Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

27 dead in Newtown school shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    In that case now would be the time for you and like minded people to voice your opinions. The gun grabbers love to say and feel that "support is on their side" You need to show them otherwise and the only way to do that is to make your voice heard. Now is not the time to be silent. At this point silence acquiesces to the gun grabbing agenda. There must be some blue dog democrats who are testing the winds. Don't let them believe that it all blows from the left. Even those trying to hold the line need to know that they have support.
    In MN? I doubt it.

    But trust me, I'm not silent.

    -dale

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dalem View Post
      In MN? I doubt it.

      But trust me, I'm not silent.

      -dale
      Good to hear.
      Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dalem View Post
        You may not want to ban guns but the people you support do.

        -dale
        This is my boiled-down-to-the-essential-point I've been making with my anti-Democrat posts, and is at the bottom of every single reason I have to oppose ALL Democrats, ALL the time. There are no 'good' ones, not office-holders, not contributors, not voters. Every dam' one of 'em makes it possible for the unspeakable Harry Reid and the execrable Nancy Pelosi to be in positions of power, and at this point in history it beyond arguing that they are determined to destroy the country with policies that are provably advancing that objective.

        So, yeah: back of my hand to anybody that supports these creatures. With all that we now know, it is either agreement with what they believe or a willful ignorance of what terrible effect they have had, and neither one is respectable to me.

        Comment


        • Yeah, they are pretty stinky.

          -dale

          Comment


          • Hi guys,
            I’ve been away from WAB for years – so when you quite rightly point out that I have jumped in and not read the previous 52 pages on this thread that is my excuse.

            Years ago, when we talked about US gun control on WAB I actually (despite being a left wing social democrat straight out of several of your nightmares) pointed out that you can’t take (say) a UK viewpoint to the US.

            Summary :-

            The US is a gun culture, to decide on any knee jerk reaction that curtailed gun ownership because “other countries don’t have as much of a gun violence problem” ignores 350m people who overnight are having their 300 year old culture “changed” which simply won’t work. It’s an outsiders view of the “gun laws are only for the law abiding” argument.

            However, what that doesn’t prevent is a desire to change that culture.

            Let’s take the story of Christopher Dorner – the former LAPD cop whose deadly saga has hopefully come to a conclusion

            The important point for me is not that he had access to guns (see above regarding US culture). It’s not why he went a bit mental (people will always go mental). The important point of the story for me is this :-

            Whilst he was on the run the LAPD moved to protect people it thought were in danger (due to comments in his manifesto). During this protection police officers on two separate occasions opened fire on vehicles they thought might be his, resulting in at least two innocent civilian casualties.

            Now, what we are talking about here is a scenario where well trained, experienced (presumably) police officers mistakenly brought deadly force to bear on the very people they are their to serve and protect.

            I am not condemning these officers (far from it I admire and respect those who volunteer to put themselves in harms way to protect others) – if anything I want my comments to support them. Because despite all the training they are, ultimately, human beings. And humans don’t actually react well in these situations.

            I don’t know why the police officers made the mistake (I also don’t know if it was the same officers making the mistake twice or two different sets) but I don’t think that matters.

            Their motives to open fire would have been some or all of the following:-
            • Conviction that they had identified the suspect
            • The prospect of a murderer being armed and present
            • Catch the fugitive
            • Protect those in their care
            • Fear for their own lives
            • Respect for the fugitive being “as capable as them” – former cop and marine rather than 18 year old drug dealer
            • Reputational enhancement of having taken down the fugitive
            • Professional pressure – it’s their job to deal with this situation


            And probably a few others I can’t imagine never having been in that situation

            But, with all of the training afforded to them, they made the elementary mistake of shooting at the wrong target.

            The truth is that, despite Wayne La Pierre’s assertion of only the white hatted cowboys being able to take the black hats down this doesn’t happen in a country with the gun laws that exist in the US. The gunmen invariably kill a few people and are killed themselves. Or eventually die in a gun battle with the police. It is rarely (ever?) ended by the white hatted civilian.

            Unless he really wants a country where mums have to strap their kids into the safety seat and their firearms to their side as they go to the shops for some milk, some change has to be made.

            Of course, if the people of the US are happy with that – a country where everyone is armed and every disagreement can escalate instantly into deadly force then that’s fine – it’s their country after all.

            But that isn’t the argument that the pro-gun lobby advocates. They advocate something else - a country in which the liberal access to guns automagically empowers the owner to be able to interpret the situation they face instantly and take the correct, decisive action using deadly force. Something that history has shown people aren’t good at. Something that the trained firearms owners on this board (e.g. those of a military background) will have experienced during their own and comrades’ training. It takes a lot of training to make people “comfortable” in life and death situations.

            So, if the pro-gun lobby does want the mums to be armed as they go to pick their kids up from school, or the family nips out to the cinema for an evening of watching gun-porn (another area of the same culture) then the necessary steps need to be taken.

            US children, at secondary school, should have firearms training. But not just marksmanship, proper urban conflict training that the police / military have available to them. People shooting back at them as part of the training. They should be tested, as per maths and science, and graded and, if necessary failed. If you fail your ability with a handgun you can at least know that you can’t protect your family in the US gun culture.

            That is what the pro-gun lobby is advocating – they are just skipping that part because those that make the argument for looser gun laws are already the composed white hat users of guns. They forget that people like me are not, but that looser gun laws enable people like me to arm myself without the training.
            at

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trooth View Post
              That is what the pro-gun lobby is advocating – they are just skipping that part because those that make the argument for looser gun laws are already the composed white hat users of guns. They forget that people like me are not, but that looser gun laws enable people like me to arm myself without the training.
              Nahh, we don't "forget", we just don't care because it's not significant.

              -dale

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                Nahh, we don't "forget", we just don't care because it's not significant.

                -dale
                If you ignore the cultural implications, you are just going to have the argument continue (as with most of American politics) as unproductive polarised shouting. Where everyone is either a gun-nut or a left wing loony with no possible compromise that isn't a "massive defeat" and every poltical case based around a gimmick.

                On that basis the pro-gun lobby wants to live 300 years ago - much like other extremists - and the anti-gun lobby wants to pretend that with a signature on a dotted line the problems all go away. Neither of which is true but which both sides will argue to the death is fact.
                at

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trooth View Post
                  If you ignore the cultural implications, you are just going to have the argument continue (as with most of American politics) as unproductive polarised shouting. Where everyone is either a gun-nut or a left wing loony with no possible compromise that isn't a "massive defeat" and every poltical case based around a gimmick.

                  On that basis the pro-gun lobby wants to live 300 years ago - much like other extremists - and the anti-gun lobby wants to pretend that with a signature on a dotted line the problems all go away. Neither of which is true but which both sides will argue to the death is fact.
                  Ahh, but then I reject your entire premise that there is a gun-related problem that needs to be solved.

                  So there's that.

                  -dale

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                    Ahh, but then I reject your entire premise that there is a gun-related problem that needs to be solved.

                    So there's that.

                    -dale
                    That's fair enough. If you look at macro statistics as they apply to an individual citizen, i agree. Statistically you aren't likely to die due to gun violence in the US. Mind you that is helped somewhat by the large population, and the fact that the individual doesn't live everywhere.

                    However i sort of have that idea about foreign aid. "third world" countries with burgeoning GDPs still receive aid from the "rich" countries, when really they should be sorting their own shit out. It's a compelling argument that i support - although i admit it doesn't help the children right now who rely on foreign aid for clean water or schooling ... someone has to die for the principle i guess.

                    But there is certainly a case to be made that these 27 deaths in one incident is in extremis, whereas about 10 deaths per day on the roads is the norm.

                    The moral arguement might be that nearly all deaths by firearms are deliberate acts, whereas few motor vehicles deaths are. With problem resolution without violence being one of the tenets of civilisation - people will obviously consider that more of a thing to be fixed.

                    I think really the debate shouldn't be about firearms in general, it should be those weapons that, realistically, don't seem to have a civlian purpose. A handgun - civil defence; a rifle - hunting. An assault weapon - you have to conjure up a civlian defence scenario that doesn't seem plausible, same for a machine gun. Or a rocket launcher or a mortar and so on.

                    Currently the argument seems to get bent towards the "need my gun to defend against the federal government going rogue" - which is a romantic notion that just isn't going to work in 2013. Even if you can envisage US servicemen shooting US civlians at the behest of some totalitarian US state, those US civilians with AR-15s are not going to compete with F-16s and Apaches.

                    However the white hatted cowboy would stand a achance against the black hat with a handgun, but not the black hat with the assualt weapon.
                    at

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trooth View Post
                      Currently the argument seems to get bent towards the "need my gun to defend against the federal government going rogue" - which is a romantic notion that just isn't going to work in 2013. Even if you can envisage US servicemen shooting US civlians at the behest of some totalitarian US state, those US civilians with AR-15s are not going to compete with F-16s and Apaches.
                      Yep because it never worked for Afghanis with Soviets, nor for the former Yuu republics, nor in American war for independence...
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        Yep because it never worked for Afghanis with Soviets, nor for the former Yuu republics, nor in American war for independence...
                        Exactly you prove my point. The Afghans were not fighting their own government. Nor where they figthing with civilian weaponry - unless you are advocating that the US government buys US civilians some AA missiles etc as they did with the Afghans?

                        If the Soviets invaded the US (a more comparable argument) the US Army would be expected to show up at the first encounter and bring its force to bear. A force that if turned on the US citizenry would massacre the civilians.

                        Equally the US war of independance was back in an era when the citizenry could form a militia to compare with the arsenals of the day - even cannon and mortar could be acquired of comparable strength. But the US citizenry are hopelessly outgunned if the state turns on its people today.

                        It's also difficult to imagine the US state doing so, but there are a lot of people with tin-foil hats on and they are the ones who postulate this idea.
                        at

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trooth View Post
                          Exactly you prove my point. The Afghans were not fighting their own government. Nor where they figthing with civilian weaponry - unless you are advocating that the US government buys US civilians some AA missiles etc as they did with the Afghans?

                          If the Soviets invaded the US (a more comparable argument) the US Army would be expected to show up at the first encounter and bring its force to bear. A force that if turned on the US citizenry would massacre the civilians.

                          Equally the US war of independance was back in an era when the citizenry could form a militia to compare with the arsenals of the day - even cannon and mortar could be acquired of comparable strength. But the US citizenry are hopelessly outgunned if the state turns on its people today.

                          It's also difficult to imagine the US state doing so, but there are a lot of people with tin-foil hats on and they are the ones who postulate this idea.
                          Tooth. You are forgetting a few major points. First, if it comes to that many in the military are going to side with the civilians and they are going to take their toys with them.The very least is that a lot of military hardware is going to be destroyed. Take the civil war for instance, the south greatest generals came from the union army.
                          Secondly, the civilians can put up a force of a minimum of 40 million, many will be ex servicemen and they will be spread out all over the place, coast to coast, border to border. Most importantly the civilians have the home field advantage. The government never had to fight against so many before, nor does the government have any hope of occupying such a large territory. The government forces are going to be spread very thin and in many cases they are are going to run out of supplies. More likely, the longer the civilians hold out the greater chance of them winning. Remember this is also the same government that couldn't even keep an army of 12 million unarmed illegals from pouring over the southern border.

                          If you could go back in time I bet all too many people thought their government would ever turn on them. They were wrong...dead wrong and sadly we have many cases where that is exactly what happened....after the populace was disarmed. Kind of funny that you say you need a tin foil hat to postulate this idea. The government has contingency plans for just such an occasion.
                          Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trooth View Post
                            That's fair enough. If you look at macro statistics as they apply to an individual citizen, i agree. Statistically you aren't likely to die due to gun violence in the US. Mind you that is helped somewhat by the large population, and the fact that the individual doesn't live everywhere.

                            However i sort of have that idea about foreign aid. "third world" countries with burgeoning GDPs still receive aid from the "rich" countries, when really they should be sorting their own shit out. It's a compelling argument that i support - although i admit it doesn't help the children right now who rely on foreign aid for clean water or schooling ... someone has to die for the principle i guess.

                            But there is certainly a case to be made that these 27 deaths in one incident is in extremis, whereas about 10 deaths per day on the roads is the norm.

                            The moral arguement might be that nearly all deaths by firearms are deliberate acts, whereas few motor vehicles deaths are. With problem resolution without violence being one of the tenets of civilisation - people will obviously consider that more of a thing to be fixed.

                            I think really the debate shouldn't be about firearms in general, it should be those weapons that, realistically, don't seem to have a civlian purpose. A handgun - civil defence; a rifle - hunting. An assault weapon - you have to conjure up a civlian defence scenario that doesn't seem plausible, same for a machine gun. Or a rocket launcher or a mortar and so on.

                            Currently the argument seems to get bent towards the "need my gun to defend against the federal government going rogue" - which is a romantic notion that just isn't going to work in 2013. Even if you can envisage US servicemen shooting US civlians at the behest of some totalitarian US state, those US civilians with AR-15s are not going to compete with F-16s and Apaches.

                            However the white hatted cowboy would stand a achance against the black hat with a handgun, but not the black hat with the assualt weapon.
                            You focus on the tool not the user. And your assigning of magic properties to the mythical "assault weapon" is sad.

                            -dale

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                              Tooth. You are forgetting a few major points. First, if it comes to that many in the military are going to side with the civilians and they are going to take their toys with them.The very least is that a lot of military hardware is going to be destroyed. Take the civil war for instance, the south greatest generals came from the union army.
                              So the US military is unlikely to turn on the citizenry, as i said. They are likely to take their F-16s, Apaches and battle tanks with them - exactly as i said regarding hardware needed to take the US miltary down.

                              Secondly, the civilians can put up a force of a minimum of 40 million, many will be ex servicemen and they will be spread out all over the place, coast to coast, border to border. Most importantly the civilians have the home field advantage. The government never had to fight against so many before, nor does the government have any hope of occupying such a large territory. The government forces are going to be spread very thin and in many cases they are are going to run out of supplies. More likely, the longer the civilians hold out the greater chance of them winning.
                              History shows the US military can fight in places it knows far less well than the US, against locals as well as national armies With few exceptions it acquits itself well . Infact it has home field advantage in that it starts out controlling the government tools of power rather than having to wrest said power from the enemy leadership.

                              Remember this is also the same government that couldn't even keep an army of 12 million unarmed illegals from pouring over the southern border.
                              Rather specious i think the illegal immigrants may be many things, but an army they are not and a net 12m is over what a couple of centuries? Is it kill on sight on the border now?

                              If you could go back in time I bet all too many people thought their government would ever turn on them. They were wrong...dead wrong and sadly we have many cases where that is exactly what happened....after the populace was disarmed. Kind of funny that you say you need a tin foil hat to postulate this idea. The government has contingency plans for just such an occasion.
                              Back in history the government did not have such an overwhelming military advantage over its people as it does in 2013 . As each day passes the US military gets stronger exponentially compared to its citizenry. Hence why you seem to back my assertion that if the us government goes rogue it will need a well tooled up army to take it down
                              at

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                                You focus on the tool not the user. And your assigning of magic properties to the mythical "assault weapon" is sad.

                                -dale
                                I covered both those points earlier
                                at

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X