Topic: gun massacre

[demon78]

No that's part of what got us in this spot in the first place, wanting some one else to take responsibility.
Bill the demon.

[Killer Canary]

From my spot on the planet I can only say "keep it over there Lord".

[FuZZie]

Fuzzie - perhaps an even finer point, is how do you keep the mental cases from considering any weapon as a tool to commit their atrocities? We can't limit their access only to guns, we must develop a method for them to not consider these mass public violent acts. Take away their gun, they'll grab a knife, or a car or a crock pot filler with roofing nails. It won't stop them. We must find a way to alter their consideration and restore humane thinking.

That's my strongest opinion on the matter.

My apologies for the multitude of ranting and preaching. Never meant to monopolize the thread or portray myself any differently from anyone else. This just really hits close to home for me, so it brings out my keyboard pretty darn quickly.

Cheers all!

You just have at that keyboard, your doing fine in my book.
I was watching a doc a while back and the preferred weapon of a certain bike gang is the ball and peen hammer. Yet no one is out to make it illegal!
 

[Retro Rocket]

I would love to see someone try and take out a whole room of people with a ball peen hammer.... I had a guy knock out a friend of mine with a timber baton, like the old police batons with a leather wrist strap, I went to defend my helpless mate and the arsehole turned on me, for no reason I might add, just a hero, anyway, I caught the baton in my left hand and ripped it, leather strap and all off his wrist and beat him into submission with it {read hospital} I have still have the baton, and its not the first time i,ve intervened in a violent public situation, if i saw someone trying to kill anyone in public with a hammer or anything but a gun {maybe a knife depending on what i could get my hands on at the time} I would intervene if I could, not so with a gun, capable of killing indiscriminately at range....

Cal, i've said it many times before mate, we have a totally different mentality here than in the USA, we are well known world wide for our laid back demeanor, although that is changing with certain immigrant groups getting larger, and thats not a racist remark, we are accepting refugees from Sudan and the middle east, places where there is no respect whatsoever for human life, I see this having a dramatic effect on our way of life in the future and it already is, even though our gun stats are relatively low, the Muslim community in Western Sydney is responsible for a LARGE proportion of it.... It makes me fuming mad....

[ken65]

+1 , my thoughts exactly RR.  they are just to different to us some of them..

[kmb69]

...
On August 5, 2012, Wade Michael Page fatally shot six people and wounded four others at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.  Obviously not a "lefty as you and others seem to imply...actually more of an "extreme right winger" to borrow your phrase.
...

Pardon my choice of words. I am not a professional author and was definitely expressing my opinion. That guy fits in the "obvious nutcase" bucket for sure but could also be described as "extreme right winger" I suppose. That wasn't the "extreme right winger" I was picturing. It seems to me, that most leftys picture anybody right of Nancy Pelosi as "extreme right".

...
As I asked before where is your information that somehow allows you to know the political persuasion of these mass shooters and what particular demographic are you referring to...the fact that 70% of the mass shootings in this country are carried out by middle or upper middle class white males?
...

I do watch the news and have observed the liberal medias' initial reaction to most of these mass murders is to try to tie them to the "right" or the "tea party" only to discover upon further investigation, they don't fall under that "vast right wing conspiracy" category, but rather one of the buckets I described. Mostly they fall in the broken family and obvious nut cases that families, broken or not, refuse to do anything about until it is too late. I believe the big government welfare state has contributed to this as much as anything.

...
You seem to get very touchy when some one questions stuff that you pull out of your ass and present as fact just because you want it to fit into your little ideological box.
...

Not touchy at all and "extremely" comfortable stating my opinions. Yep, pulled it right out of my ass. You would probably be surprised at the size of my little ideological box. Pretty damn liberal on some issues and pretty damn conservative on others. Probably best described as a liberatarian though not affilliated with any party. Have no problem calling out the left or right as I see it. The right and the left tell as many lies and promise as many handouts as it takes to get their crooked arses elected. Get the f@#king government out of my life. It is the biggest corporate bureaucracy that totally mismanages nearly everything they touch as most recently demonstrated by the VA disaster. Killing our Veterans for bonuses. I am not a Vet but damn sure appreciate their sacrifices even though many resulted from senseless wars. I believe they deserve much better than to be murdered by their own government. Pitiful example but relevant.

...
As far as your other crack:
Get a grip man, take control of your life. Try accepting some personal responsibility.

All I can say is my wife and I have both been self-employed for the majority of our working careers....we have created our own economic opportunities and funded our own retirement and will be taking advantage of that soon, well before age 65.  We are living the American Dream...how's that for taking control of your life and taking personal  responsibility.

Congratulations! Me too. Kind of surprising based on your slogan and apparent liberal bent. Most independent business people I know tend to be more center or conservative and not as virulent about defending as liberal of ideology as your writings would indicate.

Again, Congratulations!

To others, please excuse some of my off-topic mantra.

[Terry in Australia]

Can we stop piling on the "rednecks"? I'm a redneck and some of my best friends are too. But they're (I won't include myself out of humility) are the nicest blokes youll ever meet. Do anything for you at the drop of a hat, regardless of who you are, how you vote, or what color you are.

Ha ha, I notice you didn't take umbrage to my "left wing Obama loving pinko democrat" comment mate?

I do apologise though, I have a redneck mate in SweetHome, OR, who apart from being a "Born Again Christian" (about as painful as an "Ex Smoker" when he starts up waffling his "Americanised" version of christianity) is a top bloke, and we've been trading bike parts and pics for 15 years now.

I could be confusing Rednecks with their sympathies with the KKK and other extreme right wing groups, my limited knowledge of the US' caste system led me to believe that the two were related, but if that's not the case, I stand corrected.

From now on I'll just take the piss out of "left wing Obama loving pinko democrats", I don't think we've got too many here, or if we do, they haven't taken exception to my comments............. yet.

[Terry in Australia]

I think maybe it's "Silver Horn" time.

https://screen.yahoo.com/the-onion/obama-blow-silver-horn-founding-182002850.html

[grcamna2]

Terry,
That Yahoo/Onion thing is a first for me

[calj737]

Terry, I was predominantly having a piss all in good fun. I've not taken any offense at anything, except in a prior thread where I was called a racist.

Point of fact though, during the late 50s and 60s, the greatest opponents to civil rights in the south were the elected Dems, not the Right Wingers. Somehow, our revisionist history has erased that fact and replaced it with a more palatable tale.

I think you, or anyone from abroad has clearance to label us political nut jobs how you see fit. Whether you're right or not, that's only in the eye of the accused ;-)

[FuZZie]

Lets go out on a limb here, what if any type of Massacre was treated as terrorism?
Could redefining the act, how it's labeled and treated make a difference? 

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Purely for discussion! I'm just tossing the idea out still on some level I kind of feel it applies.
As an example:
Someone enters a school and starts shotting kids is that is a act of terror? What if you take the view of the parents and the effected community?

@RR glad you could help someone, world needs people who aren't afraid to get involved.   

[calj737]

By propagating the use of the word, you diminish it's seriousness. Too much political correctness in my book. What would the benefit of describing it as terrorism be? To aide or allow law enforcement to take different punitive measures? To allow different punishment?

It's an interesting notion, but it does not take hold with me for these reasons.


The ONLY saving grace about these public mass shootings is that the villain, in many cases, is dead before it's over. One less to worry about later. Something not true in Santa Barbara. The whack who perpetrated nearly the same atrocity a dozen years ago, is now free from the Mental Hospital with no criminal record, no obligation to notify employers, landlords or the neighbors (as a sex offender must) about his background. Really? I can't say this makes me comfy at all....

[demon78]

Why not call them what they are "#$%*s"?
Bill the demon.

[kmb69]

Terry,
You da man! I had no idea! 

Unfortunately, all of the administrations over the last several decades have exhausted their hot air blowing the old "bait and switch tune". 

And...it's highly unlikely that any of them would ever subscribe to tooting a miniscule volume of "common sense" even if it hit them in face.

Good example of how our brilliant crooks um... politicians can muck things up:
US Constitution year 1787 - 4 pages
US Tax Code year 2013 - 73,954 pages

[simon#42]

mind you a bit more thought with those 4 pages and we wouldn't have a gun massacre thread

[demon78]

Do you guys in the south have a radio tv regulator? I don't remember, because if you do perhaps it they could "out" media outlets that use violent crime to titillate the viewership you know once a year broadcast names of the stations, networks, and senior staff and maybe then there would be less hero status attached to mass murders and I'm not saying pass a law more in the nature of a contest.
Bill the demon.

[Bob Wessner]

Do you guys in the south have a radio tv regulator? I don't remember, because if you do perhaps it they could "out" media outlets that use violent crime to titillate the viewership you know once a year broadcast names of the stations, networks, and senior staff and maybe then there would be less hero status attached to mass murders and I'm not saying pass a law more in the nature of a contest.
Bill the demon.

Yup, it's the FCC. Unfortuately if the did that, they'd just be listing virtually every station. They all practice yellow journalism to one degree or another. 

[BeSeeingYou]

Point of fact though, during the late 50s and 60s, the greatest opponents to civil rights in the south were the elected Dems, not the Right Wingers. Somehow, our revisionist history has erased that fact and replaced it with a more palatable tale.

The problem with this is that in the 1930-60's the southern Democrats where conservatives.  They were right wingers at least on that issue and others.  I would say your version is the revisionist history...or at least inaccurate. The southern Dems left the Party and joined the Republicans after the push for desegregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Just as in the 1860's and a few decades after the Republicans were the liberal progressive party and the Democrats the Conservatives.  The Party of Lincoln....now he would have been run out of the Republican Party.  If you want to go back through the arc of time it's probably more accurate to use  labels like  Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc as you can see Party ideology can change over the passage of time.

[kmb69]

mind you a bit more thought with those 4 pages and we wouldn't have a gun massacre thread

Actually, those 4 pages were not the issue. It was the 2nd Ammendment guaranteeing the gun rights.

[kmb69]

The problem with this is that in the 1930-60's the southern Democrats where conservatives.  They were right wingers at least on that issue and others.  I would say your version is the revisionist history...or at least inaccurate. The southern Dems left the Party and joined the Republicans after the push for desegregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Just as in the 1860's and a few decades after the Republicans were the liberal progressive party and the Democrats the Conservatives.  The Party of Lincoln....now he would have been run out of the Republican Party.  If you want to go back through the arc of time it's probably more accurate to use  labels like  Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc as you can see Party ideology can change over the passage of time.

srust, you real sure about that? Just a couple:
Al Gore Sr., Democrat, US Representative 1939-1944, 1945-1953 & Senator 1952-1970 was a racist bigot who voted against the Civil Rights Bill and supported the KKK. Died: December 5, 1998
Robert C Byrd, Democrat, US Representative 1953-1959 & Senator 1959-2010, filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Grand Dragon of KKK. Died: June 28, 2010

[simon#42]

mind you a bit more thought with those 4 pages and we wouldn't have a gun massacre thread

Actually, those 4 pages were not the issue. It was the 2nd Ammendment guaranteeing the gun rights.

sorry for my ignorance kmb69 , so the gun rights where not in the original constitution but were added latter ?

[MCRider]

mind you a bit more thought with those 4 pages and we wouldn't have a gun massacre thread

Actually, those 4 pages were not the issue. It was the 2nd Ammendment guaranteeing the gun rights.

sorry for my ignorance kmb69 , so the gun rights where not in the original constitution but were added latter ?

Right. The first 10 Amendments were colletively known as the Bill of Rights, and were passed (1791) shortly after the Constitution itself was passed. (1787)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Surely you've heard our gun rights referred to as the "Second Amendment"?

[simon#42]

no to be honest i hadnt i just assumed it was in the constitution . american history was never taught over here and i never thought to check .
thanks for the reply i am now slightly better educated

[MCRider]

no to be honest i hadnt i just assumed it was in the constitution . american history was never taught over here and i never thought to check .
thanks for the reply i am now slightly better educated

No Prob. Me too actually. I thought the Bill of Rights was passed at the same time as the orig Constitution, but upon looking it up I see the 3 year delay.

[Terry in Australia]

no to be honest i hadnt i just assumed it was in the constitution . american history was never taught over here and i never thought to check .
thanks for the reply i am now slightly better educated

I can understand why early American History wasn't a popular subject in the British school curriculum Simon, I think Britain was pretty much over America after they got all antsy about the tax system and threw away all that perfectly good tea, and before you knew it, Britain was looking for somewhere else to dump their ne'er do well's..............