Connecticut School Shooting (1 Viewer)

[Denny Crane]

First of all, phenomenon.
Second, no shit. But guess what? It's much more common in the US than in any comparable developed nation. And guess also what? Mass shootings are actually steady at about 150 deaths a year in the US. That would be an astronomical tragedy were it not for the fact that deaths by gun homicide TOTAL (per year) in the US are nearly 12,000. Another fun fact: the % of homicides that involve firearms is, at 60%, far higher than in any other comparable developed nation. So your table is a pretty massive red herring.

Which brings us full circle. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch.

You would trample on the rights of 80,000,000 people because of 150 deaths.

You absolutely fail the compelling state interest test. Those 80,000,000 people have a right to be free of government law, per the definition below.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/

"Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough."

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Wow, those people who used the Shoe bomber as a platform for increased airport security truly were assholes.
Those people who used the deaths of people in Pearl Harbor as a platform for attacking Japan? Assholes!
Those people who used the deaths of people from tainted aspirin to get stricter laws on drug safety? Fucking rights-stealing assholes!
Why won't they realize that tragedies are not to be calls to action to prevent further tragedies, they're just tragedies that must be allowed to recur!

Nice way of taking my words out.of context. Im not.the one proposing we use it as a platform for the grieving parents after this tragedy happening.

But keep on fighting for the greater good brother.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's not something we want to face, but there is little you can do to prevent the actions of a madman. This act was pure evil, plainly and simply.

Actually, if he really was mad, it wasn't evil. Make up your mind.

Of course, you want to keep children safe, but you can't cocoon them forever. We can't lock them down and make them live under lock and key. There are 300MM+ people in this country, and some of them will be sociopaths.

Imagine if none of them had guns. Now imagine this guy going to the school without a gun. How many kids do you seriously think he could have killed?

We all have to live with a certain amount of risk, be it crossing the street, driving a car, flying in a plane, etc.

You don't say! So obviously, allowing everybody to own their own anthrax would do nothing to increase that risk, so it should be legal. What's that you say? It shouldn't? Because it increases the risk needlessly (despite the fact that they could get it illegally if they really tried)? Well maaaaaaaaybe that applies to guns, too!

I have never owned a gun. I have never even touched a handgun. My life is surprisingly not empty and barren. The government hasn't exploited my vulnerability to come and take all my stuff. My house has never been broken into. And for twelve years I've lived in Flint, Michigan. If I can do it, I think you crazy gun nuts can too.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Nice way of taking my words out.of context. Im not.the one proposing we use it as a platform for the grieving parents after this tragedy happening.

But you are the one who's happy with doing nothing to prevent it happening again.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

But you are the one who's happy with doing nothing to prevent it happening again.

Yes because you know exactly how i.feel about gun control. Thanks for assuming you know my stance.

 

[Denny Crane]

How many people would he have killed? A LOT more. See Oklahoma City bombing.

 

[julius]

I wasn't equating the two. Rather, I was address an argument now that getting into a public school should be like going through airport security. The same with a mall. It's preposterous to think we can protect everyone all the time. Life has risk. It sounds callous, but it's simple math.

we can't protect everyone all the time, but if you knew there was a way to protect your own child from being harmed, wouldn't you want to use it?

 

[julius]

Which brings us full circle. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch.

You would trample on the rights of 80,000,000 people because of 150 deaths.

You absolutely fail the compelling state interest test. Those 80,000,000 people have a right to be free of government law, per the definition below.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/

"Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough."

trample?

Im not sure thats trampling on rights.

plus, where were all these people clamoring for rights when Habeas Corpus was suspended?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Which brings us full circle. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch.

What are you wittering about?

You would trample on the rights of 80,000,000 people because of 150 deaths.

I would gladly "trample on the rights" of 80 BILLION people to own guns if it prevented even one death.
I believe "rights" should be reserved for things that actually make people's lives better like, y'know, life, free speech, decent healthcare. The emancipation proclamation "trampled" on the "rights" of white people to own slaves. Bad thing?

You absolutely fail the compelling state interest test. Those 80,000,000 people have a right to be free of government law, per the definition below.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/

You're a libertarian. I get that. We all go through that phase. Please keep saving up to set up your utopian moon colony. I happen to be glad there are things like public schools and roads.

 

[julius]

How many people would he have killed? A LOT more. See Oklahoma City bombing.

didn't they make it harder for people to purchase the stuff McVeigh used to create that bomb?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Yes because you know exactly how i.feel about gun control. Thanks for assuming you know my stance.

I asked for a gun rights defender. You spoke up.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

How many people would he have killed? A LOT more. See Oklahoma City bombing.

Because a depressed kid out to kill his mother = a white supremacist intent on destroying the government. Is your argument that if we take away their guns they'll make bombs? Makes you wonder where all the Oklahoma City bombers are hiding in gun-control-crazy Europe.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I asked for a gun rights defender. You spoke up.

And suggesting anyone go to the parents hours after this tragedy happens and say such things is ridiculous. gun advocate or not its disgusting to even suggest it..

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Personally guns scare the shit out of me; but I think it's important that people in this country (the responsible ones) can have guns.

1. Why is it important?
2. What if we decide that you're only responsible if you don't want a gun?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

And suggesting anyone go to the parents hours after this tragedy happens and say such things is ridiculous. gun advocate or not its disgusting to even suggest it..

Look, you would indeed have to be a colossal asshole to actually do it. But this whole "don't politicize a tragedy by using it to call for gun control" thing is total bullshit (which was the point of my analogies above). Every other tragedy is a call to do something to prevent further similar events. If you don't believe that gun control WILL do anything, fine, you're wrong, but fine. But to say that you can't even discuss the issue has become a reliable gun-fan talking point. It allows you to become all self-righteous ("show some respect!") while achieving the agenda of maintaining the status quo.

Of course nobody should be talking to the parents about this stuff, that would be monstrous. I can't imagine what they must feel like. That said, if any of the parents later come out for gun control, watch the "respect" on the right disappear, just as it did for the 9/11 widows.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Rasta, can you please expound on your "I would gladly trample (everyone in the world's) rights to prevent one single death" post? I mean, I'm having a seriously hard time understanding what you're saying, and I don't want to extrapolate out (to what I think is the logical conclusion) without understanding more of what you meant.

 

[RR7]

Rasta, can you please expound on your "I would gladly trample (everyone in the world's) rights to prevent one single death" post? I mean, I'm having a seriously hard time understanding what you're saying, and I don't want to extrapolate out (to what I think is the logical conclusion) without understanding more of what you meant.

Probably a simple if a gun ban prevents even one death, then he's for it?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Hey, Denny - here's what the real Denny Crane thinks!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Probably a simple if a gun ban prevents even one death, then he's for it?

No, it couldn't be that obvious, could it?

 

[Denny Crane]

Banning cars prevents 35,000 deaths.

I'm trying to find some logic in your argument.

 

[julius]

Banning cars prevents 35,000 deaths.

I'm trying to find some logic in your argument.

cars aren't designed and produced for the sole purpose of killing something.

If I drive my car on the road with other cars or people around, chances are I don't kill anyone.

If I shoot my gun on the road, with other cars or people around, chances are I'll accomplish what the purpose of the gun was intended for.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

didn't they make it harder for people to purchase the stuff McVeigh used to create that bomb?

tons of high.school.kids make bombs nowadays

Obviously not as big, but still.

 

[Denny Crane]

tons of high.school.kids make bombs nowadays

Molotov cocktail.

 

[julius]

tons of high.school.kids make bombs nowadays

Obviously not as big, but still.

you spelled bong wrong.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

you spelled bong wrong.

Well those too.

 

[BrianFromWA]

OK. Rasta, since you live in Flint, where there's a 1-in-42 chance that you're going to be a victim of a violent crime, I'm going to impose a complete gun ban, because as you said, trampling rights is ok if it saves one life. I'm also going to impose a 6pm curfew, b/c a vast majority of these crimes takes place at night. If making everyone stay inside after dark saves at least one life, I don't care how many people's rights are trampled. And since it seems that we can't trust average citizens, then we're going to quarter a couple of soldiers in everyone's house. Yeah, your rights are being trampled, but having someone trained with weapon use in every home will probably save at least one innocent life. And cameras will be installed in every home, so we can see if you're planning to do bad things. If it saves one life, I don't care if your privacy rights are trampled. Since a majority of people convicted of mass murder have pled insanity, I'm also going to indefinitely imprison everyone who has a diagnosed mental problem. If it saves one life, then I don't care whose rights are trampled.

 

[PapaG]

Probably a simple if a gun ban prevents even one death, then he's for it?

I say we ban video games, because guns have been around a lot longer than video games.

 

[Denny Crane]

cars aren't designed and produced for the sole purpose of killing something.

If I drive my car on the road with other cars or people around, chances are I don't kill anyone.

If I shoot my gun on the road, with other cars or people around, chances are I'll accomplish what the purpose of the gun was intended for.

There are 300,000,000+ guns in the USA. Why aren't there 300,000,000 shootings, crimes, etc? Seems there are other purposes.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Wow - not sure what to think of this:

Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.

(By "Oz" he means Australia, not over the rainbow. Here's what he's talking about:

Between 1981 - 1996 Australia suffered 13 mass murders. In the 16 years since gun law reforms: Zero. None. 0

Hmm. If only Rupert Murdoch was in charge of a huge multinational media empire that had some shred of influence on exactly the politicians who always work to undermine gun control laws...

 

[PapaG]

Wow - not sure what to think of this:



(By "Oz" he means Australia, not over the rainbow. Here's what he's talking about:



Hmm. If only Rupert Murdoch was in charge of a huge multinational media empire that had some shred of influence on exactly the politicians who always work to undermine gun control laws...

Automatic =/ semi-automatic. What is more scary is how ignorant Murdoch seems to be of the weapons used today and in Clackamas.

Guns are still allowed in Australia, just not automatic weapons and some semi-automatic rifles. That said, their "massacre rate" was tiny to begin with, which points more toward a sociological problem, it could appear.