A serious question...

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:14 pm

In the wake of these lunatic shootings, what would you do to prevent them? I'm talking, okay, you are now the King of the United States. Your word is law. You needn't trouble with Constitutional niceties. The SCOTUS is your lapdog. No worries there. You've made it your mission to quell this insane violence, the People are behind you, and all that matters to you are the results.

So....

The obvious point: This shit may not even be preventable. Whackjobs will do as whackjobs do. That being the case, just chalk it up to Shit Happens, and not much can be done about it.

No? There has to be a way to stop the madness?

Okay. So...what then? How much do our personal freedoms really matter here? Is our right to bear arms more important than the possible prevention of needless deaths? If you're found carrying a firearm of any sort, you're executed on the spot. No exceptions. No attempting to weed out the miscreants from the licensed nutjobs.

I have to say, that would certainly reduce the number of crimes committed by gun-wielding morons of all stripes. There's no two ways around it. Sure, NRA types who conveniently trot out the "sanctity of the Constitution" argument would raise holy sanctimonious hell over this utter nonissue, but it would go a long way towards doing the job.

Would a better option simply be to turn all public places (schools, malls, theaters, arenas, etc.) into locked down quasi-militarized zones replete with metal detectors and physical pat-down procedures for all who deign to enter?

Don't scoff. In terms of airports, we're already there.

Bottom line, I really don't see any other options. It seems that all we have are these three: 1. Do nothing, because our personal freedoms matter more than life itself. 2. Go full-on Draconian. Make guns of all types completely illegal, the penalty for carrying them being state-sanctioned execution. 3. Turn every public gathering into a meeting at Hitler's bunker.

Seems to me that Option 3 is the least feasible and therefore the least likely. There is simply no way to secure every possible public gathering. Take a look at the Norway guy, the freak who blew up the government building before hopping on over to a secluded island and blasting the bejeezus out of all those kids.

It just wouldn't work. Nope, it seems that our only two options are to wring our hands and say how horrible it is while doing nothing, or to break a few Constitutional eggs and reinvent the game.

Thoughts?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:20 pm

Van wrote: How much do our personal freedoms really matter here?

What could possibly be more important than that?

Is our right to bear arms more important than the possible prevention of needless deaths?

The possible prevention of needless deaths is the entire premise of our right to bear arms, idiot. Grab your balls, if you have any, and stop hyperventilating.

Bottom line, I really don't see any other options.

It surprising you can see anything at all with your head stuck that far up your ass. No other options at all? Really? Change your diaper and try again.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:26 pm

Instead of being your usual mvscal, go ahead and delineate those options.

And yes, to the parent of a child who was just senselessly gunned down, there are certainly things that are more important than the Constitutional right to bear arms: her child's last breath, for starters.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:29 pm

Maybe you should just fuck off until you're capable of rational thought.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:35 pm

Maybe you should stand and deliver for once instead of fleeing the premises amid a hale of nonsequitur insults.

If you have something resembling a solution, spit it out. If not, just say so.

Oh, and if you think the only thing standing between our government annihilating us vs the status quo that is our glorious freedoms is an armed citizenry, you're very likely just as much of a nutjob as the rest. Newsflash, moron: H4ever and his ilk are not the reason U.S. tanks aren't rolling down Main St, USA. If the United States military wanted to impress its will upon us in that fashion, all the Derrons of the world aren't going to matter a hill of beans. Your right to bear arms isn't preventing a damn thing.

M2 · Post by M2 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:37 pm

mvscal wrote:The possible prevention of needless deaths is the entire premise of our right to bear arms, idiot.

You're so fucking stupid it's mind blowing.

The second amendment begins "a well regulated militia"....right to bear arms. The concern was having an armed militia trained for a subsequent war with Great Britain.

How our Supreme Court decided to go from that to everyone carrying weapons is hard to understand.

Also the founding fathers were dealing with something like blunderbusses, not 100 round a minute weapons.

But carry on you blabbering idiot.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:39 pm

As usual, Van, your simplistic either/or inanity stretches the limits of idiocy. Are those really the only three alternatives? Is Govan the gopher really better than John McLaughlin? Could we really have won in Viet Nam? Are you the stupidest poster in the history of this board? Well that would be...No...No...No...and perhaps.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:44 pm

You too, Nick. If you have a better solution, let's hear it. That is, after all, the specific purpose of this thread.

Van wrote:Thoughts?

^^^^ See?

Exactly what did you think that meant?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:48 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As usual, Van, your simplistic either/or inanity stretches the limits of idiocy. Are those really the only three alternatives?

Perhaps not. I eagerly await your alternatives, as well as mvscal's.

Is Govan the gopher really better than John McLaughlin?

In all seriousness, yes, he is...by a wide margin.

Could we really have won in Viet Nam?

Without a doubt. Could we have won while fighting in the manner we fought, hamstrung both politically and militarily? That's debatable. Could we have won had we approached it the same manner with which we fought WWII? Of course we could have. To think otherwise is sheer lunacy.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:58 pm

Nick, in another thread, wrote:the clear issue is how to prevent psychos from getting guns. Okay? And this means some serious procedures and restrictions on buying guns. And of course it means the same seriously increased restrictions on buying assault rifles and maxi-clips, armor piecing bullets, etc.

Okay, at least there you make a start. It's not much, but it is a start.

The obvious problem is that psychos have no problem with circumventing the law and/or borrowing/stealing weapons from licensed owners.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:03 pm

One way would be to require all willing teachers, administrators, and adult workers in schools to be equipped with firearms and taught how to use them. Big signs out front stating that all adult personnel are armed according to local law. That would be the quickest and most economical way to fix it. Even a drugged up madman would not walk into a school under those conditions. They pick those venues precisely because they know that they will be in control of the situation.
Of course this will never happen, so expect the usual rounds of hand wringing and posturing. Expect more public place shootings in the near future.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:27 pm

Van wrote:The obvious problem is that psychos have no problem with circumventing the law and/or borrowing/stealing weapons from licensed owners.

The obvious problem is that you're a fucking joke and a complete moron. Some whacko shoots a couple dozen kids and the only solution you can come up with is the imposition of the most brutal police state in the history of mankind which would necessarily kill millions in the name of "public safety." Oh, yes...you then solicit serious thoughts on your idiotic babbling.

Here's a serious thought for you: Fuck off to North Korea, pindick.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:38 pm

Wolfman wrote:One way would be to require all willing teachers, administrators, and adult workers in schools to be equipped with firearms and taught how to use them. Big signs out front stating that all adult personnel are armed according to local law.

Yes. And let's arm all popcorn vendors and ushers in movie theaters. Let's just arm everyone and put signs up everywhere. I can't wait. What a wonderful, safe world we'll all live in.

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:39 pm

I would deport anyone who commited a crime. And hold parents accountable for their kids acts of crime.

That might sound harsh, but if I had the power, that is what I would do.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:43 pm

trev wrote:I would deport anyone who commited a crime.

Deport them where?

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:44 pm

Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else they wanted to go. Never to be allowed back in the country.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:47 pm

ML@Coyote wrote:Yes. And let's arm all popcorn vendors and ushers in movie theaters. Let's just arm everyone and put signs up everywhere. I can't wait. What a wonderful, safe world we'll all live in.

Yep. It sure would. Let everyone who wants to arm themselves arm themselves and stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

It takes a special kind of idiot to believe that being legally deprived of the means to defend yourself will make you safer.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:48 pm

trev wrote:Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else they wanted to go. Never to be allowed back in the country.

Why would Mexico or Canada accept our criminals? They aren't as stupid as we are.

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:58 pm

mvscal wrote:
trev wrote:Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else they wanted to go. Never to be allowed back in the country.
Why would Mexico or Canada accept our criminals? They aren't as stupid as we are.

I would deport them out of our country. It would be their problem as to where to go. If they can't find a place to go, they can go to Cuba.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:03 pm

Trev,
Do you throw your empty bottles of vodka in your neighbors yard too?

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:04 pm

Scott...That's in interesting article. Good arguments. It is however an opinion piece, and the writer is an advocate. I'd be interested in reading something written by someone on the other side of the issue.

I'm just not big on guns. I don't think it speaks well of a society when everyone has to walk around carrying concealed weapons. Perhaps I'm naive. I don't know.

I was in Arizona several years ago at a video rental store. In walked some dude with a firearm on his belt. The first thing I thought to myself was "What's your fucking problem? All you're doing is renting a movie."

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:08 pm

The second thing you should have thought was, "I guess I'm not getting robbed in this store."

Why are you so frightened by guns? It's an inanimate object. A tool and nothing more.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:28 pm

mvscal wrote:The second thing you should have thought was, "I guess I'm not getting robbed in this store."

Good point.

Why are you so frightened by guns? It's an inanimate object. A tool and nothing more.

I wouldn't call it fear. Just hate to see this country become a state of citizens all armed to the teeth to protect each other from each other. It just doesn't seem right.

Dr. Bob · Post by **Dr. Bob** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:29 pm

These both present some compelling data supporting the hypothesis that there is a positive effect of these laws on crime rates. What is missing, however, is the comparable rates of crime (or handgun violence...whatever the dependent variable is) for the same time periods in similar states that did not enact such legislation. This data would be consistent with a broader drop in crime rates driven by something other than concealed handgun legislation.

That data SHOULD be out there but unfortunately having come from the world of social science research many, many, many of these 'scholars' wouldn't know a proper experimental design if it held them up at gunpoint.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:32 pm

Van wrote: Your right to bear arms isn't preventing a damn thing.

So taking away the right to bear arms will prevent these things from happening ?

Don't forget about cars, (drunk driving), knives ( sup OJ),

Van wrote: How much do our personal freedoms really matter here? Is our right to bear arms more important than the possible prevention of needless deaths? If you're found carrying a firearm of any sort, you're executed on the spot. No exceptions. No attempting to weed out the miscreants from the licensed nutjobs.

I have to say, that would certainly reduce the number of crimes committed by gun-wielding morons of all stripes. There's no two ways around it. Sure, NRA types who conveniently trot out the "sanctity of the Constitution" argument would raise holy sanctimonious hell over this utter nonissue, but it would go a long way towards doing the job.

Anything else you want to ban there Herr Stormtrooper VanHitler? Just take everything else too. Fucking moron.

30 people died today, 30 more tomorrow and the day after that. We need to ban cars.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/i ... sheet.html

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.

How big is the problem?

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.5

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:34 pm

Dr. Bob wrote:What is missing, however, is the comparable rates of crime (or handgun violence...whatever the dependent variable is) for the same time periods in similar states that did not enact such legislation. This data would be consistent with a broader drop in crime rates driven by something other than concealed handgun legislation.

That data SHOULD be out there but unfortunately having come from the world of social science research many, many, many of these 'scholars' wouldn't know a proper experimental design if it held them up at gunpoint.

That is totally irrelevant. The claim is that concealed carry would lead to an increase in violent crime and gun deaths. That didn't happen. Period. Full stop. Whether or not concealed carry actually reduced violent crime is a separate question.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:45 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:The obvious problem is that psychos have no problem with circumventing the law and/or borrowing/stealing weapons from licensed owners.
The obvious problem is that you're a fucking joke and a complete moron. Some whacko shoots a couple dozen kids and the only solution you can come up with is the imposition of the most brutal police state in the history of mankind which would necessarily kill millions in the name of "public safety." Oh, yes...you then solicit serious thoughts on your idiotic babbling.

Here's a serious thought for you: Fuck off to North Korea, pindick.

Right, because the only thing keeping our government from slaughtering us by the millions is visions-of-grandeur idiots like you holding them at bay with your personal firearms.

Now, please show me where I espoused the idea of the "imposition of the most brutal police state in history." Then, failing that, go ahead and show me how our right to bear arms has solidified our position as the most safe, law-abiding, non-gun-related-deaths society on the planet, especially compared to so many other Western countries that actually don't have millions of guns in the hands of their citizenry. Finally, failing that, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question.

So far, all you've said is what shouldn't happen. Of course you've been as cunty as ever, yet when given the chance you still haven't offered up a single solution. Why am I not surprised?

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:50 pm

Van wrote: Now, please show me where I espoused the idea of the "imposition of the most brutal police state in history."

Van wrote:Okay. So...what then? How much do our personal freedoms really matter here? Is our right to bear arms more important than the possible prevention of needless deaths? If you're found carrying a firearm of any sort, you're executed on the spot. No exceptions. No attempting to weed out the miscreants from the licensed nutjobs.

Seems pretty brutal to me. Looks like you did right there.

Dr. Bob · Post by **Dr. Bob** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:50 pm

mvscal wrote:
Dr. Bob wrote:What is missing, however, is the comparable rates of crime (or handgun violence...whatever the dependent variable is) for the same time periods in similar states that did not enact such legislation. This data would be consistent with a broader drop in crime rates driven by something other than concealed handgun legislation.

That data SHOULD be out there but unfortunately having come from the world of social science research many, many, many of these 'scholars' wouldn't know a proper experimental design if it held them up at gunpoint.
That is totally irrelevant. The claim is that concealed carry would lead to an increase in violent crime and gun deaths. That didn't happen. Period. Full stop. Whether or not concealed carry actually reduced violent crime is a separate question.

Is is absolutely NOT irrelevant. The same thing holds true in this case - you can't say that it didn't increase violent crime and gun deaths without understanding the data in context of other trends that would be relevant.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:53 pm

Oh, and for the record, mvsdismissive, this was hardly the only mass-shooting of its kind. How many more do we have to endure before you begin to feel a need to address the problem?

Face it, your solution is my original Option 1: do nothing because Shit Happens, and psychos will be psychos. The right to bear arms trumps all.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:55 pm

Van wrote:Oh, and for the record, mvsdismissive, this was hardly the only mass-shooting of its kind. How many more do we have to endure before you begin to feel a need to address the problem?

Face it, your solution is my original Option 1: do nothing because Shit Happens, and psychos will be psychos. The right to bear arms trumps all.

You do know that was probably a "gun free zone right ?? That a law probably banned guns on school grounds right ?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:55 pm

Derron wrote:
Van wrote: Now, please show me where I espoused the idea of the "imposition of the most brutal police state in history."

Van wrote:Okay. So...what then? How much do our personal freedoms really matter here? Is our right to bear arms more important than the possible prevention of needless deaths? If you're found carrying a firearm of any sort, you're executed on the spot. No exceptions. No attempting to weed out the miscreants from the licensed nutjobs.
Seems pretty brutal to me. Looks like you did right there.

That's but one method. I'm seeking other alternatives.

Still, killing criminals on the spot sure beats seeing classrooms of innocents slaughtered. No one worth a damn loses when criminals are killed for being criminals.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:56 pm

Derron wrote:
Van wrote:Oh, and for the record, mvsdismissive, this was hardly the only mass-shooting of its kind. How many more do we have to endure before you begin to feel a need to address the problem?

Face it, your solution is my original Option 1: do nothing because Shit Happens, and psychos will be psychos. The right to bear arms trumps all.
You do know that was probably a "gun free zone right ?? That a law probably banned guns on school grounds right ?

Thus my Option 2.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:06 am

Van wrote:How many more do we have to endure before you begin to feel a need to address the problem?

Let me know when you start addressing the problem, dumbfuck. Just because you're clearly adrift on an ocean of stupidity, I'll give you a clue. The problem is sick fucks not the tools they use. Let's see if you can muster the synaptic firepower to take it from there.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:45 am

88 wrote:walk off with a .50 cal rifle that can deliver lethal, non-defensive firepower 2 miles or more away. Frightening.

Whether or not firepower is offensive or defensive has nothing to do with its caliber or effective range. The rest of your post is more gun grabbing ninny bullshit. If you don't think you need more than one weapon, don't buy one. Just don't presume to tell me or anyone else what we need. We'll assess our own needs for ourselves.

The only thing the State should be doing is ensuring that the owner has basic proficiency with his particular weapon and an understanding of proper safety protocols. That is what the 2nd Amendment means by "well regulated." If you're wondering what the security of a free state represents, try walking around the projects after dark and see how free you are.

If you aren't secure in your person, you aren't free and restricting the means of securing your own safety is a quick ticket to tyranny. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that governments are the sole source of oppression and tyranny.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:47 am

Van wrote:In the wake of these lunatic shootings, what would you do to prevent them?

You can't prevent them, but elementary schools can and should be off limits to the next wacko who wants attention.

We pay shit loads of cash for "education". What good is an education if some sick fuck can walk in off the street and murder innocent children?

There should be one door that allows access into a school, manned by an armed guard or 2 at all times.

Extreme measures are called for, this society just keeps getting sicker.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:36 am

If someone is willing to die during the commission of their crime, there's not a lot you can do to prevent them. You can deter them somewhat with armed guards, metal detectors, etc., but if they are willing to die, they're likely going to get the job done. Not unlike suicide bombers in the middle east.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:41 am

mvsidiot;
Are RPG's legal to possess in this country? How about grenades?

I don't know if they're legal in Afghanistan, but they sure are prevalent there. Yet the US military defeated the camel jockeys with relative ease.

Yet you think you can stop the US military with some hand guns or even AR-15's?

Boy, are you brain-washed!

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:55 am

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:How many more do we have to endure before you begin to feel a need to address the problem?
Let me know when you start addressing the problem, dumbfuck. Just because you're clearly adrift on an ocean of stupidity, I'll give you a clue. The problem is sick fucks not the tools they use. Let's see if you can muster the synaptic firepower to take it from there.

That's not a solution, that's a diagnosis of a symptom.

When did you suddenly become this fucking horrible at this shit? My god, man, say something. Offer up some sort of solution. Don't just continue to lob empty by-the-numbers insults.

"The problem is the sickos, not their guns."

Really? That's it? That's all the brilliant insight you have to offer?

Wow. Okay, great, since you wish to deal at such a pedestrian level, pray tell what would be your solution for dealing with said sickos? How do you propose to weed them out in the first place? Then, assuming you pull off this miracle, what do you propose to do with them?

trev · Post by **trev** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:57 am

Don't you love my solution????????