[subego]

Eh, never mind.

[lpkmckenna]

Mike Huckabee is a disgusting prick of a human being.

Now is not the time to shill for your moronic, theocratic, Tallibangelical bullcrap, you bloated hate-monger.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Banning. guns. doesn't. work.

I suggest you look at the crime stats of Canada and Europe compared to the U.S.A.

Either gun control works, or American is disproportionately filled with evil people.

I think you Americans better wake up to the fact that groups like the NRA are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, not the gun owners. But instead of guns, they manufacture idiotic slogans designed to fool the people into protecting the profits of greedy violence-peddlers.

[subego]

These are probably more appropriate for the PWL thread.

[lpkmckenna]

Wait, this isn't the PWL? What the hell?

[lpkmckenna]

Conservatives live in a bubble of delusional information regarding gun violence.

David Kopel Denies U.S. Gun Violence Epidemic On CNN.

Just like with the election forecasting, with climate change data, with safe sex education results, with economic analysis, and so many other things, conservatives are living in a reality where slogans have replaced numbers in how they see the world.

And just think about what this Kopel person is saying:

No, it's the total homicide rate I was talking about, and when you create conditions of gun scarcity like you have in the United Kingdom, you create conditions that make it easy for criminals. One of the reasons that the United Kingdom has an astronomical burglary rate compared to the United States is because UK burglars have no fears of getting shot by the homeowner.

Of course, factually, the burglary rate in the UK is not astronomical compared to the US, but the US gun-violence difference is indeed astronomical.

That's right America: you should accept an astronomical gun-violence rate as a beneficial trade-off to gain a slightly lower rate of burglary.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Because there's two sides and both are dumb.
1. Increase gun control, which will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, and do nothing.
2. "This is why people should have conceal/carry" okay but I'm pretty sure most teachers don't pack heat so it wouldn't have helped.
It's just dumb. Just please don't. There's no point in arguing either side. One side is full of koombayah granola eating dumb****s that think outlawing firearms is somehow possible and that fewer guns reduce crime (ha) and the other side is full of redneck morons that get boners over firearms. I rarely see anybody talking about a middle ground, which is I'm pretty sure what we already have. What I do think is worth talking about is motives... and trying to understand WHY something happened.

Exactly, and with all of this emotionally charged rhetoric it gives politicians the perfect out to not to the hard work of analyzing why this actually happened. Unfortunately, the private sector is certainly not going to do this either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Mike Huckabee is a disgusting prick of a human being.
Now is not the time to shill for your moronic, theocratic, Tallibangelical bullcrap, you bloated hate-monger.

and then you do the same thing. That'll learn `em!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by finboy 

FWIW this should have started out in the PL in the first place, since that's where it always ends up. My first post just mentioned the inevitability of the Lefties jumping on this so that the crisis wouldn't "go to waste." Look how fast that happened!

Funny, the first thing that stuck in my craw today were the ultra-pro-gun types who took this opportunity to rag on about the gubment taking away their guns.

Either extreme position is full of reactionary idiots.

We are NOT a safer culture with everyone armed and we are NOT a safer culture if all guns were deemed illegal.

Both the hippe types and the gun-boner types need a f**king reality check, for realz.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and then you do the same thing. That'll learn `em!

What did I do that was remotely the same as Huckabee?

[Shaddim]

Okay guys, what has changed? We had access to guns 25 years ago; semi-autos, pistols, shotguns, all the same stuff he have now, only back then people weren't shooting up elementary schools. How has society changed? Is it due to a stronger sense of entitlement? More lethal violence portrayed in entertainment? Less focus on teaching responsibility and fostering respect towards others? All of the above?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What did I do that was remotely the same as Huckabee?

You're right, your comments were much more despicable than his.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay guys, what has changed? We had access to guns 25 years ago; semi-autos, pistols, shotguns, all the same stuff he have now, only back then people weren't shooting up elementary schools. How has society changed? Is it due to a stronger sense of entitlement? More lethal violence portrayed in entertainment? Less focus on teaching responsibility and fostering respect towards others? All of the above?

The difference is the aggressive campaign to cut funding from social services and welfare programs. It was a coordinated effort since the 1980s. When the "crazies" remain undiagnosed, they get a gun and kill 20 kids.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay guys, what has changed? We had access to guns 25 years ago; semi-autos, pistols, shotguns, all the same stuff he have now, only back then people weren't shooting up elementary schools. How has society changed?

You might as well ask: how come no one burns down black churches as often as they used to? Irrational behaviour is just like any other fashion, it comes and goes without a specific cause.

Besides, we already have some idea about today's killer: he was mentally ill. It doesn't matter how much you teach that guy manners and religion, he's still too crazy to have easy access to firearms.

Is it due to a stronger sense of entitlement?

Wow, a pathetic, anti-liberal dog-whistle. Classy.

More lethal violence portrayed in entertainment?

Please tell me you're just spit-balling and not seriously suggesting this.

Less focus on teaching responsibility and fostering respect towards others?

Yes, because they don't teach that anymore.

Besides, you have it backwards. People are more respectful to others today than they were 25, 50, and 100 years ago. When we move back in time, people were more violent, more abusive, more bullying, and so on. Do you know how hard it was to be a wife, or a nerd, or black 50 years ago? It was the fncking dark ages. A bully could pound another kid so hard they couldn't get out of bed the next day, and people shrugged it off and says "boys will be boys."

All of the above?

How about "none of the above."

How about: it's easier to buy a private arsenal than to access quality mental health care?

How about: it's easier to get a gun than a car. For one thing, there should be a legal requirement to buy accident insurance for each and every gun you own, and for every person who has access to them. And seriously: why should a private citizen be allowed to own a bullet-proof vest?

How about: a gun used to be a relatively expensive purchase, and people didn't hoard them for no reason. Now, like cell phones, everyone can buy a new one every year without issue. An then when someone's house is burglarized, the criminals find a hoard of weapons to put on the street.

You're right, your comments were much more despicable than his.

So when I ask you to defend your fncking ridiculous assertion, you respond with an even more fncking ridiculous assertion?

Guess what, genius: calling out someone like Huckabee for saying something friggin' moronic is not the same as uttering something friggin' moronic in the first place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The difference is the aggressive campaign to cut funding from social services and welfare programs. It was a coordinated effort since the 1980s. When the "crazies" remain undiagnosed, they get a gun and kill 20 kids.

I don't remember there being much invested in those programs during the 60s and 70s, and back then people weren't shooting up kindergarten classes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You might as well ask: how come no one burns down black churches as often as they used to? Irrational behaviour is just like any other fashion, it comes and goes without a specific cause.
Besides, we already have some idea about today's killer: he was mentally ill. It doesn't matter how much you teach that guy manners and religion, he's still too crazy to have easy access to firearms.

Firearms have always been fairly easy to acquire, but the rash of mass shootings are a relatively recent occurrence. Are people more crazy now?

Wow, a pathetic, anti-liberal dog-whistle. Classy.
Please tell me you're just spit-balling and not seriously suggesting this.

You don't have the reputation to lecture me on class.

Yes, because they don't teach that anymore.

Perhaps not to the degree it was taught at one time.

Besides, you have it backwards. People are more respectful to others today than they were 25, 50, and 100 years ago. When we move back in time, people were more violent, more abusive, more bullying, and so on. Do you know how hard it was to be a wife, or a nerd, or black 50 years ago? It was the fncking dark ages. A bully could pound another kid so hard they couldn't get out of bed the next day, and people shrugged it off and says "boys will be boys."

I wasn't talking about that far back, mostly the 80s and 90s.

How about: it's easier to buy a private arsenal than to access quality mental health care?

Again, are people nuttier now? I don't seem to remember these "FPS" type killings happening in the US 25 years ago.

How about: it's easier to get a gun than a car.

No, not really.

For one thing, there should be a legal requirement to buy accident insurance for each and every gun you own, and for every person who has access to them. And seriously: why should a private citizen be allowed to own a bullet-proof vest?

Accident insurance? I don't know of any insurer who would pay out because the insured went nuts and shot up a school, that's hardly an "accident". How would you stop them from getting vests? Kevlar isn't that hard to buy for industrial purposes, and fitting a trauma plate into a self-made vest would be simple.

How about: a gun used to be a relatively expensive purchase, and people didn't hoard them for no reason. Now, like cell phones, everyone can buy a new one every year without issue. An then when someone's house is burglarized, the criminals find a hoard of weapons to put on the street.

No, there have always been inexpensive guns, the Saturday Night Special is a good example, same goes for Bushmaster rifles and shotguns. You could pay more for better, but it wasn't a necessity.

So when I ask you to defend your fncking ridiculous assertion, you respond with an even more fncking ridiculous assertion?

This is part of you "being here to fight" again, isn't it?

Guess what, genius: calling out someone like Huckabee for saying something friggin' moronic is not the same as uttering something friggin' moronic in the first place.

Why do you need a hostile, profanity-filled post (in the regular Lounge) just to say you don't agree with him?

[Doc HM]

I guess this really answers the question "Is there an event SO horrific, so violent and so shocking that Americans might even consider that gun control is a good thing?"

I mean, what is a gun for if not to kill people. You can chunter on about self defense, right to bear arms etc but the end of story is that a gun is a machine with one purpose, to end life at distance. And that purpose is completely incompatible with a modern society.

And yes, I know, you need that gun to stop that armed criminal. And yes, maybe at a specific point you might (add in comment about protecting property, wife kids. Yes I know about that), but in general, and in overarching need, we, the rest of society DON'T. You don't need to put on that seatbelt, but the law makes you. There are plenty of things that could be classed as a need for an individual at a specific point that society deems too destructive overall.

At some point an individual "may" loose because they can't reach for a gun to defend themselves, but overall we all benefit for the lack of guns.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Firearms have always been fairly easy to acquire, but the rash of mass shootings are a relatively recent occurrence. Are people more crazy now?

Like I said, certain behaviours go in and out of fashion. Read any Jack the Ripper type stories in the paper lately? (Yes, I know prostitutes are still murdered every day.)

You don't have the reputation to lecture me on class.

Say something classless, and I'll call it classless. You're not the appointed hall monitor of decorum, so stop pretending you are.

Perhaps not to the degree it was taught at one time.

I wasn't talking about that far back, mostly the 80s and 90s.

I'm 40. When I went to school, there were no consequences for physical bullying, there were no consequences for name-calling. Hell, I even remember when the principal could administer the strap, but it was never used to deal with violence or bullies, only with students who damaged school property or mouthed-off to teachers. Today, anti-bullying is routinely emphasized, and performing community service is a requirement to graduate. Don't tell me they don't teach manners and respect when they clearly do it better now than then.

Besides, crime stats have been in a free-fall since the 70s. If we're discussing the overall character of young people today, the crime stats clearly show they are better people than kids in prior generations were. These massacres are statistical out-liers, and not representative of whether kids today have less responsibility or respect for others.

Again, are people nuttier now? I don't seem to remember these "FPS" type killings happening in the US 25 years ago.

1966: Charles Whitman, a former marine, holes up in the clock tower at the University of Texas campus in Austin, where he had studied. He kills 15 people and wounds another 32 before being shot dead by police.

Were video games popular in 1966?

Or how about the Bath School bombing in 1927. Were video games popular in 1927?

I'm sure if John Wilkes Booth had access to semi-automatic weapons, Lincoln wouldn't have been the only dead theatre-goer that night.

No, not really.

Really. To get a car you need a licence, you need training, you need insurance. To get a gun, you need Wal-Mart and some pocket change.

Accident insurance? I don't know of any insurer who would pay out because the insured went nuts and shot up a school, that's hardly an "accident".

They would if the law told them to, and the insurance tables were structured right. Contrast the several hundreds of gun crimes with the millions of guns owned, and the insurance industry would make a killing. My point is: if you buy a gun, you should pay insurance in case that gun is ever used in the commission of a crime. Get Washington and the insurance industry to a table and have them hash out a plan that keeps the insurance industry in the black, and then make purchase mandatory. I'm also on board with Waragainstsleep's suggesting of a massive tax on guns to deter gun hoarding, but the mandatory insurance scheme would do something about the hoarded guns already in circulation.

If you own a car, you need insurance because cars are dangerous. Likewise, gun are dangerous, and should be insured. It would be a great deterrent to gun hoarding, and it would provide for victims of gun crime. And since insurers would critically assess who is buying insurance from them, it would keep guns from shady, irresponsible people.

How would you stop them from getting vests? Kevlar isn't that hard to buy for industrial purposes, and fitting a trauma plate into a self-made vest would be simple.

You can build your own pipe-bombs too. Should we just make those legal?

Get caught possessing a vest? Charged. Use a vest in the commission of a crime? More charges. And banning them would cease the pointless production and sale of vests for private purchase.

No, there have always been inexpensive guns, the Saturday Night Special is a good example, same goes for Bushmaster rifles and shotguns. You could pay more for better, but it wasn't a necessity.

Did any large public massacres use Saturday Night Specials? Didn't think so.

This is part of you "being here to fight" again, isn't it?

Just keep dodging my question. Which was: What did I do that was remotely the same as Huckabee?

The answer is: nothing.

In fact, with your fascination with "what changed since the 80s?" and assertions that kids today aren't taught "responsibility and respect," I'm starting to suspect you actually agree with him that removing religion from school is party responsible for these massacres.

Why do you need a hostile, profanity-filled post (in the regular Lounge) just to say you don't agree with him?

And there goes your hall monitor behaviour again. I don't need your fncking permission or approval for how I talk about theocratic jackasses like Huckabee. I won't look for your approval to speak harshly about Idi Amin, the Ayatollah, Genghis Khan, or Osama Bin Laden either.

Like I said, I didn't notice this wasn't posted in the PWL, where I assumed it was and it should have been all along.

[lpkmckenna]

Saw this at Fark (you know, that forum where people can have an aggressive debate without self-deputized hall monitors whining about it):

7660/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

I love this one too:

7661/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[lpkmckenna]

Here are two really interesting, fact-based articles on guns from the Washington Post:

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States
Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

Here's a pretty telling graph:

7662/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

Of course, it supports two things I have been saying in this thread: the US is way, way worse than any other developed nation for firearms violence, and crime has been dropping like a rock in the US since the 70s. (Probably because of Roe v Wade.)

I suppose if that American trend continues, the US should finally start resembling a civilized nation by about 2040.

[lpkmckenna]

Since I need to spell it out for Shaddim: Huckabee is exploiting a national tragedy so he can exploit the Christian religion for political purposes. It's psychopathic behaviour.

Mike Huckabee wrote an absurd book about child killers:

7664/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

In this book, Huckabee names the following things as the cause of child killers: feminism, abortion, welfare, the NEA (a teachers union), porn, the entertainment industry ("Entertainment industry is brainwashing kids to kill"), civil rights, and "mass profanity in pop music." He includes a chapter on guns only to insist that gun control doesn't work.

He wrote that book with George Grant, a theo-conservative kook who has written literally dozens and dozens of books advocating the most extreme political viewpoints imaginable. Not a single book on religion or theology, mind you. It seems like every one (except what looks like a cook book) is an unholy recipe for the politicization of Christianity. Like this crap:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ ― to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That′s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land ― of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God′s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God′s rule.

Yeah, I've read the Bible. I missed that verse where Jesus says stuff like "a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ ― to have dominion in the civil structures."

Notice the terrifying assertion that the "sacred purpose" of witnessing and preaching is not to achieve personal salvation for anyone, but "to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship." That is pretty much the most dismal corruption of Christianity I have ever read.

If a Muslim wrote a book like that, it would be on the watch list of every neo-con in America.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Saw this at Fark (you know, that forum where people can have an aggressive debate without self-deputized hall monitors whining about it)

Was that directed at me?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Was that directed at me?

No.

Anyways, Huckabee is now merely second in line for monstrous right-wing stupidity since this event, as certified hate-group American Family Association spokesperson Bryan Fischer said, I kid you not:

Fischer: God Didn't Stop CT School Shooting Because He's a 'Gentleman' Who Doesn't Go Where He Is Not Wanted.

He says God chose not to protect those murdered kids because He was removed from schools by the government, and is apparently still pissed about that. For realz.

How could anybody be so god-damn fncking stupid? Can anyone explain it to me? Where do these people learn these brain-dead ideas?

In case you think this is some obscure kook, Fischer has been very influential in Republican politics. During the 2012 presidential primaries, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty were guests on Fischer's show. And he lead the successful charge to have Richard Grenell kicked off the Romney campaign for being gay (proving most of all what a useless, spineless twerp of a man that Romney is).

Incredibly, after successfully hounding Romney into firing Grenell, Fischer declared "If Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, co-opted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin?”

In the end, Fischer was always planning to condemn Romney over Grenell no matter what. Keep Grenell, you're a lousy conservative. Fire Grenell, and you're too spineless to be President.

And in the end, we know Grenell hated Romney in any case, because he's a Mormon, and Fischer doesn't even think Mormons are entitled to First Amendment rights.

Fischer: First Amendment Does Not Apply To Mormons. Or to any non-Christian religion. As he says: "[T]the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion." and "And it was very clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths."

That's right, FIVE Republican party candidates appeared on this friggin' kook's radio show after he said this.

I said it before, every political movement has its share of kooks. But the Democrats shun their kooks, while the GOP enthrones their kooks.

[mattyb]

Horrifying. I just cannot get my head around this. French news has been talking about school shootings, and this one also came up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

[mattyb]

Horrifying. I just cannot get my head around this. French news has been talking about school shootings, and this one also came up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I guess this really answers the question "Is there an event SO horrific, so violent and so shocking that Americans might even consider that gun control is a good thing?"
I mean, what is a gun for if not to kill people. You can chunter on about self defense, right to bear arms etc but the end of story is that a gun is a machine with one purpose, to end life at distance. And that purpose is completely incompatible with a modern society.
And yes, I know, you need that gun to stop that armed criminal. And yes, maybe at a specific point you might (add in comment about protecting property, wife kids. Yes I know about that), but in general, and in overarching need, we, the rest of society DON'T. You don't need to put on that seatbelt, but the law makes you. There are plenty of things that could be classed as a need for an individual at a specific point that society deems too destructive overall.
At some point an individual "may" loose because they can't reach for a gun to defend themselves, but overall we all benefit for the lack of guns.

Competition shooting and hunting come to mind. The former is an internationally honored tradition, and the latter is fun (and tasty). "Do you need an assault rifle for hunting?" The difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle" is cosmetic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

crime has been dropping like a rock in the US since the 70s. (Probably because of Roe v Wade.)

Wow. I've not known you to self-parody, but I can't grok how this could be anything else, especially after ripping on Huckabee for shoe-horning unrelated political axes to grind into this discussion. popcorn.gif.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Competition shooting and hunting come to mind. The former is an internationally honored tradition, and the latter is fun (and tasty). "Do you need an assault rifle for hunting?" The difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle" is cosmetic.

We have both of those here.

And yet we have extremely strict gun control laws.

There is no contradiction between requiring strict background checks, mandating that all guns be registered and kept in secure lockers at all times when not in use or in transit, be transported only in secured and unloaded condition, while still allowing hunting and competition sports.

The big problem with the US situation is the sense of entitlement and the extremely noisy propaganda from the NRA loonies. It will be extremely difficult to find a workable solution to get away from what you have now.

But if it isn't obvious that what is going on now is NOT working, and that having EVEN MORE guns is not going to help, then there really isn't much hope for you.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

crime has been dropping like a rock in the US since the 70s. (Probably because of Roe v Wade.)

Wow. I've not known you to self-parody, but I can't grok how this could be anything else, especially after ripping on Huckabee for shoe-horning unrelated political axes to grind into this discussion. popcorn.gif.

I found that confusing, as well. But I *think* he's drawing a causative relation between fewer unwanted babies and fewer unhappy individuals going off on killing sprees.
That might be the pill, too, though.
Or the end of the Vietnam war.
Or the dying out of WWII vets.
Or the rise of computing.
Or, most probably, because of the end of manned moon landings. The correlation is obvious! It must be true!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Competition shooting and hunting come to mind. The former is an internationally honored tradition, and the latter is fun (and tasty). "Do you need an assault rifle for hunting?" The difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle" is cosmetic.

Hunting rifles existed for a long time without auto-loading and magazine feed. And they could again, hypothetically.

There are very few competitive shooting styles that require serious firepower, except for competitions modelled on military methods, which could be eliminated. Very modest weapons are used at the Olympic shooting events.

My point is not that we should eliminate all firearms with auto and mags, only that we could and still retain sport shooting and hunting. Neither are in danger by a modest scaling back of the power of civilian firearms.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wow. I've not known you to self-parody, but I can't grok how this could be anything else, especially after ripping on Huckabee for shoe-horning unrelated political axes to grind into this discussion. popcorn.gif.

The relation between legalized abortion and the drop in crime has been discussed exhaustively since the book Freakonomics brought it to public consciousness. I figured everyone would know what I was referring to. I didn't bring it up to derail the conversation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Like I said, certain behaviours go in and out of fashion. Read any Jack the Ripper type stories in the paper lately? (Yes, I know prostitutes are still murdered every day.)

Yes, it's called the "the news". Mass killings with a revolver? Like, the Son of Sam?

Say something classless, and I'll call it classless. You're not the appointed hall monitor of decorum, so stop pretending you are.

"Decorum"? If you act like a foul-mouthed child, people call you on it.

I'm 40. When I went to school, there were no consequences for physical bullying, there were no consequences for name-calling. Hell, I even remember when the principal could administer the strap, but it was never used to deal with violence or bullies,

Ours sure did, I was paddled at least once /month, for fighting or breaking rules. Up rolled the sleeves, out came "The Law", which was half of a boat oar with a dozen holes drilled through the paddle (I know because I sat and counted them, a few times). Once I couldn't sit without wincing for 2 days. I'd filled my homeroom teacher's desk with gelatin, with her stuff in it, and them let it setup in the cafeteria fridge, then replaced it without anyone else seeing. Now that I think about it, in that instance the crime was absolutely worth the punishment.

Your school faculty wasn't doing their jobs, much like schools today. I still see that principal, down at the old drug store, many times we've reminisced about those days, and I've thanked him for not letting me slide by with some of the stuff I tried to pull.

Just keep dodging my question. Which was: What did I do that was remotely the same as Huckabee?
The answer is: nothing.

He made a statement; clearly and with conviction, without angrily slinging poo.

In fact, with your fascination with "what changed since the 80s?" and assertions that kids today aren't taught "responsibility and respect," I'm starting to suspect you actually agree with him that removing religion from school is party responsible for these massacres.

Nope, can't say that I do. The fact there are no real repercussions for children, if they behave badly, is the problem. When I was bad, I was strapped, at home, and then grounded. I didn't get sent to my room, afterward I was sent to the guest room, away from my toys and personal possessions. When my nephew misbehaved, I spanked him and took away his Gameboy and such things. His attitude changed dramatically and he's never misbehaved again when he visits. His parents do the same. Now he's respectful, polite, and understands that there are rules, and those rules exist to foster order in a community. My sister and I have worked to drill that into his head all these years, and it's worked.

And there goes your hall monitor behaviour again. I don't need your fncking permission or approval for how I talk about theocratic jackasses like Huckabee. I won't look for your approval to speak harshly about Idi Amin, the Ayatollah, Genghis Khan, or Osama Bin Laden either.
Like I said, I didn't notice this wasn't posted in the PWL, where I assumed it was and it should have been all along.

Actually, you did, because you said that, and then made this very post. I believe you're incapable of having a discussion without being abusive and profane.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Saw this at Fark (you know, that forum where people can have an aggressive debate without self-deputized hall monitors whining about it):

Then stay there, MacNN isn't the same as Fark (thankfully).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay guys, what has changed? We had access to guns 25 years ago; semi-autos, pistols, shotguns, all the same stuff he have now, only back then people weren't shooting up elementary schools. How has society changed? Is it due to a stronger sense of entitlement? More lethal violence portrayed in entertainment? Less focus on teaching responsibility and fostering respect towards others? All of the above?
You're right, your comments were much more despicable than his.

Back then the crazy folks were all warehoused in inhumane conditions at state expense, and the Lefties cried that the conditions were in fact inhumane, and the asylums were closed and it became harder to be "committed" for life, etc. We've also gotten better (ironically) at diagnosing different degrees of instability, so yes, there are in fact more nut cases out in public these days. And despite the fact that there are more school counselors than ever before, per capita, these freaks still get passed along by the system. Look at the VA Tech case, the Fort Hood case (not a kid, but religiously immature just the same), AZ, CO, and now this - all of them were found or even diagnosed unstable before the massacre happened and nothing was done to prevent it by those with the best or last clear chance.

On the other hand, with all of the guns in this country look at how many DIDN'T kill any innocent people yesterday.

The problem here is far deeper than anyone on the Left is willing to admit, but it's probably related to moral relativism and the "hands off" style of child-rearing. The "don't tell me how to raise my kids" bunch is oh-so-disappointed when Junior offs his college sweetheart or drill instructor, but disappointment isn't usually surprise. How many times do we need to hear "yep, that's the guy" before we start taking a look at who's allowed to remain in the "mainstream" in schools?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I found that confusing, as well. But I *think* he's drawing a causative relation between fewer unwanted babies and fewer unhappy individuals going off on killing sprees.

Abortion as a tool social engineering? *shudder*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I found that confusing, as well. But I *think* he's drawing a causative relation between fewer unwanted babies and fewer unhappy individuals going off on killing sprees.

Abortion as a tool social engineering? *shudder*

In all fairness: There's a HUGE difference between instituting something as a policy to achieve a certain effect, and instituting something because it is RIGHT and CONSTITUTIONAL, and then seeing a result of that decision.

[Shaddim]

Compromises.

How about a complete psychological profile required to purchase handguns and semi-auto weapons? Instead of insurance, how about requiring a person to be bonded or deputized to get a CWP? Frankly, people who have CWPs aren't an issue, you don't hear about them shooting up public places.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In all fairness: There's a HUGE difference between instituting something as a policy to achieve a certain effect, and instituting something because it is RIGHT and CONSTITUTIONAL, and then seeing a result of that decision.

I understand, but the intent is often occluded by the result.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Abortion as a tool social engineering? *shudder*

No one advocated that.

[mattyb]

Why do people only think that its the availability of guns that contributes to these sorts of crimes? Couldn't it be a combination of things? One can quote crime stats from countries with no gun control and others with lots of gun control and nothing is clear cut.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Why do people only think that its the availability of guns that contributes to these sorts of crimes?

I don't think anybody is dumb enough to claim that, even though the pro-gun side does what they can to paint people that way (and the anti-side does likewise).

But there was an attack on 22 school children and their teacher in china yesterday. Not a single death. The attacker had a knife.

[lpkmckenna]

i think this is a pretty good summary of the state of things:

7676/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Compromises.
How about a complete psychological profile required to purchase handguns and semi-auto weapons?

It wouldn't have helped in this case. The shooter had no right to own a gun anyway since he was too young. A better solution would be if the guns were properly locked and secure beyond his access. Securing firearms is a crucial part of effective gun control. Leaving guns in the night stand is a license to massacre.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Back then the crazy folks were all warehoused in inhumane conditions at state expense, and the Lefties cried that the conditions were in fact inhumane, and the asylums were closed and it became harder to be "committed" for life, etc.

The end of mandatory confinement was a mostly bi-partisan effort, and was largely spearheaded by the mental health community. Reagan seemed to think it was ok, for instance.

Regardless, the "criminally insane" wouldn't be confined unless they had actually done something criminal first. There's no reason to believe this shooter would have been confined if past policies had been in effect. Confinement pretty much follows the first criminal incident, it doesn't precede it.

On the other hand, with all of the guns in this country look at how many DIDN'T kill any innocent people yesterday.

You could say the same thing about mental illness. Look at all the crazy people who didn't commence a brutal killing spree!!

The problem here is far deeper than anyone on the Left is willing to admit, but it's probably related to moral relativism and the "hands off" style of child-rearing.

Pffft. No it's not.

You yourself are the one linking these crimes to mental illness. Are you now telling me moral relativism causes mental illness? Pick a cause and stick to it.

The "don't tell me how to raise my kids" bunch is oh-so-disappointed when Junior offs his college sweetheart or drill instructor, but disappointment isn't usually surprise. How many times do we need to hear "yep, that's the guy" before we start taking a look at who's allowed to remain in the "mainstream" in schools?

This shooter made it all the way thru high school without anyone suggesting he was a lunatic-in-the-making.

Why are you so quick to remove people from school and/or have them committed, but you're not prepared to discuss effective out-patient treatment for mental illness. At the least, the latter would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wow. I've not known you to self-parody, but I can't grok how this could be anything else, especially after ripping on Huckabee for shoe-horning unrelated political axes to grind into this discussion. popcorn.gif.

The relation between legalized abortion and the drop in crime has been discussed exhaustively since the book Freakonomics brought it to public consciousness. I figured everyone would know what I was referring to. I didn't bring it up to derail the conversation.

Neither did Huckabee

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Neither did Huckabee

He did put it in his book "Kids Who Kill." First chapter, in fact.

[andi*pandi]

Even if his mother locked the guns he would have found a way. Again, how do you cure crazy.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthebluereview.org%2F i-am-adam-lanzas-mother%2F

This isn't about corporal punishment. Spanking doesn't cure crazy, it cures bratty. And bratty is not the problem here.

also, I believe they used the whip back in 27:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103186662

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Neither did Huckabee

He did put it in his book "Kids Who Kill." First chapter, in fact.

And that is different from you referring to a book where people can go read about it... how?

[Waragainstsleep]

So Mom was a gun nut who pulled the kid out of school to home school him. Colour me surprised.

How do you fix a problem when you need half a population to implicate themselves as being the problem? Good luck with that one America.

Hint: Saying: "They would have found another way" is a silly (ir)rationalisation. Otherwise why not legalise nuclear weapons? After all, you can always get degrees in physics or engineering and build your own. The "find another way" argument is basically advocation of anarchy.

Morgan Freeman made an excellent point about giving too much attention and notoriety to the perpetrators. He is probably correct when he says they just want attention and before the advent of modern mass media these guys would have just topped themselves in a basement. Would the media agree to a poicy of refusing to the name these shooters? Probably not, and if they did some blogger would see it as a way to get page hits.

[Spheric Harlot]

You're trying to argue reason with people who saw fit to air interviews with third-graders whose school had just been shot up, with twenty of their schoolmates shot dead?

Seriously?

Because that's whom your trying to get to follow ethical reporting standards.

[Dork.]

Saw the thing about Morgan Freeman on Reddit, but now Reddit is not sure he ever said it. Still, whenever we talk about the media, we have to be able to admit that the reason the media covers things this way is because they think this is what they need to do to get ratings (and advertising dollars). "Morgan Freeman"'s main bit of advice is to all of us: turn the TV off, and stop giving ratings points to media talking heads with empty content.

[pooka]

Crazy shit is always going to happen, and regardless of your worldview, I think everyone will agree that something must be done. I for one applaud the metered and well-reasoned response to the vile acts such as those committed by Richard Reid. I think everyone will rest better at night knowing that something is being done.

The time to act is now. Put the TSA in charge of school security.