The Black Vault

Wing-Zero wrote:Shot in the dark here, were you watching 60 Minutes?

Yes, not that they said anything that I did not already know.

For 10 more points;
Where did I get this?

"If you kill people in this country we (the state) will kill you back!"

hint: its a paraphrase.

jaydeehess wrote:

Wing-Zero wrote:Shot in the dark here, were you watching 60 Minutes?

Yes, not that they said anything that I did not already know.

For 10 more points;
Where did I get this?

"If you kill people in this country we (the state) will kill you back!"

hint: its a paraphrase.

Oh no thanks, I don't play for more than what I need.

I'll cash my chips at the door, thx.

In my own personal experience..
A life being taken by suicide or murder had A-LOT to do with three things..

accessibility , the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and a catalist..something that has upset or angered someone at the time..a-lot.

This deadly combination has taken a handful of lives from my world..in my life..and closely took mine and also the lives of people I have loved


But not just guns..can be blaimed..accessibilty to anything that can kill you or anybody quick is dangerous when combined with the other stuff.


Most murders (outside of war) and suicides are commited because of that combination of stuff.

this is just an observation and not a judgement call

it is what it is

guns take lives..guns save lives

Oh, I get now. If its on "60 Minutes" its all wrong.

jaydeehess wrote:Oh, I get now. If its on "60 Minutes" its all wrong.

Not quite.

Although anything that isn't on History Channel or Discovery Channel that is about guns is usually grossly innacurate, that particular showing did bring a couple things to light.

It shouldn't be that easy to get a gun, dealers at gun shows should have more restrictions placed on them so they don't slack off and sell to someone who's obviously incapable of handling the responsibility of a gun, etc.

But at the same time, ABC and the like always seem to coat anything that has to do with guns with the same liberal amount of BS, mistakes in terminology, fixed simulations, and use of over exaggerated scare tactics thats only purpose is really to attempt to frighten suburban moms and people who think that guns are sentient objects that are obviously out to kill children and cops.

So no, just because it's on 60 Minutes doesn't mean it's flat out wrong, it just means it should be taken with a grain of salt and not completely bought into.

One problem with this anti-gun propaganda is that they're not considering outside factors, they're blaming a tool.

The school shooters that I've been able to research have all been on FDA approved pharmaceuticals OR have just stopped taken them cold turkey. Like bionic said, drugs and alcohol often play a part. Due to fascism, pharmaceutical companies have been able to make huge profits. They employ "doctors" to create new diseases like shyness (which they now have a pill for) so that they can market their poison. Any tool in the hands of a pharmaceutically controlled person can commit murder. Blaming an inanimate object for murder is asinine. Pharmaceuticals alter the brain chemistry of humans and can push some over the edge enough to murder using any tool, even an axe or a pen.

When there was less regulation against legally obtaining guns, there was also less crime. The more regulations put on legally owning a gun the higher the crime rate grows. Just look at Mexico. They have very restrictive laws against legally owning guns. That is why the criminals have taken over. Had law abiding citizens had easier access to guns, they wouldn't have the problems currently publicized with the drug lords. Then again, the drug lords have been ruling Mexico for at least 60 or 80 years. We're just hearing about it now to promote anti-gun propaganda.

Hey Nesaie, I also don't think we should prescribe to the dichotomy issued by the liberals and the conservatives on the reasons for why certain individuals go on shooting sprees. Instead, we should look towards reasons found in the realm of social construction, social desensitization, economic despondence and other factors that may contribute to such calamities. It's unfortunate the debate is centered around lax gun laws or violent videogames...

Here's a different perspective:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/17-6

Columbine Questions We Still Don't Ponder
by David Sirota

As Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's posthumous infamy turns 10 on April 20, I wish I were surprised that Columbine-like shootings are still happening, or even that our national discussion about violence hasn't yet matured past gun control and video games.

I wish I were surprised, but sadly, I'd be surprised if it were any different because we still refuse to ask the most uncomfortable questions.

Columbine was the "Pulp Fiction" of violence: not the first of its genre, but the model to which all contemporaries are compared. And lately, Columbine derivatives have been coming at a faster clip.

After each tragedy, it's the same thing. Liberals want us to wonder why gun laws let anyone access deadly weapons. Conservatives insist we question why video games supposedly turn down-to-earth kids into murderers.

These queries satiate two desires. In a country that ascribes hubristic "exceptionalism" to itself and berates self-analysis as "hating America," we seek absolution via scapegoat, and so we upbraid bogeymen like firearms and Xboxes. Similarly, in a democracy increasingly conducting its politics through red-blue filters and 140-character Twitter updates, we crave Occam's razors -- and none are sharper than oversimplified arguments about gun control and video games.

But what about the questions and answers that aren't so simple?

For example, isn't violence a predictable byproduct of our economy? When torture victims are waterboarded, they freak out. When a winner-take-all economy tortures society, should we be shocked that a few lunatics go over the edge?

For three decades, we converted our economy into one that enriches the rich and stresses out everyone else. Paychecks dwindled, debts accumulated, health-care bills spiked. We now spend more hours working or seeking work, and fewer hours on parenting, family time and rest -- all while schools and mental-health services deteriorate.

Considering this, shouldn't we expect the recent Associated Press story telling us "the American home is becoming more violent" because of the recession? Shouldn't we expect the new Department of Homeland Security report saying that "the economic downturn" is "invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements"? And, ultimately, shouldn't we expect the deep alienation that may lead the occasional troubled kid to turn video-game fantasies into real-world terror?

If these questions don't make you uneasy, then how about this one: Are those video games fantasies, or are they representations of real violence that we willfully organize our economy around?

Today, one in every three dollars the government spends goes to defense and security. The killing machine and adventurism that money manufactures has delivered 1 million Iraqi casualties, thousands of American casualties and an implicit promise of future wars -- indeed, of permanent war.

Perpetuating this expenditure, bloodshed and posture in a nation of dwindling resources, humanitarian self-images and anti-interventionist impulses requires a culture constantly selling violence as a necessity. It's not just video games -- it's the nightly news echoing Pentagon propaganda and "hawkish" politicians equating militarism with patriotism and "embedded" journalism cheering on wars and every other suit-and-tie-clad industry constantly forwarding the assumption that killing is a legitimate form of national ambition and self-expression. Is it any wonder that a few crazies apply that ethos to their individual lives, and begin seeing violence as a reasonable means to express their own emotions?

Sure, the assault weapons ban's expiration is an abomination. Absolutely, some video games are appalling. But we could ban all guns and video games and there would still be mass murders because neither the availability of firearms nor of Grand Theft Auto creates the original desire for violence.

Until we face that complex reality -- or at least ask different questions -- we'll continue being terrorized by Columbine killers.

Aquarian wrote:Sure, the assault weapons ban's expiration is an abomination.

No, it really isn't.

Wing-Zero wrote:

jaydeehess wrote:Oh, I get now. If its on "60 Minutes" its all wrong.

Not quite.

Although anything that isn't on History Channel or Discovery Channel that is about guns is usually grossly innacurate, that particular showing did bring a couple things to light.

It shouldn't be that easy to get a gun, dealers at gun shows should have more restrictions placed on them so they don't slack off and sell to someone who's obviously incapable of handling the responsibility of a gun, etc.

But at the same time, ABC and the like always seem to coat anything that has to do with guns with the same liberal amount of BS, mistakes in terminology, fixed simulations, and use of over exaggerated scare tactics thats only purpose is really to attempt to frighten suburban moms and people who think that guns are sentient objects that are obviously out to kill children and cops.

So no, just because it's on 60 Minutes doesn't mean it's flat out wrong, it just means it should be taken with a grain of salt and not completely bought into.

"60 Minutes" is on CBS but I take your point.

I have chaffed at innaccuracy in terminology when the networks discuss science and technology so I am aware that journalists do not always inform themselves properly. However, the NRA spokesman did not challenge the statements concerning background checks, Instead he made the incredible propistion of cancelling all background checks.

A poster above says that anti-gun lobby blames a tool. Obviously in my discussion in this thread I am not doing that, but let's take the 'tool' idea a little further and compare to the tool of an automobile. I am not speaking of the requirement for a license. The analogy here would be
what to do with a person who has misued this tool by driving drunk. We take that person's legal ability to drive away. Similarily if a person commits certain crimes we remove their legal right to own a firearm. this is done, in both cases, to attempt to protect the public.

In the case of the drunk driver there is nothing physically preventing him from driving granted but I would hope that people see my point. I know all analogies break down at some point.

In the case of firearms a background check is done on persons wanting to purchase them. A good idea IMO and the only way that one can make the slightest effort to make the purchase of firearms less easy for those whom we do not want to have legal access to them.

If however background checks are subverted by only requireing them on one type of purchase then this would be like only taking away the legal permission to drive on certain streets from convicted drunk drivers.

I am quite certain you understood my initial post when I stated that the reaction of the NRA spokesman was, in effect, that it should be possible for convicted felons and insane persons to purchase firearms legally.

Now other posters above posted about pedophiles in the neighbourhoods. I too would be very concerned about that. I would also be concerned about previously convicted violent felons or those persons who are known to not be in contact with reality, being able to walk into a gun show and purchase firearms basically legally. It is insane to allow the insane to have firearms.

Of course, and I agree that any attempt at "gun control" should be centered on making it as difficult as possible for criminals (new or seasoned) and mentally disturbed people to obtain something that is able to kill without a moment's hesitation.

But while making those new laws, they need to consider us regular Joes who abide by the laws and follow them to the letter. I shouldn't have to spend five grand on a gun and the parts I need to make it "legal" when, if the laws weren't like they were now, I could only have spent eight hundred bucks.

I know that last bit sounds pretty selfish, but thats how I feel about it.

Also, do you have any statistics on how guns that were purchased at gun shows have been recorded in a firearm case? I figure most criminals who plan on committing crimes again would just buy them illegally, and as we all know, a lot of crazy people aren't crazy until they actually go through with it.