Gun Control Anyone?

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I just am so very amused when I watch how the propaganda machine shifts and flows, with all of it academic and thinktank machinery filling its purpose in almonst perfect harmony and order. Of course guns are an essential ingredient as the social moves toward a chaotic complex system, so why would Harvard argue any differently? Producing the necessary studies is elementary.

This Sean Connery B-movie spells-out way more than it was supposed to...

Guns, absolute poverty, a complex propaganda system that devalues human life and ponerizes humanity, and weak institutional infrastructures are a great recipe for chaos and population control. Welcome to Social 2.0 as conceived by Pentagon funded scientists over the last 100 years. Thank you John von Neumann, John Nash and so many others.

Can you believe Harvard and it's constant pro-gun messages? It's like there's a giant conspiracy between the media, politicians and university professors to get us to buy as many guns as possible. They're never painted in a bad light, that's for sure.

Give me a break.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I am surprised to see Sen Connery in such a bad film, and such a horrible script...that's downright depressing.

I'm not surprised. We should consider banning military grade, high capacity movies. That was pathetic.

[lektrode]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Can you believe Harvard and it's constant pro-gun messages? It's like there's a giant conspiracy between the media, politicians and university professors to get us to buy as many guns as possible. They're never painted in a bad light, that's for sure.

Give me a break.

somehow spence, eye sense a missing switch: ' /sarc ' here?

I'm not surprised. We should consider banning military grade, high capacity movies. That was pathetic.

oh come on, it wasnt that bad - tho the title of it - as well as the sfx/animation kinda suggests that it might've been somehow sponsored by... uhhhh.... Sandoz ?? since some of their products were so... 'in the news' in them daze, eh?

was also interesting to note that the womans voice-over is apparently same lady as 'M' in the later flix? altho shes quite a bit younger at that point, her face seems to be hers - also kinda funny, isnt it, that sean seams to have been quite a bit more... ummm.. well-preserved ?

but interesting insight here:

....
Guns, absolute poverty, a complex propaganda system that devalues human life and ponerizes humanity, and weak institutional infrastructures are a great recipe for chaos and population control. Welcome to Social 2.0 as conceived by Pentagon funded scientists over the last 100 years. Thank you John von Neumann, John Nash and so many others.

AND here:

That's because they (in CHI) don't have stop and frisk like New York City. If you enforce laws and prosecute you then make headway against the gangs. We've neutered the mafia; now we need to neuter gangs across the U.S. By the way gangs come in all races including the Aryan nation and a few white motorcycle gangs.

Get rid of gangs, you get rid of a lot of crime.

well... we cant have that VT, surely you jest - then what/why would we need all the cops/courts/public defenders for ?
if crime has been falling like we've seen - ya know, because the criminal class is - or has been anyway - actually being locked up - just think how that could impact the legal industrial-complex - just as they've come up with 'a solution' for what to do with all the superfluous staff in the .mil complex - you know, right after the CINC 'ends the war(s)' (that HE has been starting) in the mideast...

really makes one glad our policians ARE looking out for OUR best interests....
/sarc (ya always want to remember to put these in, spence, o/w some might not get the funny parts... ;)

but this was also quite insightful (as to - perhaps - the motivations/opinions of the authors, since ftnote149 seems just a bit tongue in cheek - other than the idea that harvard would even fund/put out such a study, seeing as it just might contradict The Agenda of its now most famous alumnus?)

CONCLUSION

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149

To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world

149. (1) Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving
that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of
proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to
abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving
that abolishment is a good idea.

but then, not having been schooled in the finer attributes of such obfuscating language, i'm still not sure if i'm actually 'getting it'

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...f-murders.html

Prayers go out to the victims and their families.

The Navy Yard shootings were tragic. In addition to bringing up the issue of gun control, it also focuses on mental health, security at government facilities, and access to security clearances.

The ironic fact is that many of these mass shootings take place in "gun free" zones. D.C. as a city is very strict in gun permits.

It's ironic that the above article comes from the publication where the founder is very anti gun.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The Navy Yard shooter apparently acquired some of his weapons on base. This is why Feinstein and Obama were trying so hard to get the tide of public opinion shaped before the facts came out. The facts are plainly against them.

Meanwhile Obama has just issued an executive order so that he can get around the "restrictions on arming terrorists". Apparently it's really hard for him to hide the fact that while he squeals for more "gun control" at home he wants to ship thousands of military grade assault weapons to rebelling terrorists in Syria. I guess he's just lucky this incident has completely overshadowed his bungling in the middle east.

[jk]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

State Law Stopped Gunman From Buying Rifle, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

Instead, the gunman, Aaron Alexis of Texas, bought a law-enforcement-style shotgun – an 870 Remington pump – and used it on Monday as he rampaged through the Navy facility, said the officials, who requested anonymity because of the continuing investigation.
“The gun was broken in half and he had it in a bag,” one official said of the Remington. “He went inside the building and assembled it in a bathroom.”

etc

[jr429]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The Navy Yard shooter apparently acquired some of his weapons on base. This is why Feinstein and Obama were trying so hard to get the tide of public opinion shaped before the facts came out. The facts are plainly against them.

Meanwhile Obama has just issued an executive order so that he can get around the "restrictions on arming terrorists". Apparently it's really hard for him to hide the fact that while he squeals for more "gun control" at home he wants to ship thousands of military grade assault weapons to rebelling terrorists in Syria. I guess he's just lucky this incident has completely overshadowed his bungling in the middle east.

I believe this over-reach by the gun-grabbers will back-fire as more and more of the populace acknowledge the lack of credibility of the federal government and our elected leaders. Perhaps the public will soon realize the extremism from this group led by Feinstein and others from California (my home state).

After reading this thread it is apparent that very intelligent people while intuitively supporting anti-gun measures don't really understand fundamental aspects of gun / gun control since a lot of the arguments end up being technical in nature. This is like trying to mandate fuel economy requirements in vehicles without a good understanding of how vehicle management systems can be used to fudge fuel economy giving different test and real world results.

From a gun perspective intuitively it makes perfect sense to ban assault weapons until you start getting into the technical and statistical details where one quickly realizes that if the end goal was to save lives / prevent crime we really should be focusing on $200 .380 handguns owned by poor minorities in inner cities. Of course that isn't politically appealing to most gun-grabbers...

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

From a gun perspective intuitively it makes perfect sense to ban assault weapons until you start getting into the technical and statistical details where one quickly realizes that if the end goal was to save lives / prevent crime we really should be focusing on $200 .380 handguns owned by poor minorities in inner cities. Of course that isn't politically appealing to most gun-grabbers...

Poverty and location are risk factors, but I think they are actually overshadowed by the status of the family structure. Restricting inexpensive guns to those in high crime neighborhoods still may be the wrong approach. It might actually work out better if we found a way to discourage teen pregnancy, absent fathers and poor morals in general.

After my parents divorced we were thrown into poverty. It was the lack of an effective father figure that had the most impact, not the poverty.

Mars may need Moms, but Earth needs dads. Not just some sperm donor to stick around after the fact, but a real father who takes his responsibility seriously.

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Could most mass murders be occurring in gun free zones? If so we need to allow trained citizens to protect themselves.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund

Soldiers on their own military base were not allowed ammo:

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/if-we-had-ammunition-we-could-ve-cleared-building-son-navy-yard-told-dad

Media lies about AR-15 at Navy Yard Shootings:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/17/po...ard-shootings/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...bout-navy-yar/

We do need to keep the mentally ill, and criminals from ever having guns. Concealed carriers need to be licensed and recertified from time to time. But the best deterrant to crime is trained, armed citizens.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

WASHINGTON — The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

This turned out to be false. There was no AR-15, no AR-15 attempted purchase.

Emily Miller ✔ @EmilyMiller My exclusive: Navy Yard shooter did NOT try to buy a rifle at Sharpshooters. Other media reporters are wrong. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/ …
5:24 PM - 17 Sep 2013

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ound-checks-b/

Alexis did not attempt to purchase a rifle or handgun from the store, The Washington Times has learned exclusively.

The media is totally obsessed with AR-15s. Yet, you can't even legally hunt deer with them in most states - they're not too powerful, they are not powerful enough

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/hard-lessons-of-the-colorado-recall.html?src=recg

The Colorado Legislature showed good sense when it voted in March to require universal background checks in the sale of firearms and limits on magazine clips to 15 rounds.

Actually, no they didn't. Both laws were poorly worded, inaccurate and vague. When asked about wording in the magazine bill Rhonda Fields actually couldn't answer the question even though she was the bill's sponsor. When shown a working magazine and asked why she included some of the provisions in the bill she had no idea what she was talking about, but was unrepentant when shown the error. She basically said that errors in her bill were a small price to pay for "progress". One of the reasons the County Sheriffs vowed to not enforce the law was the vague and imprecise nature of the bill.

The "background" check bill was equally flawed, if not worse. Boulder County had to postpone a gun "buy back" because the sheriff determined that the firearms could not be legally transferred, even for destruction. When gun banners make gun "buy backs" illegal you know they had no idea what they were doing. This is one of their poster child operations.

Likewise, people who want to move a firearm out of their house due to visiting grandchildren, a sick relative or unqualified visitors can't legally do it.

These laws are bogus - they have no public safety benefit, they are merely harassment.

The two lawmakers — the Senate president, John Morse, and Senator Angela Giron — are exemplary models of responsible public service.

No, actually they were not. Giron's district is heavily Democrat - she was recalled with a indisputable margin of close to 56%.

And guns are not the only thing that is making Coloradoans upset with their legislature - this past legislative season was very unproductive. In state tuition for illegals was hugely unpopular. Driver's licenses for illegals is hugely unpopular (we have a huge problem with hit and run drivers in Colorado).

[jr429]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/hard-lessons-of-the-colorado-recall.html?src=recg



Actually, no they didn't. Both laws were poorly worded, inaccurate and vague. When asked about wording in the magazine bill Rhonda Fields actually couldn't answer the question even though she was the bill's sponsor. When shown a working magazine and asked why she included some of the provisions in the bill she had no idea what she was talking about, but was unrepentant when shown the error. She basically said that errors in her bill were a small price to pay for "progress". One of the reasons the County Sheriffs vowed to not enforce the law was the vague and imprecise nature of the bill.

The "background" check bill was equally flawed, if not worse. Boulder County had to postpone a gun "buy back" because the sheriff determined that the firearms could not be legally transferred, even for destruction. When gun banners make gun "buy backs" illegal you know they had no idea what they were doing. This is one of their poster child operations.

Likewise, people who want to move a firearm out of their house due to visiting grandchildren, a sick relative or unqualified visitors can't legally do it.

These laws are bogus - they have no public safety benefit, they are merely harassment.



No, actually they were not. Giron's district is heavily Democrat - she was recalled with a indisputable margin of close to 56%.

And guns are not the only thing that is making Coloradoans upset with their legislature - this past legislative season was very unproductive. In state tuition for illegals was hugely unpopular. Driver's licenses for illegals is hugely unpopular (we have a huge problem with hit and run drivers in Colorado).

It only gets worse and crazier from here. Look at California. Our rifles (which are used in less than 8% of crime) all have non-detachable magazines and there's legislation on the table making that illegal. I've spoken with some very smart people who just don't understand the technicalities and reality of firearms. In their mind they are progressively working towards a goal of "getting rid of all guns" while losing site of the actual goal which should be reducing gun crime while balancing the rights of citizens to defend themselves. The problem with some of these legislators, especially in California is that they would be content if citizens were only allowed to drive one type of car, eat one type of food, and live in one type of house (all government selected of course) because that's the most efficient system. I call this the BORG mentality and many politicians in California suffer from this mentality....

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

We do need to keep the mentally ill, and criminals from ever having guns.

Even legislation aimed to do that seems impossible...

“After an incident like this, quite typically, everybody in the spectrum, whether they are pro-gun or anti-gun, pro-gun-control, pro-access for everyone, will say — they will say, oh, yes, of course, troubled people, mentally ill people should not have access to guns. And it sounds like this is the mythical third way. Well, we can all agree on that, let’s get it done. But then, when it breaks down to the details, divides start. The National Rifle Association will say, for example, yeah, we support that, but we don’t want veterans who come back and are temporarily troubled with post-traumatic stress disorder, we don’t want them to be banned for life. And frankly, mental health advocates will say, well, we don’t want the stigma attached. There are people who have moments of depression and they get treatment and they’re out. So, what happens is, this whole unanimity of opinion gradually collapses.”

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Even legislation aimed to do that seems impossible...

“After an incident like this, quite typically, everybody in the spectrum, whether they are pro-gun or anti-gun, pro-gun-control, pro-access for everyone, will say — they will say, oh, yes, of course, troubled people, mentally ill people should not have access to guns. And it sounds like this is the mythical third way. Well, we can all agree on that, let’s get it done. But then, when it breaks down to the details, divides start. The National Rifle Association will say, for example, yeah, we support that, but we don’t want veterans who come back and are temporarily troubled with post-traumatic stress disorder, we don’t want them to be banned for life. And frankly, mental health advocates will say, well, we don’t want the stigma attached. There are people who have moments of depression and they get treatment and they’re out. So, what happens is, this whole unanimity of opinion gradually collapses.”

Good point. Most people probably don't think about what it means when they agree the "mentally ill" should not own guns. Would a person who was depressed as a teenager count as mentally ill forever?

[Forrest]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Most people who kill anyone that is not in self defense are to me, mentally ill.

I think it is not the use of a weapon that needs to be studied here as the reason it is used. Anyone shooting any weapon for any reason in self defence should be permitted. And if that is self defence against an encroaching government, well, so be it.

This should be a matter of standing up to attacks made by armed groups of men busting into your house, like home invasions by thugs...or SWAT teams. You do that enough times, enough places, and they stop busting in.

That would go for darned near anything..car jacking's, school killings, even terrorists, if you can catch them coming into the country. Defending what is yours, yourself, or others is not wrong. And you can be mentally ill, depressed, schizophenic or whatever, and still do right in defending yourself.

Stopping people from owning guns does nothing, even if they are not mentally ill. If you try to keep me from protecting myself, and outlaw guns, you just make me another gang member that you do next to nothing about.

Teaching people that killing one another for fun is not a good thing should be highest on the agenda.