School Shooting in Connecticut

yeah i think the last one in Germany, the little bugger stole a 45 from a shooting sports club, or from his parents who were in such a club, or maybe even he had some training there.

the hobbyist shooters in Germany also naturally defended their right to own "sports tools", but really, if your hobby is based around the use of lethal weapons, you're fucked i say.

German law is along the lines of, you can apply for a license for specific reasons, and then there's kinda strict rules as to how you have to store the guns/ammo separated in your house and such... it is still too lax, as proved by that case. if a little psycho shithead can steal a gun as easily as his dad's wallet, there is something wrong!

Anyway.. Those lists where from Wikipedia. So it's probably not a reliable source.

But if they are true, I'm sure glad that I live in a country with strict gun control laws.

Tom Tomorrow kills it:

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:01 PM, theSun said:

it is impossible to argue that we need guns so that we can prevent government intrusion into our private lives. the purpose of guns in 2012 is such that the 2nd amendment no longer applies in its original context. who is going to oppose the US gov't with firearms? so america must redefine *why* guns are necessary (especially in densely populated areas).

 

the main question that has to be asked is - is the purpose of guns useful enough that it offsets the danger?

It's impossible to argue rationally. It's very possible to argue with a substantial lack of social realities, statistical data, and historical facts. I really can't respect or even acknowledge arguments for very limited government restrictions of guns unless it's coming from someone who is a sincere libertarian or anarchist.

This is the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Militias were re-organized in 1903. They have since been split either into State Defense Forces (small police/military statewide usually used in disaster relief/state of emergency actions) and the National Guard. The National Guard is now just part of the US military reserve force with the specific distention of being able to be deployed by governors if they declare a state of emergency. But they have not been true "militias." In fact, since 1973, the National Guard has been not only federalized, but authorized to deploy in military operations overseas. The 2003 invasion of Iraq actually saw hundreds of thousands of "weekend warriors" ordered to deploy in combat operations in a foreign country. At one point I considered joining the Guard and completely wrote it off because it's really no different than joining active-duty service. Coast Guard is the only entity I could feel comfortable serving in personally in terms of the agencies role and scope.

So basically, unless you're one of the handful of survivalists/self-declared sovereign citizens living out in the rural Western US, any argument that the Federal government is trying to strip weapons away from us is absolutely delusional. Anyone who even hints that because Obama is office or that the Federal government has become "too powerful" in the last decade or so is basically a 100+ years too late to complain sincerely, especially regarding the 2nd amendment. 99% of the time the people who dance around the ideas of armed insurrections, the states versus federal government, secession of states from the U.S., etc are the very same people who go out of the way to express their support for our military, the most Federalized and bureaucratic and literal danger (in terms of force especially) to their individual rights. It's just not as easy nor acceptable to criticize the US armed forces as say, the EPA.

good bit of context there.

there's no place for a well regulated, citizen run, armed militia in 2012 america. the idea that a bunch of NRA nuts can band together and stop the CIA/FBI/NSA/SWAT/ARMY/NAVY/AF in their backyard is just ludicrous.

i personally don't think there should be a ban on all guns in the USA, but i do think that the 2nd amendment needs to be amended to represent a reformed goal and purpose in 2012 and beyond.

edit - i'm not even going to touch the "obama is taking our gunz!" debate because it is simply wrong. he is not trying to take our gunz

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:05 PM, ambermonk said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 7:53 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 7:41 PM, ambermonk said:

Responsible gun owners are level-headed, rational, and aware that there are strict rules of safety to proper handling of a firearm.

lolwut? Um, is this supposed to be reassuring?

Takes one to know one.

Hunh?? We got some wires crossed somewhere...

Anyway my point was, just because some gun owners are rational doesn't mean they all are, or even most of them. And even if it's just 1 out of 100 (or even 1000) that's capable of going on a shooting spree, well, given the huge number of gun owners, it's little to no comfort.

  On 12/17/2012 at 9:10 PM, theSun said:

good bit of context there.

 

there's no place for a well regulated, citizen run, armed militia in 2012 america. the idea that a bunch of NRA nuts can band together and stop the CIA/FBI/NSA/SWAT/ARMY/NAVY/AF in their backyard is just ludicrous.

 

i personally don't think there should be a ban on all guns in the USA, but i do think that the 2nd amendment needs to be amended to represent a reformed goal and purpose in 2012 and beyond.

Switzerland's gun laws and closely-tied militia based defense forces are probably the closest modern system akin the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

I think there should be a cohesive overhaul of gun owership laws in the U.S., even if it nullifies the strict gun laws in certain cities and states. It should be something where consistency trumps "state's rights." That coupled with serious reforms in the treatment of mental health.

  On 12/17/2012 at 9:10 PM, theSun said:

"OBAMA iz tuk'n er gunz!"

fix't

If you're the type of person with plans to execute a mass killing, a ban on guns would not prevent it. Weed is supposedly illegal, right? A murderer is a murderer is a murderer

  On 12/17/2012 at 10:15 PM, RandySicko said:

If you're the type of person with plans to execute a mass killing, a ban on guns would not prevent it. Weed is supposedly illegal, right? A murderer is a murderer is a murderer

Convenience and heat of passion are factors to consider.

As I said before, someone in a fit of rage is not gonna go sit down and diligently build a bomb for four hours.

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:52 PM, The Overlook said:

yep.

oh 'merica :(

  On 12/17/2012 at 11:28 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:52 PM, The Overlook said:

 

sigh.

 

oh 'merica

America is the Texas of planet earth.

this modern world is great, love it. I also think there is an elephant in the room here in regards to mass killings in the US. And before you say 'oh no not this shit again' hear me out. America has killed more people around the world in the name of 'good' than any other country in the last half century besides Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler and Stalin and most young people raised in this environment are taught in school that these killings were done for entirely altruistic reasons ie: 2 nukes in Japan was to 'save lives'. 2 unnecessary wars of aggression were to 'stop the terrorists over there before they come here'. Killing a 16 year old with a drone is because 'he should have had a more responsible father'(robert gibbs). What kind of mindset does this instill children with? Probably not a very good one, and especially since America hasn't really been attacked besides on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor we have no fucking idea what the ravages of war and mass killings actually do to the place we live in (unlike a lot of other westernized and non westernized countries across the globe). There is a huge disconnect happening, and i think it has to have some kind of effect on the way people perceive the consequences of their own violent actions.

  On 12/17/2012 at 11:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

America is the Texas of planet earth.

Fucking lol...so true.

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:56 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 8:01 PM, theSun said:

it is impossible to argue that we need guns so that we can prevent government intrusion into our private lives. the purpose of guns in 2012 is such that the 2nd amendment no longer applies in its original context. who is going to oppose the US gov't with firearms? so america must redefine *why* guns are necessary (especially in densely populated areas).

 

the main question that has to be asked is - is the purpose of guns useful enough that it offsets the danger?

 

It's impossible to argue rationally. It's very possible to argue with a substantial lack of social realities, statistical data, and historical facts. I really can't respect or even acknowledge arguments for very limited government restrictions of guns unless it's coming from someone who is a sincere libertarian or anarchist.

 

This is the second amendment:

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Militias were re-organized in 1903. They have since been split either into State Defense Forces (small police/military statewide usually used in disaster relief/state of emergency actions) and the National Guard. The National Guard is now just part of the US military reserve force with the specific distention of being able to be deployed by governors if they declare a state of emergency. But they have not been true "militias." In fact, since 1973, the National Guard has been not only federalized, but authorized to deploy in military operations overseas. The 2003 invasion of Iraq actually saw hundreds of thousands of "weekend warriors" ordered to deploy in combat operations in a foreign country. At one point I considered joining the Guard and completely wrote it off because it's really no different than joining active-duty service. Coast Guard is the only entity I could feel comfortable serving in personally in terms of the agencies role and scope.

 

So basically, unless you're one of the handful of survivalists/self-declared sovereign citizens living out in the rural Western US, any argument that the Federal government is trying to strip weapons away from us is absolutely delusional. Anyone who even hints that because Obama is office or that the Federal government has become "too powerful" in the last decade or so is basically a 100+ years too late to complain sincerely, especially regarding the 2nd amendment. 99% of the time the people who dance around the ideas of armed insurrections, the states versus federal government, secession of states from the U.S., etc are the very same people who go out of the way to express their support for our military, the most Federalized and bureaucratic and literal danger (in terms of force especially) to their individual rights. It's just not as easy nor acceptable to criticize the US armed forces as say, the EPA.

i agree with all of that.

and yet it means shit to the people that still firmly believe the 2nd amendment means they get to own assault rifles.

you want to confiscate guns, be prepared to use guns to take them back.

its delusional, its sick,its misled, and its ignorant. but its the real situation. and you will have to deal with it one way or another.

how so many otherwise level headed people in this thread cannot reconcile their own personal morality with this cold and ugly fact is beyond me.

  On 12/17/2012 at 11:37 PM, Awepittance said:

this modern world is great, love it. I also think there is an elephant in the room here in regards to mass killings in the US. And before you say 'oh no not this shit again' hear me out. America has killed more people around the world in the name of 'good' than any other country in the last half century besides Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler and Stalin and most young people raised in this environment are taught in school that these killings were done for entirely altruistic reasons ie: 2 nukes in Japan was to 'save lives'. 2 unnecessary wars of aggression were to 'stop the terrorists over there before they come here'. Killing a 16 year old with a drone is because 'he should have had a more responsible father'(robert gibbs). What kind of mindset does this instill children with? Probably not a very good one, and especially since America hasn't really been attacked besides on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor we have no fucking idea what the ravages of war and mass killings actually do to the place we live in (unlike a lot of other westernized and non westernized countries across the globe). There is a huge disconnect happening, and i think it has to have some kind of effect on the way people perceive the consequences of their own violent actions.

i really wish i didn't have to agree with this

  On 12/17/2012 at 11:37 PM, Awepittance said:

Probably not a very good one, and especially since America hasn't really been attacked besides on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor we have no fucking idea what the ravages of war and mass killings actually do to the place we live in (unlike a lot of other westernized and non westernized countries across the globe). There is a huge disconnect happening, and i think it has to have some kind of effect on the way people perceive the consequences of their own violent actions.

So fucking true. The amount of absolute arrogance that sustains America exceptionalism is outright offensive. I'm proud of this country for certain historical accomplishments - but defeating fascism in 1945 doesn't give us a moral free pass to threaten and bully other countries that don't go along with our goals. Maybe it's just something that became a permanent attitude after the 50s (along with a renewed effort to infuse Christianity into American ideals of democracy and freedom), I highly doubt all but a minority of Americans felt that way before WWII and the Cold War.

There's an attitude, often said jokingly but completely expressed with complete seriousness by many, that Europe "should be grateful for us" or that the UK and France "would be speaking German if it wasn't for us," and therefor they as sovereign nations should be expected to follow the US in lock-step with our foreign policy decisions. If anyone who thought this way seriously say down for 10 minutes, read up on what happened to countries devastated and/or defeated during WWII, and reflected on it with even a half-hearted effort, they would realize what selfish, ignorant, and childish belief they held. We don't know what it's like to be invaded and occupied. We had thousands of our own die in combat, true, but not to the extent that we actually lost an entire generation of young men to either death, permanent injury, or mental anguish. We haven't had major cities of hundreds of years of culture and art completely and utterly leveled in war. We haven't experienced the shame and embarrassment of defeat. We haven't had a government build from scratch with foreign supervision and live under a constitution written by another country as Japan does now. We haven't had entire segments of our population captured, enslaved, and exterminated systematically - that wasn't our own governments doing. We relish in the victory of 1945, but rarely discuss that German civilians faced starvation and homelessness for years - as well as widespread abuse and rape if they were unfortunate enough to be occupied by the Soviets. It's such complete detachments from the reality of history that help fuel illogical and irrational ideas entrenched in American society - including perhaps this fantasy of being well-armed individuals when say, the UN or Federal "powers" try usurp our current government. I probably find that to be the most embarrassing aspect of our culture and society.

some of you people completely amaze me. people bitching about how some other people are trying to blame video games, and even though you and I and everyone pretty much know that they will not be able to take away our video games, and that it's pretty much not even a serious suggestion, it doesn't stop you from flipping out about it.

can you really actually declare though, as a matter of 100% fact, that video games or violent movies have not encouraged violence or provoked it or inspired it in even one kid out there? can you say that there is no way at all that one kid might be influenced a little differently by something than you are, even in ways that might seem absurd to you based on your own personal experience? some kids have less of a grasp on reality. i guess it could be pure coincidence that these school shootings have started getting so bad only AFTER fps games hit the scene, and continue to get worse as the games get more realistic. guns were always readily available but you didn't have this kind of stuff happening.

am i calling for video games to be banned or anything? no. but it's pretty ridiculous to me that some of you advocates for gun control are flipping out about it when it isn't even being talked about in the political realm, not anywhere near as much as gun control is. it's funny because it's basically the same thing.

some people use guns to kill people. others use them responsibly and can live their whole lives around them without ever shooting anyone. but some people think that because a few people will use them to kill, they should be taken away.

some people can enjoy violent videogames and never get confused about what's real and what isn't. some kids MAY get a little confused about this stuff, and may be more easily influenced by these vivid fantasies portrayed in graphic detail. some people think they should be banned because a few kids may react negatively.

it's the same idea but for some reason it's coming from mostly opposite sides of the political 'aisle'. and i see that as selfish hypocrisy from both sides.

why don't we just lock everyone up in cages that way we'll all be safe? i guess my point/question is, if it could be scientifically proven that violence in media actually influences/inspires/fucks with some kids, to any degree (and keep in mind, some kids are going to be more sensitive and easily influenced than your average kid), would you people crying for gun control cry for video game control? if not, you're hypocrites. the reason you wouldn't is because YOU like video games. YOU don't like guns, so for YOU, it's ok to take THOSE away.

  On 12/18/2012 at 1:42 AM, joshuatx said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 11:37 PM, Awepittance said:

Probably not a very good one, and especially since America hasn't really been attacked besides on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor we have no fucking idea what the ravages of war and mass killings actually do to the place we live in (unlike a lot of other westernized and non westernized countries across the globe). There is a huge disconnect happening, and i think it has to have some kind of effect on the way people perceive the consequences of their own violent actions.

 

So fucking true. The amount of absolute arrogance that sustains America exceptionalism is outright offensive. I'm proud of this country for certain historical accomplishments - but defeating fascism in 1945 doesn't give us a moral free pass to threaten and bully other countries that don't go along with our goals. Maybe it's just something that became a permanent attitude after the 50s (along with a renewed effort to infuse Christianity into American ideals of democracy and freedom), I highly doubt all but a minority of Americans felt that way before WWII and the Cold War.

 

There's an attitude, often said jokingly but completely expressed with complete seriousness by many, that Europe "should be grateful for us" or that the UK and France "would be speaking German if it wasn't for us," and therefor they as sovereign nations should be expected to follow the US in lock-step with our foreign policy decisions. If anyone who thought this way seriously say down for 10 minutes, read up on what happened to countries devastated and/or defeated during WWII, and reflected on it with even a half-hearted effort, they would realize what selfish, ignorant, and childish belief they held. We don't know what it's like to be invaded and occupied. We had thousands of our own die in combat, true, but not to the extent that we actually lost an entire generation of young men to either death, permanent injury, or mental anguish. We haven't had major cities of hundreds of years of culture and art completely and utterly leveled in war. We haven't experienced the shame and embarrassment of defeat. We haven't had a government build from scratch with foreign supervision and live under a constitution written by another country as Japan does now. We haven't had entire segments of our population captured, enslaved, and exterminated systematically - that wasn't our own governments doing. We relish in the victory of 1945, but rarely discuss that German civilians faced starvation, homelessness, and widespread abuse and rape if they were unfortunate enough to be occupied by the Soviets. It's such complete detachments from the reality of history that help fuel illogical and irrational ideas entrenched in American society. I probably find that to be the most embarrassing aspect of our culture and society.

very well said, and it could be argued pretty effectively that regardless of our involvement in the German fronts of WWII or not, Russia would have defeated them anyways (they fought Germany on 100 fronts vs our 10 fronts). Granted without our involvement

it's hard to say who would have been able to pick up the slack with Japan, but the US did not defeat nazisim in my strong opinion.

And even if it did everything you said still stands 100%

  On 12/18/2012 at 1:43 AM, MisterE said:

it's the same idea but for some reason it's coming from mostly opposite sides of the political 'aisle'. and i see that as selfish hypocrisy from both sides.

Yes but no matter what video games can not be used to kill people. Not only that but if guns are harder to get then the acts of violence allegedly caused from video games would decrease anyways

i love how half these posts are devolving into a 'i love this country but here's a list of things about it that are so fucking awful, and why i hate it'

joshuatx's last post almost comes off like he's criticizing america just for never having been invaded. i get that he's really talking about how that fact has supposedly made us into these huge assholes, but the post just goes on talking about being invaded as if the fact that US hasn't ever been invaded is something we should be ashamed of. or like we owe the world something because of it. seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?

the only thing that would make you guys happy would be if america became europe part 2. how did you get brainwashed into thinking that that's what we as a country need to be? it blows my mind. europe is on the verge of crisis/crises all around, so clearly their policies just kick total ass huh. and as for the moral side of things-

one of you guys with this attitude, tell me a country that has no blood on their hands historically and i'll tell you why you're an idiot and then i'll list a bunch of fucked up shit in that country's past. wow so college professors are still filling kids' heads with that shit about america being the source of all the worlds evil huh? not surprised.

Oh dear...

  On 12/18/2012 at 2:05 AM, The Overlook said:

Oh dear...

MisterE

  On 12/18/2012 at 1:47 AM, sergeantk said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 1:43 AM, MisterE said:

it's the same idea but for some reason it's coming from mostly opposite sides of the political 'aisle'. and i see that as selfish hypocrisy from both sides.

Yes but no matter what video games can not be used to kill people. Not only that but if guns are harder to get then the acts of violence allegedly caused from video games would decrease anyways

video games themselves cannot kill anyone, no, but if it could be proven that games actually could influence kids and give them these ideas in the first place, well that would be more of a 'source' of the problem, wouldn't it? so the gun violence would then really be a symptom of a deeper issue, wouldn't it?

you take the guns away and then what? maybe they'd just run over some kids with their car, or stab their parents in their sleep, instead of shooting 20+ people in one go. do people forget that these kinds of rampage murders aren't the ONLY violent happenings that take place? they are just the ones with the biggest victim toll so they get national attention. hypothetically, if media could be shown to influence kids and push them closer towards voilence, rampage killings wouldn't be the only things it could possibly lead to. they're more extreme examples but they count for a tiny ass % of the overall murders/violent crimes. average the murders per year in this country down and you get somewhere around 40 a day, and that's just murder.

so again, we have the *possibility* that *maybe* video games/movies contribute to some of the people out there flipping out, losing their grip on reality, and doing some crazy shit, but you people advocating gun control aren't even interested in that, not one bit. i mean, it's completely absurd that things like 5hrs of TV/movies/video games a day might influence the psychology of a kid with a malleable, squishy little brain in their head, or that psychological issues might lead to this crazy shit that's going on, right? but hey, i like video games, so let's not even talk about THAT.

  On 12/18/2012 at 2:01 AM, MisterE said:

i love how half these posts are devolving into a 'i love this country but here's a list of things about it that are so fucking awful, and why i hate it'

 

joshuatx's last post almost comes off like he's criticizing america just for never having been invaded. i get that he's really talking about how that fact has supposedly made us into these huge assholes, but the post just goes on talking about being invaded as if the fact that US hasn't ever been invaded is something we should be ashamed of. or like we owe the world something because of it. seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?

 

the only thing that would make you guys happy would be if america became europe part 2. how did you get brainwashed into thinking that that's what we as a country need to be? it blows my mind. europe is on the verge of crisis/crises all around, so clearly their policies just kick total ass huh. and as for the moral side of things-

one of you guys with this attitude, tell me a country that has no blood on their hands historically and i'll tell you why you're an idiot and then i'll list a bunch of fucked up shit in that country's past. wow so college professors are still filling kids' heads with that shit about america being the source of all the worlds evil huh? not surprised.

lol, this coming from the guy who didn't realize China has become one of the most capitalist nations on earth.

The interesting thing to me is that there seem to be two kinds of people: those for whom a world without guns sounds heavenly; and those for whom it sounds terrifying. I'm firmly with the former group, and find the latter group hard to understand.