This is a double page from some South Carolina newspaper today. It features a well placed Christmas sale advertisement.
What is Christmas about if not marketing, buying and giving automated rifles?
Back to Main
December 15, 2012
Christmas Gun Sale
Comments
“Guns ain’t the problem. Wackjobs are.”
From what I can see, given the known side-effects, especially in relation to the young, there seems to be a determined effort on the part of some prescribing psychiatrists to actually create WhackJobs – whether it is purely for profit, convenience or other more nefarious reason(s) is impossible to say with any certainty (though I’m sure one or two here will immediately claim ‘for Profit’)
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 0:01 utc | 101
@POA
Fine by me.
If being a Rocket Scientist means consistently always opting for the unthinking unquestioning knee-jerk reactionary position, I’ll happily be labelled a dunce then.
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 0:03 utc | 102
Time for a recap. Let’s see what we’ve got. Troubled young man who may have been on Prozac or something similar hates his mother, hates himself and everybody else. Gets mother’s guns out and kills 24 innocent kids. And nobody knows what to do about it. Jingle bells….
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 0:07 utc | 103
“Second, the US has both vast rural and vast urban areas which would be impossible to pacify sort of nuking them”
Well, you really aren’t thinking it through. Try using your AK against a germ. If our government needs to suppress a widescale citizen’s revolt, they have the means to do so without firing a single shot. The days of the “armed militia” successfully winning against a government gone bad are over. More likely, the citizenry, through panic and need, will turn their arms against each other while the government simply bunkers up and waits it out.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:08 utc | 104
“From what I can see, given the known side-effects, especially in relation to the young, there seems to be a determined effort on the part of some prescribing psychiatrists to actually create WhackJobs”
And it ain’t just pharma. Thats also Rush Limbaugh’s mission in life, creating wackjobs. Beck is pretty good at it as well. And I’ll leave the Pope outta this…..
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:15 utc | 105
“The only reason people are bloviating about “gun control” today is because a lot of people want to declare themselves “morally superior” to everyone else.”
Bingo! – that’s exactly how they all appear to me.
Nothing more dangerous than “morally Superior” progressives on a “noble” witch-hunt, fuelled by their own feelings of pure self-righteousness
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 0:18 utc | 106
Richard Steven Hack | Dec 16, 2012 6:45:22 PM | 95
How come the legalizing of drugs in the US is unthinkable? But guns have to remain legal? Though both are lethal?
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 0:20 utc | 107
Why are children prescribed so many drugs?
That’s where the money is. Pediatric psychopharmacology is a billion-dollar business that sustains Pharma and Pharma investors on Wall Street.
Alternet, May 16 (edited)
Pharma is wooing the pediatric patient because that’s where the money is. Just like country and western songs about finding love where you can when there is no love to be found at home. Pharma has stopped finding “love” in the form of the new blockbuster drugs that catapulted it through the 1990s and 2000s. According to the Wall Street Journal, new drugs made Pharma only $4.3 billion in 2010 compared with $11.8 billion in 2005—a two-thirds drop.
So the once modest medical specialty of child psychiatry become the aggressive “pediatric psychopharmacology” that finds ADHD, pediatric conduct disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, oppositional defiant disorder,and a host of other disorders.
And then there are the side effects.
Few, indeed, are kids who start out diagnosed and treated for ADHD, bipolar disorder, and other “psychopathologies” who end up on no drugs, psychologically fine, and ready to run for class president. Even if they outgrow their original diagnoses—a big “if” with a mental health history that follows them—the side effects from years of psychoactive drugs and their physical health on mental, social, and emotional development take their toll. Even children on allergy and asthma drugs, which are promoted for kids as young as age one, are now known to develop psychiatric side effects according to emerging research.
Enjoy your toke after a hard day at work? Big Pharma is looking to take that over, too.
Raw Story, May 20, 2011
Just as the federal government is clamping down on medical marijuana dispensaries, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) may be set to give Big Pharma the clearance to take over the market.
In 2007, GW Pharmaceuticals announced that it partnered with Otsuka to bring “Sativex” — or liquefied marijuana — to the U.S. The companies recently completed Phase II efficacy and safety trials testing and began discussion with the FDA for Phase III testing. Phase III is generally thought to be the final step before the drug can be marketed in the U.S.
ONS, 106
Let’s assume the cause of the deed were drugs, if he did not have access to guns the kids were still alive, no?
Let’s translate it into Bavaria. Do you think the Munich Beer Festival could take place if the visitors carried guns?
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 0:30 utc | 110
It’s interesting the way the attempted murder of those school kids in China is being used to minimize the danger of knives. The Rwandan genocide was carried out primarily by gangs of machete-wielding psychos running around and hacking their neighbors to death. They killed close to a million people in a matter of weeks.
Let’s dispense with the fiction that guns are somehow needed for mass murder against an unarmed populace. They are not. They are needed to murder an armed populace, however. Machete meets Bushmaster is no contest.
As for why anyone would need a military grade weapon, the answer is it is superior in almost all scenarios to a pistol for self defense save fighting someone six-inches from your face. In most fights, you will be able to attain a higher rate of fire and fire superiority over a thug armed with a pistol. Trying to take on a group of thugs with a pistol you are almost guaranteed to lose unless you are a crack shot. With an assault rifle you have a chance.
It is also necessary to be able to take on government troops and the cops and the choice of .223 ammo is that it is the same ammo used by the military, thus you can resupply from captured government stores. As mentioned here a 15,000 man Iraqi resistance force has done a good job fighting the US military to a standstill with similar weapons and inflicting 40,000 casualties on them. I think 5 to 7 million hard core men willing to fight in the US could take on the US military and win (not to mention that many US soldiers will likely defect to the rebels with all their equipment or at least be willing to serve as spies).
Besides, the rebels don’t need to kill every US soldier to win; they just need to kill the leaders who can’t hide in their gated communties forever.
The fact that over 80 millions US households have firearms is a fact the 1 percent has to contend with before they fuck us over entirely.
Of course I will now be attacked by the “It Can’t happen Here” brigade who will inform me that the same Contra-style psychopaths unleashed by our government against Nicaragua, Libya and Syria could never be recruited here and used against us.
Posted by: Sean | Dec 17 2012 0:35 utc | 111
“Let’s assume the cause of the deed were drugs, if he did not have access to guns the kids were still alive, no?”
And you are going to legislate away his “access to guns”??? What planet are you talking about??? What part of “hundreds of millions” don’t you understand?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:36 utc | 112
Plus, you banned drugs – and that worked out real well, didn’t it? If you ban something that people want, you end up with a huge black market. If you ban guns, all you do is insure that anyone who wants one can do to their nearest corner and buy one from the guy selling them illegally.
People don’t learn. The reason for school shootings is because US society is screwed up, the education process is screwed up, and people are screwed up. You can’t stop violence without changing the society, You can’t reduce gun crime in the US to the level of the UK because the societies are totally different and so are the crime demographics.
Thanks Richard for injecting some much-need reason and reality into this debate.
Posted by: Sean | Dec 17 2012 0:37 utc | 113
The US is trying to ban fertilizer in Afghanistan because it is used to construct Improvised Explosive Devices that kill and maim Americans. Actually the Afghans need fertilizer but they don’t need Americans. So why demonize fertilizer?
When I was in secondary school, I recieved a number of swats. Seems to me it did better at changing my behaviour than prozac woulda. But hey, thats just my opinion…
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:39 utc | 115
@ 110
congratulations – you missed my point spectacularly.
as usual
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 0:47 utc | 116
Did you have parents who hated each other POA? Just curious.
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 0:52 utc | 117
“Trying to take on a group of thugs with a pistol you are almost guaranteed to lose unless you are a crack shot”
Egads. The other side of ignorance shows up. (There is an argument to be made that BOTH sides have some mouths that are better off muzzled).
Perhaps, if you please, you will cite one single actual example of a so called “assault weapon” being used by a civilian to suppress an attack waged by a “group of thugs”.
And a Bushmaster is no more a “military grade weapon” than any semi-auto rifle is. It is simply a mass marketed sporter version of a military weapon. There are any number of rifles in my gun safe that would do equally well against a “group of thugs”, and not one of them needs flash suppression or a pistol grip.
But it cracks me up, this invocation of being attacked by a “group of thugs”, while advancing the premise that you are going to have your Bushmaster locked and loaded, at your side, when such an eventuality comes to pass. Yeah right. Its absurd arguments such as this that belittle those of us that try to inject a little sanity into the debate.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:55 utc | 118
News report: He said that police do not yet have a motive in the mass shooting and that it’s “going to take many, many man hours to attempt to draw this picture, to put this puzzle together.”
It’s difficult to conceive of any motive for this, and this fact plus Lanza’s personality descriptions lead me to suspect drugs, probably prescribed. Even if the police try to cover that up they would have trouble concocting any believable, rational motive. We’ll see.
I thought I used to be the resident guy arguing against gun control… but these days the bar is attracting some varied and articulate opinions regarding this very subject. Thanks! And b, as always, thanks for hosting such debates.
“There are any number of rifles in my gun safe…” Just tools. This can no way be considered a fetish.
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 0:59 utc | 121
112, I am talking about much of the rest of the world. Making guns illegal would begin to change society in the US, as it will need a democratic process i.e. a majority agreeing.
116, no I understood you perfectly.
Philadelphia Gun and Alcohol Study
Welcome to the homepage of the Philadelphia Gun and Alcohol Study, also know as PGAS. The PGAS is a research project designed to study drinking, alcohol outlets, and shootings in the City of Philadelphia. The PGAS will help community leaders reduce gun violence in their neighborhoods.
On an average year in the 1990s, over 35,000 people were shot and killed in the United States. Alcohol is thought to be a risk factor for gun violence, potentially increasing the chances of shooting yourself or being shot by someone else. In inner-city neighborhoods, shootings occur every day. If these shootings are to be prevented, it is important to better understand what are thought to be their root causes, things like drinking and neighborhood decay. This is the motivation behind the PGAS.
Now either you prevent people from drinking or you prevent them having guns around. Which is the easier task? What would people choose?
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 0:59 utc | 122
“Did you have parents who hated each other POA? Just curious”
Posted by: dh | Dec 16, 2012 7:52:40 PM |
Which brings us back to my original comment on this subject:
“Amazing how much the gun debate is fueled by sheer ignorance”
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 0:59 utc | 123
“Now either you prevent people from drinking or you prevent them having guns around. Which is the easier task?”
Only a fool would argue the feasability of EITHER task.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 1:02 utc | 124
“Just tools. This can no way be considered a fetish”
You have anything worthwhile to add, or is that kind of useless crap all you’ve got to offer??? You and Susan make a hellova team.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 1:04 utc | 125
@123 Well I’ll admit to being ignorant of your family history. Just wondering if you have any idea what it means to be a screwed up kid full of self-hatred. Getting ‘the odd swat’ may have helped your behaviour but it could make some kids even more resentful.
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 1:06 utc | 126
@125 Any number of guns in a safe sure sounds like a fetish to me. Try to keep the ad hominem stuff out of it OK?
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 1:09 utc | 127
“116, no I understood you perfectly.”
@ 122
No you most certainly do not
the fact that you chose to c&p something called the “Philadelphia Gun and Alcohol Study”
proves it beyond doubt.
Only someone with little knowledge of the subject would compare alcohol versus the long-term effects (or side-effects) of the prescribed psychotropic drugs, I have previously referred to, on the minds of teenagers.
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 1:11 utc | 128
“Try to keep the ad hominem stuff out of it OK?”
Oh go f… yourself. Your shallow horseshit ain’t “ad hominem”?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 1:12 utc | 129
@129 Your shallow horseshit ain’t “ad hominem”?
No I don’t think so. But yours was. Anyway POA I’ve known a few like you. You’re a good old boy at heart. Just watch the old blood pressure OK?
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 1:17 utc | 131
@96 But here’s the thing, and it is something that you refused to acknowledge: the number of whackjob-massmurder-sprees in the USA is roughly equal to the combined number of whackjob-massmurder-sprees in The Rest Of The World.
Which is decidedly odd, because the former has less than one-tenth the popln of the latter.
There’s gotta be a reason why, and it shouldn’t be too hard to work out what it is.
I would suggest that it is either
a) the ration of whackjobs-to-normal people is ten times higher in the USA
or it is
b) the whackjobs in the USA find it ten times easier to get their hands on the weapons required to go on a massmurder spree.
One or the other.
Which do you think it is, PoA?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 1:21 utc | 132
“Newtown tragedy could put mental health in spotlight” — but I doubt that it will. The focus will probably only be on guns, not mental health and certainly not Big Pharma.
USAToday, Dec 16
Families and doctors who treat the mentally ill say they hope that Friday’s tragedy in Newtown, Conn., will refocus the nation’s attention on improving mental health services. Police have not yet released details about the motives or mental state of shooter Adam Lanza. But the perpetrators of similar mass murders — at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University and a Tucson, Ariz., gathering for Rep. Gabi Giffords, for example — all suffered from serious mental health conditions.
“We wait for things like this to happen and then everyone talks about mental health,” says Priscilla Dass-Brailsford, an associate professor of psychology in the psychiatry department at Georgetown University Medical Center. “But they quickly forget.”
There are hundreds of multiple-casualty shootings every year, says forensic psychologist Dewey Cornell, director of the Virginia Youth Violence Project. People have so desensitized to the horror, however, that they pay no attention.
“It’s gotten to the point where only the ones with high body counts make the news,” he says. “It takes a record number, or something extraordinary, to get our attention.”
Yet mental illness destroys countless lives everyday, he says, contributing to domestic violence and child abuse, drug addiction, homelessness and incarceration. Investing in mental healthcare and reducing its stigma could help prevent future tragedies, he says.
“Mental health has shrunk down to the level of short-term crisis management,” Cornell says. “If we are going to focus on prevention, we can’t think about the gunman in the parking lot and what to do with him. We have to get involved a lot earlier.”
Schools and communities “have cut their mental health services to the bone,” says Cornell. “We’re paying a price for it as a society.”
@Johnboy — the number of whackjob-massmurder-sprees in the USA is roughly equal to the combined number of whackjob-massmurder-sprees in The Rest Of The World.
Baloney. I guess you haven’t been keeping up with current events in the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
@97 “Sure guns play a part, but it’s a highly dubious assertion that the mere existence and availability of guns themselves are what actually triggers the impulse in these mostly teenage/young-adult perps to go on a suicidal rampage in the first place.”
Indeed it is, which is why I am puzzled that you have asserted it. I certainly didn’t.
I said the opposite i.e. nutters are nutters are nutters are nutters, and when they go nuts they tend to get murderously violent.
But in this case someone went nuts and killed their mother, and **THEN** took her guns and went on a mass-murdering rampage.
Compare and contrast: in other counties the same nutcase would still kill his mother – he’s nuts, remember – but that’s where it would end, because in countries that aren’t the USA a mother is not allowed to keep lethal military-grade weaponry in her house.
It is the difference between a tragic statistic in the local paper (“son held over killing of mother”) and a front-page headline around the world (“troubled youth kills 27”).
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 1:30 utc | 136
@98 “There is no “cost-benefit” analysis being done. If there were, you’d see that the possession of firearms in a population also has a negative effect on crime statistics, i.e., firearms possession reduces crime to some degree. ”
No, there is no reason to suppose that their would be a reduction in crime either way, because neither the lack or nor the easy availability of weapons has no effect on the root cause of crime i.e. the need to procure money, and the lack of any other means of acquiring that money.
Crime will still occur, as it still occurs in those western countries that have strict gun control.
But here’s the rub: if a criminal *knows* that there are millions of guns in the hands of the civilian popln then he has very little choice but to arm himself when he carries out his crimes. To do otherwise is to Dice With Death every time he undertakes a crime.
And here is the alternative: if a criminal *knows* that the civilian he is stealing from will not be armed then he does have a choice i.e. he doesn’t NEED to be armed and so he can choose to be unarmed, or he can choose to arm himself.
That’s where the criminal justice system plays its part in influencing that choice e.g. breaking and entering is a serious crime with serious penalty, but “breaking and entering whilst armed” is a Much More Serious Offence, with Much, Much, Much Higher Penalty.
It tends to concentrate the mind, which is precisely the intention.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 1:39 utc | 137
@135 Sorry, Don, I should have been clearer about what I was referring to i.e. I was referring to the statistic relating to the number of instances of someone going into a school and killing at least one person.
And the statistics since 2000 clearly shows that in the USA there are As Many Instances as in The Rest Of The World Combined.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 1:46 utc | 138
“Blah blah blah….lethal military-grade weaponry…blahblahblah….”
Oh gawd. When will the stupiidity end??
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 2:09 utc | 139
@Johnboy
Okay, if you’re only talking about school assaults then let’s make them impregnable, like a prison. When I was a kid I called the place where I had to go, sit in rows, shut up and listen to mostly mindless pap — a prison, I called it. So it fits.
Some kids don’t “fit in” the institution of US education, thank you very much John Dewey. Adam Lanza was one such, apparently. That doesn’t make him a “whackjob” does it. He was a human being. NOT a whackjob. Shame on you.
“Oh, that kid’s only a whackjob, let’s do him.”
Interesting how none of these folks are suggesting a way to ACTUALLY remove hundreds of millions of firearms from our society. Pfffft, it just gets ignored, while they blather on with feckless anti-gun talking points.
Have at it, Johnboy.
What kinda search and destroy policy are you suggesting our legislators and police engage in? Lets hear your NRS (Not Rocket Science) brilliant ideas about what kind of legislative action is going to miraculously make these guns dissappear from the countless millions of households that own REGISTERED guns, to say nothing about the millions upon millions of guns that are unregistered and already in the hands of criminals, criminal organizations, gangs, and drug cartels. You live in a fuckin’ dreamworld. Theres no logical manner in which you can solve the problem as you describe it, which is why you offer this ethereal non-solution labeled as “gun control”. You can’t “control” it, because it has long ago ceased to be controllable.
Give us some specifics, Johnboy. Why gee, it ain’t rocket science, surely you can give us a specific example of a legislative solution that will resolve the problem of millions upon millions of guns in the possession of millions upon millions United States citizens.
Perhaps you can say “Please”, and all these gun owners will skip gleefully down to the nearest NLMWDS, (Nieghborhood Lethal Military Weaponry Disposal Site), and happily hand over Grandpa’s Model 94 for immediate vaporization.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 2:33 utc | 141
“b” #78
“According to the wiki entry of the event nobody died.”
Hopefully their injuries are not permanent or crippling, but good to know nobody died.
“If the guy would have had access to a semi-automatic weapon they would likely be all dead.”
Extreme reaching. There is no way any of us could possibly know that.
You missed my point, which this isn’t about guns. It’s about a very new form of crime that we so not know why it is happening now. The gun availability is a side issue. All the effort put into removing the guns obscures and takes away from any effort to find out what is behind these attacks. We need to know what causes them in order to stop them.
Personally, I think most Americans should not have guns (and especially the sorts who become cops and/or are “rednecks”). But this is a cultural problem, not one for law enforcement, like drug use. It needs to be tacked with education, knowledge and reason. Not by some guy in uniform carrying a gun.
ONS #101
“From what I can see, given the known side-effects, especially in relation to the young, there seems to be a determined effort on the part of some prescribing psychiatrists to actually create WhackJobs – whether it is purely for profit, convenience or other more nefarious reason(s) is impossible to say with any certainty (though I’m sure one or two here will immediately claim ‘for Profit’)”
There is enough circumstantial evidence that those drugs are playing a role in these rampages. It really needs to investigated thoroughly. The fact that nobody in authority seems interested in doing so tells me it really needs to be investigated. Because usually in such situations, they know full well the damage they are causing and are doing it intentionally.
Posted by: вот так | Dec 17 2012 3:54 utc | 142
“Egads. The other side of ignorance shows up. (There is an argument to be made that BOTH sides have some mouths that are better off muzzled).”
Not for nothing PissedOff, but if your postings here are any indication of your behavior, you may have been swatted a few times too many. Try to keep the rage in check and you might be taken more seriously.
“Perhaps, if you please, you will cite one single actual example of a so called “assault weapon” being used by a civilian to suppress an attack waged by a “group of thugs”.”
Are you really incapable of imagining a scenario in which an assault weapon can be used in self-defense in a home invasion? (Hint: any scenario in which any firearm could be used, except the assault weapon is a better weapon.)
Here are some examples and studies on the use of firearms in self-defense to get you started:
http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html
Oh, and check out this story of an old man using a .22 rifle to stop a home invasion by three thugs. Substitute “Bushmaster” for the .22 and you have your scenario. Note the guy said his house had been invaded three times previously within the last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198282/I-aimed-right-heart-Second-World-War-veteran-92-lays-wait-intruder-coolly-shoots-dead.html
“And a Bushmaster is no more a “military grade weapon” than any semi-auto rifle is.”
Not true. For all intents and purposes the Bushmaster and other civilian variants of the M-16 have the same firepower in semi-automatic mode as the M-16 does, can use the same 5.56 NATO round, can use the same 30 round magazines as the M-16, have very light recoil and are as easy to fire in three round bursts and are as accurate as the M-16. That’s not true of every semi-automatic weapon.
Most modern military variants of the M-16 from the M-16A2 on up are no longer capable of being fired in full auto mode anyway. They have semi-auto and a 3-round burst mode instead. So they are not much more effective firepower wise than a Bushmaster is.
I am an ex-paratrooper who was in the military when the fully auto M-16A1 was the standard weapon, and even then, US military doctrine eschewed the use of fully auto “spray and pray” mode as they found soldiers tended to hold the trigger down and empty the magazine too quickly. We were trained to use aimed semi-automatic fire with rapid three round bursts attained by squeezing the trigger three times as it gave you better control and wasted less ammo, even in close combat situations. The WWII method of entering a room and spraying rounds Al Capone style is a thing of the past.
What all this means is that the civilian variants of the modern M-16 are roughly the equivalent of the M-16 in terms of combat effectiveness, and are rightly described as “military grade” weapons.
Why wouldn’t you have your weapon locked and loaded and by your side, especially in a scenario like Sandy where home invasions were far more likely to occur?
Posted by: Sean | Dec 17 2012 4:10 utc | 143
@139 “Oh gawd. When will the stupiidity end?? ”
I don’t know, PoA, since there seems to be no end to your arrogance regarding this subject.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 4:21 utc | 144
@140 “Okay, if you’re only talking about school assaults then let’s make them impregnable, like a prison.”
Why, Don? Did the kiddies commit a crime?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 4:22 utc | 145
@141 “Interesting how none of these folks are suggesting a way to ACTUALLY remove hundreds of millions of firearms from our society. Pfffft, it just gets ignored, while they blather on with feckless anti-gun talking points.”
And I find your handwaving away of what is clearly a Very Real Problem to be reckless, rather than feckless.
But as far as PoA is concerned, well, Pffffft, it’s all too hard so why even bother to try to do anything about it….
“Have at it, Johnboy. ”
Well, gosh, I would suggest that the first step is for the Obama Administration to start breaking down a few inter-departmental barriers, since it is pretty obvious that the State Department and the CIA knows all about how to get rid of regimes that are hostile to the US government.
So I’d start by calling in all their experts at destabilizing hostile leaderships and task them with working out a way for the FBI to take over the NRA and turn it into a puppet organization of the US government rather than, as it is now, an impediment to that same government.
Shouldn’t be too hard; Neal Knox staged a coup that took complete control of the NRA in 1977, and he had nothing like the resources that the US government can commit to an overthrow of the current leadership of the NRA.
So that’s where I’d start, and once the puppets are installed then the banning can begin.
It’d take a while, sure, decades at least.
But, hey, when did I ever say it’d be easy?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 4:47 utc | 146
“Why wouldn’t you have your weapon locked and loaded and by your side, especially in a scenario like Sandy where home invasions were far more likely to occur?”
I would have a weapon by my side in such a scenario. However, can you cite an example of a “home invasion” occurring to any households affected by Sandy? Frankly, I doubt it. The odds of being a victim of a crime, for most citizens, does not include a requisite catastrophic event. You cite a scenario that is unlikely during the course of most gun owner’s lifetimes. A fantasy, in other words. See, thats the problem. Both sides of the debate have to dredge up ludicrous examples and situations in order to justify their arguments.
Three round burst???? Exclusively the capability of a so called “assault weapon”??? Surely you aren’t asserting such. Any semi enjoys that capability.
And my Mossberg 12 gauge pump can get off three rounds pretty damned quick, and certainly lethally, even when I have to expend the motion of chambering each successive round. I feel utterly capable of fending off three thugs with it who are engaged in invading my space. I certainly don’t need ten cycles of three round bursts to spray the whole fuckin’ nieghborhood with lead.
Look, I am not against the ownership of weapons such as the Bushmaster. I am simply asserting that many of you macho-gotta-have-a-bazooka type gun-toting jackasses invent some pretty damned ridiculous justifications for attempting to enlarge your trouser bulge.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 6:16 utc | 147
“But, hey, when did I ever say it’d be easy?”
Well, it must be kinda difficult, seeing as how your asinine and ludicrous “solution” doesn’t even come close to addressing what is to be done about the millions of firearms that are currently held by millions of Americans.
But, I must admit, your “solution” doesn’t dissappoint. Once again, I find a commenter paying me the courtesy of perfectly illustrating my point; that ignorance seems to be the main foundational factor that you anti-gun idiots build your arguments upon.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 6:25 utc | 148
“But as far as PoA is concerned, well, Pffffft, it’s all too hard so why even bother to try to do anything about it….”
Gee. Ya musta missed where I advocate for sensible gun laws. How come you anti-gun jerks are so “all or nothing” in your ignorance? You’re advocating for an impossibility, and you’ll dream up all sorts of stupid horseshit to sell your fantasies as feasable policy suggestions. Its not a very flattering picture you paint of your intelligence.
You ever heard a donkey bray? Not a very intelligent sounding racket, is it???
Eyore? Is that you?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 6:32 utc | 149
Do it like Conservative Australia did it. Buy the weapons back. It is that simple.
Do you think Australians are less machismo and wildlife than Americans?
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 6:39 utc | 150
Gads, theres something very sinister in suggesting that government agents infiltrate an advocacy organization, and install “puppets” who are tasked to bring down that organization.
Where do we draw the line about what organizations are to recieve this special governmental attention???
Not only is he an idiot living in a dream world, he needs to study up a bit on facism, eh? With jackasses like him enabling the state, maybe Sean’s got the right idea after all.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 6:41 utc | 151
An interesting argument against the “armed militia” can be made by looking at recent history.
Number of guns per capita per country
First place – U.S. 88.8/100
Last place – Tunisia 0.1/100
U.S. Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial: Eric Holder
Obama Signs into Law Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial
Both were obviously unconstitutional. If there was ever a reason to get rid of a government those are the ones. So where is the armed militia and is it successful?
Tunisians do not have guns. But their revolution against a suppressive government was successful.
The Tunisian revolution was an intensive campaign of civil resistance, including a series of street demonstrations that took place in Tunisia. The events began when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year old Tunisian street vendor, set himself afire on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation that was inflicted on him by a municipal official. This act became the catalyst for mass demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia in protest of social and political issues in the country. Anger and violence intensified following Bouazizi’s death on 4 January 2011, ultimately leading longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on 14 January 2011, after 23 years in power.
Lesson:
1. Despite “armed militia” and weapons free for all suppression happens.
2. Despite having no guns the Tunisians successfully revolted against suppression.
“Buy the weapons back. It is that simple.”
Trouble is, I’m not selling. You think I’m alone? No, its NOT that “simple”.
You think a Crip is gonna run right down and sell his 9 to the nearest buy-back depot? Or perhaps you think an avid collector is gonna rush right on down. Or a Montana cattleman. Or an outfitter and guide running elk hunts in the Bitteroot.
“It is that simple”.
Holy shit. You gotta be kidding me.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 6:48 utc | 153
@148 “Well, it must be kinda difficult, seeing as how your asinine and ludicrous “solution” doesn’t even come close to addressing what is to be done about the millions of firearms that are currently held by millions of Americans.”
Did I say that was the end of the problem?
Noooo, I said that was the first step.
PoA, it’s only after the NRA has been neutered that any American President can hope to start getting those guns off the street.
THAT requires a mix of policy, including (but not limited to) gun buy-backs, limited-time amnesties, an outright ban on semi-automatic rifles, strict vetting of gun licenses, etc.
If you want a plan then look at how the Australian government did it following the Port Arthur massacre.
Because they did all that and more, but they did it *smart* i.e. the first thing the Howard Government did was to wrestle the gun lobby to the ground.
“Once again, I find a commenter paying me the courtesy of perfectly illustrating my point; that ignorance seems to be the main foundational factor that you anti-gun idiots build your arguments upon.”
OK, you aren’t listening because you don’t want to listen.
I get that, PoA. Really, I do.
You much prefer sticking your head in the sand, sure, I can see that.
But, then again, when you stick your head in the sand that leaves your sorry arse flappin’ in the breeze.
Take care, coz’ that’s a pretty precarious posture, sunshine.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 7:00 utc | 154
If it is only you and a gun that presumably would not be a problem :-))
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy, but how about some bold leadership action?
Dec 14 Rupert Murdoch Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
Cheaper and cheaper US$ causing world inflation and currency wars as many industries become uncompetitive & layoff workers.
Öffnen
Dec 14 Rupert Murdoch Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.
See what I mean? Even Rupert Murdoch of Fox News wants to be able to walk the streets.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 7:01 utc | 155
@149 “Ya musta missed where I advocate for sensible gun laws.”
Yeah, I have to say I did kinda’ miss that.
Maybe it’s because I view your “sensible gun laws” with about the same contempt as you view mine.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 7:02 utc | 156
“U.S. Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial: Eric Holder
Obama Signs into Law Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial”
“Both were obviously unconstitutional. If there was ever a reason to get rid of a government those are the ones. So where is the armed militia and is it successful?”
Amazing, ain’t it b??? The biggest rooters for freedom are the self same folks that support a steady erosion of our civil liberties based on this fictitious crock of shit sold to us as the GWOT. The Patriot Act. The cover-up concerning 9/11. The Republicans and the so called “Tea Party”, nattering on about “freedom” while its pulled out from under us by the whores on both sides of the aisle in Washington DC. “Armed militia”, my ass. These camo attired wannabe revolutionaries nattering on about being an “armed militia” are too friggin’ ignorant to know they’ve already lost the war, and there was nary a shot fired.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 7:06 utc | 157
@151 “Gads, theres something very sinister in suggesting that government agents infiltrate an advocacy organization, and install “puppets” who are tasked to bring down that organization”
No shit, heh?
Of course it’s “very sinister”.
It’s also not particularly far-fetched.
Heck, the FBI has a very long track record of infiltrating and influencing organizations that the Government Of The Day considered to be a danger.
Indeed, I remember reading once (damn, where was it?) where the FBI had so riddled the US Communist Party with agents-of-influence that it was a moot point about whether the CP shouldn’t just be considered a US-government controlled quango.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 7:08 utc | 158
@149 “You ever heard a donkey bray? Not a very intelligent sounding racket, is it???”
OK, I think we should ask for a show of hands right about now.
As in: who is making a boorish ass of himself here? Me, or PoA?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 7:12 utc | 159
“Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?”
“See what I mean? Even Rupert Murdoch of Fox News wants to be able to walk the streets”
‘Scuze me???? “Automatic weapons”, are, for most all citizens, “banned”.
Did you bother to read your citation, or are you another anti-gun jackass that doesn’t know WTF difference there is between an “automatic weapon” and a “semi-automatic weapon”??? Apparently Murdoch falls into that category as well.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 7:14 utc | 160
Automatic or semiautomatic would be assault weapon
According to Wikipedia that varies in US states
The Federal Assault weapons ban – all this is Wikipedia
expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law’s sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.
Maybe it would help if US citizens woke up to what their politicians are not doing.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 7:25 utc | 161
plus – in all of Europe hunters own guns and you can do shooting sports – that is not the issue.
The issue is stuff like the Glock pistol under the Christmas tree.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 7:35 utc | 162
more on the Glock pistol, sales strategies and intentionally useless US legislation
In 1991, the first Glock shooting spree took place in Texas. Twenty people were killed. Hours after the shooting, members of Congress were debating whether guns like the Glock should be restricted.
“It took awhile, but by 1994, a bill was passed — this is what we remember as the Assault Weapons Bill — and was signed into law by President Clinton,” says Barrett. “It had a variety of restrictions. One of them was limiting the pistol magazine capacity to 10 rounds.”
The legislation, which expired in 2004, was initially seen as a terrible blow to the Glock. But the company quickly found a way to use the ban on high-capacity magazines to their advantage, he says.
“Glock had seen this bill coming for years and had been running the factory nonstop — three shifts a day, seven days a week — building up the large-capacity firearms and the large-capacity magazines,” he says. “When the law was enacted, it allowed for a loophole that grandfathered in pre-existing equipment before the ban went into effect. [And] Glock had this huge stockpile of the very equipment that many gun owners wanted to get because it was banned — and the value of that equipment skyrocketed.”
Glock also encouraged police departments to trade in their old equipment for newer, higher-capacity weapons. The old equipment — which contained the higher-capacity magazines manufactured before the ban — was then sold on the used-gun market, and found its way to the streets.
“Police departments were implicated in the proliferation of handguns all across the country,” Barrett says, a fact that came to haunt the municipalities that, a decade later, tried suing the gun industry for flooding the streets with guns.
“Glock’s executives would pop up on television and say, ‘Who are you accusing of putting guns on the street? We’ve done business with the very business in the city that’s suing us. It is their guns on the street.’ ”
Glock’s statements helped undercut those lawsuits, says Barrett.
“This process of always finding the exceptions, finding ways around efforts to restrict the Glock became a trademark for the company,” he says. “Right from the start, it helped the company, and it continue[s] on through its entire history.”
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 8:17 utc | 163
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If america wants to know what banning guns would do, look at South Africa. Since making gun ownership extremely difficult 20 years ago, crime has increased exponentially, especially violent crimes: brutal home invasions, armed robbery and gang violence. With a parallel breakdown in the police services, it really has become a free for all, either you defend your homestead by force, or you and your family die. Last month my next door neighbours family was brutally assaulted in their home, the tools were screwdrivers and tyre irons, but unless you are armed, it’s a bloody fight to the death (fyi, a very competant neighbourhood watch saved their lives.)
The ANC government is terrified of its citizens, which is why they have worked so hard to eliminate firearms amongst the legal populace.
Posted by: david | Dec 17 2012 9:14 utc | 164
“If america wants to know what banning guns would do, look at South Africa”
If you want to look at how it SHOULD be done then look to Australia, in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 9:24 utc | 165
In CH, “only” about 30%, 33% of homes have one or more firearm(s) in them. Yes, most are those belonging to men in the army. The rest are licensed arms. It is a lot…but less than the image of ‘all men have guns’…
Some shootings each year involve adult males only and are drug or Mafia related. Occasionally, the police shoot someone and kill through inefficiency, fear, impulse. Some contract killings and the like with victims who tend to come from Russia, Kazakstan, Sicily, etc. They are often unsolved. None involve ‘legal’ arms (huh, except the police of course.) The no. is small – 1, 2.. 4 ..6 a year…
One exception: in 2001, a man shot and killed 15 politicians – in the Parliament of Zoug. Machine gun. Like that my 17 yr old friend has in his bedroom. (He has to leave his bullets at the range until he is 18 and in the army.) It is the only mass shooting w. legal arm I can think of. His motive was a quarrel with the authorities. He left a note.
In CH, revenge murders, hate crimes, crimes of passion are usually committed with hands and knives. Men strangle their wives, homosexuals can be beaten to death, and a boss is knifed in the throat and stomach. There are about 80-100 homicides a year (incl. the drug deals etc. above.) In 2006, a famous woman skier was shot by her husband with his military issue gun. In 2010, a woman (professional markswoman) used a firearm to shoot her husband and son. – Some of these thus by firearm but I don’t know the number, it isn’t large. I could not find any mention/category of accidental death by firearm.
So it is really cultural, historical .. – Guns are not a matter of personal pride and are not seen as needed for self-defense, safety, intimidation, dominance. They are treated casually (too casually imho) as tools needed by the military for a purpose that never arises, or as part of a ‘sport.’
However, suicide by firearm is a problem. Suicide is the FIRST cause of death for males aged 16-25. And that is without the unofficial ones – car crashes, sports accidents that involve drugs, drink, crazy behavior. They often shoot themselves. (Girls take pills /slice their wrists/gas themselves, etc.) From 1996 to 2005, 3,140 ppl used a firearm to kill themselves (25% of all suicides.)
Violence is as much turned inward (towards the self) as outward, if not more. Cultural, again.
In CH, it is the left that argues for gun ownership, and the right that proposes more control. (Population: 8 million.)
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 17 2012 9:53 utc | 166
The School Shooting In Newtown Connecticut Isn’t For All Ears | The New Republic
I know that Rebekah is not perfectly safe. I know that if a deranged gunman decided to mow down all the children in her kindergarten classroom, I couldn’t save her. And those parents and teachers in Newtown shouldn’t waste one second thinking they could have saved those kids and teachers. The world doesn’t work like that.
Here’s what we can control: as long as our children are alive, we can refuse to terrorize them with worst-case scenarios. We can decline to let a random act of violence goad us into treating Connecticut as if it were Gaza, Afghanistan, or Mali. I understand that there are parents in the world who have to teach their children about bomb shelters. But I don’t, not yet. My daughter is just five years old, and her school is as safe as we can make it without imprisoning ourselves in our own fear. My heart breaks for what happened 25 miles away; I’ve cried twice already today. But I’ve done it far from my children, who are still very young and, yes, innocent. So please: Don’t tell them a goddamned thing
If his innocent daughter lived in Gaza, she wouldn’t have to be told the Israeli Jews are to be ignored. Little girls playing too close to Jewish snipers get shot dead there! No, mom has to tell the child, all Jewish military are dangerous and evil and have to be avoided at all costs. Little tots less than a year old have to learn to fear the guards of their ghetto who lurk nearby, itching to butcher them mercilessly. Why does an American girl get to live innocent and free when Americans pay assassins in Israel to execute little girls who stray into an unmarked shooting gallery zone?
Posted by: hans | Dec 17 2012 9:54 utc | 167
@165
Of course living on an desert island helps.
America is not Australia.
Aussies are used to prisons /jk
Posted by: david | Dec 17 2012 10:14 utc | 168
“Of course living on an desert island helps.”
How, exactly?
“America is not Australia.”
No shit, heh? One is awash with guns. And one isn’t.
Fancy that….
“Aussies are used to prisons”
No, funnily enough most Aussies have never been inside a prison, much less incarcerated inside one.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 17 2012 10:38 utc | 169
The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, Peter Lanza, was the tax director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year. According to Fabian4Liberty, Peter Lanza was scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. In what could only be described an amazing coincidence, the father of Colorado Batman shooter James Holmes, Robert Holmes, was also a LIBOR witness in his position with FICO. According to the link at FICO, Robert Holmes was a ‘Fraud Scientist’
That is one hell of a coincidence. Too many coincidences….something is just not right with the whole scenario….I just don’t see this young man as the shooter. I don’t believe that a 20 year old autistic child can kill that many people without the help of a professional.
Posted by: hans | Dec 17 2012 11:20 utc | 170
dan of steele @ 62
Was it all a dream? the MoA hiatus, that is? Was unaware till yesterday that b had re-opened the bar. bun’s good.
Re preppers. My thinking was, since people ask why anyone “needs” assault weapons, large magazines, etc., implying at least *those* should be controlled, the prepper arguments, as dramatized on the tv show DP, home defense after whatever doomsday scenario, requires that one be able to fend off, not (just) the gov, but the implied urban hoards. Will the 2nd amendment arg shift to “tactical” from personal defense, tactical being a code word. As Digby quotes TPM:
The “tactical” turn is what I want to flag here. It has what I take to be a very specific use-case, but it’s used – liberally – by gun owners outside of the military, outside of law enforcement, outside (if you’ll indulge me) of any conceivable reality-based community: these folks talk in terms of “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications,” and so on. It’s the lingua franca of gun shops, gun ranges, gun forums, and gun-oriented Youtube videos. (My god, you should see what’s out there on You Tube!) Which begs my question: in precisely which “tactical” scenarios do all of these lunatics imagine that they’re going to use their matte-black, suppressor-fitted, flashlight-ready tactical weapons? They tend to speak of the “tactical” as if it were a fait accompli; as a kind of apodeictic fact: as something that everyone – their customers, interlocutors, fellow forum members, or YouTube viewers – experiences on a regular basis, in everyday life. They tend to speak of the tactical as reality.
Code for racist right-wing fantasies
Posted by: Hamburger | Dec 17 2012 11:38 utc | 171
I heard this from guys who break in for a living and what they look for in their decision-making process whether to go ahead or not:
Light/s [triggered or not]
Dog/s
Sight of big sized shoes
Possible presence of guns
Would you [who are against being armed] lay a finger on me or break into my house when you know I’m armed to the teeth? I assume the answer will be “Hell no!” Why don’t those MoFus step into a nearby precinct and start pulling triggers? Why do they [in most of the cases] step like mad foxes into [gun free] hen houses? A friend showed me a few things of the Dr. Drew and celebrity whatever. Man, those doctors prescribe anything and everything. You can be high as a kite, and all perfectly legal. Anyone who’s done drugs knows the powerful impact of them [and that’s when you do it voluntarily].
ADRD
HDDD
HPTP
ACDC
You name it and someone somewhere has got it [in most cases [ACDC :o]. Luckily, for everything there’s a pill and tadaahhhh, you’re as good as new [kind of].
Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 17 2012 12:13 utc | 173
173, burglars are very shy and intelligent people, they usually wait until people are on holidays.
In Europe they do not carry guns. Waiting for them with a gun in hand would be an incentive for them to get a defensive gun themselves.
Ever wondered why with all these defense ministries war is still a regular feature?
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 13:55 utc | 174
173) plus the scenario you describe means you plan to have a loaded gun next to your bed. That is a recipe for desaster should you wake up and feel depressed.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 14:03 utc | 175
“That is a recipe for desaster should you wake up and feel depressed”
Now, he offers the premise that mental illness,to the point of suicidal tendencies, is a common malady. Gee, “a recipe for disaster” if you have a home protection weapon within reach.
Wake up depressed?? Bam, you’re gonna blow your brains out, mark his words!
How do these people dream this shit up?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 14:28 utc | 176
176, I have known, know depressed people. I know what depression is. If you don’t then you do not know many people. It is a very common disease.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 14:37 utc | 177
Somebody, with Johnboy’s governmental agents insinuating themselves into civilian advocacy organizations, where the hell are you gonna find the agents to insinuate themselves into my nightstand???? Seems to me you’re gonna have a shortage of manpower. I hope you don’t get too depressed about it.
Has it occurred to you that you and Johnboy are model citizens for a facist state?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 14:49 utc | 178
“Waiting for them with a gun in hand would be an incentive for them to get a defensive gun themselves”
A deep thinker, this one. Perhaps he is a bit confused as to who is on the offence.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 17 2012 14:54 utc | 179
I wonder why some are trying to involve drugs here. As is known until now, no drugs were involved.
The guy was a bit shy and kept to himself? Well, we are all a bit autistic, some less some more.
To push the discussion to drugs is nothing but diversion.
A Modest Proposal: What If We Required Mandatory Gun Insurance? A somewhat different approach.
This first ran in January 2011.
First of all, this isn’t my idea. It’s my oldest son’s, and he told me about it a few years ago when he was trying to figure out a way he could make money. (Did I mention the kid is a genius? If you use this idea, you owe him.)
He said it made more sense to sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance. If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time — say, 10 years.
And if someone steals your gun and you don’t report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended for a long time.
If you have a rifle and it’s only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high — because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout.
The more training and safety classes you take, the cheaper the premium.
If you’ve ever been convicted of domestic abuse or are the target of a protection order, you are not eligible for insurance.
Homeowners could be required to carry gun insurance as long as they’re still paying on a mortgage, because a gun accident or misuse could result in a large legal judgment against the house.
Oh yeah, and you have to buy coverage for each gun you own.
I think it has real possibilities. What do you think?
Susie Madrak’s son’s thinking, as posted by Susie.
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 17 2012 15:08 utc | 182
b-
I think you might be mistaken. In the good ol’ usa SSRI drugs have been implicated in many previous mass murders involving young people and yet the conversation always seems to be about banning firearms. The makers of prozac have a warning regarding behavior changes in youngsters prescribed the drug.
And in this latest tragedy I believe SSRIs will be implicated again.
Guns Kill People
A couple of years after I left college, there was a deadly incident in my fraternity house (yes I was in a fraternity, yes it was a mostly good experience for me personally, yes Greek systems are probably generally bad). I didn’t really know either of the people involved. Basically drunk guy comes home. Expects to find leftover sandwich in fridge. Sandwich not there. Pissed off, he pulls out a gun (guns and drunk frat boys are an excellent combination) and fires it at a target on the wall. Bullet goes through wall into bathroom, through next wall into next bedroom, into abdomen of guy in next room. Upon realizing he’d hit someone, the shooter promptly aimed gun at himself and committed suicide. Guy he shot ended up being ok (after major medical attention, of course).
Nobody would have been hurt or dead if not for the presence of a gun.
by Atrios at 16:30
Anecdote about suicide from Atrios’s just-out-of-college days, posted at Eschaton. Maybe punching a hole in the drywall would have been better than pulling out a gun a shooting at the wall…and then shooting oneself.
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 17 2012 15:14 utc | 184
Noirette @ 166 —
When the Black Panthers and other more militant groups within and alongside the civil rights movement in the US in the 60-70’s were viewed with fear by the conservatives in the USA, gun control was a rightwing issue.
Just sayin’.
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 17 2012 15:23 utc | 185
Bot Tak @ 142 says:
“There is enough circumstantial evidence that those drugs are playing a role in these rampages. It really needs to investigated thoroughly. The fact that nobody in authority seems interested in doing so tells me it really needs to be investigated. Because usually in such situations, they know full well the damage they are causing and are doing it intentionally.”
Bingo, read a report our most recent wacko was on Fanapt.
Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2012 16:02 utc | 186
yep, and carrying guns was the main mistake the Black Panthers made.
Man who armed Black Panthers was FBI informant, records show
Actually the Swiss left I know of (does it really exist? maybe I am mistaking a comedian for the Swiss left :-)) make fun of the military gun over your bed tradition.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2012 16:05 utc | 187
@169
Australia does not border anyone, there’s your first clue. It’s sparsely populated, and has a very homogenous population, moreso than many other places.
And the last line was an attempt at mirth, hence the /jk (joke)
Yes the aussies eliminated guns after port arthur, still doesn’t cover ALL the inconsistencies in the port arthur massacre. Do you think government should use individual incidents to dictate policy? And do you think that prohibition works?
Posted by: david | Dec 17 2012 16:24 utc | 188
And this idea…
http://www.upworthy.com/how-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shootings-makes-everything-worse?g=2&c=ufb1
Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2012 16:24 utc | 189
Just a reminder that the 2d Amendment to the US Constitution was included to allow citizens to arm against tyranny from the government, not for hunting.
Where I live, in the US near the Mexican border, when driving to the nearest large US city I must go through a Border Patrol checkpoint. This involves waiting in line and then dealing with several armed agents and probably a dog. At first, a couple years ago, they asked questions, but now they don’t. That’s there, not at other checkpoints. If a driver has brown skin, is young, or fits some profile, or has Mexican plates, then the driver is directed to “secondary” for a complete inspection of the vehicle. It’s illegal (with citizens) but they get away with it. These interior highway checkpoints are also found fifty miles from the border, some in remote areas.
Border Patrol agents are rife in the area, and they are building large expensive complexes to house themselves and any “detainees.” One of these, just built, has an equestrian arena, while the kids in the nearby town are in “temporary” classrooms.
It’s a start. One can only imagine what another 9/11 would bring. And if you don’t have to deal with these government thugs then it’s easy to dismiss their effects and the potential that they have.
. . .whereas b doesn’t even have to go through a checkpoint to go to another country, never mind a nearby city. And they hate us for our freedom, remember.
“I wonder why some are trying to involve drugs here.”
Well some people are mentioning drugs because when teenagers or young adults have been involved in mass-killings prescribed SSRI type drugs are more often than not a factor (far more often than mere random chance could account for).
To just outright claim that any mention of these drugs is a “distraction” is a rather strange position to take for anyone that is actually interested in what causes teenagers/young-adults to engage in such rampages.
Of course if you’re only interested in this subject as a means to push an Anti-gun agenda, then claiming all talk of SSRI’s is a “distraction” is probably the first thing you’d do.
I know several people that were what I would call ‘victims’ of SSRI-type drugs. These drugs SERIOUSLY effect the personality. This is not even debatable.
I posted a very loooooooooooooooooong list @ #55 of teenagers and young adult perpetrators of such killings. All of those on the list were on SSRI’s or so-called “Anti-Depressants”.
I say “so-called Anti-Depressants” because some of the major side effects of many of these “Anti-Depressant” drugs are . . . wait for it . . . “suicidal thoughts”, “paranoia” and “depression” itself.
Feeding these to teenagers/young adults is in my opinion criminal.
Claiming that all mention of the role these drugs may play in such events is clearly an attempt to silence highly relevant info
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 16:59 utc | 192
176, I have known, know depressed people. I know what depression is. If you don’t then you do not know many people. It is a very common disease.<
Posted by: somebody | Dec 17, 2012 9:37:43 AM | 177
For the most part “Depression” is NOT a disease
There are 2 types of depression: Situational (SD) and Clinical (CD)
Only CD can be described as a “Disease” – hence the designation “Clinical” – SD cannot, nor should it ever be.
CD involves chemical imbalances in the brain. “Anti-Depressants” are actually ONLY EFFECTIVE for clinical depression.
It has been estimated that mere 15-20% of ALL those diagnosed with depression actually suffer from CD.
ALL other “depression” is Situational, and CANNOT be treated by “Anti-Depressants” and Anti-Depressants should never be prescribed for anyone suffering from situation depression – the only effective treatment for SD is Talk-Therapy. The goal of Talk-Therapy in these situations is to identify what is causing the SD and then helping to identify ways to go about changing that situation
Prescribing SSRIs/ADs for SD SHOULD be illegal in my opinion. The effects/side-effects of these drugs are so profound that they really only should be prescribed when the doctors is sure that s/he is dealing with a case of CD.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, this rarely happens and many doctors effectively hand these out like candy.
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 17:10 utc | 193
http://space4peace.blogspot.sg/2012/12/v-feel-ur-pain.html
Posted by: denk | Dec 17 2012 17:10 utc | 194
173, burglars are very shy and intelligent people, they usually wait until people are on holidays. In Europe they do not carry guns. – somebody.
No burglar in CH would carry a gun. They carry keys and various tools, and blue bags from IKEA, and anonymous cardboard boxes. Having a gun (most likely an illegal one), if caught on the spot (which almost never happens) would double their sentence. Many burglars are minors manipulated by adults. They are small, agile and smart and face no (little) prison sentence if caught – rare.
jawbone at 182 and others. In CH, discussions have involved:
1) controlling bullets rather than guns, on the thinking that the arm itself is an expensive possession, the bullets are not – sort of a move to ‘responsible fire arm possession’…
2) stopping military men having their arms at home. This is of course a big deal, but linked to the future of the CH army
3) Stiffening permits for licensed arms. Nobody likes this ..how to do it?
4) Taxing licensed arms (not military ones as that can’t be done) is decried because it introduces an income status distinction, yikes.
5) Upping the age for possession to 20, 21 rather than 18
6) Sensitizing non possessors to the dangers of guns never got off the floor, it is even a dangerous thing to do.
7) other. E.g. initiative on banning guns in the home entirely.
The debates are muted. The first consideration is *suicide prevention*, with firearms a sub-topic under that rubric. It is considered that the lack of arms on the spot (with bullets) would reduce young men suicide somewhat. Or a lot. Nobody knows. The discussion about knives is not too different, on the homicide front.
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 17 2012 17:14 utc | 195
@ 195
Chris Rock – bullets control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAoMNEQo4sQ
Posted by: ONS | Dec 17 2012 17:24 utc | 196
squatting a thread that is dead, but looking at some Mommy blogs is quite illuminating. The son is 13.
I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.
A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.
That conflict ended with three burly police officers …
That is a response to the Lanza killing. She calls herself Anarchist Soccer Mom. They entry is for 14 dec, no permalink I could see.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.fr/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
All this (read it) is so chilling and horrifying I don’t know where to begin. Of course he was prescribed meds. *Zyprexa* ..
More: I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help.
What a total fuck up. All the parties get glory points for their extreme violence and weepy victim, demanding, status. Moms gets blogger hits for bringing up a killer, and kids know that the more vicious cruel dominating over the top they are, the more success they can hope to have.
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 17 2012 18:26 utc | 199
@199 Hey Noirette don’t knock it. This kind of stuff gets you an invite to Jerry Springer.
Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2012 18:51 utc | 200