School Shooting in Connecticut

[lumpenprol]

all those guys advocating for concealed carry on teachers and school cops blows my mind...waiting for the first case of high school weapon-coerced sex in 3,2,1....

[LimpyLoo]

I agree with your point about the comment demonstrating the sort-of 'sadistic high-school jock' aspect of society: it is as destructive as it is common.

 

I wish we lived on a planet where everyone was a buddhist.

[vamos scorcho]

I asked a simple logical question to absolutely anybody and it is absolutely 100% fail safe (try it out):

 

Would you trade places with these "irredeemable" people, these shooters?

Would you want to be them?

 

(obviously not, as they all end up in jail or blowing their brains out)

 

 

So the conclusion is, why the fuck are you blaming them for being who they are. Do you think they want to be that way?

 

Thus, LOGICALLY, you should feel sorry for them. They blew their fucking brains out. No shit, you should feel sorry for their victims too. But as I see it, all of them are victims. This moral outrage is just primitive ape-level shit left over from the fucking plains of evolution.

[awepittance]

I wish we lived on a planet where everyone was a buddhist.

 

well at least most of the crazy suicidal people would set themselves on fire instead of shooting up a movie theatre

[LimpyLoo]

I asked a simple logical question to absolutely anybody and it is absolutely 100% fail safe (try it out):

 

Would you trade places with these "irredeemable" people, these shooters?

Would you want to be them?

 

(obviously not, as they all end up in jail or blowing their brains out)

 

 

So the conclusion is, why the fuck are you blaming them for being who they are. Do you think they want to be that way?

 

Thus, LOGICALLY, you should feel sorry for them. They blew their fucking brains out. No shit, you should feel sorry for their victims too. But as I see it, all of them are victims. This moral outrage is just primitive ape-level shit left over from the fucking plains of evolution.

 

Umm, this kinda doesn't make any sense.

 

(It's a shame too cause you were previously on a one-post heater)

[chenGOD]

I'm just gonna repost this here. They main point is: an armed society is not a civil society. Read it, it's easy to understand.

Here is an excellent article on the issue of the right to bear arms.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

 

 

 

As to China's economic growth, they practiced the same model (to a large degree) that both Japan and then South Korea did, the developmental state. This is a capitalist model, and it's kind of a variant on what the UK and the US both practiced in their own particular paths to a "free market" (lolololololol). There are a lot of different factors that go into it, but if you want to do some reading:

Chalmers Johnson - MITI and the Japanese Miracle

Alice Amsden - Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization

David Kang - Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines

Peter Evans - Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation

 

None of those deal directly with China, but you can see where China got many of the ideas for its own developmental growth.

 

And lumpy: the wall street journal have anti-China bias? that's unpossible.

[goDel]

On a sidenote, an interesting piece got published on the huff-po. About the power of the NRA lobby.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-lobby-nra_n_2317885.html

 

Although it only seems to scratch the surface, it already describes painfully clear what their impact is on completely unrelated bills ( what does carrying guns on amtrac got to do with credit cards?). Which suggests how ridicoulously influential these guys are. In the end I don't think the article explains all it claimes to explain, but between the lines the suggestion is clear.

 

The discussion shouldn't be about gun control. It should be about lobby control. This might save more lives than any other currently proposed measure.

[Guest Shit Attack]

I asked a simple logical question to absolutely anybody and it is absolutely 100% fail safe (try it out):

 

Would you trade places with these "irredeemable" people, these shooters?

Would you want to be them?

 

(obviously not, as they all end up in jail or blowing their brains out)

 

 

So the conclusion is, why the fuck are you blaming them for being who they are. Do you think they want to be that way?

 

Thus, LOGICALLY, you should feel sorry for them. They blew their fucking brains out. No shit, you should feel sorry for their victims too. But as I see it, all of them are victims. This moral outrage is just primitive ape-level shit left over from the fucking plains of evolution.

 

are you serious ? I have absolutely no sympathy for these kind of idiots at all , good riddance ! it only makes me hope that hell is a real place and that they're suffering some pretty horrendous stuff right now. If any of these idiots "didnt want to be that way" they could get help in any number of different ways that dosent involve shooting up a school / movie theatre / shopping mall etc. whatever their supposed problems are theres absolutely no excuse for that kinda bullshit , but I will also say you got to blame the parents/people around them a bit too . having sympathy for this guy is the dumbest thing i ever heard

[MisterE]

by all means continue to talk out your ass if you want. I did look at the links you posted and find them curious, I have to wonder if there's some sort of anti-Chinese bias. Yes some of what they say is true, different industries have different levels of control and govt. oversight, typically based on how important they are seen to be to national security (eg., steel, coal, etc). But that doesn't mean the govt has the free market in lockdown or something.....

i'll concede that china is more capitalistic than i originally thought.

I think what China is doesn't quite fit into any pre-existing Western framework for political-economic constructs. It was a pseudo-Communist state that threw open its doors to capitalism but didn't spiral down the toilet or get taken over by the mob like Russia (yet).

but you said that they were one of the 'most capitalistic' countries in the world. now you're kind of backpedaling on that. maybe i wasn't the only one who talked a little out of my ass? some things i found had estimates that china's GDP was from maybe around 1/3 to 70% privately owned businesses. this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

says "As of 2012 large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were the backbone of China's economy producing over 50% of its goods and services and employing over half of the workers in China." so maybe between 30-50% of jobs are state. that's a fuckin lot of government control is it not? probably just a little too much (just a tad) to call them one of the most capitalistic in the world. not only that but the state has the power to just swoop in and take over whatever they want, if they get the urge. as you said they run anything they view as important to 'national security', whatever that means at any given time. so potentially, any market could be taken over by the gov, and nobody could say or do anything about it. so the individual economic freedom of the citizens is still kind of based on the state;s whim, and since it seems like they are kind of just experimenting with stuff to see what sticks, who's to say what they do tomorrow? so yeah, i'll still stand by my disagreement with them being one of the 'most capitalistic countries in the world'. china might have more people practicing capitalism, but they have more people than any other country. the amount of government controlled business, even at 30% is still a huge amount. and how can you say they haven't been taken over by the mob? to me it sounds like the state basically is the mob. you can read about corruption of the state/communist party all day.

[keltoi]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-nation-reports,30743/?ref=auto

[Blir]

Do I understand this correctly, do the anti-gun control folk really believe in the whole "I need my guns for the inevitable government overthrow" thing? Or is that just convenient NRA rhetoric that they adopt because in reality they're just attached to their shooty guns?

[keltoi]

Do I understand this correctly, do the anti-gun control folk really believe in the whole "I need my guns for the inevitable government overthrow" thing? Or is that just convenient NRA rhetoric that they adopt because in reality they're just attached to their shooty guns?

 

it's about cowboys. pew pew!

[Guest Iain C]

I wish we lived on a planet where everyone was a buddhist.

 

Yes, if only we lived in a Buddhist-majority country like Sri Lanka where there is no violence.

[Guest Iain C]

I think what China is doesn't quite fit into any pre-existing Western framework for political-economic constructs. It was a pseudo-Communist state that threw open its doors to capitalism but didn't spiral down the toilet or get taken over by the mob like Russia (yet).

but you said that they were one of the 'most capitalistic' countries in the world. now you're kind of backpedaling on that. maybe i wasn't the only one who talked a little out of my ass? some things i found had estimates that china's GDP was from maybe around 1/3 to 70% privately owned businesses. this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

says "As of 2012 large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were the backbone of China's economy producing over 50% of its goods and services and employing over half of the workers in China." so maybe between 30-50% of jobs are state. that's a fuckin lot of government control is it not? probably just a little too much (just a tad) to call them one of the most capitalistic in the world. not only that but the state has the power to just swoop in and take over whatever they want, if they get the urge. as you said they run anything they view as important to 'national security', whatever that means at any given time. so potentially, any market could be taken over by the gov, and nobody could say or do anything about it. so the individual economic freedom of the citizens is still kind of based on the state;s whim, and since it seems like they are kind of just experimenting with stuff to see what sticks, who's to say what they do tomorrow? so yeah, i'll still stand by my disagreement with them being one of the 'most capitalistic countries in the world'. china might have more people practicing capitalism, but they have more people than any other country. the amount of government controlled business, even at 30% is still a huge amount. and how can you say they haven't been taken over by the mob? to me it sounds like the state basically is the mob. you can read about corruption of the state/communist party all day.

 

LOL this man has never heard of state capitalism

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

In the wake of a tragedy like this (or any time you watch lot of news) it's hard not to think that the world is becoming more violent, but it's not. There is less violence and murder now than any point in human history (relative to population sizes). Just something that's worth keeping in perspective.

[granty]

Truly sad, it's hard not to despair when things like this happen - the Buddhist podcast I subscribe to posted a talk about responding to such events, if anyone's interested: http://audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/3797.html

[Guest RandySicko]

There is no point in even toying with the idea that we will have the slightest chance against our (world) government / military. The police state is too solidified. I think most people miss the point on gun control too - with the paranoid delusional "black chopper flying over my house to get me" folks clouding the issue. The only thing these horrific massacres serve to do are create talking points for the talking heads and allow the govt to chip away at our rights and further tighten down the screws on us citizens (note the lowercase 'c'), their federal property.

 

Do I understand this correctly, do the anti-gun control folk ...

 

Try pro-freedom. No need to blur the lines.

 

I wonder how many of you anti-gun folks will be picking up the new GTA. Or will you be the ones firing at your own "anti-government" american citizens in Rainbox 6 "Patriots"? Oh the irony!!! Before I digress too much... I am also wondering how many here have actually handled a weapon outside of a video game and don't see them as these mysterious unattainable objects of death and murder. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but out of all the people I know, the ones who own guns seem to be more politically charged and less likely to be glued to a television being spoon fed by the mainstream media. Is it because they own a gun? probably not... but I believe owning a gun is secondary to having the desire to preserve your rights and the safety of family, while at the same time acknowledging how far big government has stuck their fingers up our collective rectum.

 

[Guest Iain C]

pro-freedom.

 

mainstream media.

 

big government

 

 

[Guest]

:slowly backs out of thread:

[joshuatxuk]

pro-freedom.

 

mainstream media.

 

big government

 

 

I am John Galt. I'd spend more time enlightening you, but if you don't mind I need to drive my Japanese car to my expansive tract home build my Mexican immigrants and enjoy all my appliances made in China while wearing clothing sewn in Southeast Asia - that is before I inventory all of my gold bars and ammunition while listening catching up on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity's broadcasts. We live in troubling times, you better be on the RIGHT side of history.

 

[joshuatxuk]

Heard this yesterday:

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167479065/one-gun-used-in-conn-attack-has-rambo-effect

 

 

 

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

That weapon that David just mentioned, the AR-15, was not only used in last Friday's school shooting. It was also used this month by a gunman who killed shoppers at a mall in Oregon. And it was used back in July in the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The semiautomatic AR-15 is essentially a civilian version of the military's M-16. And it is, according to the NRA, the country's best-selling firearm.

To better understand its appeal to gun owners, we turn to Malcolm Brady. He's a retired assistant director with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And he used to carry an AR-15 in the military.

...

BLOCK: Do you think, Mr. Brady, that a shooting like we've seen will tarnish the reputation of this weapon, will make gun owners less likely to want to buy it?

BRADY: I think you'll see a very large increase in the people that want to buy it.

BLOCK: Really?

BRADY: And it may be for protection. It may be for the coolness. And it may be for the fact that people will be in fear that the weapon will be put back on a banned level, and they want to obtain it before it is banned again. But I think you will see the popularity of it and the purchase of them increase drastically, in between now and the holidays, near Christmas.

BLOCK: But let me go back to this notion that in the aftermath of this horrific shooting, where we have seen the faces of these children who were killed by this weapon, how can you say that that will actually increase sales?

BRADY: Because the people that will be buying them are buying them in the premise that: I can prevent that same thing happening at my house or my business or my location. Well, you know, I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the perspective. And that's why I say you'll see an increase in the sale of these type weapons between now and the holidays

...

[Blir]

Pro freedom? Is that what it is? So anybody against guns is against freedom?

 

The thing that clonks my bonkers is that I've been reading a lot of different sites, message boards, comment sections etc and I keep seeing similar arguments. Here are some choice ones:

 

"Well, knives kill people too. Should we ban them?"

 

"Well, cars kill people too. Should we ban them?"

 

"Well, electricity causes pollution too. Should we ban that?"

 

This seems ridiculous to me, because there's no comparison whatsoever. Guns are made with the express intent of killing. There is no alternative function. Saying "if somebody owns a gun that makes them more political" is complete bullshit and nothing less.

 

"Hey, do you know that statistically people who bend paperclips out of shape are more political?"

"Oh really? Is that a fact?"

"No, it's just something I pulled out of my arse."

 

You can turn a tool into a weapon, sure. That's a given, people with intentions to murder will always find a way. But why is there a place in our society for people to just walk out and buy a thing that's purely designed for killing? This is my issue with it.

 

You don't need a gun to overthrow a corrupt government. You need people to band together and agree to a cause. This is what the world lacks and as far as I can see guns are just causing more division in society. If anything they're working against what we need.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not expecting any real change. You can't get rid of guns any more than you can get rid of alcohol.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest RandySicko]

Pro freedom? Is that what it is? So anybody against guns is against freedom?

 

 

 

Just as anyone who is for abortion is against life ...no need for any grey area when it's there in black and white. Also, I never stated any statistics and facts when comparing my gun-owning and non gun-owning friends .. merely an observation. I would imagine things can be different in the back woods of banjo town, Montana.

 

Guns are not designed purely for killing... this is a misconception I can't stand. Not all rounds are lethal... not all targets are human ..not all owners are murderers. If guns were designed purely for killing, knives are designed purely for stabbing. This argument is repeated over and over and beat to death because it is a great analogy and makes the most sense on the broadest level.

 

"People with intentions to murder will always find a way"

 

end of debate!

[Guest Mirezzi]

Pro freedom? Is that what it is? So anybody against guns is against freedom?

 

I'm glad we're now discussing the notion of "freedom" as it relates to firearms.

 

I highly recommend WATMMers read the following essay by philosopher Firmin Debrabander, wherein he argues that gun rights actually corrode other freedoms in society.

 

The New York Times - Opinion

The Freedom of an Armed Society

 

In her book “The Human Condition,” the philosopher Hannah Arendt states that “violence is mute.” According to Arendt, speech dominates and distinguishes the polis, the highest form of human association, which is devoted to the freedom and equality of its component members. Violence — and the threat of it — is a pre-political manner of communication and control, characteristic of undemocratic organizations and hierarchical relationships. For the ancient Athenians who practiced an incipient, albeit limited form of democracy (one that we surely aim to surpass), violence was characteristic of the master-slave relationship, not that of free citizens.

 

Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

 

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

[SR4]

There is no point in even toying with the idea that we will have the slightest chance against our (world) government / military. The police state is too solidified. I think most people miss the point on gun control too - with the paranoid delusional "black chopper flying over my house to get me" folks clouding the issue. The only thing these horrific massacres serve to do are create talking points for the talking heads and allow the govt to chip away at our rights and further tighten down the screws on us citizens (note the lowercase 'c'), their federal property.

 

Do I understand this correctly, do the anti-gun control folk ...

 

Try pro-freedom. No need to blur the lines.

 

I wonder how many of you anti-gun folks will be picking up the new GTA. Or will you be the ones firing at your own "anti-government" american citizens in Rainbox 6 "Patriots"? Oh the irony!!! Before I digress too much... I am also wondering how many here have actually handled a weapon outside of a video game and don't see them as these mysterious unattainable objects of death and murder. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but out of all the people I know, the ones who own guns seem to be more politically charged and less likely to be glued to a television being spoon fed by the mainstream media. Is it because they own a gun? probably not... but I believe owning a gun is secondary to having the desire to preserve your rights and the safety of family, while at the same time acknowledging how far big government has stuck their fingers up our collective rectum.

 

 

tell me where your constitutional rights extend to ownership of assault rifles. point it out to me.

 

 

edit: I have fired shotguns and hunting rifles. still not a big fan.