead

What a truly stupid statement you made

cadet

12-20-2012, 12:18 AM

A statement only made by someone with no idea how to safely handle a Firearm...

Rule one - Know your target and whats behind it.

Rule Two - if shooting at a person, SHOOT CENTER MASS... SHOOT ONLY TO KILL...NOT TO WOUND.

Shooting to wound ends up costing many a humanitarian their life... You'll be dead

What a truly stupid statement you made

Hey, I don't want to kill him, just make sure he's embarrassed as hell. And i'd rather he suffer.
Besides, all i have is a shotgun and buck-shots. I'll hit his knees.

cadet

12-20-2012, 12:20 AM

I have one simple question, that I've never seen a liberal answer.
How would taking away from law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves from criminals help?

Do they realize how many black markets there are? If someone wants to commit a crime, they'll be able to. Heck, if you know anything about chemistry, they don't even need guns.

Here's a situation,
1. Say guns are outlawed, a criminal see's a little old lady and says "hehe, free money"
2. It's mandatory that everyone keep a gun on them at all times, same criminal say's "Not gonna risk it..."

NEVER have i had an answer.

Voted4Reagan

12-20-2012, 12:46 AM

Hey, I don't want to kill him, just make sure he's embarrassed as hell. And i'd rather he suffer.
Besides, all i have is a shotgun and buck-shots. I'll hit his knees.

with a load of 00-buck you have only 9 pellets in your shell

if the pattern opens only 25% most of those will miss

go center mass.... you'll live longer

logroller

12-20-2012, 02:32 AM

Really? Then how about you point to his crusade after the Fort Hood mass shooting that he never discusses and he made sure was called a "workplace violence" instead of the terrorist act that it was. Where was his anti-gun agenda there? It was never mentioned because barry boy didn't want the subject of the the Major going jihad against his fellow soldiers discussed .
Recently he blathered about other mass shooting events but not a word about the Fort Hood mass shooting.
You defend BO you had better be prepared to answer questions like this. Questions that point to his anti-American, anti-gun agenda !
Don't try to piss down my back Hoss and then tell me that its just raining. You defend the bastard then defend his hypocrisy and his malicious agenda too .

Who cares about false safety, there is no safety for any of us as long as that ffing trator is in charge. -Tyr

Iirc, the classification had to do with his being tried under military justice rather than civilian. If Hasan had died, there'd be no issue; but he'll be tried for his crimes. Terrorism is attacking noncombatants and conspiracy to advance a political agenda blah blah-- its specific. while it was a military base under civilian control (a civilian officer felled hasan), of the 13 fatalities only one was civilian-- so it could argued he was actually targeting soldiers, ie combatants.
whereas, call it workplace violence because the attack was against those at his place of work and it doesnt matter the status of the target; since its a military facility and he an officer, he is subject to court martial-- a classification of terrorism would unduly complicate what is surely to be slam dunk case under military law. Once he's executed they can call it whatever they want.

Kathianne

12-20-2012, 08:53 AM

With all the push for gun control over the past week, interesting poll results:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx

December 19, 2012
To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health Democrats substantially more likely to see assault gun ban as effective by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3tiqyl5v8uajmspxlriiiw.gif

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2012, 09:07 AM

Iirc, the classification had to do with his being tried under military justice rather than civilian. If Hasan had died, there'd be no issue; but he'll be tried for his crimes. Terrorism is attacking noncombatants and conspiracy to advance a political agenda blah blah-- its specific. while it was a military base under civilian control (a civilian officer felled hasan), of the 13 fatalities only one was civilian-- so it could argued he was actually targeting soldiers, ie combatants.
whereas, call it workplace violence because the attack was against those at his place of work and it doesnt matter the status of the target; since its a military facility and he an officer, he is subject to court martial-- a classification of terrorism would unduly complicate what is surely to be slam dunk case under military law. Once he's executed they can call it whatever they want.

The man was yelling , "Allah akbar" as he shot all those people. I'd say that clearly proves it was a terrorist attack. Leaving that aside for a moment, still it was a "mass shooting using a gun", perfect criteria for the anti-gun crusade obama and leftist friends are now pursuing. . Obama recently spoke of other mass shootings but conveniently omitted the Fort Hood terrorist attack which was a clear case of "gun violence" in a mass shooting.
Now unless obama declares it a terrorist attack and the location a battlefield then by his own definition of it being "workplace violence" it fits the same category as the other mass shootings he cited. Yet he makes damn sure he doesn't talk about it. I merely point out that fact and offer my interpretation as to why he doesn't dare bring it up in his anti-gun crusade. Which points to his hypocrisy and lack of any meaningful integrity IMHO. Fmj tried to defend obama and I pointed out this about obama.
As to your premise its "workplace violence" because the attack was against those at his place of work I find it lacking in substance since the man was yelling "Allah akbar" as he murdered all those people. Intent being the primary factor in defining what kind of attack it was. The attacker was in contact with a known Islamic terrorist religious leader , one that had inspired many terrorist attacks previously .
Lets not mix apples and oranges here, the juice isnt very appetizing to say the least. Obama denied the truth for political reasons when he had it defined as "workplace violence", which additionally and wrongly cut benefits to many of those that were wounded there. The guy is pure scum. There is not a man alive or that ever lived that I hate more than that ffing traitor! He deserves to be tried for his treason IMHO.. -Tyr

fj1200

12-20-2012, 09:50 AM

I don't understand your reasoning.

Would those grieving for the slaughtered schoolchildren agree that protecting schools had been proved to be 'unnecessary' ?

I also don't understand what's 'treasonous' about a strong school security force ! Are you saying it's preferable for schoolchildren to be gunned down, rather than any (- baffling -) cry of 'treason' to be heard ??

That's a shame. How much more in costly preventive actions do you think we should take to prevent incidences which are "rare and getting rarer"? Let's pretend for a moment that this tragedy happened once every 10 years, costing $150BB during that period, and 30 people didn't die. Would you think that those lives are worth $5BB each? It's a crass and unfeeling calculation to make but one that is made all the time. Besides, do you really expect that most in the US are going to approve of armed security guards roaming the halls next to their kindergartners?

As far as my "treasonous" comment you might want to check into the root of the if/then statement I made and then do a search on the site for idea of BO sponsored "brown-shirts" and "jack-boots" and the responses.

Again, I don't understand your reasoning.

It's neither baseless nor mere 'rhetoric' to apportion blame to Obama. Obama already has a lot to answer for, from his first term as President. He'll make sure that there's more for him to answer for in the second one ! And ... he's got off to a flying start, hasn't he, by trying to use a grief-stricken period to advance the Leftie aim of citizen disempowerment !!

Again, that's a shame because he is no different than any other with the "leftie aim" of gun control and continually invoking his name and his agenda is rhetoric.

fj1200

12-20-2012, 09:57 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2012, 10:08 AM

Wow, you defend against my blathertastic ranting charge with more of the same. :rolleyes: And as I recall he "jumped to the mic" after Ft. Hood as well. You also confuse me defending him with challenging your premise; there is a HUGE difference.

Also, no one is answering my question re: TSA, Patriot Act, and Homeland. Why is that?

Yes, he jumped the the mic then to limit the damage, protect the muslims and misdirect the rage against such a terrorist attack. He unduly favors our nation's enemies , a fact to be seen by anybody having the integrity to lok for the reasons that he deliberately weakens this nation.

Repeating your "blathertastic ranting charge" againt me does not nothing to prove its validity.

Why? Maybe because they have already voiced their opinions on the TSA, ETC. -Tyr

fj1200

12-20-2012, 10:16 AM

Yes, he jumped the the mic then to limit the damage, protect the muslims and misdirect the rage against such a terrorist attack. He unduly favors our nation's enemies , a fact to be seen by anybody having the integrity to lok for the reasons that he deliberately weakens this nation.

Repeating your "blathertastic ranting charge" againt me does not nothing to prove its validity.

Why? Maybe because they have already voiced their opinions on the TSA, ETC. -Tyr

Yes, yes, I forgot that you have unfettered access to his inner thoughts. :rolleyes:

Maybe they/you have voiced their/your opinion but it's relevant to the point.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2012, 11:02 AM

Yes, yes, I forgot that you have unfettered access to his inner thoughts. :rolleyes:

Maybe they/you have voiced their/your opinion but it's relevant to the point.

No more than you have to mine. ;)
However we can judge somewhat by word and action/deeds the character and intent of a man!
Which is far better than judging by race, ethnicity , religion or the flying spaghetti monster.
Perhaps irrelevant to your summation of the point but certainly not to mine..-Tyr

Kathianne

12-20-2012, 11:43 AM

bump. More people get that gun control will not work.

With all the push for gun control over the past week, interesting poll results:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx

tailfins

12-20-2012, 11:47 AM

bump. More people get that gun control will not work.

I don't really care if guns are good for protection or not. Whatever happened to pursuit of happiness? If someone likes to eat fatty foods and re-enact Mythbusters with automatic weapons, why spoil their fun? Too many people are selfish about messing up others pursuit of happiness.

Drummond

12-20-2012, 02:18 PM

That's a shame. How much more in costly preventive actions do you think we should take to prevent incidences which are "rare and getting rarer"? Let's pretend for a moment that this tragedy happened once every 10 years, costing $150BB during that period, and 30 people didn't die. Would you think that those lives are worth $5BB each? It's a crass and unfeeling calculation to make but one that is made all the time. Besides, do you really expect that most in the US are going to approve of armed security guards roaming the halls next to their kindergartners?

You want me to accept your assumptions and run with them, evidently, in answering you. But I really don't see good reason to do that.

'Rare and getting rarer' ... is that so ? You know for a fact that this assumption is ongoing, will not change ? You know that factors can't emerge to present a different picture than this ?

In a society adopting a 'this is the way of things, and deterrence attempts won't be made' approach, what convinces you that an absence of action will perpetuate your assumed status quo ??

I'd have thought the opposite may be true. Deterrent action can be highly effective.

Your 'pretend' figures are just that. You've no reason at all to say that equivalent tragedies to the one we're considering will only occur once a decade. They might be far more frequent than that. They will almost certainly not occur according to clockwork !! And .. your cost estimates - these seem highly excessive. Why would I accept them as valid ?

As for what value you'd place on safeguarding each life you're discussing .. have you considered suggesting to grieving parents, or your society in general, that future deaths should continue to occur because preventing them will not be a cost-effective exercise ??!?

Such an argument reminds me of the UK's own National Health Service, which sometimes withholds treatments because their being administered isn't deemed cost effective. A case, in fact, of Lefties playing God and ruling who should live and die .. as a matter of administrative preference.

Oh, and ask those same parents this question: 'What would you prefer .. your child alive, but in the presence of an armed guard .. or .. gunned down, killed by someone free to do that in order to satisfy a sense of societal aesthetics ?'

As far as my "treasonous" comment you might want to check into the root of the if/then statement I made and then do a search on the site for idea of BO sponsored "brown-shirts" and "jack-boots" and the responses.

Then again, I might not. If you have a case to put, then put it ! Don't expect everyone else to do your work for you.

Again, that's a shame because he is no different than any other with the "leftie aim" of gun control and continually invoking his name and his agenda is rhetoric.

Not accepted.

Barack Hussein Obama is your Leftie-In-Chief, is he not ? He leads your 'Democrats'. His agenda is HIS agenda, which he is advancing in accordance with that leadership role. I see no reason to try and separate out that leadership role from the identity of the one doing the leading !! Obama shouldn't have any freedom to exercise any distancing of himself from the actions, and agenda, he holds ultimate responsibility for.

I see no reason to 'sanitise' Obama's reputation in that way. Or at all.

fj1200

12-20-2012, 02:56 PM

You want me to accept your assumptions and run with them, evidently, in answering you. But I really don't see good reason to do that.

'Rare and getting rarer' ... is that so ? You know for a fact that this assumption is ongoing, will not change ? You know that factors can't emerge to present a different picture than this ?

In a society adopting a 'this is the way of things, and deterrence attempts won't be made' approach, what convinces you that an absence of action will perpetuate your assumed status quo ??

I'd have thought the opposite may be true. Deterrent action can be highly effective.

Your 'pretend' figures are just that. You've no reason at all to say that equivalent tragedies to the one we're considering will only occur once a decade. They might be far more frequent than that. They will almost certainly not occur according to clockwork !! And .. your cost estimates - these seem highly excessive. Why would I accept them as valid ?

As for what value you'd place on safeguarding each life you're discussing .. have you considered suggesting to grieving parents, or your society in general, that future deaths should continue to occur because preventing them will not be a cost-effective exercise ??!?

Such an argument reminds me of the UK's own National Health Service, which sometimes withholds treatments because their being administered isn't deemed cost effective. A case, in fact, of Lefties playing God and ruling who should live and die .. as a matter of administrative preference.

Oh, and ask those same parents this question: 'What would you prefer .. your child alive, but in the presence of an armed guard .. or .. gunned down, killed by someone free to do that in order to satisfy a sense of societal aesthetics ?'

All my assumptions are based on others assumptions, are obvious, or are checkable; accept/challenge them as you see fit. "Rare and getting rarer" was sourced in an article and no, I'm not a fortune teller but we look to the past to predict the future. You can also tell me where I advocated taking no action.

My "pretend" figures? Tell me your own if they're not valid and then validate that your assumption that placing armed guards in schools will completely eliminate future shootings.

And give me a break, we assign value to life all the time. Every time the EPA makes a new regulation they do the same thing.

Then again, I might not. If you have a case to put, then put it ! Don't expect everyone else to do your work for you.

The case is obvious. Even rereading my if/then statement is enough, EVERY idea put forth by BO is met with derision around here.

Not accepted.

Barack Hussein Obama is your Leftie-In-Chief, is he not ? He leads your 'Democrats'. His agenda is HIS agenda, which he is advancing in accordance with that leadership role. I see no reason to try and separate out that leadership role from the identity of the one doing the leading !! Obama shouldn't have any freedom to exercise any distancing of himself from the actions, and agenda, he holds ultimate responsibility for.

I see no reason to 'sanitise' Obama's reputation in that way. Or at all.

I'm not surprised that you don't accept it, you demonstrate the same thinking on the man as many others here. He hasn't displayed any agenda of his own, only the continuation of the already established left agenda of gun control. I see no purpose in demonizing one figure and even think that it's distracting to the overall goals; when one man is no longer in office the agenda will continue.

Kathianne

12-20-2012, 03:03 PM

You want me to accept your assumptions and run with them, evidently, in answering you. But I really don't see good reason to do that.

'Rare and getting rarer' ... is that so ? You know for a fact that this assumption is ongoing, will not change ? You know that factors can't emerge to present a different picture than this ?

In a society adopting a 'this is the way of things, and deterrence attempts won't be made' approach, what convinces you that an absence of action will perpetuate your assumed status quo ??

I'd have thought the opposite may be true. Deterrent action can be highly effective.

Your 'pretend' figures are just that. You've no reason at all to say that equivalent tragedies to the one we're considering will only occur once a decade. They might be far more frequent than that. They will almost certainly not occur according to clockwork !! And .. your cost estimates - these seem highly excessive. Why would I accept them as valid ?

As for what value you'd place on safeguarding each life you're discussing .. have you considered suggesting to grieving parents, or your society in general, that future deaths should continue to occur because preventing them will not be a cost-effective exercise ??!?

Such an argument reminds me of the UK's own National Health Service, which sometimes withholds treatments because their being administered isn't deemed cost effective. A case, in fact, of Lefties playing God and ruling who should live and die .. as a matter of administrative preference.

Oh, and ask those same parents this question: 'What would you prefer .. your child alive, but in the presence of an armed guard .. or .. gunned down, killed by someone free to do that in order to satisfy a sense of societal aesthetics ?'

Then again, I might not. If you have a case to put, then put it ! Don't expect everyone else to do your work for you.

Not accepted.

Barack Hussein Obama is your Leftie-In-Chief, is he not ? He leads your 'Democrats'. His agenda is HIS agenda, which he is advancing in accordance with that leadership role. I see no reason to try and separate out that leadership role from the identity of the one doing the leading !! Obama shouldn't have any freedom to exercise any distancing of himself from the actions, and agenda, he holds ultimate responsibility for.

I see no reason to 'sanitise' Obama's reputation in that way. Or at all.

A similar question, from all news accounts, the principal and psychologist tried to take the perp out unarmed. They died. Do you think either of them would have turned down the offer of a gun, had they been trained in operation and aiming/firing? What about the first grade teacher, that use herself as a shield? Do your really think she'd not have shot at his head, to protect her students?

Drummond

12-20-2012, 04:11 PM

All my assumptions are based on others assumptions, are obvious, or are checkable; accept/challenge them as you see fit. "Rare and getting rarer" was sourced in an article and no, I'm not a fortune teller but we look to the past to predict the future. You can also tell me where I advocated taking no action.

Fact is, though, that you're building a form of pyramid structure based on 'ifs, buts and maybes'. You say 'we look to the past to predict the future' ... well ... this exercise has limited value. Sometimes, you adopt a 'thus far and no further' approach to say that further outrages have to be deterred, whatever is necessary to do that.

... 9/11. Now, tell me, what experiences did mainland America have to look back on, to 'predict' that was going to happen ??? Answer .. in that case, the past was NOT a useful predictive guide, now, was it - because if it had been, 9/11 would never have occurred.

So to practicalities. Shootings such as the one we're preoccupied with can be deterred against, IF there's the will to do so. 'Fj', do YOU have that will ? Or are you trying to advance a case, through 'pretend' figures, to say that the maximum possible should NOT be undertaken ?

What parent in America would advocate selling out his or her kids' welfare, this on the basis of 'pretend' statistics ?

My "pretend" figures? Tell me your own if they're not valid and then validate that your assumption that placing armed guards in schools will completely eliminate future shootings.

I do not claim that armed guards will totally eliminate such a threat. I DO, however, absolutely say that their presence will be a deterrent, one that saves lives. Maybe not ALL lives, but undoubtedly some.

But is minimising deterrence, more 'cost effective' from your way of thinking ? Justify that to the parents of America ...

And give me a break, we assign value to life all the time. Every time the EPA makes a new regulation they do the same thing.

Maybe Lefties do.

EVERY idea put forth by BO is met with derision around here.

I regard that as healthy. Obama is as bad for America as it gets, in my opinion. The sooner a decent Conservative takes the helm once more, the sooner America can start to grow, its people prosper and have unfettered pride in themselves and their place in the wider world. Maybe the spectre of an Obama who once did an international tour culminating in a deferential CURTSEY to the Saudi ruler, can be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

I'm not surprised that you don't accept it, you demonstrate the same thinking on the man as many others here. He hasn't displayed any agenda of his own, only the continuation of the already established left agenda of gun control. I see no purpose in demonizing one figure and even think that it's distracting to the overall goals; when one man is no longer in office the agenda will continue.

Nonetheless, Obama is the leading figure behind the Left's agenda in America today. Do you say to a murderer, 'You didn't invent the gun you've just killed someone with, therefore you're not responsible for the murder' ?? Maybe the murderer in question wasn't the first one of all time, or the last. But the murderer IS nonetheless culpable for the consequences, of his own actions !!

Your wish to see Obama not be blamed for his own actions and destructive efforts is accordingly unacceptable.

fj1200

12-20-2012, 04:54 PM

Fact is, though, that you're building a form of pyramid structure based on 'ifs, buts and maybes'. You say 'we look to the past to predict the future' ... well ... this exercise has limited value. Sometimes, you adopt a 'thus far and no further' approach to say that further outrages have to be deterred, whatever is necessary to do that.

... 9/11. Now, tell me, what experiences did mainland America have to look back on, to 'predict' that was going to happen ??? Answer .. in that case, the past was NOT a useful predictive guide, now, was it - because if it had been, 9/11 would never have occurred.

So to practicalities. Shootings such as the one we're preoccupied with can be deterred against, IF there's the will to do so. 'Fj', do YOU have that will ? Or are you trying to advance a case, through 'pretend' figures, to say that the maximum possible should NOT be undertaken ?

What parent in America would advocate selling out his or her kids' welfare, this on the basis of 'pretend' statistics ?

"Pretend statistics"? I get it now. You get to cast aspersions on my assumptions while offering none of your own. Now tell me why I should pay any more attention to your posts.

If we go and use this instance to "just do something" then we'd be more likely to get ready to give up all our guns than for armed guards to start populating our schools. 9/11? You might want to a bit more research into what predictive indicators there were prior. And since still no one has answered my question; how about all the new departments, laws, initiatives that were undertaken because we needed to "do something" in response to 9/11? Are the costs and new government intrusions worth it? Have we given up liberty for the illusion of safety? Funny, I didn't figure you for one that would use an unfortunate incidence to justify massive new expenditures.

I do not claim that armed guards will totally eliminate such a threat. I DO, however, absolutely say that their presence will be a deterrent, one that saves lives. Maybe not ALL lives, but undoubtedly some.

But is minimising deterrence, more 'cost effective' from your way of thinking ? Justify that to the parents of America ...

Do you know all the rules, regulations, and laws that fall under that category? Determining a cost effective solution rather than instituting rules to avoid any risk of fatality? Your denial of it is confusing. And if you can't guarantee 100% safety then the plan is even more ridiculous.

Maybe Lefties do.

EVERYONE does. We place a value on EPA regulations for example and if I'm not mistaken Republicans would support the effort so we don't pass regulations regardless of cost.

I regard that as healthy. Obama is as bad for America as it gets, in my opinion. The sooner a decent Conservative takes the helm once more, the sooner America can start to grow, its people prosper and have unfettered pride in themselves and their place in the wider world. Maybe the spectre of an Obama who once did an international tour culminating in a deferential CURTSEY to the Saudi ruler, can be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Opposition for the sake of opposition is not healthy.

Nonetheless, Obama is the leading figure behind the Left's agenda in America today. Do you say to a murderer, 'You didn't invent the gun you've just killed someone with, therefore you're not responsible for the murder' ?? Maybe the murderer in question wasn't the first one of all time, or the last. But the murderer IS nonetheless culpable for the consequences, of his own actions !!

Your wish to see Obama not be blamed for his own actions and destructive efforts is accordingly unacceptable.

When have I disputed that Obama is the leading figure in the Dem party these days? Honestly, I don't even know where you're getting the rest of the above post. I blame BO for what he does not what I make up in my mind so I deny your attempt to put a position on me that I didn't take. So what were the massive anti-gun steps that he took in his first term that we need to be so scared of?

Little-Acorn

12-20-2012, 05:04 PM

I'd like to stop the mass shootings.........is that so radical?

Nope. So why don't you try something that actually does that? Instead of gun bans, waiting periods, etc., all of which have failed repeatedly, year after year, and let the mass shootings go on unabated.

logroller

12-20-2012, 06:24 PM

The man was yelling , "Allah akbar" as he shot all those people. I'd say that clearly proves it was a terrorist attack. Leaving that aside for a moment, still it was a "mass shooting using a gun", perfect criteria for the anti-gun crusade obama and leftist friends are now pursuing. . Obama recently spoke of other mass shootings but conveniently omitted the Fort Hood terrorist attack which was a clear case of "gun violence" in a mass shooting.

Now unless obama declares it a terrorist attack and the location a battlefield then by his own definition of it being "workplace violence" it fits the same category as the other mass shootings he cited. Yet he makes damn sure he doesn't talk about it. I merely point out that fact and offer my interpretation as to why he doesn't dare bring it up in his anti-gun crusade. Which points to his hypocrisy and lack of any meaningful integrity IMHO. Fmj tried to defend obama and I pointed out this about obama.

As to your premise its "workplace violence" because the attack was against those at his place of work I find it lacking in substance since the man was yelling "Allah akbar" as he murdered all those people. Intent being the primary factor in defining what kind of attack it was. The attacker was in contact with a known Islamic terrorist religious leader , one that had inspired many terrorist attacks previously .

Lets not mix apples and oranges here, the juice isnt very appetizing to say the least. Obama denied the truth for political reasons when he had it defined as "workplace violence", which additionally and wrongly cut benefits to many of those that were wounded there. The guy is pure scum. There is not a man alive or that ever lived that I hate more than that ffing traitor! He deserves to be tried for his treason IMHO.. -Tyr
Yelling about the greatness of Allah does not equal terrorism-- there's a legal definition I referred to previously. Here's a bit more:
As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17525656
Not discussing the details of pending litigation is pretty standard procedure so as not to taint the jury. Which would more accurately describe it as a legal move, not a political one. He'll be convicted (the evidence is overwhelming), but his legal team will pursue every motion and injunction available up until his death. What's that thing you say about an ounce if prevention?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2012, 08:09 PM

Yelling about the greatness of Allah does not equal terrorism-- there's a legal definition I referred to previously. Here's a bit more: http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17525656
Not discussing the details of pending litigation is pretty standard procedure so as not to taint the jury. Which would more accurately describe it as a legal move, not a political one. He'll be convicted (the evidence is overwhelming), but his legal team will pursue every motion and injunction available up until his death. What's that thing you say about an ounce if prevention?

I beg to differ on that. It does when its done in conjunction with shooting the hell out of and murdering American infidels.. His yelling about Allah and his professed faith clearly point to it being an Islamic terrorist act! Obama having it declared to be "workplace violence" is a corrupt, sad and sick joke IMHO..-Tyr

logroller

12-20-2012, 09:25 PM

I beg to differ on that. It does when its done in conjunction with shooting the hell out of and murdering American infidels.. His yelling about Allah and his professed faith clearly point to it being an Islamic terrorist act! Obama having it declared to be "workplace violence" is a corrupt, sad and sick joke IMHO..-Tyr
differ all you want, but US law is indifferent to whether they were infidels. It does, however, define terrorism victims as noncombatants. Making up your definition to make your case reeks of the extra-constitutional activism you had previously admitted was unwise in an American courtroom. Yet here you are calling for it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2012, 10:15 PM

differ all you want, but US law is indifferent to whether they were infidels. It does, however, define terrorism victims as noncombatants. Making up your definition to make your case reeks of the extra-constitutional activism you had previously admitted was unwise in an American courtroom. Yet here you are calling for it.

First you agreed it was "workplace violence" now you agree that its war on combatants! Make up your mind, obama already did when he official had it called "workplace violence" So officially its not combat , tis why the wounded veterans from the attack lose certain rights and coverage !
I call it a terrorist attack and have never deviated from that . My pointing out obama's deception and corruption
is entirely correct. So what say you? Was it merely "workplace violence" or was it a military attack by a jihadist against a declared enemy and those victims combatants?? Lets get that established first. The Major can not be both a legally defined military enemy waging war AGAINST combatants and an ordinary citizen committing "workplace violence"!
I still do not know which you declare him to be.. -Tyr

Drummond

12-20-2012, 11:02 PM

"Pretend statistics"? I get it now. You get to cast aspersions on my assumptions while offering none of your own. Now tell me why I should pay any more attention to your posts.

If your assumptions have no solid basis, are open to question, why, then, should they be exempt from being questioned ? Because you prefer it that way ? As to whether you choose to pay any more attention to my posts', this is your choice, not mine. Don't do so, if you don't like the fact that I don't argue according to the rules you'd like to play by.

If we go and use this instance to "just do something" then we'd be more likely to get ready to give up all our guns than for armed guards to start populating our schools.

You advocate surrendering the power to meaningfully counter a threat ??

... So, the duty of the police, when faced with an armed criminal, is to surrender ?

Now I'm completely baffled. I have to wonder if you're joking.

9/11? You might want to a bit more research into what predictive indicators there were prior.

I'm not aware of any, and I'm sure your own authorities were taken completely by surprise. Or can someone show me evidence that such an attack was planned for, forseen ?

And since still no one has answered my question; how about all the new departments, laws, initiatives that were undertaken because we needed to "do something" in response to 9/11? Are the costs and new government intrusions worth it?

This is one of those examples of where you cannot measure the extent of good achieved, because to do so, you'd have to know with accuracy how your country would've fared without anything being done. To the extent this can be measured, trying to do so would doubtless compromise intelligence sources and operations undertaken. So, you have the luxury of a degree of questioning without knowing that it can be justified.

Have we given up liberty for the illusion of safety? Funny, I didn't figure you for one that would use an unfortunate incidence to justify massive new expenditures.

Surrender to an aggressor should not be an option. Therefore, you do what you must to guard against repeats. To refuse to is unreasonable.

Since when was it right for authorities to risk life and limb of their citizens because they'd rather keep a tight control over their purse strings ? Maybe police forces should be disbanded because maintaining them costs money ??

So, no. You do what you must to protect lives. If that means spending money .. well, then you do. Could there be a better cause ?

Opposition for the sake of opposition is not healthy.

Opposition for the sake of opposing people, or organisations, dedicated to far greater harm than their political adversaries would ever offer in their place ... I fail to see what is healthier !! Why tolerate ANY of it in silence ?

When have I disputed that Obama is the leading figure in the Dem party these days? Honestly, I don't even know where you're getting the rest of the above post.

Have I SAID that you've disputed the fact of Obama's position ? Rather,you seem to want him distanced from the very leadership role, and its consequences, meted out to the American people. My thinking is that he should take the blame for the decisions he makes, the agenda he advances. Not somehow be immune from all of that, just because he's not acting on his own.

I blame BO for what he does

Excellent news.

Fine, let's put that to the test. What DO you blame him for ? Care to give us a list ?

Or would you deem it 'unhealthy' to try to ?

not what I make up in my mind so I deny your attempt to put a position on me that I didn't take.

???????????????????

So what were the massive anti-gun steps that he took in his first term that we need to be so scared of?

... Eh ?

He's attempting what he is, RIGHT NOW .. and he's cynically trying to ride a wave of public emotion as his excuse for doing what he and his ilk have long since wanted to do .. to disempower the American people. Just as our Lefties did, here in the UK long ago, so your Lefties are trying to make headway to achieve the same goal .. to the extent they actually can.

Socialists crave the imposition of a dependence culture, because they crave the power over people that this gives them. Not pursuit of the greater good, no ... just power.

And people like THAT are fit to govern you ? HOW ???

logroller

12-21-2012, 02:29 AM

First you agreed it was "workplace violence" now you agree that its war on combatants! Make up your mind, obama already did when he official had it called "workplace violence" So officially its not combat , tis why the wounded veterans from the attack lose certain rights and coverage !
I call it a terrorist attack and have never deviated from that . My pointing out obama's deception and corruption
is entirely correct. So what say you? Was it merely "workplace violence" or was it a military attack by a jihadist against a declared enemy and those victims combatants?? Lets get that established first. The Major can not be both a legally defined military enemy waging war AGAINST combatants and an ordinary citizen committing "workplace violence"!
I still do not know which you declare him to be.. -Tyr
I didn't say that, nor agreed to anythjng youve said.
Fact- Active duty military personnel on a military base are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the rules stipulated in the manual for courts martial. Fact- Hassan, himself a member of th United States armed forces, killed his fellow soldiers while they were working because he didn't like what they did-- i.e. their duty as professional soldiers

That he had religious and/political motivation for his attack doesnt diminish the service-related nature of the case. He didn't target civilians to induce terror-- he targeted fellow soldiers to prevent them from going to combat (their job) and as a retaliation against those who had done their job. He was a soldier killing his own; not a cladestine agent or sub-national militia-- he was a Major in the United States Army. What about that Sgt. Bales that shot up that Afghan village; is he a terrorist? No, because he is a soldier. why do you believe a soldier acting domestically would be held to a different standard...against fellow soldiers no less? to label an attacker who targeted soldiers as a terrorist defies logic. One would hope our soldiers aren't terrified by such acts.
As to your question-- workplace violence vs war...it's neither IMHO-- its murder-- I believe the court martial will find him guilty of that and sentence him to death-- as well they should.

The Purple Hearts issue (benefits and what not)-- what's the rule for awarding such?

fj1200

12-21-2012, 10:41 AM

If your assumptions have no solid basis, are open to question, why, then, should they be exempt from being questioned ? Because you prefer it that way ? As to whether you choose to pay any more attention to my posts', this is your choice, not mine. Don't do so, if you don't like the fact that I don't argue according to the rules you'd like to play by.

Every one of my assumptions was sourced, do a little research. Challenge them intelligently please.

You advocate surrendering the power to meaningfully counter a threat ??

... So, the duty of the police, when faced with an armed criminal, is to surrender ?

Now I'm completely baffled. I have to wonder if you're joking.

Where did I advocate surrendering? Provide a link rather than arguing your strawman.

I'm not aware of any, and I'm sure your own authorities were taken completely by surprise. Or can someone show me evidence that such an attack was planned for, forseen ?

Oh please. You can't be that ignorant of all the signals that were not acted on.

This is one of those examples of where you cannot measure the extent of good achieved, because to do so, you'd have to know with accuracy how your country would've fared without anything being done. To the extent this can be measured, trying to do so would doubtless compromise intelligence sources and operations undertaken. So, you have the luxury of a degree of questioning without knowing that it can be justified.

So you ARE in favor of giving up liberty for safety.

Surrender to an aggressor should not be an option. Therefore, you do what you must to guard against repeats. To refuse to is unreasonable.

Since when was it right for authorities to risk life and limb of their citizens because they'd rather keep a tight control over their purse strings ? Maybe police forces should be disbanded because maintaining them costs money ??

So, no. You do what you must to protect lives. If that means spending money .. well, then you do. Could there be a better cause ?

Where did I advocate surrender? :dunno:

Opposition for the sake of opposing people, or organisations, dedicated to far greater harm than their political adversaries would ever offer in their place ... I fail to see what is healthier !! Why tolerate ANY of it in silence ?

You contradict yourself. Opposing for the sake of opposing is different than opposing "far greater harm."

Have I SAID that you've disputed the fact of Obama's position ? Rather,you seem to want him distanced from the very leadership role, and its consequences, meted out to the American people. My thinking is that he should take the blame for the decisions he makes, the agenda he advances. Not somehow be immune from all of that, just because he's not acting on his own.

Stop arguing what you think I say vs. what I do say.

Excellent news.

Fine, let's put that to the test. What DO you blame him for ? Care to give us a list ?

Or would you deem it 'unhealthy' to try to ?

You must not be paying attention to what I post on this site.

???????????????????

Exactly.

... Eh ?

He's attempting what he is, RIGHT NOW .. and he's cynically trying to ride a wave of public emotion as his excuse for doing what he and his ilk have long since wanted to do .. to disempower the American people. Just as our Lefties did, here in the UK long ago, so your Lefties are trying to make headway to achieve the same goal .. to the extent they actually can.

Socialists crave the imposition of a dependence culture, because they crave the power over people that this gives them. Not pursuit of the greater good, no ... just power.

And people like THAT are fit to govern you ? HOW ???

Oh brother, THIS particular question is BO and HIS agenda. If it was HIS agenda he would have been forcing it four years ago. Because he is just hopping on this bandwagon shows he's nothing more than taking advantage of the situation which is what I would have expected of ANY Dem in charge.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-21-2012, 11:12 AM

I didn't say that, nor agreed to anythjng youve said.
Fact- Active duty military personnel on a military base are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the rules stipulated in the manual for courts martial. Fact- Hassan, himself a member of th United States armed forces, killed his fellow soldiers while they were working because he didn't like what they did-- i.e. their duty as professional soldiers

That he had religious and/political motivation for his attack doesnt diminish the service-related nature of the case. He didn't target civilians to induce terror-- he targeted fellow soldiers to prevent them from going to combat (their job) and as a retaliation against those who had done their job. He was a soldier killing his own; not a cladestine agent or sub-national militia-- he was a Major in the United States Army. What about that Sgt. Bales that shot up that Afghan village; is he a terrorist? No, because he is a soldier. why do you believe a soldier acting domestically would be held to a different standard...against fellow soldiers no less? to label an attacker who targeted soldiers as a terrorist defies logic. One would hope our soldiers aren't terrified by such acts.
As to your question-- workplace violence vs war...it's neither IMHO-- its murder-- I believe the court martial will find him guilty of that and sentence him to death-- as well they should.

The Purple Hearts issue (benefits and what not)-- what's the rule for awarding such?

First, Sgt. Bales was in an active war zone , in a combat situation. Surely you are not attempting to equate the two incidents!!?? Sgt. Bales did not murder innocent people for a religious cause (ISLAM) as did the Major! SGT. BALES WAS NOT CORRESPONDING WITH A KNOWN ISLAMIC TERRORIST, RELIGOUS TEACHER AND KNOWN INSTIGATOR OF TERRORIST ATTACKS!
LOG, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU OVERLOOKED SO MANY THINGS TO BRING IN THE BALES INCIDENT WHICH CLEARLY DOES NOT FIT!
So now you declare the Fort Hood attack by the Major not a terrorist attack, is that right?
A simple yes or no before we proceed any further please. Yes , I saw your declaration that it was murder.
Neither??? So obama is dead wrong for calling it "workplace violence" and I'm dead wrong for calling it a terrorist attack!!??
Its a simple case of mass murder!?????? Color me amazed as hell and shocked too.
Could you explain this amazing judgement a bit better??
Exactly what duty as as soldiers did he murder them over, did he object to? Was in their figting ISLAMIC TERRORISTS BY ANY CHANCE???--Tyr

Drummond

12-21-2012, 01:52 PM

Every one of my assumptions was sourced, do a little research. Challenge them intelligently please.

How patronising. Who do you think you are ?

You think it's my job to research your assumptions (i.e the basis for them) ? I've got better things to do with my time. In any case, you admit you're offering assumptions, which aren't a particularly reliable basis for case-building ! Assumptions, by their very nature, fall short of known fact.

Where did I advocate surrendering? Provide a link rather than arguing your strawman.

Oh dear. When you start to inject barbs into your posting, I know you're on shaky ground.

Besides, the point is that, even if you haven't used the word 'surrender', your argument amounts to that. Your argument presented a 'case' for suggesting the unworkability (on cost grounds) of the ONE solution that has a chance of being properly effective. So ... an argument designed to nullify a workable plan is one which, logically, can only lead in one direction.

Namely, to arguing for surrender to whatever murderous aggressors want to inflict. However much you avoid using the word 'surrender', this is the state of affairs your argumentation leads to.

Oh please. You can't be that ignorant of all the signals that were not acted on.

Then enlighten me. Give it your best shot.

So you ARE in favor of giving up liberty for safety.

Certainly no more than is absolutely necessary. Nonetheless, a society that chooses to be complacently lax rather than employ the necessary security steps, is one which allows adversaries an advantage.

You contradict yourself. Opposing for the sake of opposing is different than opposing "far greater harm."

Offering opposition against a foe perceptibly promising harm is a meritorious stance. The Left always promise such harm. As does Obama, as a Leftie leader. One can oppose the Left for the sake of it, in the knowledge that in doing so, indirect support is supplied to its superior opposition.

If you have a problem with that, it is your problem to resolve, not mine.

Stop arguing what you think I say vs. what I do say.

I know the Leftie mind.

You must not be paying attention to what I post on this site.

I don't fill my every waking moment with efforts to pay such attention, no .. I have better things to do. Likewise, I'm sure you'd say exactly the same for my own posts ... as indeed you should.

I get the impression that you want your ego massaged. 'Sorry'; I'm not remotely interested in such things. Deal with it.

Oh brother, THIS particular question is BO and HIS agenda. If it was HIS agenda he would have been forcing it four years ago. Because he is just hopping on this bandwagon shows he's nothing more than taking advantage of the situation which is what I would have expected of ANY Dem in charge.

That he's taking advantage of the situation is a 'given'. On this specific point we agree. But the one doesn't negate the other .. I'm sure he's had a whole list of measures (outrages) he's wanted to foist on the American people. With such a list, it would take time to go through it.

So why would I believe that gun control measures weren't on that list at the outset ? Are you perhaps airing another baseless assumption by implying he's just 'winging it' ?

fj1200

12-21-2012, 02:54 PM

How patronising. Who do you think you are ?

You think it's my job to research your assumptions (i.e the basis for them) ? I've got better things to do with my time. In any case, you admit you're offering assumptions, which aren't a particularly reliable basis for case-building ! Assumptions, by their very nature, fall short of known fact.

Oh brother, I see that you have no intellectual curiosity into investigating that which you criticize. My assumptions have holes in them that you, well someone who bothered to think about it, could drive a truck through but in any case when have I not admitted to my assumptions?

Oh dear. When you start to inject barbs into your posting, I know you're on shaky ground.

Besides, the point is that, even if you haven't used the word 'surrender', your argument amounts to that. Your argument presented a 'case' for suggesting the unworkability (on cost grounds) of the ONE solution that has a chance of being properly effective. So ... an argument designed to nullify a workable plan is one which, logically, can only lead in one direction.

Namely, to arguing for surrender to whatever murderous aggressors want to inflict. However much you avoid using the word 'surrender', this is the state of affairs your argumentation leads to.

Barbs? Calling a strawman argument a strawman is a barb? Toughen up the skin tough guy. And yes, I've suggested that ONE solution is unnecessarily costly without proof of being "properly effective" (I see you like to keep your assumptions going), when there's a thread about a better solution let's just see what I say then; Sound like a plan?

Then enlighten me. Give it your best shot.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=missed+9%2F11+signals

Certainly no more than is absolutely necessary. Nonetheless, a society that chooses to be complacently lax rather than employ the necessary security steps, is one which allows adversaries an advantage.

There you go assuming again.

Offering opposition against a foe perceptibly promising harm is a meritorious stance. The Left always promise such harm. As does Obama, as a Leftie leader. One can oppose the Left for the sake of it, in the knowledge that in doing so, indirect support is supplied to its superior opposition.

If you have a problem with that, it is your problem to resolve, not mine.

When have I said I don't oppose what I don't agree with?

I know the Leftie mind.

So you're also in the ignorant camp that categorizes me as a "leftie?" :laugh:

I don't fill my every waking moment with efforts to pay such attention, no .. I have better things to do. Likewise, I'm sure you'd say exactly the same for my own posts ... as indeed you should.

I get the impression that you want your ego massaged. 'Sorry'; I'm not remotely interested in such things. Deal with it.

:laugh: Even a passing interest in the site would give you an idea if you paid any attention.

That he's taking advantage of the situation is a 'given'. On this specific point we agree. But the one doesn't negate the other .. I'm sure he's had a whole list of measures (outrages) he's wanted to foist on the American people. With such a list, it would take time to go through it.

So why would I believe that gun control measures weren't on that list at the outset ? Are you perhaps airing another baseless assumption by implying he's just 'winging it' ?

Great, we agree on something. He is nothing more than he who happens to be the acknowledged leader of the Democratic Party at the present time.

logroller

12-21-2012, 03:08 PM

First, Sgt. Bales was in an active war zone , in a combat situation. Surely you are not attempting to equate the two incidents!!?? Sgt. Bales did not murder innocent people for a religious cause (ISLAM) as did the Major! SGT. BALES WAS NOT CORRESPONDING WITH A KNOWN ISLAMIC TERRORIST, RELIGOUS TEACHER AND KNOWN INSTIGATOR OF TERRORIST ATTACKS!
LOG, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU OVERLOOKED SO MANY THINGS TO BRING IN THE BALES INCIDENT WHICH CLEARLY DOES NOT FIT!
So now you declare the Fort Hood attack by the Major not a terrorist attack, is that right?
A simple yes or no before we proceed any further please. Yes , I saw your declaration that it was murder.
Neither??? So obama is dead wrong for calling it "workplace violence" and I'm dead wrong for calling it a terrorist attack!!??
Its a simple case of mass murder!?????? Color me amazed as hell and shocked too.
Could you explain this amazing judgement a bit better??
Exactly what duty as as soldiers did he murder them over, did he object to? Was in their figting ISLAMIC TERRORISTS BY ANY CHANCE???--Tyr
Im amazed that you cant understand why a soldier is tried by military law for crimes against fellow soldiers-- Its pretty standard-- my point was that soldiers are held to different standard than civilians, even terrorists. Are the two incidents different, sure. But neither escape military justice; because both are soldiers. What's so hard for you to grasp that you need to chastise me. I simply offered you the legal reasoning. Accept it or not-- US law is being applied correctly. Maybe you should just leave this one to the best and brightest. Clearly you cannot grasp laws and their proper application.

fj1200

12-21-2012, 03:15 PM

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS (http://news.yahoo.com/know-stop-school-shootings-003203357.html)
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Drummond

12-21-2012, 04:06 PM

Oh brother, I see that you have no intellectual curiosity into investigating that which you criticize. My assumptions have holes in them that you, well someone who bothered to think about it, could drive a truck through but in any case when have I not admitted to my assumptions?

Well, if you admit this much, then why did you ever bother trying to advance the case you did ?? If you don't yourself believe in the worth of your arguments, what's the point of arguing them ?

Barbs? Calling a strawman argument a strawman is a barb? Toughen up the skin tough guy.

You intended it as a barb. You have a problem with my calling a spade a spade ? Perhaps you are the one needing to grow tougher skin.

And yes, I've suggested that ONE solution is unnecessarily costly without proof of being "properly effective" (I see you like to keep your assumptions going), when there's a thread about a better solution let's just see what I say then; Sound like a plan?

Let someone advance a better idea if they can. I for one don't believe any better idea exists, but if I'm proved wrong, so be it. Effective deterrence is the only means there is to countering the nature of the threat we've been preoccupied with. You certainly can't reason with such nutters (.. even if you could identify them in advance !). You can't introduce gun laws and expect that, magically, it'll ensure that only the 'right' people own the 'right' weapons for the 'right' reasons 100 percent of the time .. that's sheer nonsense. So, what's left other than effective deterrence, applied at the locations most needing it ?

Your 'it's too costly' argument was an attempt to nullify the one measure that had a chance to be usefully effective - therefore, logically, leaving potential victims with no means of a remedial balance against any crazed, murderous aggressor. To surrender the one workable option is to surrender outright .. even if not CALLED 'surrender', this is the resulting effect.

Is this 'assumption' ? I call it 'sheer common sense'.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=missed+9%2F11+signals

Noted, and thank you.

From your link, I've spotted this ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks. But, the official said the threat of a hijacking by bin Laden's al Qaeda organization was general in nature, did not mention a specific time or place and was similar to the variety of different terrorist threats U.S. intelligence monitors frequently.

Too little, too late ?

There you go assuming again.

Nope ... simple logic and realism. Countries across the world well know that wartime conditions require a more security-conscious regime than is true in peacetime, that sometimes, to 'beef up' security, restrictions have to be introduced.

America has enemies whose focus is not the advancement of 'peace'. They are active, meaning you harm at all times. To not take security measures is to invite them to enjoy an advantage over you, a needless one.

When have I said I don't oppose what I don't agree with?

What are you talking about ?

You've implied irritation with those opposing Obama as consistently as they do. Yet those who oppose Obama, and even single him out for such attention, not only have the right to do that, but very considerable justification.

So, where does that irritation come from, if you're not trying to find a way of defending him ? Obama does NOT deserve such a defence, but there you are, critical of those who dare to oppose as they do.

This is understandable in one particular way. A loyal Leftie would adopt such a stance, to protect his comrades.

So you're also in the ignorant camp that categorizes me as a "leftie?" :laugh:

Argue as a Leftie, by advancing viewpoints that they would prefer succeeded ... and offer forms of opposition to contributors who are anti-the Left ... well, Lefties do these things.

My suggestion is that if you want people to think of you as other than a Leftie, you can prove your supposed 'bona fides' to them by NOT advancing pro-Leftie positions !

It's up to you. Show us evidence of pro-Leftieness, and of course, you'll be categorised accordingly. You are welcome to try and prove that you're not one, if in fact you can.

What could be more reasonable than that ?

:laugh: Even a passing interest in the site would give you an idea if you paid any attention.

Another of your barbs, then. Tiresome .. and, again, patronising. Have I hit a nerve ?

Great, we agree on something. He is nothing more than he who happens to be the acknowledged leader of the Democratic Party at the present time.

My understanding is that he's easily the most Left-wing President you've ever had !! What he's been working to introduce is especially radical, at least, when taken from an American perspective. Since it's possible to reach such distinct judgments about Obama, that in itself argues against your 'he's only the leader of the Democratic Party' line.

But then ... a Leftie naturally WOULD have an interest in sanitising their Leader ... yes ?

And besides, are you so sure that his identity as a Leftie is all that's going on with him ? See ...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minister-i-am-a-muslim-stealth-coup-on-the-white-house.html

The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.

That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements.

Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

The link has far more to say. I suggest you read it.

Having read it, I have little doubt that you'll leap to Obama's defence, just as a loyal Leftie would. However ... you're welcome to prove me wrong ....

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 04:11 PM

I saw this picture, and wondered to myself "Why have we not done this????"
This would be a FANTASTIC way to stop them.
4164

A poster says not all schools are attacked. Actually that misses the point. Security for children has to be job #1. We can't regulate killers but we damned sure can make sure if one shows up, he meets resistance.

We provide security for a president by hiring dozens of men with arms to walk around him. We also provide hundreds more to ensure his path is safe and that danger will be kept distant by other measures.

I do not put the president above our teachers or kids in the order of protection.

Be smart. Outwit those bastards and leave gun owners like me alone. I don't shoot humans.

logroller

12-21-2012, 04:11 PM

On assigning monetary value to life.

Maybe Lefties do.

" reality has a well-known liberal bias" Stephen Colbert

logroller

12-21-2012, 04:15 PM

Well, if you admit this much, then why did you ever bother trying to advance the case you did ?? If you don't yourself believe in the worth of your arguments, what's the point of arguing them ?

You intended it as a barb. You have a problem with my calling a spade a spade ? Perhaps you are the one needing to grow tougher skin.

Let someone advance a better idea if they can. I for one don't believe any better idea exists, but if I'm proved wrong, so be it. Effective deterrence is the only means there is to countering the nature of the threat we've been preoccupied with. You certainly can't reason with such nutters (.. even if you could identify them in advance !). You can't introduce gun laws and expect that, magically, it'll ensure that only the 'right' people own the 'right' weapons for the 'right' reasons 100 percent of the time .. that's sheer nonsense. So, what's left other than effective deterrence, applied at the locations most needing it ?

Your 'it's too costly' argument was an attempt to nullify the one measure that had a chance to be usefully effective - therefore, logically, leaving potential victims with no means of a remedial balance against any crazed, murderous aggressor. To surrender the one workable option is to surrender outright .. even if not CALLED 'surrender', this is the resulting effect.

Is this 'assumption' ? I call it 'sheer common sense'.

Noted, and thank you.

From your link, I've spotted this ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

Too little, too late ?

Nope ... simple logic and realism. Countries across the world well know that wartime conditions require a more security-conscious regime than is true in peacetime, that sometimes, to 'beef up' security, restrictions have to be introduced.

America has enemies whose focus is not the advancement of 'peace'. They are active, meaning you harm at all times. To not take security measures is to invite them to enjoy an advantage over you, a needless one.

What are you talking about ?

You've implied irritation with those opposing Obama as consistently as they do. Yet those who oppose Obama, and even single him out for such attention, not only have the right to do that, but very considerable justification.

So, where does that irritation come from, if you're not trying to find a way of defending him ? Obama does NOT deserve such a defence, but there you are, critical of those who dare to oppose as they do.

This is understandable in one particular way. A loyal Leftie would adopt such a stance, to protect his comrades.

Argue as a Leftie, by advancing viewpoints that they would prefer succeeded ... and offer forms of opposition to contributors who are anti-the Left ... well, Lefties do these things.

My suggestion is that if you want people to think of you as other than a Leftie, you can prove your supposed 'bona fides' to them by NOT advancing pro-Leftie positions !

It's up to you. Show us evidence of pro-Leftieness, and of course, you'll be categorised accordingly. You are welcome to try and prove that you're not one, if in fact you can.

What could be more reasonable than that ?

Another of your barbs, then. Tiresome .. and, again, patronising. Have I hit a nerve ?

My understanding is that he's easily the most Left-wing President you've ever had !! What he's been working to introduce is especially radical, at least, when taken from an American perspective. Since it's possible to reach such distinct judgments about Obama, that in itself argues against your 'he's only the leader of the Democratic Party' line.

But then ... a Leftie naturally WOULD have an interest in sanitising their Leader ... yes ?

And besides, are you so sure that his identity as a Leftie is all that's going on with him ? See ...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minister-i-am-a-muslim-stealth-coup-on-the-white-house.html

The link has far more to say. I suggest you read it.

Having read it, I have little doubt that you'll leap to Obama's defence, just as a loyal Leftie would. However ... you're welcome to prove me wrong ....
dear god man. Leftie this and that. Thinking you're all conservative, But then quote hearsay from Arab Muslim about an American president.

Drummond

12-21-2012, 04:17 PM

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS (http://news.yahoo.com/know-stop-school-shootings-003203357.html)

You're quoting Ann Coulter, now ?

Impressive. I'll give you that.

I have respect for Ann.

Even so ... a deterrent has to be perceivable as such. Part of the problem is that those most needing to be deterred might be particularly disturbed individuals. To them, will 'subtle nuances' receive their due attention ?

Armed guards, patrolling, visible, an OBVIOUS deterrent ... a crazed murderous nutter is, I submit, more likely to be deterred by a visibly formidable figure of opposition than some people who just MIGHT have concealed weapons. Besides, a gun-toting attacker is already in a prime position to fire ... and effectively. What if those carrying concealed weapons need seconds to draw them ? Or arm them ? Or, what if they aren't especially proficient in their use ?

It's reasonable to suppose that an armed guard MUST have that proficiency, however.

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 04:20 PM

Im amazed that you cant understand why a soldier is tried by military law for crimes against fellow soldiers-- Its pretty standard-- my point was that soldiers are held to different standard than civilians, even terrorists. Are the two incidents different, sure. But neither escape military justice; because both are soldiers. What's so hard for you to grasp that you need to chastise me. I simply offered you the legal reasoning. Accept it or not-- US law is being applied correctly. Maybe you should just leave this one to the best and brightest. Clearly you cannot grasp laws and their proper application.

This soldier however attacked shouting Akbar Allah (may be reversed) and operated to further a terrorist cause.

Bales, on trial operated in a combat zone and of course in hostile conditions.

Since all troops are issued the ROE laws, if he is guilty, he will be in jail or maybe worse.

Do you expect the Major to be put to death?

Drummond

12-21-2012, 04:22 PM

On assigning monetary value to life.
" reality has a well-known liberal bias" Stephen Colbert

Having never heard of Stephen Colbert, I had to look him up. It turns out he's a comedian ...

Need I say more ?

Drummond

12-21-2012, 04:26 PM

dear god man. Leftie this and that. Thinking you're all conservative, But then quote hearsay from Arab Muslim about an American president.

.. Worried ?

You forgot to say, LEFTIE American President ... and one with a track record which doesn't exactly show the critic you mention to be expressing a baseless charge.

aboutime

12-21-2012, 04:28 PM

You're quoting Ann Coulter, now ?

Impressive. I'll give you that.

I have respect for Ann.

Even so ... a deterrent has to be perceivable as such. Part of the problem is that those most needing to be deterred might be particularly disturbed individuals. To them, will 'subtle nuances' receive their due attention ?

Armed guards, patrolling, visible, an OBVIOUS deterrent ... a crazed murderous nutter is, I submit, more likely to be deterred by a visibly formidable figure of opposition than some people who just MIGHT have concealed weapons. Besides, a gun-toting attacker is already in a prime position to fire ... and effectively. What if those carrying concealed weapons need seconds to draw them ? Or arm them ? Or, what if they aren't especially proficient in their use ?

It's reasonable to suppose that an armed guard MUST have that proficiency, however.

Drummond. Though I appreciate what the President of the NRA said today. We must look at the COSTS of doing such things...realistically, because of the dreadful shape of our economy.
Locally. Or rather...where two of our grandchildren attend Elementary school. They have an armed off-duty police officer on the school grounds during school hours, plus the video protection that surrounds the entire building...which is monitored as well.

Personally. I like the Concealed Carry idea, and it offers far more protection than Instant Warnings being broadcast by telephone, or internet systems if the people...Lawfully carry, have been trained properly, and licensed by the FED, or Local police.

We have to all face the facts. Our Lives and our surroundings have drastically changed. And our most PRIZED Possessions are OUR CHILDREN. Even more than the Armored Truck that delivers cash to banks.

OUR CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT.
Stop talking about it, and JUST DO IT!

tailfins

12-21-2012, 04:36 PM

We have to all face the facts. Our Lives and our surroundings have drastically changed.

Our Lives and our surroundings have drastically changed UNNECESSARILY!!

Too many of the "measures" are just theater, too intrusive and too disruptive.

Drummond

12-21-2012, 04:51 PM

Drummond. Though I appreciate what the President of the NRA said today. We must look at the COSTS of doing such things...realistically, because of the dreadful shape of our economy.
Locally. Or rather...where two of our grandchildren attend Elementary school. They have an armed off-duty police officer on the school grounds during school hours, plus the video protection that surrounds the entire building...which is monitored as well.

Personally. I like the Concealed Carry idea, and it offers far more protection than Instant Warnings being broadcast by telephone, or internet systems if the people...Lawfully carry, have been trained properly, and licensed by the FED, or Local police.

We have to all face the facts. Our Lives and our surroundings have drastically changed. And our most PRIZED Possessions are OUR CHILDREN. Even more than the Armored Truck that delivers cash to banks.

OUR CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT.
Stop talking about it, and JUST DO IT!

Fair points.

I, too, like the Concealed Carry idea. It has merit, it offers a line of defence where maybe there wouldn't be one otherwise. OK, fair enough.

Also fair is your point about cost, and of course I'm aware of Obama's effect on the American economy ... borrowing money like it was going out of fashion, and in the process, bringing your economy to precipices it should never have to face.

All this said ... I'm still in favour of the more conspicuous presence of armed guards. Costly .. maybe, but is this anything like as costly as 'Fj' has tried to argue ? Even HE admits the assumptive nature of what he's posted on that score.

Guards, as one line of defence. The 'Concealed Carry' one as another, each working in tandem to provide a layered approach to the problem.

And I stick by my belief that deterrence has to be visible to be fully perceivable AS that by a deranged nutter. You have to make an impression on that derangement, get past it, to be sure of the deterrence effect. Deterrence ceases to be such if there's no perception of deterrence which the attacker can know exists.

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 05:13 PM

fj1200

12-21-2012, 05:28 PM

Well, if you admit this much, then why did you ever bother trying to advance the case you did ?? If you don't yourself believe in the worth of your arguments, what's the point of arguing them ?

Whether the assumptions are completely accurate is beside the point. They are orders of magnitude beyond the pale for what might be necessary. My only point in arguing them now is how you have no response to them other than I "surrender." :rolleyes: If you have anything that will alter those assumptions put 'em up and we'll talk about it. Until then...

You intended it as a barb. You have a problem with my calling a spade a spade ? Perhaps you are the one needing to grow tougher skin.

Oh so now you're a fricking mind reader too. I've lost count of how many there are here. Besides scanning the rest of this post, you counter my charge of strawman by putting up more strawmen.

Let someone advance a better idea if they can. I for one don't believe any better idea exists, but if I'm proved wrong, so be it. Effective deterrence is the only means there is to countering the nature of the threat we've been preoccupied with. You certainly can't reason with such nutters (.. even if you could identify them in advance !). You can't introduce gun laws and expect that, magically, it'll ensure that only the 'right' people own the 'right' weapons for the 'right' reasons 100 percent of the time .. that's sheer nonsense. So, what's left other than effective deterrence, applied at the locations most needing it ?

Your 'it's too costly' argument was an attempt to nullify the one measure that had a chance to be usefully effective - therefore, logically, leaving potential victims with no means of a remedial balance against any crazed, murderous aggressor. To surrender the one workable option is to surrender outright .. even if not CALLED 'surrender', this is the resulting effect.

Is this 'assumption' ? I call it 'sheer common sense'.

The "one workable option," funny.

Noted, and thank you.

From your link, I've spotted this ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

Too little, too late ?

There were many links. Are you cherry-picking again?

Nope ... simple logic and realism. Countries across the world well know that wartime conditions require a more security-conscious regime than is true in peacetime, that sometimes, to 'beef up' security, restrictions have to be introduced.

America has enemies whose focus is not the advancement of 'peace'. They are active, meaning you harm at all times. To not take security measures is to invite them to enjoy an advantage over you, a needless one.

So what are you jumping from the single nut theory to something far greater? If so why don't you try and keep it on topic.

What are you talking about ?

Blah, blah, blah...

You're so far off the reservation that this needs to be cut off.

fj1200

12-21-2012, 05:32 PM

You're quoting Ann Coulter, now ?

Impressive. I'll give you that.

I have respect for Ann.

Even so ... a deterrent has to be perceivable as such. Part of the problem is that those most needing to be deterred might be particularly disturbed individuals. To them, will 'subtle nuances' receive their due attention ?

Armed guards, patrolling, visible, an OBVIOUS deterrent ... a crazed murderous nutter is, I submit, more likely to be deterred by a visibly formidable figure of opposition than some people who just MIGHT have concealed weapons. Besides, a gun-toting attacker is already in a prime position to fire ... and effectively. What if those carrying concealed weapons need seconds to draw them ? Or arm them ? Or, what if they aren't especially proficient in their use ?

It's reasonable to suppose that an armed guard MUST have that proficiency, however.

Good for you and yet the argument is always that the bad guys don't know which good guys have the guns; Do you disagree with that logic now? Did you respond to Pete's post about the armed guard at Columbine?

All this said ... I'm still in favour of the more conspicuous presence of armed guards. Costly .. maybe, but is this anything like as costly as 'Fj' has tried to argue ? Even HE admits the assumptive nature of what he's posted on that score.

And yet you've been unable to show where they're wrong and unwilling to accept the assumptive nature of your position. :slap:

Missileman

12-21-2012, 05:36 PM

First, Sgt. Bales was in an active war zone , in a combat situation.

Bales was not in a combat situation when he strolled into a civilan's house in the middle of the night.

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 05:59 PM

Bales was not in a combat situation when he strolled into a civilan's house in the middle of the night.

The last thing on my mind to do is make excuses for Bales. However, since our media is the shits when it comes to publishing FACTS, and they are biased to the gills, why trust the media when that is about all we have?

I don't know that that house contained no combatants. I don't know what the mission was about. But any guy that went off the deep end, defied his training and mission instructions will be at the defendent table being tried.

Can we first find out if he is found guilty?

Who recalls the coverup over the Bob Kerrey situation where as a Navy Seal in Vietnam, the sucker killed a village including children and ends up getting a very high medal? (high medal for a later event)

He was a congressman during Clinton's era.

Then we have John Kerry who claims he was part of war crimes and though he never proved he was injured in combat, got medals just the same. And decided when he got out of the Navy to take a royal piss all over the military. That rat faced bastard may become the Sec. of State.

Missileman

12-21-2012, 06:08 PM

The last thing on my mind to do is make excuses for Bales. However, since our media is the shits when it comes to publishing FACTS, and they are biased to the gills, why trust the media when that is about all we have?

I don't know that that house contained no combatants. I don't know what the mission was about. But any guy that went off the deep end, defied his training and mission instructions will be at the defendent table being tried.

Can we first find out if he is found guilty?

Who recalls the coverup over the Bob Kerrey situation where as a Navy Seal in Vietnam, the sucker killed a village including children and ends up getting a very high medal? (high medal for a later event)

He was a congressman during Clinton's era.

Then we have John Kerry who claims he was part of war crimes and though he never proved he was injured in combat, got medals just the same. And decided when he got out of the Navy to take a royal piss all over the military. That rat faced bastard may become the Sec. of State.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 06:28 PM

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

Did you forget? Was it on purpose?

Don't worry, I took care of that part of the issue.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-21-2012, 06:31 PM

Bales was not in a combat situation when he strolled into a civilan's house in the middle of the night.
True , no disagreement on that. He was in a combat zone and apparently snapped. My point was he was not in an American military base in America murdering fellow soldiers while shouting praise to Allah. The two incidents do not match up well for comparison was my point to logroller. I was not defending what Bales did. Far from it..-Tyr

Missileman

12-21-2012, 06:33 PM

Missileman

12-21-2012, 06:35 PM

Did you forget? Was it on purpose?

Forget what?

Don't worry, I took care of that part of the issue.

Took care of what?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-21-2012, 06:46 PM

They are both incidents of mass murder, but that is about as far as the comparison goes.

I agree with that completely. I'm still not sure why logroller lumped them together. Not seeing his point on that at all but his post was a fairly well thought out presentation other than that. I just disagree with his conclusion that the Fort Hood attack wasn't a terrorist attack. -Tyr

red states rule

12-21-2012, 06:49 PM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg122112dAPR20121221054534.jpg

logroller

12-21-2012, 07:12 PM

This soldier however attacked shouting Akbar Allah (may be reversed) and operated to further a terrorist cause.

Bales, on trial operated in a combat zone and of course in hostile conditions.

Since all troops are issued the ROE laws, if he is guilty, he will be in jail or maybe worse.

Do you expect the Major to be put to death?
Find a usmj law on terrorism or terrorist cause. Get back to me when you do. Death-- asked and answered we.

.. Worried ?

You forgot to say, LEFTIE American President ... and one with a track record which doesn't exactly show the critic you mention to be expressing a baseless charge.
worried? Hardly; you're self-defeating methods aren't of concern here. When I find you agreeing with me, that's when I'll be worried.
I didn't forget to mention anything. the implication was enough to convey my point to anyone who's not an extremist. The fact you don't play well with others only further pushes you more to the extreme-- evidenced by repeated name-calling. It certainly doesn't advance your beliefs. If your country is half as fucked up as you claim, its because people like you can't muster an argument without blaming others and name calling; that gets you (and any policy you seek) dismissed by the majority.

Having never heard of Stephen Colbert, I had to look him up. It turns out he's a comedian ...

Need I say more ?
you need to say less. The fact you looked up the source in order to recognize it as a joke only points to the truth in it and of your extremist point of view. Enjoy the violins and finger pointing by all those leftists.

red states rule

12-21-2012, 07:16 PM

http://thecafeallegro.com/randomthoughts/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/anti-gun1.gif

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 07:38 PM

True , no disagreement on that. He was in a combat zone and apparently snapped. My point was he was not in an American military base in America murdering fellow soldiers while shouting praise to Allah. The two incidents do not match up well for comparison was my point to logroller. I was not defending what Bales did. Far from it..-Tyr

We both agree on Bales. My point is he has not been found guilty that I know of. If he has been found guilty, then he has been tried. I don't happen to trust the media. I see them spinning not only on the major channels, but even on PBS. I used to respect PBS.

Let me give you an example of spin.

Today the NRA gave a response to the school shootings.

Then on my news, the TV person called that a controversial way to deal with this issue but refused to call what Sen. Feinstein did as controversial. It was repeated other times during the broadcast. Then I hear the exact same reply by PBS calling the NRA announcement, controversial.

That may seem minor but they want viewers to see the NRA as whacked out and they had guests on both programs with that very aim. Absent was any supporters of the NRA.

red states rule

12-21-2012, 07:39 PM

http://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/guncontrolworks.jpg

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 07:54 PM

Find a usmj law on terrorism or terrorist cause. Get back to me when you do. Death-- asked and answered we.

worried? Hardly; you're self-defeating methods aren't of concern here. When I find you agreeing with me, that's when I'll be worried.
I didn't forget to mention anything. the implication was enough to convey my point to anyone who's not an extremist. The fact you don't play well with others only further pushes you more to the extreme-- evidenced by repeated name-calling. It certainly doesn't advance your beliefs. If your country is half as fucked up as you claim, its because people like you can't muster an argument without blaming others and name calling; that gets you (and any policy you seek) dismissed by the majority.

you need to say less. The fact you looked up the source in order to recognize it as a joke only points to the truth in it and of your extremist point of view. Enjoy the violins and finger pointing by all those leftists.

It was at one time when I was in the army in my desk drawer. I learned a lot of the UCMJ issue 1951. I know it is now updated.

As to showing it to you, no way to do that.

My point was he committed acts of terrorism and if the flaw in the UCMJ is there is no charge in the book, maybe one will be added or has been. I make no claims to knowing either way.

The next pair of isues is of no concern to me since you talked to others.

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 07:58 PM

Forget what?

Took care of what?

Well, you sure proved to be forgetful. Did you bother to read what you said that prompted my reply?

Robert A Whit

12-21-2012, 08:05 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=601473#post601473)
The last thing on my mind to do is make excuses for Bales. However, since our media is the shits when it comes to publishing FACTS, and they are biased to the gills, why trust the media when that is about all we have?

I don't know that that house contained no combatants. I don't know what the mission was about. But any guy that went off the deep end, defied his training and mission instructions will be at the defendent table being tried.

Can we first find out if he is found guilty?

Who recalls the coverup over the Bob Kerrey situation where as a Navy Seal in Vietnam, the sucker killed a village including children and ends up getting a very high medal? (high medal for a later event)

He was a congressman during Clinton's era.

Then we have John Kerry who claims he was part of war crimes and though he never proved he was injured in combat, got medals just the same. And decided when he got out of the Navy to take a royal piss all over the military. That rat faced bastard may become the Sec. of State.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

OK, to remind you, I did not say that your statement had to do with either. Now do you remember?

Missileman

12-21-2012, 08:31 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

OK, to remind you, I did not say that your statement had to do with either. Now do you remember?

You seemed to be implying that my statement's veracity hinged on whether Bales is found guilty or not...I may have misinterpreted you.

logroller

12-22-2012, 06:58 PM

They are both incidents of mass murder, but that is about as far as the comparison goes.
Both incidents of mass murder committed by an active duty US serviceman-- both being tried under military law for murder, and not terrorism. Why? because neither offense fits the legal definition of terrorism. That was my point. Tyr likes to avoid that point because, I can only assume, it's devastating to his terrorism allegation.

I agree with that completely. I'm still not sure why logroller lumped them together. Not seeing his point on that at all but his post was a fairly well thought out presentation other than that. I just disagree with his conclusion that the Fort Hood attack wasn't a terrorist attack. -Tyr
Again, its a matter of law, not public opinion.

We both agree on Bales. My point is he has not been found guilty that I know of. If he has been found guilty, then he has been tried. I don't happen to trust the media. I see them spinning not only on the major channels, but even on PBS. I used to respect PBS.

Let me give you an example of spin.

Today the NRA gave a response to the school shootings.

Then on my news, the TV person called that a controversial way to deal with this issue but refused to call what Sen. Feinstein did as controversial. It was repeated other times during the broadcast. Then I hear the exact same reply by PBS calling the NRA announcement, controversial.

That may seem minor but they want viewers to see the NRA as whacked out and they had guests on both programs with that very aim. Absent was any supporters of the NRA.
Neither has Hassan been found guilty.

It was at one time when I was in the army in my desk drawer. I learned a lot of the UCMJ issue 1951. I know it is now updated.

As to showing it to you, no way to do that.

My point was he committed acts of terrorism and if the flaw in the UCMJ is there is no charge in the book, maybe one will be added or has been. I make no claims to knowing either way.

The next pair of isues is of no concern to me since you talked to others.
here ya are: it's current as far as I know.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf

Rule 202 of the rules of court martial clearl indicates this is UCMJ jurisdiction. That there is no terrorism charge is that there is no need. There are clear rules of war which define combatant status. To create a law which would establish crimes committed against soldiers as terrorism would be problematic because it would establish civilian status to soldiers of war, opening the door for a myriad of civilian litigation rights. For example, there are laws on actions unbecoming an officer; but what's to stop a defendant from then arguing that he wasn't actually a soldier at the time, he was a civilian. Active duty is active duty. Period. That's the rule and it works. Allowing for a singular issue to change the rule would complicate the law and make it no more effective.