Adam Lanza Motivated by Norway Masacre (1 Viewer)

[2009ring]

Really? They're going to blame videogames again? That is getting old, I've played some extremely violent videogames all my life and its never "motivated" me to go kill all kind of people.

I played Mortal Kombat when it was new. I played Doom when it was new and I played Shadowman when it was new which is probably the most screwed up game I've ever played in terms of violence.

Adam Lanza played ME3, come on man, thats crap compared to the amount of violence in some of the games i've played.

If video games translated into real life, I'd be a pro bowl NFL QB....



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sandman]

If video games translated into real life, I'd be a pro bowl NFL QB....



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

I'd be a wizard.

/nerd

 

[dtc]

No not at all! Banning or thoroughly regulating gun control because of what took place is the wrong approach. It's the patch! You're not fixing the problem. You saw what he did right? Eliminate him from the face of this earth. Cut his head off, execute him in the most unfavorable fashion and it doesn't even have to be seen. Better yet! Lethal injection since its sooo humane. Sarcasm. And have the media write up the most horrific suffering ever imaginable. What's wrong with that? Theft of over $500 1st offense, cut off a finger. Next limbs. Drunk driving, first offense you lose your license for a yr, you pay an expensive amount and you spend a yr in a facility that teaches you more about it. We NEED harsher crimes. If you teach ppl that the consequences of doing something is far worse than the crime itself, that's when you begin to advocate relief IMO.

So, without guns, no deaths would have occurred, right?

Probably, yes. Without a gun, Lanza was a 5 foot nothing shrimp with the imposing physicality of a pre-pubescent pygmy. He could no more have snapped the neck of 25 children with his hands than I could fly and he surely wasn't going to corral and kill 2 dozen people with a knife.

Had he spent days in the basement reading bomb making instructions an devising a plan, the likelihood of being caught prior to his act would be far greater.

So, yes. In all likelihood, Lanza kills nobody had he not lived in a house filled with guns.

 

[dtc]

Okay, so if you remove guns, then no one will be killed with guns.

What about pipe bombs? Those are very simple to construct and are actually far more efficient killers than guns.

Why must these arguments be so freaking obtuse?

Why can't you guys make an argument that has some bearing on the other person's stance?

Seriously. I don't support a ban on guns, but I can at least understand both sides.

What I can't understand is why anyone would make stupid comments like "So, if we outlaw guns nobody will die, huh?" and then smirk about it as if it's a logical treatise.

It's not. Nobody has ever argued that murder will end with the elimination of guns.

The argument is that fewer guns in the hands of fewer lunatics and lessened opportunity for nuts and loons to get guns will result in fewer deaths.

And, btw, that is an absolute true statement beyond any discussion.

Fewer guns in the hands of fewer lunatics will result in fewer dead people.

 

[dtc]

There was a kid with extreme mental issues. His mom had lots of guns around. She encouraged his use of said guns. He went nuts and shot kids.

It's not the guns' fault.
It's not the media's fault.
It's not video games' fault.

I can buy the theory about over-drugging our children. I've seen what reliance on anti-depressants can do to a person. Those drugs have the power to change who a person is and take away reason and coherent thought. (Not an anti-medication rant/not making that argument)

The fact is that there are just more of us on the planet. We take all kinds of medications. We go to bigger schools. We live closer together... And some of us are crazy.

It's gonna happen again whether we ban assault rifles or we make ratings for video games tougher or we shake our fingers at Dateline for running nonstop specials on these mass killings.

100% TRUTH.

Now, tell me what the easiest path to less gun deaths is, please?

 

[Brandon13]

Fewer guns in the hands of fewer lunatics will result in fewer dead people.

But I am gun owning and law-abiding sane individual, therefore no legislation should be enacted that limits my ability to own the weapon of my choice, nor should legislation come to pass that increases my hardship in the acquirement of future weapons.

That's pretty much the basis of the pro-gun side's rationale, as far as I can tell. On top of that, they just don't accept that gun legislation can save lives without violating the second amendment.

I don't know where the middle ground is to be found.

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

I'd be a wizard.

/nerd

 

[dtc]

But I am gun owning and law-abiding sane individual, therefore no legislation should be enacted that limits my ability to own the weapon of my choice, nor should legislation come to pass that increases my hardship in the acquirement of future weapons.

That's pretty much the basis of the pro-gun side's rationale, as far as I can tell. On top of that, they just don't accept that gun legislation can save lives without violating the second amendment.

I don't know where the middle ground is to be found.

I guess that's where my "I don't care how freaking stupid or hardheaded they are" sense kicks in.

If they're too dumb to understand that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide unlimited and unfettered access to any and all sorts of weapons or if their convenience in buying an m16 is too much to ask then screw 'em. They'll be gobbled up by history soon enough.

 

[Stealth Matrix]

I could care less what motivated that lunatic. What I care about is why we're even still talking about him. Oh, it's the media that doesn't realize or care that it's overglorifying his deeds by keeping him in the news? That must be what it is.

I can't name a single child he killed, or someone killed by another one of these mass murderin' lunatics, off the top of my head. But thanks to the attention that's typical of today's media I can probably give you a dozen killers' names without having to resort to Wikipedia.

 

[msusaintsfan]

Um guys with mace, pepper spray, and knives committed the worst terrorist acts in history a day no American will ever forget. No guns used at all. How many people died that day? Did a gun kill a single one of them? No.

People kill people. Guns are just one of the many tools that can be used. Just about anything can be used to kill someone including the lowly peanut.

 

[TheDeparted]

Vehicles aren't a very good example for opposing government safety regulations. The government does plenty of vehicle safety research and there are many federal safety mandates for vehicles and roads. Today's passenger vehicles are required to have modern occupant restraint systems, electronic stability control, minimum crashworthiness, and many other safety standards. Vehicles also have mandatory electronic data recorders so investigators, police, and automakers can view exactly what happened prior to an accident. Eventually mandatory autonomous collision avoidance systems will prevent many accidents involving inattentive or incapacitated drivers. CAFE standards, fuel formulation standards, and emissions standards have reduced harmful pollution and might have even reduced violent crime. All of this federal intervention has and will continue to make our roads much safer.

Federal intervention and safety research with firearms has been quite lax by comparison. Lives would very likely be saved by licensing and safety training for guns and ammo, background checks on all public and private sales, purchase limits, effective gun and ammo tracing, and many other measures which don't ban anything. Combine common sense regulations with more effective poverty reduction programs and gun crime should continue to decline.

Mass shooting should be looked at from another perspective. Some gun control measures like storage requirements and mental health restrictions would probably help, but they can't be the only solution. Expanding mental health treatment, research, and education programs would benefit many and might even prevent some of those mustard gas bombers.

This isn't the point I was attempting to make. We're all in an uproar here because 513 people have been killed in the U.S. in shooting sprees (>3 deaths) in the last 30 years* (it seems like it's more than that!) and many people want to tighten existing gun laws further to try to do what - cut that number to 250 people in the next 30 years? I exclude "common shootings" simply because people do not seem to care about gun violence unless it's a celebrity or involves more than about 3 deaths. (yes, I'm concerned about the apparent frequency of these events; 2012 was a record year)

According to this data, there were 556,827 drunk driving deaths in that same period (actually one fewer year). On a happy note, this number appears to be trending down fairly dramatically - just fewer than 10,000 in 2011 compared to just over 26,000 in 1982. There are a lot of possible explanations - aggressive education about car safety, improved vehicle safety, et. al.

My only point was that, should the government mandate breathalyzer ignitions for all vehicles on the road, the savings in lives would greatly outpace the savings in lives from gun deaths - but no one would advocate this. Why not? If we could save just 1% more people per year by bearing this inconvenience, wouldn't that be worth it? That would be 100 people per year - a lot more "bang for your buck" than attempting to litigate away crazed mass murderers.


I don't know anyone that is against training and certification or the proper storage of firearms - the vast majority of legal firearms owners already practice these good habits. Someone in Texas recently proposed allowing a marksmanship class in High School as an elective, teaching gun safety and (ideally) proper respect for a firearm. I applaud the effort; sounds like an interesting take on the situation, but I don't think it will solve the lack of respect for fellow humans problem we're experiencing.

The problem I have in this thread is the blame being placed on an inanimate object, when it really lies with the people involved.


But hey, I'm just a crazy Libertarian who wants the government out of my life as much as possible. I hate knee-jerk reactions to demand more legislation and more government control over the citizens. This is how government gets bigger. One should never err on the side of more laws, or else you get stuff like this:

Mistake in gun bill could defeat the effort | Local News | The Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.
[...]
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention.
[...]
the bill [said] this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

The bill has since been revised, and may not even pass anyway. Good thing they spotted the potential 4th Amendment conflict. They're attempting to do good, and I appreciate that - but there is too much potential for unintended consequences, or the eventual abuse by authorities sometime in the future.

Why must these arguments be so freaking obtuse?

Why can't you guys make an argument that has some bearing on the other person's stance?

My responses were in reference to the idea that guns themselves were the root cause for these murders - more so than the mother who was negligent in her duties to secure the firearms or the deranged individuals that carried out these acts. In that context, I believe I was quite on topic. Later it was clarified that what was meant is that guns are the root cause of gun murders. Like saying that water is the root cause of drowning, or that cars are the root cause of all drunk driving deaths*. I guess no one can argue against that.

*considering that these gun massacres are committed by deranged individuals in a wrong mental state, in drunk driving cases, alcohol affects the persons' state of mind and cannot be considered the 'root cause' of drunk driving deaths if we are to consider these arguments for comparison

Easy access to guns is easily the number 1 contributing factor in these kinds of massacres

Oh she definitely shares the blame, but at the root of it is still the guns.

Easy access to guns is the root of a massacre committed with guns.

the distinction is that the root of the massacre problem in this country, to me, is easy access to guns

The argument is that fewer guns in the hands of fewer lunatics and lessened opportunity for nuts and loons to get guns will result in fewer deaths.

And, btw, that is an absolute true statement beyond any discussion.

Fewer guns in the hands of fewer lunatics will result in fewer dead people.

Of course I agree with you - but I would posit that mentioning guns isn't even required and is unnecessarily specific. Lunatics with murder in their eyes are the problem. Guns are a part of the equation, sure - but are not the root cause of the problems we're having.

 

[Severum]

This isn't the point I was attempting to make. We're all in an uproar here because 513 people have been killed in the U.S. in shooting sprees (>3 deaths) in the last 30 years* (it seems like it's more than that!) and many people want to tighten existing gun laws further to try to do what - cut that number to 250 people in the next 30 years? I exclude "common shootings" simply because people do not seem to care about gun violence unless it's a celebrity or involves more than about 3 deaths. (yes, I'm concerned about the apparent frequency of these events; 2012 was a record year)

According to this data, there were 556,827 drunk driving deaths in that same period (actually one fewer year). On a happy note, this number appears to be trending down fairly dramatically - just fewer than 10,000 in 2011 compared to just over 26,000 in 1982. There are a lot of possible explanations - aggressive education about car safety, improved vehicle safety, et. al.

My only point was that, should the government mandate breathalyzer ignitions for all vehicles on the road, the savings in lives would greatly outpace the savings in lives from gun deaths - but no one would advocate this. Why not? If we could save just 1% more people per year by bearing this inconvenience, wouldn't that be worth it? That would be 100 people per year - a lot more "bang for your buck" than attempting to litigate away crazed mass murderers.

I want to tighten existing gun laws to reduce all gun crime. Mass shootings are a separate problem which could be reduced with additional gun laws and other measures.

Plenty of people advocate common sense measures to reduce accidents and DUIs. As you noted these efforts and government regulations have saved many lives despite DUIs being treated as trivial matters by many courts. Universal ignition interlocks aren't a realistic option due to cost, inconvenience, and technological limitations. Eventually there will be federally mandated autonomous collision avoidance systems which should significantly reduce the number of DUI accidents.

I don't know anyone that is against training and certification or the proper storage of firearms - the vast majority of legal firearms owners already practice these good habits. Someone in Texas recently proposed allowing a marksmanship class in High School as an elective, teaching gun safety and (ideally) proper respect for a firearm. I applaud the effort; sounds like an interesting take on the situation, but I don't think it will solve the lack of respect for fellow humans problem we're experiencing.

The problem I have in this thread is the blame being placed on an inanimate object, when it really lies with the people involved.

But hey, I'm just a crazy Libertarian who wants the government out of my life as much as possible. I hate knee-jerk reactions to demand more legislation and more government control over the citizens. This is how government gets bigger. One should never err on the side of more laws, or else you get stuff like this:

Mistake in gun bill could defeat the effort

The bill has since been revised, and may not even pass anyway. Good thing they spotted the potential 4th Amendment conflict. They're attempting to do good, and I appreciate that - but there is too much potential for unintended consequences, or the eventual abuse by authorities sometime in the future.

I know a lot of people who oppose mandatory training, storage requirements, background checks, and anything under the gun control umbrella. The NRA opposes them, many lawmakers oppose them, and there are opponents in every gun thread on the forum. Unfortunately because of that politicians have to exploit mass shootings to attempt something as simple as universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

 

[dtc]

This isn't the point I was attempting to make. We're all in an uproar here because 513 people have been killed in the U.S. in shooting sprees (>3 deaths) in the last 30 years* (it seems like it's more than that!) and many people want to tighten existing gun laws further to try to do what - cut that number to 250 people in the next 30 years? I exclude "common shootings" simply because people do not seem to care about gun violence unless it's a celebrity or involves more than about 3 deaths. (yes, I'm concerned about the apparent frequency of these events; 2012 was a record year)

Again, I'm going to ask, and this time more bluntly, why must you and the other anti-gun law folks make such bunk filled arguments?

You've got the slippery slopes. You've got the need for self protection that can easily be accomplished by shotguns and 12 round clips. You've got constitutional issues that require a perverted reading of antiquated English. You've got the faux "Obama's gonna round us up and take out guns" lines and you've got your strawmen, but look at this thing you've posted above.

Since when, my friend, does a person who advocates strengthening gun laws and restricting access to some people to some weapons tell you his concern is simply to limit MASS SHOOTINGS?

Seriously, not only are you grotesquely glossing over the heinous nature and preventability of these mass killings, but in so doing you're ignoring the real problem which is the other umpteen thousands of single person and two person killings that likely would be diminished with more restrictive gun laws like background checks.

It's bad enough that so often you guys rephrase folks statements into things they're not and weren't intended to be and then argue against them, but to callously overlook the thousands and thousands of deaths because they weren't part of a "mass killing" is asinine. It belies a callous indifference to human life that somehow you guys feel is less important than unfettered access to the weapons you might desire and the amounts, type and quantity of ammunition and accessories.

It's really appalling.

Maybe you could just come out and honestly say that you don't think your being inconvenienced by a form and a background check is worth the lives of those who might be saved?

Why not just be truthful and say that the price you're willing to pay for your gun rights is the occasional death of 25 1st graders and all the other thousands of folks who die because some nut case got hold of a gun he should never have had access to?

 

[TheDeparted]

Since when, my friend, does a person who advocates strengthening gun laws and restricting access to some people to some weapons tell you his concern is simply to limit MASS SHOOTINGS?

When those proposals are centered around banning "assault-style" weapons and magazine capacities. When the cries for more laws (or for existing ones to be enforced) are only voiced after a mass shooting.

Seriously, not only are you grotesquely glossing over the heinous nature and preventability of these mass killings, but in so doing you're ignoring the real problem which is the other umpteen thousands of single person and two person killings that likely would be diminished with more restrictive gun laws like background checks.

This topic is about mass shootings and the lunatics who perpetrate them. Welcome to the thread. Tell me - what would banning "assault-style" weapons accomplish in your day-to-day shootings? What would limiting magazine capacities accomplish in your day-to-day shootings? (Not that you are in favor of these or have even mentioned them) Although I default to favoring fewer laws I've not opposed proposals such as "universal background checks" or mandatory firearms safety classes - merely the idea that solutions must exist in law. But as those in your camp will gladly point out (when it suits you), the purpose of laws is not to prevent crime, but to prosecute it after the fact. So again, what will new laws actually accomplish? And try to spell it out, apparently I'm slow to learn.


Edit:
I'd like propose a suggestion for consideration: To curb panic in those who are concerned about disappearing civil liberties and "slippery slope" issues, perhaps any new legislation intended to bob the ends off of the 2nd amendment (through whatever rationalization - valid or otherwise) should contain a clause to guarantee that no further infringement shall occur, and that the entire bill is null and void should that clause be altered, amended or removed in any way, or the contents be altered or amended in any way, or any new 2nd amendment legislation be passed. Or something like this, if it's even legal. I trust you understand my intent with this, even if it is clumsy or ill-conceived (in which case, it would fit in with many existing laws just fine).

to callously overlook the thousands and thousands of deaths because they weren't part of a "mass killing" is asinine. It belies a callous indifference to human life that somehow you guys feel is less important than unfettered access to the weapons you might desire and the amounts, type and quantity of ammunition and accessories.

It's really appalling.

Maybe you could just come out and honestly say that you don't think your being inconvenienced by a form and a background check is worth the lives of those who might be saved?

Why not just be truthful and say that the price you're willing to pay for your gun rights is the occasional death of 25 1st graders and all the other thousands of folks who die because some nut case got hold of a gun he should never have had access to?

:blink1:

Seriously, dude? You forgot to mention dirty air and dirty water. C'mon.

 

[TheDeparted]

the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide unlimited and unfettered access to any and all sorts of weapons

And we don't have that. Class III weapons (like actual assault rifles) are expensive and difficult to obtain (due in part to supply issues).

The last time I remember a crime being committed where the perps had Class III weapons was during a bank robbery in North Hollywood in 1997, years after the assault weapons ban took effect. Only the robbers died.


I don't even know how to get a rocket launcher, a fighter jet or a tank, but I'm pretty sure they're out of my budget as well. As for the jet and tanks, they are de-militarized when they are decommissioned. It's strange to think about, but it's only fairly recently that our military has had and maintained superior weapons as compared to the populace who, for instance, had rifled barrels to the regular's muskets. I suppose this shift must have occurred around the time Peace-time Federal Income Taxes were implemented in the late 19th century.

I only remember one incident in the U.S. involving a tank, but several involving non-military aircraft. The tank was stolen from a National Guard Armory. Only the tank thief died.

Interesting that both of these events occurred in Southern California (North Hollywood and San Diego, respectively). Possible that I just remember these because they occurred while I was in High School (in So Cal).

Incidentally, each of these events I linked to involve people that are broken mentally, fitting the pattern that is clearly established with the vast majority of killing spree cases.

if their [in]convenience in buying an m16 is too much to ask then screw 'em.

The AR-15 is the gun under attack - not the M-16.

The M16 is not the same as an AR-15 and you know that. The M-16 is a Class III weapon because it's select fire, requiring a lot of paperwork including getting your local sheriff (or whomever) so sign off on your purchase.
The AR-15 is semi-auto like many other civilian rifles - though other rifles are available in larger calibers than .223.


Here's a scary looking rifle:




The Kriss Vector; it's semi-automatic in civilian form, but it fires 10 or 13 .45 caliber rounds from one magazine - twice the diameter and nearly 4 times the mass of the .223 fired by an AR-15. All told, there is about 1.5 times the amount of "lead" in 13 rounds of .45 than in 30 rounds of .223. Bullet speed and hydro-shock can be argued about. Seems like it would be more devastating than an AR-15. Had the guy in Aurora been using one, he would have likely fired fewer rounds, but I would speculate that there would have been fewer survivors.


I'm having a hard time finding any murders attributed to this weapon, and I don't hear any talk about banning it. All this AR-15 talk is, again, a red herring and these murders are most certainly not the fault of the weapon. I will agree that ease of access to weapons is a big issue - but, at least in the Newtown case, this is a separate issue from how easy (or not) obtaining the weapons are in the first place. In this regard, once a firearm has been legally obtained, it's now the responsibility of the owner to keep their weapons safe...for better or for worse.

I'm a big proponent of 'smart gun' tech, whose goals are to only allow the owner(s) to fire a weapon. Personally, I would be happy to have an RFID tag embedded in my hand to enable a firearm for only my use...as long as that RFID's not controlled or tracked by the government, and such a thing is 100% voluntary.

The Safety Bullet is an interesting item to help prevent accidental deaths of kids whose parents didn't teach them the dangers of guns (or were too young to understand), temporarily rendering the weapon harmless. Also useful should a "bad guy" get a hold of the weapon and attempt to use it without cycling the dummy rounds out.

The point is that we all have to be safe with our guns (well - not me, I don't own any). It's the individual's responsibility - not the government’s. Asking the government to make sure we're treating our firearms with respect is, unfortunately, too much to demand of them. Don't get me wrong - they would love for us to give them that power over gun owners, would take it in a heartbeat and have been trying to get this for a long time. This is why they "never let a serious crisis go to waste."



Otherwise, speaking abstractly here, I would speculate that if our well-meaning politicians did attempt to abrogate some of the people's rights, if they also devise some compensation by which the people still have a reasonable facsimile of their previous rights, there would be a lot less resistance. There have been a number of policies that have mostly done this - NFA for one. Naturally, the forfeited right must be restored if the devised and accepted alternatives are taken away or modified to avoid a bait-and-switch type political maneuver that would generate backlash.


Now - measures to improve mental health screenings, more firearm training requirements, increased public awareness of gun safety, etc...that's not an issue to me provided that it’s reasonable and contestable. I can imagine some eventual misuse of denying access to a firearm to someone because of some political issue (should the U.S. eventually degrade to such a state of affairs) by labelling the person unfit. Laying this kind of groundwork is delicate and dangerous because, even if our current politicians are 100% benevolent in their intent and execution today, you have to assume that someday any law on the books is ripe for exploitation and misuse. It could be 100 years from now. This is the source of my caution. It’s not the goals of the politicians of today - they just want to be re-elected so they can keep stealing your money. But just like the out of control spending of the last decade or so, we’re putting the nation’s future at risk every time we let just a little freedom go for a little more “security” today. It may not affect you or me, but eventually this will be a completely foreign country.



So - do you believe that guns are the root of all massacres?