At least 27 die in school shooting in Connecticut | 1

[Endovelico]

Murder is a crime found throughout humanity, we have the right to a means of defense as the government cannot guarantee our protection.

Nothing beyond this really needs to be said.

When the cure is worse than the illness maybe you should switch medicines...

[Endovelico]

And the sad fact is that individual weapons, be they sword and buckler or AR15s, can be put to good use or ill. Their efficacy depends more on the user and target than the items themselves. Of course this ballsack tard had a massive body count. He was killing kids. Again, could have done it with a hammer.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that over 90% of people who do random mass killing with guns would be completely incapable of stabbing a person and much less killing with a hammer. Killing with guns is within the reach of most cowards but cowards are incapable of killing with a knife or any similar weapon. In fact many people who insist on having a gun are not just looking for means to defend themselves. They are looking for ways to defend themselves compatible with their cowardice. And that's what worries me. There is nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun.

[Simple Minded]

america, you seem to be pretty on par with the rest of for us in terms of the rest of the modern risk avoidance legislation.

It is an amazing thing to witness over several decades.

Big Brother assumes adults can dress themselves and drive themselves to work, but when at an industrial facility, the OSHA regulations are such that all present are assumed to be brain damaged 8 year olds.

The adoption of the "safety culture" in the last few years in my industry has been very humourous. We engineers have often joked that we can use management's rules and goals to bring everything to a halt at anytime. In that respect, we could easily be union members or lawyers.

Not sure what it is like in aus, but compare agricultural equipment and safety guards or lack there of over the last 100 years. The trend is clear.

[Simple Minded]

great post

I've gotta tell you, guys, it's getting harder and harder for me to consider myself superior.

No offense bro, but thats been obvious to some of us for a quite a while now....

My God, Simple Minded! The realism! The sheer power of realism to change someone's mind! Things like this make everything so clear, don't they?

Sure nuff, course it helps to get past the teen age years when your brain is wash in hormones, and your frontal lobes ain't developed yet.....

Man, did that show me. There are some real good thinkers out there in America, and there's nothing like a public tragedy to bring out the best in them! I've learned my lesson. America's thinking people are thinking so good about this that I just can't consider myself superior anymore. What am I to do?

Mediocrity loves company brother. Celebrate your mediocrity like the rest of us.
Feels kinda good being one of the people don't it?
Some people wallow in it and call it the "infinite oneness of the universe...."

I'm worryng about you a little less each day..... Ya done did good boy!!!

Does kinda make you wonder why so many look for some intellectual/moral superiors/experts to tell them right from wrong or how they should live their lives....... don't it?

[Yukon Cornelius]

...Again, could have done it with a hammer.

..or chained the exits shut and set the place on fire.

I know. He could have carted off those heavy petrol canisters into those classrooms while recess is in session(when no one will be looking!), then surreptiously shut down both ends of the exits to the building(again, recess! no one looking!) and chain them dead shut in the span of 10-15 minutes. Then, uh, I guess he just press the detonator to those canisters since no one would have noticed them, and just ran away. Or maybe he could just meticulously spray the whole room down with fuel while no one there during the school day, and lit it on fire. Then he gets out and shuts the exits dead in the next 4-5 minutes. And I guess a whole classroom would have been dead.

So what's up with these self induced genital mutilation these days?

No, I meant actually just chaining the exits shut and setting the place on fire. Yell "fire" in crowded theater.

But then that doesn't lend itself to facile solutions.

[Yukon Cornelius]

And the sad fact is that individual weapons, be they sword and buckler or AR15s, can be put to good use or ill. Their efficacy depends more on the user and target than the items themselves. Of course this ballsack tard had a massive body count. He was killing kids. Again, could have done it with a hammer.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that over 90% of people who do random mass killing with guns would be completely incapable of stabbing a person and much less killing with a hammer. Killing with guns is within the reach of most cowards but cowards are incapable of killing with a knife or any similar weapon. In fact many people who insist on having a gun are not just looking for means to defend themselves. They are looking for ways to defend themselves compatible with their cowardice. And that's what worries me. There is nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun.

This is the flaw in the logic: if it was a hammer, or petrol bombs thrown into class rooms, we'd be dealing with the murderer's impetus to kill.

Same if the shooter was Muslim.

But somehow the medium is the message here --- it's simply not a logical argument.

[Enki]

It woke up bothering me this morning that no one defends themselves and the children in these situations. Like the story of the one lady who had a conversation with the killer, lied to him and told him her class was in the gym. He then killed her.

A doorway is a natural chokepoint and entering through that doorway reduces the tactical advantage of the gun. Doesn't eliminate it, but reduces it. If that door opens inward, you can kick it shut on the killer. If you stand to the side with a chair when he enters you can whack him upside the head with all of your strength.

I witnessed children throw desks across the classroom when I was in school. 8 year olds and 13 year olds. If an 8 year old boy can launch an elementary school desk across a classroom, so can a 30 year old woman.

I don't understand why it seems like people just wait to be slaughtered while these kids go door to door. They aren't armored tac teams, they don't have the muscle mass of a Navy SEAL. They are gangly teenage boys who have a gun.

This has always bothered me. And it bothers me that pointing it out makes you sound like an armchair hero. But there is truth that there are ways to defend yourself and a classroom full of children from these monsters.

Is there some gender role thing going on here? Am I thinking from the perspective of a large man who has had martial arts training? Why don't other people think of defending themselves? You never hear stories about how someone fought the attacker, and lost even. I mean yeah, desk versus AR 15 is a tactical disadvantage, but throwing desks is a greater advantage than waiting docilely to be shot.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Even just locking the classroom door seems like it would have gone a long ways.

[Enki]

Even just locking the classroom door seems like it would have gone a long ways.

Yep.

[Prunus persica]

And the sad fact is that individual weapons, be they sword and buckler or AR15s, can be put to good use or ill. Their efficacy depends more on the user and target than the items themselves. Of course this ballsack tard had a massive body count. He was killing kids. Again, could have done it with a hammer.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that over 90% of people who do random mass killing with guns would be completely incapable of stabbing a person and much less killing with a hammer. Killing with guns is within the reach of most cowards but cowards are incapable of killing with a knife or any similar weapon. In fact many people who insist on having a gun are not just looking for means to defend themselves. They are looking for ways to defend themselves compatible with their cowardice. And that's what worries me. There is nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun.

.

seconded


.

[Simple Minded]

Damn, Ammi is gonna have a stroke before he's 50.

Huh, seems like there is a market for drugs that'll keep ya from gettin all worked up about stuff after all.

[monster_gardener]

It woke up bothering me this morning that no one defends themselves and the children in these situations. Like the story of the one lady who had a conversation with the killer, lied to him and told him her class was in the gym. He then killed her.

A doorway is a natural chokepoint and entering through that doorway reduces the tactical advantage of the gun. Doesn't eliminate it, but reduces it. If that door opens inward, you can kick it shut on the killer. If you stand to the side with a chair when he enters you can whack him upside the head with all of your strength.

I witnessed children throw desks across the classroom when I was in school. 8 year olds and 13 year olds. If an 8 year old boy can launch an elementary school desk across a classroom, so can a 30 year old woman.

I don't understand why it seems like people just wait to be slaughtered while these kids go door to door. They aren't armored tac teams, they don't have the muscle mass of a Navy SEAL. They are gangly teenage boys who have a gun.

This has always bothered me. And it bothers me that pointing it out makes you sound like an armchair hero. But there is truth that there are ways to defend yourself and a classroom full of children from these monsters.

Is there some gender role thing going on here? Am I thinking from the perspective of a large man who has had martial arts training? Why don't other people think of defending themselves? You never hear stories about how someone fought the attacker, and lost even. I mean yeah, desk versus AR 15 is a tactical disadvantage, but throwing desks is a greater advantage than waiting docilely to be shot.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your EXCELLENT post, Tinker.

Seconded!

Similar Slaughter of Sheeple happened at Virginia Tech.

IIRC one of the few there who took action and resisted was a Jewish Israeli Concentration Camp Survivor.....

He died Resisting in a Rear Guard Action but his students escaped..............

I suspect he may may have learned from that experience that Resistance Is less Futile than submission to evil.........

IMVHO there may need to be intelligent training on how to resist.......

When the Hide & Freeze Panic response is appropriate and when the Flee, Fight or Fight Bezerkly is the right response.......

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Tinker, the reason no one tries to defend themselves is because they've been conditioned to think the way a lot of people in this thread do: defending yourself is not your personal responsibility, it's the government's job. So if something goes down, you don't do anything except for sit down, shut up, and wait for the government to come save you. People have the same reaction during natural disasters (which is why it was so refreshing to see you and your people doing their thing after Sandy). When you bring up the idea of taking first responsibility for your own safety, these broken men look at you like you're some crazy Mad Max wannabe who doesn't understand civil society.

[Alexis]

In spite of the -all too predictable!- urge to launch a debate on the merits of gun control on West side of the Atlantics, and to pontificate on how weird Americans can sometimes be on this side of the Atlantics (refer to this piece in German newsmagazine which neuters value of its own arguments as a result of its superior tone), occurrences of mass shootings are not a convincing argument pro or against liberal gun laws. Statistics of fatalities in such rare events are not very different between the US and Western Europe.

--- The one really convincing argument for banning free purchase and carry of war weapons is that those countries which did so have a much lower murder rate. Refer to this international comparison: Western European countries just like Canada have 0.7 to 1.7 / 100,000 murder rates a year, while USA has 4.2

Assuming that USA has comparable intrinsic violent tendencies than Western Europeans and Canadians whose economies and national cultures are quite close (which is an assumption... but I don't know of any better one), one will estimate the cost of "Second Amendment" at between +2.5 and +3.5 / 100,000 additional murders a year. That is: somewhere between 7,600 and 10,800 additional fatalities every year

--- The one really convincing argument for defending free purchase and carry of war weapons is that a country where the citizenry is armed will be better protected against a tyranny settling in.

Improvement in protection is only relative of course. For one thing, when a democracy turns into tyranny, the majority has to have approved, and that majority won't use weapons against the new regime it chose for itself: would not have protected against Hitler arriving to power in Germany 1933 for example. Moreover, if a tyranny is established through invasion, a citizenry armed with rifles won't be of much help if the invader has little human rights imperative (many of them have none): slaughter the population of any irredentist city to teach a lesson to the others is the SOP... and rifles cannot beat cannons, tanks, not to speak of nukes.

Yet there is no denying that an armed citizenry will provide some degree of improved protection.


The bottom line is that free purchase and carry of war weapons result both in certain loss of thousands of lives each year, to the tune of one "9/11" every fourth month, and in an uncertain degree of reduction of a risk which in the American context is extremely low to begin with but would result potentially in millions if not tens of millions fatalities.

Whether this is for a country a "good deal", or not, is for every country to choose for itself.

In other words, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Americans to be convinced by Europeans, not for Europeans to be convinced by Americans... in a way, both sides of that dispute are right!

[Doc]

And the sad fact is that individual weapons, be they sword and buckler or AR15s, can be put to good use or ill. Their efficacy depends more on the user and target than the items themselves. Of course this ballsack tard had a massive body count. He was killing kids. Again, could have done it with a hammer.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that over 90% of people who do random mass killing with guns would be completely incapable of stabbing a person and much less killing with a hammer. Killing with guns is within the reach of most cowards but cowards are incapable of killing with a knife or any similar weapon. In fact many people who insist on having a gun are not just looking for means to defend themselves. They are looking for ways to defend themselves compatible with their cowardice. And that's what worries me. There is nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun.

What about bombs? They aren't that hard to make. Terrorists use them. In fact I bet you could find Jihadi web sites that pretty much tell how to make them.

[Endovelico]

--- The one really convincing argument for defending free purchase and carry of war weapons is that a country where the citizenry is armed will be better protected against a tyranny settling in.

When will Americans start shooting their way out of the Patriot Act?...

[Zack Morris]

The state of Utah already allows concealed carry for teachers, and they have none of these problems, and they don't have these shootings. That article is baseless and thoughtless hysteria.

Maybe not for long.

[Zack Morris]

--- The one really convincing argument for defending free purchase and carry of war weapons is that a country where the citizenry is armed will be better protected against a tyranny settling in.

When will Americans start shooting their way out of the Patriot Act?...

Never. Gun owners in the United States tend strongly to be freedom haters. Gun enthusiasm correlates strongly with Republican Party membership, which also correlates strongly with a lack of tolerance for personal liberties and non-Judeo Christian religious traditions. Gun-toting Americans would view the introduction of a Songun state favorably and therefore never object to the Patriot Act and other legislation that expands the security apparatus.

[Yukon Cornelius]

There's a pretty large racial discrepancy in there, too guys -- when looking at America as a whole.

Apparently guns "make" some more violent than others... anyone willing to touch than one?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Point being that -- per some tweets by Iowahawk yesterday...

Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Houston, 2.1 million. Similar demographics. 2012 homicides: Chicago 487, Houston 215.

60 murders in Chicago 2012 were non-gun (stabbings, beatings, strangulation). Iowa, with 500k more people, had 46 total murders in 2011.

...you're going to have to impose the same laws on Iowa as Chicago. For the same reason??

[Azrael]

And I'm not suggesting banning cars. Just limit them to 20 MPH. 50,000 dead and 3 million injured per year. For a little inconvenience, we could get that down to 5,000 and 100,000, at least. What's not worth that?

The capacity to travel at highway speeds is not intended to kill people. The whole point of guns with the capacity to spray lead is to kill large numbers of people.

[Azrael]

People aren't allowed to have full autos over here. You can have semi autos, but most murders don't happen with semi auto rifles. Semi auto rifles are most dangerous in the hands of a citizen facing overzealous police, and I'm OK with that.

If you have more firepower than the local police can handle, they'll call in the National Guard or the ATF. You aren't going to win, buddy.

[Azrael]

Cars are designed to transport people and cargo. Assault weapons are designed for nothing else but to kill large numbers of people. Big difference.

i have a number of "assault weapons", and I have managed to never kill people. How did I manage that?

And I'm not saying that we should ban legitimate hunting guns.

The AR platform is a legitmate hunting gun.

You can also kill deer with a B-52, Sarin gas, or a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. Should individuals in the general public be allowed to own those as well?

[Mr. Perfect]

--- The one really convincing argument for banning free purchase and carry of war weapons is that those countries which did so have a much lower murder rate. Refer to this international comparison: Western European countries just like Canada have 0.7 to 1.7 / 100,000 murder rates a year, while USA has 4.2

It's not convincing in the slightest, the US murders more people WITHOUT using guns than total murders in European countries.

The US has gun control on the state level and federal level and these laws are routinely broken in the commission of crimes.

Europeans still murder people with guns despite having no 2nd amendment.

When you study murders and their likely causes all over the world the gun quickly leaves the discussion.

Assuming that USA has comparable intrinsic violent tendencies than Western Europeans and Canadians whose economies and national cultures are quite close (which is an assumption... but I don't know of any better one),

You can't make this assumption. As I said, non gun murders outnumber total murders in European countries.

one will estimate the cost of "Second Amendment" at between +2.5 and +3.5 / 100,000 additional murders a year. That is: somewhere between 7,600 and 10,800 additional fatalities every year

--- The one really convincing argument for defending free purchase and carry of war weapons is that a country where the citizenry is armed will be better protected against a tyranny settling in.

The fundamental argument is the government cannot guarantee your protection so we have a right to the means of our own defense, whether it be the government or a criminal.

Yet there is no denying that an armed citizenry will provide some degree of improved protection.

The bottom line is that free purchase and carry of war weapons result both in certain loss of thousands of lives each year, to the tune of one "9/11" every fourth month, and in an uncertain degree of reduction of a risk which in the American context is extremely low to begin with but would result potentially in millions if not tens of millions fatalities.

Guns used in murders are often obtained illegally. Concealed Carry individuals, those licensed to carry guns, rarely commit murder.

[Typhoon]

Cars are designed to transport people and cargo. Assault weapons are designed for nothing else but to kill large numbers of people. Big difference.

i have a number of "assault weapons", and I have managed to never kill people. How did I manage that?

And I'm not saying that we should ban legitimate hunting guns.

The AR platform is a legitmate hunting gun.

You can also kill deer with a B-52, Sarin gas, or a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. Should individuals in the general public be allowed to own those as well?

Real men hunt deer with drones carrying guided missiles.