Oh, its valid, whatever that means.
Query: Where is the ‘equal time’ piece?
Probably on the FOX site.
Funny. I googled why I support the NRA and all that came up on the first page of results were nra pages and a page for a politician…
I’m sure that a few thousand pieces could be found here: NRA-ILA | ILA Home I’m sure that a few reams of astroturf is equal to the heartfelt experience of this fellow.
3 Likes
Which did you consult when forming your unbiased opinion?
[quote=“nemomeno, post:172, topic:32359, full:true”]
I’m a supporter of limiting magazine sizes, larger capacity magazines are far too convenient to mass murderers, and used far too often for that purpose for them to be justifiable.[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point, though it didn’t appear this person used extended mags, and my Canadian friend notes many legal mags just use a rivet to limit the capacity, which is easy to defeat if one wished. Magazine restrictions is a very minor hindrance in the very unlikely scenario that it is abused. It may make one feel safer with it in place, but it doesn’t actually do anything.
[quote=“nemomeno, post:172, topic:32359, full:true”]
… Based on what we know, it’s clear he’d have been denied the guns.[/quote]
I guess I need to read more on this guy leading up to the events, and I don’t know all the checks that Canadians go through, but he showed methodical planning. A longer wait, more forms, changing to a rifle from a pistol, I am not so certain he wouldn’t have been able to legally obtain a gun.
Perhaps more red flags would have triggered a response, but perhaps not. Many people say horrible things to blow off steam or trolley. Most don’t act on it. This guy had never done anything yet to give him a black mark. I know people who have had issues with others, filed multiple police reports etc, but until they actually commit a documentable crime, the cops can’t/won’t do anything.
Again I see this as horrible failing of our mental health system and the stigma attached to mental health problems. Though even if we had something decent in place, it wouldn’t be fool proof.
Again I am not fully convinced even Canadian law would have stopped this determined person. I think the fact that bad/sick people are going to do bad/sick things is just a reality of the world. While I can agree we should strive to prevent it, I have to question what actions are feasible and prudent, and I think one must accept that these things will happen. In the US at least, this sort of crime is still a minority to the drug fueled gang related crimes.
I don’t think limiting magazine size would be enough, but it’s a definitely step in the right direction. Most parts of gun control are there to slow things down so that impulsiveness can be checked and to make those with bad intentions stand out more. Magazine size restrictions aren’t nearly the most important part, it’s merely one check among many. Better to put many, many checks in place when we’re dealing with tools designed for efficient murder where those murders are often impulsive.
The guy was talking about suicide and murder on Youtube prior to the shootings, and ranting. The cops investigated but he sweet talked his way out of it. In Canada they’d have known full well he was hoarding guns and ammo at that point. In the US the loose gun extremists have worked diligently to make this difficult for law enforcement to obtain (in CA it would be possible for cops to know he had handguns, but difficult).
He was diagnosed with Aspergers and had a long history of mental health issues and time with multiple counselors from childhood. He had no friends. His family was deeply concerned about his mental stability, and the investigator would have contacted them. He wouldn’t have ever passed a background check in Canada. That’s the most germane point here. The investigators actually take this seriously in Canada and it’s a very effective check.
Perhaps he’d have been able to get around the constant stream of roadblocks, but it’s more likely he’d have been slowed down and either caught or his shrinks would have worked out his intent and worked with him. The point of gun control isn’t to make it impossible for those with bad intentions to be stopped every time, it’s to slow things down so that impulsiveness can be checked and to make those with bad intentions stand out more.
Are you daft?
As I already stated, I am his father – my opinion is mine and it was made years ago based on personal experience and tends to be reinforced every time that I see/meet/read-about a “gun enthusiast”. (I am not a parrot, like most NRA whores seem to be).
If I was to take the time to write my opinion, it would be a virtual mirror of TBogg’s piece.
Unless you can show me some pro-NRA sites that call for the community self-regulating idiots with guns, my opinion of the NRA is not likely to change. I did notice that the initial support for the burrito fellows waned after a bit and there was some tempered criticism from a few fronts.
edit – just in case, the I am his father is not literal…
3 Likes
The killer was Jewish/Asian.
There’s no talking facts with these people. They have their own version of facts and find ways to blame the problem on anything but guns.
@BobbaBoosh we are aware of what an ad hominem argument looks like. Maybe you need to be aware that those among us who don’t support people’s supposed right to own a kill this now button have now tired of trying to engage in civil discourse and are now perfectly happy to troll gun nuts and let them know we think they’re selfish assholes who aren’t interested in any analysis that might mean gun control is an appropriate option.
I also think your analysis of the word ‘nut’ is inaccurate in the context and obviously biassed by your position on the topic. A ____ nut does not mean a crazy person with a ____ it means a person who is crazy for ____. A sports nut, for example, is a person who is crazy about sports. A gun nut is a person who is crazy about guns.
There’s no such thing as a gun control nut. In the rest of the world we call the act of legally restricting people’s access to guns “common sense conclusions, arrived at by objective, multi-nation studies which have continued to confirm the assertions that lay behind their introduction”.
But go on - don’t let silly things like crime history, objective analysis from disinterested parties and a wealth of corroborating data get in the way of you making your excellent argument.
2 Likes
What colour, pray tell, are most Jewish people?
1 Like
Oh, I am acutely aware of this. Why do you think Im here? I am equal time.
This is just equivocation.
Go ahead an re-read what you just posted, and tell me that you feel good about it.
Oh, hey! Thanks for bringing up crime stats for me, I have been meaning to get to that…
Guess what? Violent crime stats… Yea, they’re down
Isnt that great news ?
So you, Rachel Maddow, Obama, Captain Planet and Gaia, or whatever can go back to your comic books and let the adults finish our discussion.
[quote=“nemomeno, post:182, topic:32359, full:true”]
Better to put many, many checks in place when we’re dealing with tools designed for efficient murder where those murders are often impulsive.[/quote]
Impulsive in what way? People getting angry, running out and buying a gun to go commit murder that day was always pretty rare though in that one instance, yes some checks might prevent murder.
I would say a lot of street crime is impulsive - but with a certain amount of planning needed to facilitate. That is the people involved anticipate something happening and obtaining a weapon. Legally if possible, illegally if needed. But no gun law is going to stand in their way for long, nor will it reduce the overall street crime.
This event was anything but impulsive. It was planned out for a long time. The problem I see is that I don’t think most of the extended checks people suggest will do jack shit in regards to street crime or these rarer crazies with a death wish.
As for magazine restrictions, I find them useless to stop crime. A lot of time people won’t use a whole magazine anyway in shootings. Reloading literally takes less than a second for an unskilled person, and even if the larger ones are illegal, they can be found on the black market with ease. The reality doesn’t line up with the on paper theory that magazine limits make anyone safer.
[quote=“nemomeno, post:182, topic:32359, full:true”]
In Canada they’d have known full well he was hoarding guns and ammo at that point. In the US the loose gun extremists have worked diligently to make this difficult for law enforcement to obtain (in CA it would be possible for cops to know he had handguns, but difficult).[/quote]
Again, what are you calling a hoard, because that is loaded language, that the shear existence of something is going to lead to something else. I’ve read he had 3 pistols and 400 rnds of ammo. That isn’t a hoard, even in Canada. If you’re a shooting enthusiast, this isn’t a lot of anything and I don’t know if that would have resulted in any action taken against him.
[quote=“nemomeno, post:182, topic:32359, full:true”]
He was diagnosed with Aspergers and had a long history of mental health issues and time with multiple counselors from childhood. He had no friends. His family was deeply concerned about his mental stability, and the investigator would have contacted them. He wouldn’t have ever passed a background check in Canada. That’s the most germane point here. The investigators actually take this seriously in Canada and it’s a very effective check.[/quote]
You have a point here. Though my friend says unless you’ve been committed, something like Aspergers or therapy alone wouldn’t show up on a background check. They systems aren’t meshed. But they do require 2-3 people to cosign for a license and attest you’re an “ok person”, and if his parents were really concerned they could have contacted the authorities and put up a flag which requires more effort to get around. So perhaps that might have prevented a legal course.
Canadian licensed gun owner here. I don’t know anyone who owns a hand gun in Canada as they are extremely hard to get. I know a good deal of people who have said they are going to but never do. A additional license - a base licence and mandatory course is required for hunting rifles - is required with very strict background check, a course and testing. For hand guns you must notify you local police station where the gun is kept and If the weapon is moved you need to report to the local police station where it is being moved to. Cannot carry it on your person, must be in a locked safe or case and are only able to bring it to shooting ranges. In fact most people here who have a handgun keep it at the range to avoid all this inconvenience and never move it. If you get caught with a weapon outside of the rules above it is a federal crime and there is a mandatory minimum now (3 - 5 years.) Also, I know a person second hand who failed to get licensed for a hunting rifle due to reports of domestic violence. Very strict here so please don’t compare us to the US. We look at your gun laws and are seriously freaked out.
8 Likes
Oh, you’re doing a great job of proving our point. Please, continue.
tell me that you feel good about it.
I feel fine. My grasp of the English language (and probably general intelligence) is by far superior to yours.
Adults… lawl. Violent crime stats may be down, but how that relates to an argument for or against gun control is beyond me. In places where guns are sensibly controlled: significantly less gun crime. In places where gun control laws have been amended for sanity: decrease in gun crime without an equivalently scaled increase in murders by other means.
The adults have finished the discussion: it’s just selfish, childish shit-for-brains rednecks who think the conversation is still going.
Really, this is precisely the point, I’d say - it’s not mental illness, tout court, that leads a person like this to go on a mass shooting, it’s mental illness as shaped by a (sub?)culture of misogyny. This guy was mentally ill to some relatively high-functioning degree, and he was an aggressive misogynist.
Other cultural influences can lead mental illness to express itself as conversations with God, visions of yourself hooked up to electrical appliances, ‘nervous hysteria,’ and various other patterns of cognition and behaviour that don’t leave a bunch of people dead.
Really, the primary causative agent here is aggression and hatred, not mental illness. Mentally ill people with these kinds of thought patterns do outlandish, senseless, headline-grabbing acts like this; ‘sane’ people with these kinds of thought patterns do things like murder their wives in a rage or commit rape, but that epidemic of everyday violence doesn’t make the national news. I find it an interesting contrast here that people bring up the mental illness card so quickly, as opposed to the recent shootings carried out by a white supremacist. Why is the one more apparently ‘unbalanced’ than the other? Both carried out acts of violent hatred that left several people dead.
More support for people struggling with mental distress is a laudable goal, but like the studies show, it’s not a huge factor in violence overall, though it often does play a role in mass shootings like this with megalomaniacal perpetrators. Instead focusing so intently on mental illness just stigmatizes, and shifts focus away from the true causes. Those are the cultural influences and psychological traits that lead both sane people and insane people to violent action - simple aggression, bigotry, self-centredness and low regard for others.
7 Likes
Hiya.
So. Guess what? FBI violent crime stats include “murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault” and in doing so they don’t truly reflect specifically on gun violence. Overall crime stats may be down, but that doesn’t really reflect current poor use of guns. I’ve stayed out of this topic with you BB, but you decided to bring stats into it, so now I’m forced to speak up and provide some more accurate numbers about the topic at hand:
Here’s collected data from Mother Jones about mass-murder shootings.
The data ranges from 1982 - (Sept) 2013.
Here are the counts by year of shootings. According to the FBI, more than four dead (not including the shooter) = a mass murder.
1982 - 1, 1984 - 2, 1986 - 1, 1987 - 1, 1989 - 1, 1990 - 1, 1991 - 3, 1992 - 3, 1993 - 4, 1994 - 1,
1995 - 1, 1996 - 1, 1997 - 2, 1998 - 3, 1999 - 5, 2000 - 1, 2001 - 1, 2003 - 1, 2004 - 1, 2005 - 2,
2006 - 3, 2007 - 4, 2008 - 3, 2009 - 4, 2010 - 1, 2011 - 3,
2012 - 7
2013 - 5 (as of Sept.)
Of these shootings, 85% were committed with guns that were acquired legally.
Over half those guns would not have been legal under the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
So, yes, better gun laws could have helped.
64% were committed by people who had shown prior mental health issues.
So, yes, better mental health assistance could have helped.
P.S. If you prefer a different source (from Mother Jones), Reddit has a “mass shooting” page, listing times where more than four people were shot (not all killed, like the FBI “mass murder” definition). For 2013, they determined that there were 365 mass shootings, one per day.
2 Likes
Im starting to get the feeling that you dont like me.
BTW, My IQ is kinda up there. I would give you the number, but thats kinda a jerky thing to do. So suffice it to say that you might not want to get into a sausage-measuring contest with me.
Furthermore, you are playing the same game I alluded to in my original post, i.e. The fundamental attribution error wherein you are logical and I am mentally deficient.
Q.E.D.
So much for your mastery of the language?
1 Like
Hi, thanks for your civil response( some people, sheesh! )
Not sure there is a really a trend, much less a dramatic one, in those oddly specific numbers. Just spitballing here, but I suspect a line of best fit would probably be close to constant.
Indeed, I will research further( beyond Mother Jones 
thanks )
Ah, yes; I keep forgetting that I’m talking about my betters.
All good, just keeping ya honest.
Im starting to get the feeling that you dont like me.
No, just your position on guns and mostly your suggestion that my breakdown of the suffix -nut was incorrect. I’m pedantic in general, but extra pedantic when someone tries to teach people things about words that are simply untrue.
I would wager that whatever test you’ve done to get your IQ wasn’t an actual official one, and I’d also wager that - based solely on the ignorant confidence with which you break down the word ‘gun-nut’ - your intelligence would be less than mine. In any case, I’m happy to let the audience decide that based on our respective contributions.
Furthermore, you are playing the same game…
NO. SHIT. I’m also letting you know that your opinion is worthless to me and I’m happy to admit: I think your argument is so entirely stupid that I’m just gonna call you on it, refuse to legitimise your argument by discussing it with you and devolving into saying whatever I feel like with the sole purpose of inflicting maximum annoyance on you and anyone like you.
So much for your mastery of the language?
Why does this statement end with a question mark, Professor Wordsworth?
1 Like
