Another mass shooting in the U.S

clairefontaine · 17-01-2013 11:08PM

MadsL wrote: »

Despite numerous occasions where they have in fact protected people from "bad people.". I see, would you also argue "forget doctors because we are all going to die" and refuse medical treatment or "seatbelts won't save you in a 80mph crash" as a reason for not wearing a seatbelt.

No what I mean is in an absolute sense than guns will save you, there are so many contexts where they wont, may even be turned against you. But the NRA and its followers want to arm the teachers too. They, and many others think more guns is the solution to stopping the Lanzas of this world.

There was a joke floating around "if only the Jews had guns, there'd have been no holocaust." Maybe some people really believe that. I don't know.

Do you know what the SOLE survivor of Newtown did? She played dead.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121216/sandy-hook-shooting-girl-6-was-sole-survivor-her

clairefontaine · 17-01-2013 11:12PM

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I personally want a piece of this argument (because I think you're off the deep end here), but if you can't spot the logical flaw in that argument that makes it an argument against your position (ie. that there were no guns on the planes because of gun control laws), then perhaps you need to just think about this in depth for a little longer?

That is not my position.

My point was that guns are not the be all end all of either side of the argument. That a lot of damage was done with a few box cutters, no guns, so to invest such meaning in guns, for those who want to defend them and for those who want to excoriate them, is misguided and missing the many faceted points of the Newtown tragedy, which is what all this reactionary stuff is about.

Nothing to do with the legalities of why there are no civilian guns on planes. Has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.

Overheal · 17-01-2013 11:25PM

Sparks wrote: »

Grips, maybe, but frankly I wouldn't trust them. You can beat the best fingerprint readers in the world with a gummi bear for pete's sake.

Disingenuous: according to the article it was a school attendance system (apparently they had too much money, because wtf is wrong with basic roll call?) and the article mentions higher-grade scanners which are designed to also look for body heat and blood flow during a print scan.

Sparks · 17-01-2013 11:32PM

Overheal wrote: »

Disingenuous: according to the article it was a school attendance system (apparently they had too much money, because wtf is wrong with basic roll call?) and the article mentions higher-grade scanners which are designed to also look for body heat and blood flow during a print scan.

Did you not read the linked research paper in there? It's the heat and blood flow sensors the gelatin is used to beat.

Overheal · 18-01-2013 12:28AM

Sparks wrote: »

Did you not read the linked research paper in there? It's the heat and blood flow sensors the gelatin is used to beat.

can you quote that then, I scanned all the article's sources for the word blood and came up zilch. The article mentions it, but alludes that they wouldn't be fooled by a gummy bear, unlike lower grade readers which just check capacitance.

Sparks · 18-01-2013 01:03AM

Overheal wrote: »

can you quote that then, I scanned all the article's sources for the word blood and came up zilch. The article mentions it, but alludes that they wouldn't be fooled by a gummy bear, unlike lower grade readers which just check capacitance.

http://cryptome.org/gummy.htm
It's linked to from that article and is the original research paper.
There's more commentary on it here.
And note that Mythbusters tried this one with a top-of-the-line commercial fingerprint reader that claimed to monitor capacitance, blood flow, heat and so forth. They didn't need the gummi bear. They were able to fool it with a moistened photocopy of a fingerprint lifted from a glass.

Now, step back from all of this and remember a few things:
- these are all large systems, they are heavy and they require power. This is not compatible with being integrated into a firearm.
- You'd have to retro-fit millions of firearms. Who pays for this?
- Even after all of this technologically dubious, economically awful plan is completed (somehow), what have you gained, exactly?

CollardGreens · 18-01-2013 07:34AM

(whistling Beetles song....."happiness is a warm gun...bang bang shoo shoo..")

Good thing when David killed Goliath he had a propelled weapon, he would have been in a mess if all he had on him was a box cutter. (smile)

Yawn, have a good nite ~ well, morn'in to y'all out there in Ireland land, bed time here. Zzzzzzz

Overheal · 19-01-2013 04:13AM

Sparks wrote: »

http://cryptome.org/gummy.htm
It's linked to from that article and is the original research paper.
There's more commentary on it here.
And note that Mythbusters tried this one with a top-of-the-line commercial fingerprint reader that claimed to monitor capacitance, blood flow, heat and so forth. They didn't need the gummi bear. They were able to fool it with a moistened photocopy of a fingerprint lifted from a glass.

Now, step back from all of this and remember a few things:
- these are all large systems, they are heavy and they require power. This is not compatible with being integrated into a firearm.
- You'd have to retro-fit millions of firearms. Who pays for this?
- Even after all of this technologically dubious, economically awful plan is completed (somehow), what have you gained, exactly?

Oh oh, I just re-browsed the thread and picked up on the gummy bear thing, I wasn't relating it to firearm biometrics and was interested about it from a technical aspect.

FISMA · 19-01-2013 04:15PM

FatherTed wrote: »

The issue is not drugs or movies or video games or alcohol or Marilyn Manson or religion or no religion or pills or parenting or poor schools.

You have totally missed the point if you believe the above.

The problem is violence. Gun violence is a subset of the total violence.

The mental health system needs to be fixed. Every recent mass shooter was previously known to be a psychotic or psychopath. The same liberals that wish to take away my constitutional right to own firearms vehemently protect the civil rights of the dangerously mentally ill. They render any attempt at curbing their freedoms useless and then wash their hands when events like Connecticut happen.

Not movies or video games? They do not affect anyone? If so, then why do advertisers spend billions a year on ads? What do they pay for product placement in TV and movies? Because ads don't work?

Of course violence in the media affects us. It is only a matter or to what extent and whom the subject is.

FatherTed wrote: »

There are simply too many guns in this country and it is way too easy to get them.

In what State do you live? Laws in the tri state area are some of the toughest in the country on guns.

In a best case scenario if you were to ban all rifles in the States, hunting, sporting, assault, et al, you would save around 300 people.

Estimates put the cost of implementing all of Obama's gun measures at $6 billion. That is a cost of about 20million per person killed by all rifles.

Why not get to the root cause of violence, and save far more?

Capt'n Midnight · 19-01-2013 05:03PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence = What has the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention got to do with gun violence?????

Who better to look into stats / causes / effects of a major health issue that affects the USA more than other similar countries.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/ViolentDeathsAmerica/

Each year, violence kills 55,000 people in the United States. Violence takes a particular toll on youth. Every day, 13 young people between the ages of 10 and 24 are killed, making homicide the third leading cause of death in this age group.

What is really scary is that the National Violent Death Reporting System only operates in 18 states, in a country where every 20 days is another 9/11

NVDRS is a unique, state-based surveillance system that collects facts from different sources about the same incident. The information—from death certificates, police reports, and coroner or medical examiner reports—is pooled into a usable, anonymous database. As NVDRS data become available, state and local violence prevention practitioners use it to guide their prevention programs, policies, and practices.

Today, NVDRS operates in 18 states, pulling together data on violent deaths. NVDRS data help to

Inform decision makers and program planners about the number, trends, and characteristics of violence deaths so prevention efforts can be put into place; and
Facilitate the evaluation of state-based prevention programs.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-01-2013 05:30PM

[QUOTE=FISMA;82772653The problem is violence. Gun violence is a subset of the total violence. [/quote]What is different in the USA ?

The mental health system needs to be fixed. Every recent mass shooter was previously known to be a psychotic or psychopath.

Obamacare ?

Estimates put the cost of implementing all of Obama's gun measures at $6 billion. That is a cost of about 20million per person killed by all rifles.

Why not get to the root cause of violence, and save far more?

That makes it orders of magnitude cheaper than TSA or military spending overseas.

How much would a buy back scheme cost ?

Overheal · 19-01-2013 05:57PM

Let me preface this with Sean Hannity is a Dick, and would have himself been long sitebanned from this site if he were a poster.

However, this was educational. If you're unfamiliar with firearm differences (or even if you are) this is worth a look, if you don't know the difference between the lethality of an AR-15 and a 12-Gauge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J_K3sUT3d4

EZ24GET · 19-01-2013 06:00PM

A good deal of mental health issues stem from the de- institutionalization of the 80s.Treatment for mental illness is not readily avaiable. It is darn near impossible to cause treatment to be given unless the person voluntarily submits to it.

Sparks · 19-01-2013 06:45PM

Or if you don't want to watch youtube...
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

MadsL · 19-01-2013 08:21PM

Great video.

(wish I could group like that, impressive shooting. Especially the 3 shots, 2 holes with the 9mm)

Overheal · 20-01-2013 05:05AM

I just assume her 2nd shot was wildly off, not Robin Hood

MadsL · 20-01-2013 06:19AM

Overheal wrote: »

I just assume her 2nd shot was wildly off, not Robin Hood

Irt would have to be in the ceiling to miss a board like that. She's a champion shooter.

CollardGreens · 20-01-2013 07:48AM

After seeing what Sparks put up regarding the Assault Weapon, I got to thinking, technically couldn't a rock be considered an assault weapon? How about a broom? A shoe?

The girl shooting (and wow she is a good shot) really made IMO the whole AR/AK ban stupid. With the right ammo, a rifle shooting a .308 hollow point could take out a whole bus load on the streets in the hands of a mentally ill person or somebody just mean as the devil. All one would have to do is to shoot the bus in the gas area and kaboom. I think the ones trying to ban certain guns just don't know anything about guns and probably never even shot one. They are just being picky about the way some look.

A man at the range had an AR .22, we were shooting rifles and shot guns and from looking at the targets I'd much rather be shot with the .22! The AR .22 target had a few little holes in it. The cardboard target we were shooting with the 20G, 12G & Rifle was shredded.

CollardGreens · 20-01-2013 07:48AM

After seeing what Sparks put up regarding the Assault Weapon, I got to thinking, technically couldn't a rock be considered an assault weapon? How about a broom? A shoe?

The girl shooting (and wow she is a good shot) really made IMO the whole AR/AK ban stupid. With the right ammo, a rifle shooting a .308 hollow point could take out a whole bus load on the streets in the hands of a mentally ill person or somebody just mean as the devil. All one would have to do is to shoot the bus in the gas area and kaboom. I think the ones trying to ban certain guns just don't know anything about guns and probably never even shot one. They are just being picky about the way some look.

A man at the range had an AR .22, we were shooting rifles and shot guns and from looking at the targets I'd much rather be shot with the .22! The AR .22 target had a few little holes in it. The cardboard target we were shooting with the 20G, 12G & Rifle was shredded.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 20-01-2013 09:19AM

The right to bear arms can still exist. The only thing I'd ask from the USA would be a psychological check on each applicant. This might in someway limit potential harm but obviously it won't prevent another massacre.

Take Eric Harris of Columbine for example, he got his hands on semi automatic weapons through third party's as he obviously was underage. To read about him is quite scary, the kid was a psychopath, his journal writings and post psycho analysis confirmed it, and it's accepted that he manipulated and heavily influenced his partner Dylan Klebold.

Some people are bad and that's it, they don't need to be in possession of firearms or have any chance of acquiring them.

FISMA · 20-01-2013 04:19PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The only thing I'd ask from the USA would be a psychological check on each applicant.

The only problem with this is that it goes against fundamental principles we hold sacred in the States, innocent until proven guilty.

First, it is your right to keep and bear arms. If the gov't wishes to take that right away, they need to prove why you should not have guns, not the other way around.

Also, many States do ask if you have ever been adjudicated mentally ill when attempting to purchase a firearm. That's the way it should be.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

To read about him is quite scary, the kid was a psychopath, his journal writings and post psycho analysis confirmed it

+1

He was known to be a psychopath. Almost every other shooter in the last few decades was known to be psychotic.

In general, psychopaths and psychotics do not make it through the school system un-noticed. In every recent case we knew the offender to be mentally ill, but failed to act.

Over half of the gun deaths in the States are attributed to suicide. I would argue that many of these suicides are attributable to mental health issues, like depression.

The problem is the balance that needs to be stuck between: the safety of society, the right to keep and bear arms, and the civil rights of the mentally ill.

Overheal · 21-01-2013 12:23AM

All one would have to do is to shoot the bus in the gas area and kaboom. I think the ones trying to ban certain guns just don't know anything about guns and probably never even shot one.

watching too many action movies. its really not that easy to make a gas tank explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzqnyxZxQM

FISMA · 30-01-2013 03:10AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

As for guns, ... if you have the right to bear arms, then your neighbours have the right to know exactly how much you have stashed in your house and how much ammunition you have.

How does that work?

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional Right. What right do you have to know who is armed?

You may suggest the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which is not carte blanche to go data dumpster diving.

FOIA has numerous exceptions. It is not meant to imply that all information is accessible.

If you argue that it is a matter of public knowledge, so be it. Would you also be for releasing: the names and addresses of people on food stamps? How about those who received tax funded abortions? How about a webpage where we could search on women that have filed protective orders?

Do you feel you have the right to now these too?

Actually, I take the "food stamps"comment back, they are on outdated idea. In many states, food stamps have been replaced by credit cards as using stamps was demeaning to use in public...

EZ24GET · 31-01-2013 12:39AM

there's a guy in Alabama at the moment holding an eight year old boy hostage. He's built himself an underground bomb shelter thing. First he shot the bus driver dead in front of the other kids when the driver refused to give him a child for a hostage. He had been terrorizing the neighbors for a while, threatened children and beat a dog with a lead pipe it died a week later. Did the neighbors report it- yes. Did the authorities act on the reports? - yes. DId it prevent this? NO. He obviously has mental problems. But getting someone with mental problems removed from society is a long process. Now that he has murdered the bus driver that should speed things up, if they can manage to get him and the child out of the underground bunker. It is a shame he couldn't have been taken into custody for evaluation of his mental problems on the threats he made previously or even when he beat the dog, but that's the way the mental health laws work. But let's all focus on gun control and ignore mental health reform.

StinkyMunkey · 31-01-2013 01:30AM

EZ24GET wrote: »

there's a guy in Alabama at the moment holding an eight year old boy hostage. He's built himself an underground bomb shelter thing. First he shot the bus driver dead in front of the other kids when the driver refused to give him a child for a hostage. He had been terrorizing the neighbors for a while, threatened children and beat a dog with a lead pipe it died a week later. Did the neighbors report it- yes. Did the authorities act on the reports? - yes. DId it prevent this? NO. He obviously has mental problems. But getting someone with mental problems removed from society is a long process. Now that he has murdered the bus driver that should speed things up, if they can manage to get him and the child out of the underground bunker. It is a shame he couldn't have been taken into custody for evaluation of his mental problems on the threats he made previously or even when he beat the dog, but that's the way the mental health laws work. But let's all focus on gun control and ignore mental health reform.

I thought this thread was about gun control?

And stricter controls improves the chances a person mentally unfit like this can't acquire a gun.

Here is hoping they rescue the child

MadsL · 31-01-2013 01:45AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I thought this thread was about gun control?

And stricter controls improves the chances a person mentally unfit like this can't acquire a gun.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57566212-504083/wash-man-accused-of-binding-stepdaughter-4-shooting-her-with-pellet-gun/

Stetson Tedder, 26, appeared in court Friday under investigation of domestic violence and assault of a child after allegedly shooting more than 36 pellets at his stepdaughter from an airsoft rifle.

So I assume you will now be supporting an airsoft ban worldwide to prevent mentally unstable freaks like this one getting their hands on airsoft gear?

pabloh999 · 31-01-2013 05:14AM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57566212-504083/wash-man-accused-of-binding-stepdaughter-4-shooting-her-with-pellet-gun/

So I assume you will now be supporting an airsoft ban worldwide to prevent mentally unstable freaks like this one getting their hands on airsoft gear?

Stetson Tedder, 26, appeared in court Friday under investigation of domestic
violence and assault of a child after allegedly shooting more than 36 pellets at
his stepdaughter from an airsoft rifle.

Its assault, not mass murderous rampage ffs

If an airsoft gun could shred unlimited amount of innocents in a matter of minutes then they should be highly regulated, but they cant so its ridiculous to make that comparison and you bloody know well it is.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 06:39AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Its assault, not mass murderous rampage ffs

If an airsoft gun could shred unlimited amount of innocents in a matter of minutes then they should be highly regulated, but they cant so its ridiculous to make that comparison and you bloody know well it is.

Double standards? If gun bans are the answer to mass murderous rampages why is an airsoft ban not the answer to assaults with airsoft guns?

Hourglass Shrugged · 31-01-2013 07:32AM

Possible scenario:

1. US bans assault rifles.

2. US government tries to confiscate assault rifles from registered assault rifle owners.

3. Some assault rifle owners don't want their assault rifles confiscated by the government because they don't want to lose the expensive rifles that they probably spent thousands on.

4. Some assault rifles owners search for alternate means of disposal of their assault rifles before they're confiscate; means that will give them some sort of return on their investment.

5. Some assault rifle owners try to sell their assault rifles on the black market (to god knows whom) before they're confiscated.

(Note: The vast majority of gun crime in the US is caused by criminals with illegally held guns bought on the black market or stolen. Most of the time these shooters have previous convictions.)

RESULT: Black market supply of assault rifles may increase giving criminals more access to assault rifles. Gun crime may increase as a result.

31-01-2013 07:36AM

MadsL wrote: »

Double standards? If gun bans are the answer to mass murderous rampages why is an airsoft ban not the answer to assaults with airsoft guns?

Because airsoft( is that even a real word?) is for pussies.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments