Slog Comments
Shooting Reported at Connecticut Elementary School
2
@1 Ditto that. If everyone whipped out their pieces and started firing, none of this would ever have happened.
3
Can't wait for Fifty-Two-Eighty to chime in with his normal asinine comment. Can we have the knives, plumbing wrenches and bricks analogy again, 5280? That was a doozy.
4
may the victims take comfort in the knowledge that their wounds are a small price to pay for the security our well-regulated militia provides.
6
We are seriously the stupidest society in the world. Every day a horrific shooting, every day people saying guns aren't the problem. I wish all of the pro-gun assholes in this country would segregate themselves to one state in the middle of the country and just go on a big fat shooting spree of each other.
7
I think that the first five comments conclusively prove that there is nothing to be gained from even posting comments on stories like this anymore.
Everyone knows what everyone is going to say, and we are just going through the motions. The arguments are already made, the counter arguments already known.
Like a bad rerun.
Everyone knows what everyone is going to say, and we are just going through the motions. The arguments are already made, the counter arguments already known.
Like a bad rerun.
8
This so very tragic. Equally depressing news of the primary school attack in China (http://www.smh.com.au/world/22-children-…). For what it is worth, it was not a gun that was used in China.
9
I'm sorry Goldy, this story is clearly impossible. There are laws in place that make it illegal to do stuff like this, and someone who is willing to shoot up a school would follow those, really.
You're not even allowed to legally carry onto school grounds in many (most?) states, and such reckless firing is most definitely illegal. Clearly making the weapon used illegal will make it tripleplus illegal, and it will never happen again!
#3: From yesterday's thread, you're right, nobody ever gets hurt with a knife, especially not large groups of people. Oh, wait, that's a lie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/…
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc…
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/…
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/china…
etc...
You're not even allowed to legally carry onto school grounds in many (most?) states, and such reckless firing is most definitely illegal. Clearly making the weapon used illegal will make it tripleplus illegal, and it will never happen again!
#3: From yesterday's thread, you're right, nobody ever gets hurt with a knife, especially not large groups of people. Oh, wait, that's a lie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/…
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc…
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/…
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/china…
etc...
10
Only knife massacre I can think of took place in Japan in the early 90s, also at a school. In the 20 years since, we've had more gun massacres than I can even count.
I'm tired of insulting gun owners and their ridiculously stupid and misguided beliefs about, well, pretty much everything. Instead I'm gonna go donate some money to Stop Handgun Violence and maybe the SPLC as well, for giggles if nothing else.
https://secure.splcenter.org/donations/d…
http://www.stophandgunviolence.org/
I'm tired of insulting gun owners and their ridiculously stupid and misguided beliefs about, well, pretty much everything. Instead I'm gonna go donate some money to Stop Handgun Violence and maybe the SPLC as well, for giggles if nothing else.
https://secure.splcenter.org/donations/d…
http://www.stophandgunviolence.org/
11
This is not the time to talk about gun culture or laws. It is not appropriate. Think of the children!
12
@9 so what you're saying is, people don't need to have guns in order to defend themselves. They could just use knives.
14
@7 - And yet, we just keep watching this same rerun happen over and over and over. Because the NRA and the gun nuts that idolize them have NO room for ANY compromise. Zero. That's what it's really about. Wake up, man. I'm happy that The Stranger keeps this issue in the forefront. I won't pretend it doesn't happen over and over and over. Just like a bad rerun.
16
@10
One knife massacre in China this year, one in Belgium 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/784681…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia…
Knives are totally deadly. You can kill just as may people with a knife as a gun. Or a brick. Banning guns will have no effect at all, so why not go ahead and do it? Just as a sop to liberals. The NRA won't even notice. They'll just switch to knives and be just as badass.
The Second Amendment was put in place to protect liberty from government. But as has been pointed out many times, liberty is just as secure when defended by bricks and pipes and knives as by guns. Guns are redundant. Just get rid of them and let's move on to some other problem.
One knife massacre in China this year, one in Belgium 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/784681…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia…
Knives are totally deadly. You can kill just as may people with a knife as a gun. Or a brick. Banning guns will have no effect at all, so why not go ahead and do it? Just as a sop to liberals. The NRA won't even notice. They'll just switch to knives and be just as badass.
The Second Amendment was put in place to protect liberty from government. But as has been pointed out many times, liberty is just as secure when defended by bricks and pipes and knives as by guns. Guns are redundant. Just get rid of them and let's move on to some other problem.
17
@15
I think I solved our fiscal problem! Give the Army bricks. They're just as good as guns.
The trillions we've spent giving "weapons" to the military all these years is the greatest boondoggle in history.
I think I solved our fiscal problem! Give the Army bricks. They're just as good as guns.
The trillions we've spent giving "weapons" to the military all these years is the greatest boondoggle in history.
18
How much do you think the media plays in this? Another horror played out on the 5'o clock news. It is seriously fucked when someone is hell bent, have to go down in a blaze of glory, and take everyone with him. The macho worship of gun ownership is part of the cause. The desire and expectation of infamy has just as much do do with these mass shootings. One could contaminate a hole neighborhoods drinking supply to maim and kill just as effectively- but no one would see your glorious rage
19
@8 Every country has it's psychos. However, weak gun laws tends to make for better armed psychos.
21
Ok fuck it, I'm on board. If this is the price we pay for the right to own guns in our society, we no longer deserve the right to own guns in our society.
22
@14: I am not suggesting people stop reporting these stories or stop pushing for sensible gun legislation, simply stating that these Slog comment threads are always exactly the same, and I think the first five comments did an amazing job of proving it.
All the arguments where essentially outlined with the same cast and the counter arguments are already known and expected. In this way it is quite a microcosm of the debate in general though.
Merely an observation.
All the arguments where essentially outlined with the same cast and the counter arguments are already known and expected. In this way it is quite a microcosm of the debate in general though.
Merely an observation.
23
Second amendment be damned. Any society that empowers crazy people to shoot up an elementary school is diseased. Arguing for "gun rights" in this context is a sign of pathology.
24
@18 Also poisoning drinking water or building a fertilizer bomb requires effort and intelligence. The gun is the weapon of choice of the low IQ ADD mass murderer.
27
@24
So why don't you suggest a specific law that would have prevented this specific shooting?
Why isn't anyone here doing that?
We've seen enough of these articles by now that anyone for "gun control" should have some idea of what law(s) they would like passed.
So why don't you suggest a specific law that would have prevented this specific shooting?
Why isn't anyone here doing that?
We've seen enough of these articles by now that anyone for "gun control" should have some idea of what law(s) they would like passed.
28
@27 I don't believe the American political system is capable of producing an effective remedy to our gun violence problem. People like 5280 are against stricter gun laws and people like you oppose the aggressive police tactics that make such laws effective. If we had a nation wide assault weapons ban combined w/ strict licensing and registration requirements for handguns and an NYC style stop and frisk program in every city then we'ed all be a lot safer, but none of that is ever going to happen.
29
@28
"...people like you oppose the aggressive police tactics that make such laws effective."
And since you have not suggested a single, specific law that would have any impact in this specific case that means that you're beating on a straw man again.
Suggest at least one SPECIFIC law that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
But you won't, will you?
Which is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
"...people like you oppose the aggressive police tactics that make such laws effective."
And since you have not suggested a single, specific law that would have any impact in this specific case that means that you're beating on a straw man again.
Suggest at least one SPECIFIC law that would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
But you won't, will you?
Which is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
30
@29 Things don't just magically go away because somebody makes a law against them. Laws are only effective to the extent that they are enforced. Strict gun laws w/ little enforcement have been shown to be worse than useless.
31
@30
"Things don't just magically go away because somebody makes a law against them."
If you want to disagree with the NRA then your first step should be to stop agreeing with them.
What is it that the NRA members keep saying?
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Now, try to suggest a specific law that would have prevented this specific incident.
"Things don't just magically go away because somebody makes a law against them."
If you want to disagree with the NRA then your first step should be to stop agreeing with them.
What is it that the NRA members keep saying?
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Now, try to suggest a specific law that would have prevented this specific incident.
32
I used to support individual gun rights, and I still think there's room for preserving hunting and letting some small number of people carry sidearms, but events have convinced me that we need much stronger regulations.
We need to ban all sales that are not from a federally licensed dealer who can perform a background check. We need to register every one of those sales. We need to license ownership and require training and regular mental health evaluations to retain the license. We need to allow localities to restrict ownership of rifles if they want--rural areas could opt out to allow hunting and target shooting, but big cities could just say no. Handguns should require a higher level of training and mental health checkups.
If I were making law from scratch, I'd say no guns in cities unless you're an active law enforcement official. Guns in the countryside kept in centralized armories near hunting and target shooting areas, where people can join as members to use guns under closely regulated conditions. Totally remove the idea that guns have any purpose in killing people, except in military and as a last resort during police operations. That's too hard to get to from our current culture, but it's what I'd like to see.
We need to ban all sales that are not from a federally licensed dealer who can perform a background check. We need to register every one of those sales. We need to license ownership and require training and regular mental health evaluations to retain the license. We need to allow localities to restrict ownership of rifles if they want--rural areas could opt out to allow hunting and target shooting, but big cities could just say no. Handguns should require a higher level of training and mental health checkups.
If I were making law from scratch, I'd say no guns in cities unless you're an active law enforcement official. Guns in the countryside kept in centralized armories near hunting and target shooting areas, where people can join as members to use guns under closely regulated conditions. Totally remove the idea that guns have any purpose in killing people, except in military and as a last resort during police operations. That's too hard to get to from our current culture, but it's what I'd like to see.
33
@31 Back in @28 I laid out some specific policy changes that I believe would dramatically reduce gun violence. What do you think of my program?
35
@33
No, you really did not.
Let me break down your closest suggestions:
"If we had
a nation wide assault weapons ban
combined w/ strict licensing and registration requirements for handguns
and an NYC style stop and frisk program in every city
then we'ed all be a lot safer,
but none of that is ever going to happen."
Wasn't there already a nation-wide ban on "assault weapons"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
Did it work?
No.
You fail to be specific about "strict" in your handgun suggestion.
And I've already shown you that stop-and-frisk fail in over 99% of the stops and that violent crime in NYC has been in decline for years prior to stop-and-frisk and that there is no evidence that stop-and-frisk does anything to reduce violent crime. Those are statistics.
So unless the shooter was a black or hispanic kid your proposal would do nothing at all.
Which has been the criticism that you've been unable to address every time you bring it up.
No, you really did not.
Let me break down your closest suggestions:
"If we had
a nation wide assault weapons ban
combined w/ strict licensing and registration requirements for handguns
and an NYC style stop and frisk program in every city
then we'ed all be a lot safer,
but none of that is ever going to happen."
Wasn't there already a nation-wide ban on "assault weapons"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
Did it work?
No.
You fail to be specific about "strict" in your handgun suggestion.
And I've already shown you that stop-and-frisk fail in over 99% of the stops and that violent crime in NYC has been in decline for years prior to stop-and-frisk and that there is no evidence that stop-and-frisk does anything to reduce violent crime. Those are statistics.
So unless the shooter was a black or hispanic kid your proposal would do nothing at all.
Which has been the criticism that you've been unable to address every time you bring it up.
36
@35 Woud you concede that stricter gun laws only reduce gun violence to the extent that they are enforced?
37
@36
"Woud you concede that stricter gun laws only reduce gun violence to the extent that they are enforced?"
Is there some reason you cannot post the SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident?
Instead you're supporting the NRA's talking point of outlawing guns and only outlaws having guns.
"Woud you concede that stricter gun laws only reduce gun violence to the extent that they are enforced?"
Is there some reason you cannot post the SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident?
Instead you're supporting the NRA's talking point of outlawing guns and only outlaws having guns.
38
@37 I think a person should try to figure out under what circumstances gun laws will actually reduce gun violence before he or she proposes restrictions on the second amendment rights of others.
BTW Why do you think the murder rate in Chicago is so much higher than the murder rate in New York?
BTW Why do you think the murder rate in Chicago is so much higher than the murder rate in New York?
39
@38
"I think a person should try to figure out under what circumstances gun laws will actually reduce gun violence before he or she proposes restrictions on the second amendment rights of others."
That makes no sense.
You cannot discuss the effects of the laws without specifying what laws you are discussing.
So I'm just going to comment again on how you cannot post the SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
"I think a person should try to figure out under what circumstances gun laws will actually reduce gun violence before he or she proposes restrictions on the second amendment rights of others."
That makes no sense.
You cannot discuss the effects of the laws without specifying what laws you are discussing.
So I'm just going to comment again on how you cannot post the SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
40
You want specific laws that would have prevented this: How about the assault rifle ban which was recently over-turned.
Or uniform federal controls of gun ownership, instead of the patchwork of red states where guns can be bought openly and shipped to states with better control, and gun shows where gun control laws are flouted.
Gun control laws like that of Great Britain, where even with the fewer number of residents factored in has 1/5th the murders in the U.S., and 1/10 the number of firearm deaths.
Laws like that:
Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
"Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146
Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)
*The Home office reported murder statistics in the UK for the 12 months to March 2009, but these are 12-month figures).
For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US.
Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so."
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-900…
You'll find hyperlinks to all the above statistics in the link above, -- not that facts ever convinced a gun nut hysterical about losing his phallic symbols.
More...
Or uniform federal controls of gun ownership, instead of the patchwork of red states where guns can be bought openly and shipped to states with better control, and gun shows where gun control laws are flouted.
Gun control laws like that of Great Britain, where even with the fewer number of residents factored in has 1/5th the murders in the U.S., and 1/10 the number of firearm deaths.
Laws like that:
Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
"Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146
Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)
*The Home office reported murder statistics in the UK for the 12 months to March 2009, but these are 12-month figures).
For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US.
Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so."
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-900…
You'll find hyperlinks to all the above statistics in the link above, -- not that facts ever convinced a gun nut hysterical about losing his phallic symbols.
41
@40
"You want specific laws that would have prevented this: How about the assault rifle ban which was recently over-turned."
I'm thinking that I'll have to post this link about half-a-dozen times today.
But I can do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
And it did nothing to stop anything.
The manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic characteristics of their product and were in compliance.
"Or uniform federal controls of gun ownership ..."
What, SPECIFICALLY, would those "controls" be?
Please be specific.
"You want specific laws that would have prevented this: How about the assault rifle ban which was recently over-turned."
I'm thinking that I'll have to post this link about half-a-dozen times today.
But I can do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…
And it did nothing to stop anything.
The manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic characteristics of their product and were in compliance.
"Or uniform federal controls of gun ownership ..."
What, SPECIFICALLY, would those "controls" be?
Please be specific.
42
ritain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times. During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996; each led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use, and tightening of laws. The result has been among the strictest firearms laws in the world.[9] After Hungerford, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[10] After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.)
[edit]Impact of firearm legislation
In 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis [11] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[12]
Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).
Prohibited firearms
The following are generally prohibited :[23][24]
Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, including air guns.
Firearms disguised as another item (e.g. walking sticks, mobile telephones, etc.)
Rockets and mortars.
Air guns chambered for self-contained gas cartridges.
Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends on type
Licensing is strict as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…
But again, gun nuts hysterical over their penis substitutes ignore reality, facts and anything else reality-based that might deprive them of the most effective human killing machines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…
More...
[edit]Impact of firearm legislation
In 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis [11] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[12]
Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).
Prohibited firearms
The following are generally prohibited :[23][24]
Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, including air guns.
Firearms disguised as another item (e.g. walking sticks, mobile telephones, etc.)
Rockets and mortars.
Air guns chambered for self-contained gas cartridges.
Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends on type
Licensing is strict as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…
But again, gun nuts hysterical over their penis substitutes ignore reality, facts and anything else reality-based that might deprive them of the most effective human killing machines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…
43
@42
Yes, you seem to have almost mastered the art of cut-and-paste.
But the question was not "can you demonstrate the art of cut-and-paste".
What SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
Please be specific.
Yes, you seem to have almost mastered the art of cut-and-paste.
But the question was not "can you demonstrate the art of cut-and-paste".
What SPECIFIC law(s) that you believe would have prevented this SPECIFIC incident.
Please be specific.
44
Firearms were made to kill not to save life. Murderers don’t notify their targets by phone call, e-mail or by telegram. Murderers strike their target by surprise. Thus, precludes the target ability for self-defense. Thus, firearms should be banned.
According to ABC news blogs who quoted the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other mean combined http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20…
A CDC breakdown of people that died by firearms shows, Suicide: 18,735, Homicide: 11,493, Unintentional: 554, Legal interventions: 333, Undetermined: 232 deaths, 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2010 and an additional 13,851 non-fatal injuries from BB or pellet guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60….
US Second Amendment was enacted to protect individual’s right to possess firearms, such as self-defense within the home when technology was relatively crude and deliveries of services were slow. Today police use radio, fast cars, aviation not horses. There are more than 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US who are supposedly well trained to carry firearms and are psychologically fit to protect the public. http://www.nlera.org/?page_id=116. Since about 1/4 or more adults in the USA suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, it is irresponsible to allow civilians to use firearms. Firearms should be banned.http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publicati…
More...
According to ABC news blogs who quoted the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other mean combined http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20…
A CDC breakdown of people that died by firearms shows, Suicide: 18,735, Homicide: 11,493, Unintentional: 554, Legal interventions: 333, Undetermined: 232 deaths, 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2010 and an additional 13,851 non-fatal injuries from BB or pellet guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60….
US Second Amendment was enacted to protect individual’s right to possess firearms, such as self-defense within the home when technology was relatively crude and deliveries of services were slow. Today police use radio, fast cars, aviation not horses. There are more than 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US who are supposedly well trained to carry firearms and are psychologically fit to protect the public. http://www.nlera.org/?page_id=116. Since about 1/4 or more adults in the USA suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, it is irresponsible to allow civilians to use firearms. Firearms should be banned.http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publicati…
45
Guns are not the problem. They need to be guided by a person to do damage.
Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.
Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.
Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.
What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?
Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.
Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.
Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.
What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?
Comments (45) RSS