I think I know why a lot of Republicans won't get rid of their guns. They're afraid the little people may rise up and they might need them to keep us all in line.

Originally Posted by Kepi

This was a domestic dispute due to a love triangle. Not all public shootings are spree shootings, and neither are all multi kills. Now the media is looking to break the next big spree shooting, so they don't care it is or isn't.

According to the Washington Post, the love triange rumors were just that ... rumors.

Police also are trying to figure out why Aguilar walked into the Zumiez store, pulled a shotgun and killed two employees: Brianna Benlolo, 21, and Tyler Johnson, 25. He then killed himself in the store, never going back out into the mall or threatening anyone else, even though he was laden with ammunition. Authorities said they have found no connection between Aguilar and the people he shot.

Which makes this whole sorry business even more mystifying.

Originally Posted by sbrombacher

I think I know why a lot of Republicans won't get rid of their guns. They're afraid the little people may rise up and they might need them to keep us all in line.

... How does this make sense? If you outlaw fire arms or make access difficult, it's only the wealthy and criminals that will have access to guns, because they become cost prohibitive here (legally), but not, say, Russia. People who can fly to Russia and fly back without passing through customs because they have their own air strip and personal aircraft are, at least last I checked, wealthy.

Likewise, the people who can afford their own private armed security armies? Also the wealthy. People who can produce their own tanks and military grade armament? The wealthy. Right now, I guarantee you, a company like Exxon Mobile could assemble an army that could rival the US's for power. A few private security companies have legitimate access to fully automatic fire arms without having law enforcement power, and even more just get law enforcement power.

If you want to talk about power differentials between the elites and the common citizenry, trust me, they don't really care whether you or I have a peashooter or not. They have access to every gun in the catalog and real heavy artillery if they need it.

It's the crazies, mostly from red and purple states, who want to keep their guns and keep us in line; the ones who are saying, "they're taking our guns away over our dead bodies." Like the guys I posted before saying that. One of them even said he was going to start killing people. But they are the backbone of Republican power today; the elite have no-one to back them up unless they can deceive and mobilize these hicks and militia-men with their slogans. These poor slobs with guns, they don't benefit from their fears and prejudices-- their hatred of Obama and blacks and non-Christians and those who want to take they guns away and make them pay taxes to big government and so on. It's just apparently all they know, and all they can see and hear. They are brainwashed; born and bred into the kind of culture that keeps people insular and afraid.

The point Kepi makes, though, is exactly why many people on the left think they need guns too. They are equally mistaken, for the very reason Kepi cites. The elite have more powerful guns than the radicals could ever dream of having. What's the use?

The only thing that happens if we allow all these nuts to have guns, is that people get hurt. I'm not saying we can take their guns away; the consensus doesn't exist for that, and it only will bring more violence. But sensible laws are needed, and it is only the needless fanaticism and ignorance of our post-Reagan republican era that prevents this. We need to make access to guns more difficult, indeed. That would still not prevent many people from having guns who are less likely to mis-use them. To say so is only to fall prey to this needless fanatic propaganda put out by the NRA and Republicans. Leave that to the fanatics like Flat 58 and Danilynn. We don't all have to fall for it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... But sensible laws are needed, and it is only the needless fanaticism and ignorance of our post-Reagan republican era that prevents this. We need to make access to guns more difficult, indeed. That would still not prevent many people from having guns who are less likely to mis-use them. To say so is only to fall prey to this needless fanatic propaganda put out by the NRA and Republicans. Leave that to the fanatics like Flat 58 and Danilynn. We don't all have to fall for it.

I'm not sure that's quite right. What we need is more structure. We need to know that the mentally ill are not going about armed to the teeth. We need to know that firearms are not purchased through straw sales, and end-up being owned by gang bangers. We need mandatory background checks and registration and that includes resale. Licensing owners as competent, much like drivers licenses, should also be a no-brainer. In fact, reasonable record keeping is basic common sense - not that common sense and firearms coexist.

More to the point, we need to know what impacts guns have on us. In other words, we need data. The start to that is the removal of the ban on data collection and analysis. It's hard to even discuss this issue when the basic information is denied by law.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's the crazies, mostly from red and purple states, who want to keep their guns and keep us in line; the ones who are saying, "they're taking our guns away over our dead bodies." Like the guys I posted before saying that. One of them even said he was going to start killing people. But they are the backbone of Republican power today; the elite have no-one to back them up unless they can deceive and mobilize these hicks and militia-men with their slogans. These poor slobs with guns, they don't benefit from their fears and prejudices-- their hatred of Obama and blacks and non-Christians and those who want to take they guns away and make them pay taxes to big government and so on. It's just apparently all they know, and all they can see and hear. They are brainwashed; born and bred into the kind of culture that keeps people insular and afraid.

The point Kepi makes, though, is exactly why many people on the left think they need guns too. They are equally mistaken, for the very reason Kepi cites. The elite have more powerful guns than the radicals could ever dream of having. What's the use?

The only thing that happens if we allow all these nuts to have guns, is that people get hurt. I'm not saying we can take their guns away; the consensus doesn't exist for that, and it only will bring more violence. But sensible laws are needed, and it is only the needless fanaticism and ignorance of our post-Reagan republican era that prevents this. We need to make access to guns more difficult, indeed. That would still not prevent many people from having guns who are less likely to mis-use them. To say so is only to fall prey to this needless fanatic propaganda put out by the NRA and Republicans. Leave that to the fanatics like Flat 58 and Danilynn. We don't all have to fall for it.

A weapon's perceived "power" is really a made up concept. It's not power that matters as much as accuracy, dependability, and range, because the real power behind a gun is the bullet you use. 1 and 2 may not be the same, but it really is close enough for non total conflicts.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm not sure that's quite right. What we need is more structure. We need to know that the mentally ill are not going about armed to the teeth. We need to know that firearms are not purchased through straw sales, and end-up being owned by gang bangers. We need mandatory background checks and registration and that includes resale. Licensing owners as competent, much like drivers licenses, should also be a no-brainer. In fact, reasonable record keeping is basic common sense - not that common sense and firearms coexist.

More to the point, we need to know what impacts guns have on us. In other words, we need data. The start to that is the removal of the ban on data collection and analysis. It's hard to even discuss this issue when the basic information is denied by law.

Really, man? The witch hunt on the mentally ill? That sets some really dangerous precedents. Almost everywhere has temporary authority to pull firearms from the mentally ill when they're proven to be dangerous (an objective test usually, which involves an event or behavior on their part). Pulling guns from them before the get go is a great way to ensure that people with relatively mild mental health issues won't go get help, and will only further the misconception that they are monsters.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Really, man? The witch hunt on the mentally ill? That sets some really dangerous precedents. Almost everywhere has temporary authority to pull firearms from the mentally ill when they're proven to be dangerous (an objective test usually, which involves an event or behavior on their part). Pulling guns from them before the get go is a great way to ensure that people with relatively mild mental health issues won't go get help, and will only further the misconception that they are monsters.

Keep in mind that your model requires that someone must be put at risk or even killed to create enough justification to limit the posession of a firearm. My way may not be fair, but it isn't lethal. And arguing that this will drive the mentally ill underground is silly. They already feel that compunction. I doubt the denial of a handgun will create a greater burden than simply having their family, friends and peers know their problem.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Keep in mind that your model requires that someone must be put at risk or even killed to create enough justification to limit the posession of a firearm. My way may not be fair, but it isn't lethal. And arguing that this will drive the mentally ill underground is silly. They already feel that compunction. I doubt the denial of a handgun will create a greater burden than simply having their family, friends and peers know their problem.

Yes, I think that is a key difference. I think that fairness is the foremost job of government. Without an attempt at it, there's really no point to governance at all. There is no justice where fairness doesn't follow.

As to the mentally ill,how many do you work with on a daily basis? How well do you know how mental health services work? What about mental illness, do you have any formal or informal but indepth education on the topic?

It's already difficult enough to get people to self commit who really need to (it's the folks who want to treat your local mental health facility like it's a weekend at Betty Ford you can't get rid of). You start attaching long lasting consequences to it and they'll avoid it like the plague, not because they actually care what the consequences are, but because they don't want to become second class citizens. Their family and friends, meanwhile, are usually the ones they trust and don't care if they know, it's everybody else. For example, you know what you usually don't see? Schizophrenics in car accidents. At least not any more than anybody else. Why not? Because they cover it up. Despite vivid hallucinations, they maintain. Now when a schizophrenic shots somebody, it's all over the news, why? Because it's expected? No. That makes it not news. It's because it's scary.

This issue has less to do with guns, mental health issues and anything else and far more to do with our yellow as yellow can be journalism talking extensively about things they don't understand in a way that is scary to lay people because it sells.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Now when a schizophrenic shots somebody, it's all over the news, why? Because it's expected? No. That makes it not news. It's because it's scary.

This issue has less to do with guns, mental health issues and anything else and far more to do with our yellow as yellow can be journalism talking extensively about things they don't understand in a way that is scary to lay people because it sells.

It used to be that such shooting events were more rare; that's why they still make news. It is shocking. Of course we know the media likes bad news; shootings are just one kind of bad news that the media focuses on to get attention; nothing different than all the other bad stuff the media reports on to sell itself, rather than to do in-depth reporting that requires a longer attention span.

The issue is really why such a group of nutcases as the NRA is able to scare people and politicians into opposing even sensible gun laws, as well as why the fanatics want to keep their guns, rather than actually learn the facts about the dangers and uselessness of having guns.

The only consequence of denying useless and unnecessary guns to mentally ill people, is that there would be fewer senseless mass shootings. And to wait until the mentally ill commit themselves, is not the way. Especially in the case of young people, the issue is that flags were raised, but nothing was done to help these people before it was too late. More facilities and counseling are needed, as well as more guns laws. Obviously, our libertarian and tea party types oppose this; it means spending a few more dollars for government programs. And most of these libertarian and tea party types are gun lovers too anyway.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It used to be that such shooting events were more rare; that's why they still make news. It is shocking. Of course we know the media likes bad news; shootings are just one kind of bad news that the media focuses on to get attention; nothing different than all the other bad stuff the media reports on to sell itself, rather than to do in-depth reporting that requires a longer attention span.

The issue is really why such a group of nutcases as the NRA is able to scare people and politicians into opposing even sensible gun laws, as well as why the fanatics want to keep their guns, rather than actually learn the facts about the dangers and uselessness of having guns.

I think what makes these cases newsworthy is when they occur in a public place. If Aguilar had gone to someone's house and shot two people, it would be less shocking. The fact that it happened at a mall and the fact that nobody can connect Aguilar with his victims makes it shocking -- could it be me the next time I go to Macy's or see a movie?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I think what makes these cases newsworthy is when they occur in a public place. If Aguilar had gone to someone's house and shot two people, it would be less shocking. The fact that it happened at a mall and the fact that nobody can connect Aguilar with his victims makes it shocking -- could it be me the next time I go to Macy's or see a movie?

So yes, it's both the public place and the randomness of the victims.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It used to be that such shooting events were more rare; that's why they still make news. It is shocking. Of course we know the media likes bad news; shootings are just one kind of bad news that the media focuses on to get attention; nothing different than all the other bad stuff the media reports on to sell itself, rather than to do in-depth reporting that requires a longer attention span.

Not true at all. Spree shootings are more common, yes, but shootings, even public shootings are all down. The difference is that they're occurring in middle class neighborhoods, not the slums. It's real simple classicism.

The issue is really why such a group of nutcases as the NRA is able to scare people and politicians into opposing even sensible gun laws, as well as why the fanatics want to keep their guns, rather than actually learn the facts about the dangers and uselessness of having guns.

Yeah, because it couldn't be that the proposed laws were either nonsense or already illegal. C'mon, Eric, you know as well as I do that everything that has between proposed thus far is either weak so it won't violate existing law or it's an illegal law that violates some of our most basic constitutional guarantees, like the ex post facto law or the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. And let's spell this out... after the past few months, I wouldn't trust my government to set appropriate regulations for light bulb intensity. I'd wind up with a law that required me to screw in carp to light fixtures.

The only consequence of denying useless and unnecessary guns to mentally ill people, is that there would be fewer senseless mass shootings.

Also a complete change in the law's relationship to health and welfare. Do this in the fourth turning, get Logan's run for the 1T. Either that or you get a revolution and a total turn back against it... Given this 4T, I'll assume the latter.

And to wait until the mentally ill commit themselves, is not the way.

Now here's somebody who had never dealt with the mentally ill before. See not only do they have these things called rights they can exercise, but any sort of therapy has to have the consent of the patient, and for good reason. Most modern mental health regimes also involve drugs with pretty severe consequences. Not that they're more hardcore than electroshock and abuse like we were all about during the medical model.

Especially in the case of young people, the issue is that flags were raised, but nothing was done to help these people before it was too late.

Because legally nothing could be done. Flags were raised, investigated, and nothing could be done that wouldn't violate the patients rights. In order to lose one's rights, a person must do specific things in order to get locked up. That's to protect people from being wrongfully institutionalized because therapy for people who don't need it or those who don't want it is very, very bad.

More facilities and counseling are needed, as well as more guns laws.

Except a lot of these people have access to it already. They didn't want it. Therapy doesn't work without consent. People had the option to beat feet and get out and support new gun legislation. They didn't. The people have spoken, either the majority was opposed to the proposed laws, our they didn't really care to begin with, which would be my guess.

Obviously, our libertarian and tea party types oppose this; it means spending a few more dollars for government programs. And most of these libertarian and tea party types are gun lovers too anyway.

The tea party is a minority group from what is now the minority party. You can't blame the other side when the voting majority would be fire the other side... if they represented their base on the issue. They don't. That's how democracy works. By the time all was said and done, there were more people who didn't want the proposed laws than did, and the law's didn't work. If the democrats didn't suck, they'd have the house and the Senate, but they do so there aren't enough people who'll vote for them. Democracy in action.

Originally Posted by sbrombacher

I think I know why a lot of Republicans won't get rid of their guns. They're afraid the little people may rise up and they might need them to keep us all in line.

It happened before - in the last Awakening - and will very likely happen again - in the next one.

Dear North:

We made you pay, in blood, for every inch of the Civil War, even though both of us knew you were right the whole time. We're going to keep doing it for ever, too.

Love,

The South.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Dear North:

We made you pay, in blood, for every inch of the Civil War, even though both of us knew you were right the whole time. We're going to keep doing it for ever, too.

Love,

The South.

I think you are underestimating the ability of humans to lie to themselves.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think you are underestimating the ability of humans to lie to themselves.

And that is why these kinds of conflicts never end until one side is totally marginalized, whatever the issue.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

And that is why these kinds of conflicts never end until one side is totally marginalized, whatever the issue.

Which is the way the "Palestinian" question figures to be settled.

How does one say Heimatvertriebene in Arabic?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...n=ShareButtons

Originally Posted by Danilynn

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...n=ShareButtons

This same thing happened on Staten Island not that long ago.

Gun Sales Plunging

No, I don't think this reflects anything long term. It's just that after Obama's reelection, and after Newtown, there was a jump in the sales of guns and ammo supposedly reflecting a fear that gun control legislation would pass. As gun control isn't materializing, the sales rate has to come back down eventually?

Let this be a lesson. Attempts to pass gun control legislation result in gun sales.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Gun Sales Plunging

No, I don't think this reflects anything long term. It's just that after Obama's reelection, and after Newtown, there was a jump in the sales of guns and ammo supposedly reflecting a fear that gun control legislation would pass. As gun control isn't materializing, the sales rate has to come back down eventually?

Let this be a lesson. Attempts to pass gun control legislation result in gun sales.

No, paranoia results in gun sales, or at least it did in this case. No one tried anything - not even simple registration. This was a hyped-up reaction to nothing at all, and shows the state of mind of many gun owners.

Don't shift this into the court of the innocent.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, paranoia results in gun sales, or at least it did in this case. No one tried anything - not even simple registration. This was a hyped-up reaction to nothing at all, and shows the state of mind of many gun owners.

Don't shift this into the court of the innocent.

I seem to remember the first spike due to politics and the race of of president. That one, however wasn't nearly as crazy as the one that came about in 2012-2013. Not even close. I couldn't even get bad ammo in 2012-2013.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, paranoia results in gun sales, or at least it did in this case. No one tried anything - not even simple registration. This was a hyped-up reaction to nothing at all, and shows the state of mind of many gun owners.

Don't shift this into the court of the innocent.

There was talk. I didn't think they'd get anything done, but a few Democrats at least started to go through the motions. Alas, these days the slightest possibility is sufficient to cause a sales surge. I won't quibble with the word 'paranoia'.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, paranoia results in gun sales, or at least it did in this case. No one tried anything - not even simple registration. This was a hyped-up reaction to nothing at all, and shows the state of mind of many gun owners.

Just my perspective on this ...

There appears to be a couple different kinds of gun-owners. There are those who actually use them for something ... hunting, law-enforcement, armored car guarding, etc.

Then there are those who appear to me to live in a constant state of panic about events which almost never happen. These folks practice a lot, leave a lot of shot-up garbage laying around out in the country, stock up with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, and rave on about the 2nd amendment. Some fraction of these folks, at least here in NM, are greatly concerned about protecting themselves and their families from the lean, hungry, brown-skinned barbarians from Mexico, Central and South America.

Unlike gun owners who actually use their firearms for something, they find it necessary to own Bushmasters with huge magazines, almost to a man (or woman). The exception to this, in my mind, would be the law enforement officer who likely keeps a rifle in the trunk.

IMO, from a perspective of any meaningful gun regulation, that train left the station a long, long time ago. And it's not coming back.

But as Obama and others say, we need to keep trying. It is right and proper, and the American people are slow to understand the truth.