# NY gunman found dead in his home



## Saga (Dec 25, 2012)

On Monday, a gunman ambushed two volunteer firefighters and killed them, the man (62) opened fire on the volunteers while they were responding to a call in Webster at around 6:00 AM (est). The gunman shot himself soon after shooting the firefighters whilw several houses burned around him. Police had found a 3-page long note explaining how Spengler(gunman) was going to burn down his neighborhood and do "what he likes doing best... killing people." 2 other firefighters were shot during the ambush and are recovering at a hospital in Rochester. An off-duty police officer was also hit with a round while driving past the scene. Spengler armed himself with 3 weapons and then set his own house ablaze to lure responders into a death trap, and was geared up for war against innocent people.


Anyone else sick of this bullshit? I understand that you want to keep your constitutional rights, but I'd also like to keep my life. So... maybe its time for a compromise?


----------



## Tableside6 (Dec 26, 2012)

Murderers seem to be getting clever about these shootings and it seems that the gunmen commit suicide so they don't suffer the consequences of the law. I'm sick of this and it's just completely wrong to kill the innocent. Why do they have to kill others, it's just evil and crazy. Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## Tigercougar (Dec 26, 2012)

Everyone seems to be missing the point.

Guns are too common amongst the populace to be confiscated. And taking away (or limiting) guns would do nothing to address the problem of *why people feel compelled to commit these massacres in the first place.*

If these people weren't afflicted with mental illness, if they didn't feel life was so worthless that they wanted to take away others' lives as well as their own, they would not resort to these terrible acts.

What is it about our society over the last several decades that is breeding more mentally ill, depressed, and generally unhappy and unfulfilled people?

How will the growing poverty across the nation aggravate the problems and ultimately contribute to more of these crimes growing forward?


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

Tigercougar said:


> What is it about our society over the last several decades that is breeding more mentally ill, depressed, and generally unhappy and unfulfilled people?


 Honey boo-boo, jersey shore, 16 and prego.:V


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 26, 2012)

Tigercougar said:


> Guns are too common amongst the populace to be confiscated. And taking away (or limiting) guns would do nothing to address the problem of *why people feel compelled to commit these massacres in the first place.*


1. But the portion of military-grade firearms can. Also, if you can stuff trillions of dollars up your military's ass, you should be able to divert some crumbs of that for massive buy-back programs, eh? 2. It's likely to stop them from going on shooting sprees, however.


----------



## Tigercougar (Dec 26, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> 1. But the portion of military-grade firearms can. Also, if you can stuff trillions of dollars up your military's ass, you should be able to divert some crumbs of that for massive buy-back programs, eh? 2. It's likely to stop them from going on shooting sprees, however.



Again. This gun control talk is a distraction from the real issue. Gun control would do nothing to stop the urge in these people to kill. It would not stop these people FROM killing, it would only lower the body count in each individual incident. It will not give these people the community support or institutionalization they need to keep them from snapping. The time and money that would/will be spent on taking away people's guns needs to be spent on building a national mental health system that can catch these people (or allow them to seek help) and get them the treatment they need so that having to take away everyone's guns so a few crazies don't shoot up schools is a non-issue. Because if this does not happen, these murders are going to keep happening again, and again, and again...


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Tigercougar said:


> Again. This gun control talk is a distraction from the real issue. Gun control would do nothing to stop the urge in these people to kill. It would not stop these people FROM killing, it would only lower the body count in each individual incident.


And lowering the body count isn't a noble cause?


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And lowering the body count isn't a noble cause?



It seems like putting more funding into mental institutions and education would be better than putting that money into anti-gun enforcement.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 26, 2012)

We need to stop publicizing these fuckers so much, so they stop feeling  as though they'll be "important" or "remembered" after their death.
Let them fade away worthlessly like they deserve.
I really think a lot of this has to do with the attention. Otherwise, they would just go kill themselves in peace.


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 26, 2012)

Vaelarsa said:


> We need to stop publicizing these fuckers so much, so they stop feeling  as though they'll be "important" or "remembered" after their death.
> Let them fade away worthlessly like they deserve.
> I really think a lot of this has to do with the attention. Otherwise, they would just go kill themselves in peace.



Or better yet, only publicize them in certain parts of New Jersey. That way we can eliminate that pile of crap and the people who want to kill themselves. :V


----------



## Attaman (Dec 26, 2012)

Wasn't there a study recently that's shown most instances of firearm-based fatalities / crimes are not perpetrated by mentally deranged people (well, mentally deranged insofar as being viable to argue insanity or the like as defense)?

Mind, increasing preventative and rehabilitative treatment would help as well. The issue is that the same people you see who insist they'll "give up their guns to the UN over their cold dead body" are also the same sort of people who tend to think that the (Federal) Government doing anything in relation to medicine, healthcare, or so-on is a gross violation of the constitution. Thus you wind up in a situation wherein giving proper care is taboo because it's enabling "entitlement" / government takeover but taking away guns is catering to the UN / government takeover.


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 26, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Mind, increasing preventative and rehabilitative treatment would help as well. The issue is that the same people you see who insist they'll "give up their guns to the UN over their cold dead body" are also the same sort of people who tend to think that the (Federal) Government doing anything in relation to medicine, healthcare, or so-on is a gross violation of the constitution. Thus you wind up in a situation wherein giving proper care is taboo because it's enabling "entitlement" / government takeover but taking away guns is catering to the UN / government takeover.


Quite often if it is the state government that does it, it is not. Have the states do as they please rather than the federal government and they'll have a harder time arguing the Constitution of The United States because those powers would then be reserved to the states.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

So, what, you think a gun is going to jump up and murder you, or something?  Jesus Christ.  As long as there are people there will be murders and they will use any tool at their disposal.  Have you heard of explosives and home made bombs before? Or murders by various bladed weapons?  After Australia snipped its balls off to get rid of guns (how cute) there was a guy who killed 15 people in a hospital in 2000; the Childers Palace Hospital Fire. Oh, but, you know, they didn't kill anybody with _guns_ so it's OK.  He just, you know, fucking set them all on fire.  Then in 2002, there was the Monash University shooting in HAHAHA GUN FREE AUSTRALIA.  

Unless God presses ~ and deletes all the guns in existence, this idea that "Laws are for the sake of prevention so if we get rid of guns nobody will have them tee hee"  bullshit is a fucking fairytale.  Do you want more examples?

Edit - 
We need to stop publicizing these fuckers so much furthermore because all this sensationalist publicity for one thing is a gigantic fucking dickbag move to the survivors and for another important thing inspires copycat behavior.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Unless God presses ~ and deletes all the guns in existence, this idea that "Laws are for the sake of prevention so if we get rid of guns nobody will have them tee hee"  bullshit is a fucking fairytale.


Except where, I 'unno, it actually works?

Though if people want to keep debating firearms and whatnot, it might be better to move to the debate thread. I probably should have had the medical care comment in there to be honest.


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> So, what, you think a gun is going to jump up and murder you, or something?  Jesus Christ.  As long as there are people there will be murders and they will use any tool at their disposal.  Have you heard of explosives and home made bombs before? Or murders by various bladed weapons?  After Australia snipped its balls off to get rid of guns (how cute) there was a guy who killed 15 people in a hospital in 2000; the Childers Palace Hospital Fire. Oh, but, you know, they didn't kill anybody with _guns_ so it's OK.  He just, you know, fucking set them all on fire.  Then in 2002, there was the Monash University shooting in HAHAHA GUN FREE AUSTRALIA.
> 
> Unless God presses ~ and deletes all the guns in existence, this idea that "Laws are for the sake of prevention so if we get rid of guns nobody will have them tee hee"  bullshit is a fucking fairytale.  Do you want more examples?
> 
> ...


 Couple Things-
1). Avatar got a christmas upgrade? Me gusta.
2). Just because people would have other methods of mass murder besides shooting, it doesnt mean that we should just give them the ability to use a gun anyways. It's kind of like saying "I got a dent on my car so I smashed the rest, because it was fucked from the start anyways."


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Worked at what, specifically? Getting rid of guns?  Whoop-dee-shit, there's still a homicide rate in Australia and Cyanogen says that s/he'd like to "keep his life" and the point is, "Getting rid of guns does not stop mass murders."


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

That doesnt mean that it doesnt decrease the rate. 
With assualt weapons still available to mostly everyone, the risk for events like this to happen is higher than it would be if that factor were taken away. There are more shootings than bombings and "mass-stabbings" (wut?) especially with today's security standards. 

What are you saying? That we should just live with it?


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Thank you for te gusta, however my thing where the postcount thing usually is says, "HOT, HOT, HOT!" and I'm scared of the red letters, what is that D:?!

I am frustrated that people jump to "We should get rid of guns." I feel like there is a trained response in people against them and people like to consider "let's get rid of guns" because talking about mental health of a country's citizens and what to do about it is too complicated to merit the effort.  People aren't interested in that issue (overhauling/making changes to the way that the justice system approaches criminals, making any sort of nod towards reform about mental health and attitudes towards it in the States), and it doesn't get as much attention by politicians.  These people who get catapulted to national headlines turn out to be mentally ill, but everybody freaks out about the inanimate object in their hand rather than the goings on in their heads.

Also, so I have perspective from you, what in your head/as far as you are concerned, is an "assault weapon"?


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

...how did you get those red letters? ("HOT" x3)
EDIT: Gun control for _the mentally ill._ As it is now, (at least in NY) people with any known mental illness or disorder, treated or not, from something as small as ADHD to something large like schitzophrenia (fuq the spelling on that one) are banned from buying any weapon that fires a projectile. BUT- people with mental illnesses are still getting the weapons from somewhere, (usually the person they live with).
Maybe we shouldnt take em away, but limit the sale of them to a semi-auto (10 round mag) or non-auto (larger mag).


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

I have no idea. And now that I look for them I can't find them. I don't understand.  I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, DID I?

Anyway, ifindividual States would like to do gun control like they have in New York, which I believe next to Michigan has the strictest gun control laws in the USA if they are not toe-to-toe -- just putting that out there, you know, about this New York Gunman -- then they can be my guest. 

Because for the same reason that I put that out there,  some of us are next door to fucking Mexico and we will be "gun free" except for the part where we're full of hubs deep as central Texas for all sorts of illicit trade and for us, "let's get rid of guns lolz" is not so simple and I truly do not trust any blue helmet motherfucker to help us out effectively.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

If guns are "for hunting and protection against bears lol" then fine, limit them, because after all, dats wut guns r 4 rite 

But if guns are for keeping your nation sovereign -- and not just from your own government, but from others -- then to limit guns is saying "Okay guys, all of you get shitty tools while other people who we are possibly going to fight against will probably be getting better tools."  Isn't that kind of missing the entire fucking point? 

If you want to go the "get rid of guns so that we can get rid of specifically gun shootings" route though, you can't limit it to _*just*_ certain types of guns.   Even if I am a law abiding citizen and just have a gun with a 10-round magazine that doesn't mean I'm limited to bringing 10 shots with me.  Maybe the difference in how fast you can shoot would be a respectable factor if police or other authority (like a private security company)'s response time can be flattened into seconds rather than entire minutes, but, we'll have to change our technological focus on fuckin' warp decks.  Do you shoot?  I'm not sure if you do or not, but, you may be interested in familiarizing yourself with operating firearms in general to get a feel for what you just said.  I realize this might sound condescending since I can't have a tone of voice on a forum but I'm not trying to be a jackass. You can take out a staggering amount of targets with a humble single-action revolver (less than 10 shots, have to cock the weapon each time you want to fire) and there are these things you make for them called speed-loaders.  Yes, you will not be able to shoot faster than someone who picked up some kind of machine gun, but you can still destroy a lot of shit.

Edit: FFFUUUCK I wanted to edit my previous post, not add a new one.
Lawd, forgive me.


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

I think the government should quit trying to enforce gun control and start actually using psychologists and doctors and such at examining what causes people to do shit like this.  I mean a murderer will always find ways to kill people without guns, so maybe they should try to study those murderers that are locked up and try to find out why people do this.  It may not point to every possible reason, but it will help to pinpoint what types of people commit such horrible crimes.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 26, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> It seems like putting more funding into mental institutions and education would be better than putting that money into anti-gun enforcement.



Why does it have to be either-or? Why not *both*? Why not put more funding into mental institutions and education AND anti-gun enforcement - addressing the root causes of people going on shooting sprees AND making it as hard as possible to go on said sprees if the treatment has some glitches?

Americans CAN walk and chew gum at the same time, right?


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Americans CAN walk and chew gum at the same time, right?



I don't know-that might be hard for some. :V


----------



## Lobar (Dec 26, 2012)

I will agree that using this issue to try and swing a bipartisan push for better mental health awareness and care is probably a more pragmatic option than trying to swim upstream against the Heller decision.


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 26, 2012)

What's with all the crazy attention-seeking whores picking up guns and wasting passer-bys recently? Oh yeah, media attention, they know they'll get it :c As hard as it may be to believe it's not just going on in the States, you just have a wider variety of weapons to access and a more centric media =P


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> But if guns are for keeping your nation sovereign -- and not just from your own government, but from others -- then to limit guns is saying "Okay guys, all of you get shitty tools while other people who we are possibly going to fight against will probably be getting better tools."  Isn't that kind of missing the entire fucking point?



In the case of the USA, I find it hard to believe that the US _requires_ Joe Average Gun Guy as a staple of national defence, given that the US has the most advanced armed forces on the entire goddamn _planet_... and they're so good at defending the USA they don't even have to be near to the USA at all (in the around two hundred-odd US military bases around the world). The US armed forces are so massive that the US Marine Corps - the smallest armed service branch - has fire-power and resources greater than the combined armed forces of other countries! Do pro-gun Americans _seriously_ think that the key to their defence is not with hundreds of tanks, hundreds of ships, thousands of aircraft, thousands of nukes and thousands of professionally-trained soldiers, sailors and aircrew, but it rests with thousands of enthusiastic amateur Joe Average Gun Guys?

And as far as the argument for guns "_keeping your nation sovereign [...] from your own government_" - in essence a permission slip to rise up in armed rebellion against your own government - one commentator has pointed out that "... the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of *creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings*."



> n 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the young governmentâ€™s resolve, led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the government in maintaining â€œsecurity,â€ as the Amendment says.
> 
> Beyond this clear historical record â€“ that the Framersâ€™ intent was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions â€“ there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nationâ€™s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land. They recognized that a strong central government and domestic tranquility were in their economic interests.
> 
> So, it would be counterintuitive â€“ as well as anti-historical â€“ to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people â€“ at least the white males â€“ so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shaysâ€™ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.



Besides, "You can't get a permit to do an illegal thing" - taking up arms against your own government is illegal in the eyes of that government, and resistance movements generally aren't too concerned with the legal niceties of the arms they want to get hold of in the interest of their cause. So arguing that the US Second Amendment permits Americans to hold weapons as some kind of "insurance" against a corrupt government is not only complete bollocks, it's also irrelevant.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Silvaris said:


> I don't know-that might be hard for some. :V




Mmkay, folks.  Mayfurr, you get off easy. Silvaris, ... Well, you live in West Virginia so I suppose that you should get off easy for this one, too (RIMSHOT). 

Funding into mental institutions is going to call for action on the State and the Federal level.  As quickly as I possibly can summarize it, on the Federal level, first a bill has to be written, then sent to a representative and/or senator for review (and the motherfucker will calendar it and not read it because he has tens of thousands of other people poking at him for a response).  When he finally says, "okay!" it gets to go to a committee, which means it will be put off until later or stapled to the back of another bill so that it can be passed without being actually read, and furthermore debated over into the ground.  Then after they bicker over it for nine million years, they give it a SECOND reading (reading, ha ha ha) and only _then_ do you hear about it in the news so that our politicians can do favormongering and see how many people they can purchase a vote from for passing a bill a certain way.  If it is something that is profitable for them (*fast results if passed, so they get re-elected*)then they will go ahead and see that it gets passed.   So, reforms take for-fucking ever if they happen at all and amazing programs get shot in the head and double-tapped because they will not yield in time for elections.  

Okay, now, so, you got a bunch of representatives all happy about this bill. They give it to Congress for a THIRD clusterfuck circlejerkapalooza where they debate over it.  Then they pass it on to the President.  Of course, the President is being pulled on by various companies who sell him their vote and so if it's good for business then he will pass the shit out of it and if it is not, then he will veto it into the ground.  

So yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but we tend to try and figure out what we have better chances at actually getting accomplished and going with that rather than failing at both.

Oh, and then there's the part where when you fund something, Obamamoney doesn't magically fart out of Obama's devilishly tight ass and has to come from somewhere.  So then you get to holler at people about how X program should or should not be cut, or how X tax bracket should or should not take the brunt, or how ER MAH GERD THE TAXES ARE TEKIN' ERR JERRRBS, et cetera.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 26, 2012)

Nice to see the news actually reporting on gun crimes for once.


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Mmkay, folks.  Mayfurr, you get off easy. Silvaris, ... Well, you live in West Virginia so I suppose that you should get off easy for this one, too (RIMSHOT).



What's that supposed to mean?  I was being sarcastic.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Sorry if my phrasing lead you to take it personally, West Virginia just, well -- I'mma come clean, you I know nothing about and you are probably a very accomplished individual but GOD DAMN is West Virginia like, the wasteland of the South and I like to make fun of it.  Disregard it, man, I'm just entertaining myself regardless of whether I am right.  In the sense that, no matter where you are in Texas, whatever is a little further east is Deliverance country and when you run out of East in Texas you just default to "Whatever, I'm not from fucking Appalachia."


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Sorry if my phrasing lead you to take it personally, West Virginia just, well -- I'mma come clean, you I know nothing about and you are probably a very accomplished individual but GOD DAMN is West Virginia like, the wasteland of the South and I like to make fun of it.  Disregard it, man, I'm just entertaining myself regardless of whether I am right.



But, it's not in the south.  The stupid ass people in the southern part of the state think it is, but you can just ignore them.  They're a bunch of inbred idiots.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Well ah'm mahty sorry suh, ah thought it wuz from the souf.  I done struggled through that there Wikipedia page what with the info boxes jest a moment ago and ah s'pose it wuz written by some kindly inbred idjits.  

Although in seriousness, that has to be true, because the Census Bureau considers West Virginia as the South and they kind of are a bunch of fuckwits.


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Well ah'm mahty sorry suh, ah thought it wuz from the souf.  I done struggled through that there Wikipedia page what with the info boxes jest a moment ago and ah s'pose it wuz written by some kindly inbred idjits.
> 
> Although in seriousness, that has to be true, because the Census Bureau considers West Virginia as the South and they kind of are a bunch of fuckwits.



That top part hurt my brain to read, not because of how things were spelled but because when I see or hear someone talk like that I want to kill myself.  It drives me nuts!  The northern part of the state basically shuns the southern part of the state because those of us in the north actually have common sense.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

Bahahahaha.  

I'm sorry, I love to make fun of Appalachia.


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Bahahahaha.
> 
> I'm sorry, I love to make fun of Appalachia.



I understand.  I make fun of my own state.  No worries.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 26, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Well ah'm mahty sorry suh, ah thought it wuz from the souf.



No no no, that's not speaking "southern". The people who speak that way still live in the Northern Hemisphere


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 26, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> No no no, that's not speaking "southern". The people who speak that way still live in the Northern Hemisphere



The southern part of the Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

I don't know how to type it out, admittedly.  I have a lot more fun actually talking like the dude in Young Guns all D'DJEW SEE THE *SIZE* OF THAT *CHICKIN* than typing it out since when people RP with me and they type out their accents my brain shuts down.  When I read what I just typed I kind of find myself reading it in this ... Black stereotype mushmouth kind of sound, not what I was goin' for.


----------



## Colonel Spigot (Dec 26, 2012)

Oh sure, let's just not mention the fact that Spengler was a convicted felon who had been in prison for 17 years for brutally bludgeoning his 92 year old grandmother to death with a hammer....

 AND THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO RELEASE THIS GUY?!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??!!!

When are people going to wake the fuck up and realize what so many cops already know, that prison DOES NOT rehabilitate people like this. Either keep them in the system for life, or better yet, give them the needle. Don't release them back out so that they can wreak havoc on society and harm more innocent people! I mean, really, were we to expect anything different?!


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

XVII1931 said:


> Oh sure, let's just not mention the fact that Spengler was a convicted felon who had been in prison for 17 years for brutally bludgeoning his 92 year old grandmother to death with a hammer....
> 
> AND THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO RELEASE THIS GUY?!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??!!!
> 
> When are people going to wake the fuck up and realize what so many cops already know, that prison DOES NOT rehabilitate people like this. Either keep them in the system for life, or better yet, give them the needle. Don't release them back out so that they can wreak havoc on society and harm more innocent people! I mean, really, were we to expect anything different?!



The USA imprisons approximately 1% of its citizens, one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' attitude already prevails in the states and it doesn't appeare to work. 

Perhaps the prison model should be copied from other countries such as the Norwegian model, in which prison isn't a place to leave people to rot but a genuine attempt to train them in life skills and rehabilitate them. Reoffending rates are substantially lower, they don't judically kill people and significantly less people waste their lives locked up. 

I think a big stumbling block for other countries achieving such a model is the expense and the attitude that there has to be revenge and retribution. In the UK recently our government actually had to debate whether prisoners should only be fed bread and water [and subsequently develop malnutrition and scurvy just like in the good ol' victorian days] because of public petitioning.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The USA imprisons approximately 1% of its citizens, one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' attitude already prevails in the states and it doesn't appeare to work.
> 
> Perhaps the prison model should be copied from other countries such as the Norwegian model, in which prison isn't a place to leave people to rot but a genuine attempt to train them in life skills and rehabilitate them. Reoffending rates are substantially lower, they don't judically kill people and significantly less people waste their lives locked up.
> 
> I think a big stumbling block for other countries achieving such a model is the expense and the attitude that there has to be revenge and retribution. In the UK recently our government actually had to debate whether prisoners should only be fed bread and water [and subsequently develop malnutrition and scurvy just like in the good ol' victorian days] because of public petitioning.



Exactly. While those who are in prison deserve to be there they also still deserve to be treated like human beings.

As for this whole gun debate, I still think it is extremely retarded that they let the populas build up such a massive arsenal. Because now it is going to be a pain in the ass to get rid of them again...
Giving your people guns so that they can protect themselves is not a solution. You have the biggest and best developed military in the world and yet you can't manage to make sure that the citizens WITHIN the country are safe and secure? This is such a massive joke! And the result is tragedies like the one mentioned in the OP, Newtown and all the other massacres that have happened recently.
There is a reason for all of this. I am not saying that it's guns, I'm saying that you need to fix your shit, America!


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 26, 2012)

I feel like everyone in the US are just going to grab their guns and go to town on each other in a paranoid frenzy at this rate.


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> What's with all the crazy attention-seeking whores picking up guns and wasting passer-bys recently? Oh yeah, media attention, they know they'll get it :c As hard as it may be to believe it's not just going on in the States, you just have a wider variety of weapons to access and a more centric media =P


 If thats true, then why do they always commit suicide (90%)?

You'd think they'd want to stick around and enjoy the attention.


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

XVII1931 said:


> When are people going to wake the fuck up and realize what so many cops already know, that prison DOES NOT rehabilitate people like this. Either keep them in the system for life, or better yet, give them the needle. Don't release them back out so that they can wreak havoc on society and harm more innocent people! I mean, really, were we to expect anything different?!


I agree. If anything, its actually more detrimental to the their problems, and probably causes new ones to surface.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

I love how the firefighter shooting happened in a state that had stricter gun control.



Aetius said:


> Nice to see the news actually reporting on gun crimes for once.



This also. It looks like only recently the US media is actually reporting gun crime at large. Normally this small-scale shooting would be left as local news and nothing more.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

The american equivalent of 'strict' gun control is like saying Japan's speed limit of 112mph is strict... in comparison to the autobahn. 

I think the fact it happened on christmas day has something to do with the media seizing upon it. 

Nothing like a good ol' holiday tragedy.


----------



## Tigercougar (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The USA imprisons approximately 1% of its citizens, one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' attitude already prevails in the states and it doesn't appeare to work.
> 
> Perhaps the prison model should be copied from other countries such as the Norwegian model, in which prison isn't a place to leave people to rot but a genuine attempt to train them in life skills and rehabilitate them. Reoffending rates are substantially lower, they don't judically kill people and significantly less people waste their lives locked up.
> 
> I think a big stumbling block for other countries achieving such a model is the expense and the attitude that there has to be revenge and retribution. In the UK recently our government actually had to debate whether prisoners should only be fed bread and water [and subsequently develop malnutrition and scurvy just like in the good ol' victorian days] because of public petitioning.



Yes. People fail to realize that having prisoners serve their time in squalor for the sake of "retribution" will only harden these people further and make them more liable to lash out when they do get released.

This is why I don't like criminals being labeled as "monsters." A criminal may do a monstrous thing...but he (or she) is still very much a human. A human that in experiencing cruel treatment in a prison 24/7 has nothing to do all day but to think on how very well he knows that his captors think he is garbage. That the people who control what he does, what he eats, and when and whether he gets to have contact with his family don't give a shit about wanting to reform him, they just want to get back at what he did. (I am assuming here that the criminal in person WOULD be rehabilitated if treated with basic dignity.) That these same people wouldn't give a shit if he died and privately hope that he does. And that the broader society outside the prison walls hypocritically, and foolishly, thinks that barbarism is an effective crime deterrent. 

(And how about those people who are imprisoned or put on death row for years and are then exonerated due to DNA or other found evidence? How many more of these people must be made sacrificial lambs to satisfy the need to meter punishment?)


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I love how the firefighter shooting happened in a state that had stricter gun control.


You love how innocent real-life heroes were shot? Go f**k yourself, buddy.

But yes, in comparison to the rest of the first world even New York's Big Gubmint oppression Godless Librul Commie Pinko gun laws are fucking lax.

Just like your entire goddamn country is, in comparison, right-wing extremist or, in cases like your Gitmo/Abu Ghraib death camps for Middle-Eastern darkies, neo-fascist.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> You love how innocent real-life heroes were shot? Go f**k yourself, buddy.
> 
> But yes, in comparison to the rest of the first world even New York's Big Gubmint oppression Godless Librul Commie Pinko gun laws are fucking lax.
> 
> Just like your entire goddamn country is, in comparison, right-wing extremist or, in cases like your Gitmo/Abu Ghraib death camps for Middle-Eastern darkies, neo-fascist.



How nice of you to make such an interpretation. Fuck you, too, etc.

The aforementioned state has some gun control within it, and that has clearly not stopped anything at all. Just how it hasn't stopped anything in the UK or Australia or US schools and other gun-free zones.

Bans just don't fucking work. They will never, ever, ever stop any killings, or spree killings. You cannot deny that they don't work when you see murders of all numbers occuring all over the world, and how a lot of them have not involved guns at all.

That said, the amount of accidents and homicides via the use of vehicles are pretty high. We should ban all cars that can exceed 75mph, and everyone found in posession of cars that do not adhere to this law via modification or smuggling will get a jail sentence of up to five years.

And even then we'll have the same shit happening.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

You've made some very bold claims about gun crime in the UK, which could be easily refuted if you would rather not stand in the fog of your inability to google. 
The united kingdom, as is reiterated time and time again, has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world, as do similar european countries. 

How does this justify your claim that there is 'no difference' ? 

Your car argument is a ridiculous strawman. It is like insisting that Opium-based medicines should not be regulated by virtue of the fact you can kill yourself with a house-hold concoction of foodstuffs- and that if we were to regulate opium we must also 'ban food' to avoid hypocrisy.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> how the fuck do I reading comprehension guise



Because there is also a high rate of knife crime instead of gun crime, self-defense is virtually illegal in the UK, guns are the equaliser in self-defense situations when it comes to different situations, illegal guns are here anyway despite the control, there's a significant amount of illegal weapons seized BEFORE crimes are committed (thankfully), and police are pretty fucking useless and unable to act in time when only mere seconds matter, for example, the 44 police officers murdered on-duty.

I am a responsible gun owner myself. I have not harmed nor endangered a single person and I never will. Guns are a significant part of history, and gun collecting and maintenance are hobbies that have lots and lots of depth. I respect the law when it comes to this hobby. On the other hand, I am the one who has to suffer when people commit crimes with weapons that were illegal in the first place. The criminals don't give a shit either way. They then ban even more stuff, making it hard to acquire certain things, so they resort to other means. It then becomes illegal to resort to these means as self-defense. Criminals have the upper hand because of the emotional reaction from the populace and the government, before they even consider thinking logically.

Because there's little in the way of restriction with cars and alcohol alike, a lot of people die also. They acknowledged this with alcohol at one point. Their laws made things much harder for lawful citizens and it just ended up causing more problems. Hell, it didn't even remove the problem in the slightest. If they put restrictions on cars, theoretically, it could cause a positive change. But only theoretically. On the other hand, responsible car owners, hobbyists, mechanics, and salesmen will have to suffer. Just like with the alcohol prohibition.

Neither alcohol, cars, guns, drugs, or knives are the problem. 

It's god damn stupid fucking people. Now if everyone quit making nationwide changes as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event and started thinking logically, hell, who knows, we may get rid of the issue with people's responsibility and murderous tendecies instead, as opposed to the childish "ban ban ban ban ban" mentality that has proved itself again and again to never work.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

This is irrelevant to your erroneous claim 'it hasn't stopped anything'. In the UK and several other european countries the rate of gun crime is extraordinarily low and large numbers of officers don't even want to carry arms. I think these are positive cultural changes which take a step away from a militant 'every man for himself' attitude towards policing. Other challenges remain, but this does not mean changes in the law have 'changed nothing'. 

You insist that other people's responses are emotional but you're not embarrassed about trotting out your own hyperbole, or using loaded rhetoric and straw man fallacies that imply 'if you think regulating guns is a good option you also believe in outright banning cars or alcohol, and because that is wrong your previous assertion is also wrong,'. 


Cars and alcohol are _already_ regulated in the UK and further measures, such as new minimum pricing per unit, could be improvements. Though this is tangential the crux is that asking for regulation of firearms does not equate to asking for total bans just as the regulation on cars and alcohol that are in place do not outright ban or opress those industries- so it's a moot argument.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> It's god damn stupid fucking people. Now if everyone quit making nationwide changes as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event and started thinking logically, hell, who knows, we may get rid of the issue with people's responsibility and murderous tendecies instead, as opposed to the childish "ban ban ban ban ban" mentality that has proved itself again and again to never work.



It's not a single event though. It's a school shooting every other fucking week.

I don't exactly see how removing guns from the general populace is not going to reduce gun crime. If there's less weaponry in circulation, it's harder for the psychopaths to get their hands on weapons. They'll still be able to, but it'll take longer to organise, improves the chances of discovery and neutralisation and so on.

Yes, the UK does have a knifecrime issue, but it really doesn't compare until someone invents a knife that allows you to stab an entire room full of people in under 5 seconds.

Yes, gun problems arise from allowing stupid people and psychopaths access to weapons. It just seems that America has a habit of breeding stupid people and psychopaths. You want proof of how completely fucking moronic America can be? Just look at the whole universal Healthcare clusterfuck.

"I DUNT WANT TO CONTIBOOT TO HELFCARE COZ POOR PEEPLE CAN BE USING MA MONEYS TO NOT DIE THE COMMIE FUX"


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

One particular problem in the USA is that you can avoid some gun laws by buying them secondhand. Because gun ownsership is so widespread I doubt people's suspicions are suitably pricked when someone is doing this- because guns change hands between normal citizens much of the time anyway. 

If that kind of transaction were limited it may reduce the effective noise floor and allow the passage of very dangerous weapons into the suspicious places to be better isolated.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> This is irrelevant to your erroneous claim 'it hasn't stopped anything'. In the UK and several other european countries the rate of gun crime is extraordinarily low and large numbers of officers don't even want to carry arms. I think these are positive cultural changes which take a step away from a militant 'every man for himself' attitude towards policing. Other challenges remain, but this does not mean changes in the law have 'changed nothing'.
> 
> You insist that other people's responses are emotional but you're not embarrassed about trotting out your own hyperbole, or using loaded rhetoric and straw man fallacies that imply 'if you think regulating guns is a good option you also believe in outright banning cars or alcohol, and because that is wrong your previous assertion is also wrong,'.
> 
> Cars and alcohol are _already_ regulated in the UK and further measures, such as new minimum pricing per unit, could be improvements. Though this is tangential the crux is that asking for regulation of firearms does not equate to asking for total bans just as the regulation on cars and alcohol that are in place do not outright ban or opress those industries- so it's a moot argument.



Well I can see that you're not willing to shift your on the whole at all as you're close to a broken record at this point, but nowhere did I say that regulation shouldn't be a thing. What I think is ridiculous is banning things without a single afterthought as a knee-jerk reaction because of one recent event.

I think it's extremely important that guns are licensed, regulated, traceable, with responsible ownership and usage encouraged, much like cars. Where was it implied that I don't? Or where did you last explain yourself on HOW guns should be controlled other than "HURR WE DONT NEED THEM THEY ARE EVIL".

Outright allowing stuff to happen causes problems.
Full-on bans cause problems also.

Compromises are welcome.

However, in the UK, self-defense is a diminising right, and the police are becoming increasingly inefficient. This is a problem. A review of gun ownership and the self defense laws would be a step to fixing this problem.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> It's not a single event though. It's a school shooting every other fucking week.
> 
> I don't exactly see how removing guns from the general populace is not going to reduce gun crime. If there's less weaponry in circulation, it's harder for the psychopaths to get their hands on weapons. They'll still be able to, but it'll take longer to organise, improves the chances of discovery and neutralisation and so on.
> 
> ...


You do realize that it's more complicated than "derm americans r t3h stoopid" right?

We have a political party that is balls deep in with the majority religion of the nation of which 
represents capitalist ideals, larger military and smaller education budgets.  Whereas the opposing party is a conglomerate of a dozen different groups that have been shat on for decades and are unified under the front of "we're tired of being shat on", but the political ideology they represent has been demonized for decades as "satanists", "commies", "nazis" and such.  If anything the fact we have a democrat president even though the politcal party and it's platforms have been viewed as nothing more than "them dirty commies out to corrupt our traditional values" shows that the issues are far more complex than you seem to think they are.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 26, 2012)

Or here's an idea.

You know how if you have an annoying child that keeps drawing on your freshly painted walls with crayon, you tell him off then confiscate the crayons until they can learn not to be complete little shits and act responsibly with their toys.

Well, Americans have been shown not to be trusted with guns, so take their fucking toys away, strictly regulate them, and only allow people who can prove not to be morons or mentally deranged are allowed guns.

Which is to say none.



CannonFodder said:


> You do realize that it's more complicated than "derm americans r t3h stoopid" right?
> 
> We have a political party that is balls deep in with the majority religion of the nation of which
> represents capitalist ideals, larger military and smaller education  budgets.  Whereas the opposing party is a conglomerate of a dozen  different groups that have been shat on for decades and are unified  under the front of "we're tired of being shat on", but the political  ideology they represent has been demonized for decades as "satanists",  "commies", "nazis" and such.  If anything the fact we have a democrat  president even though the politcal party and it's platforms have been  viewed as nothing more than "them dirty commies out to corrupt our  traditional values" shows that the issues are far more complex than you  seem to think they are.



And you've just entirely proven my point. You fucks elected these people, encouraged this status as it is. It's the people who keeps voting in crazies and keeping the status quo. One party says it wants to improve schools, the other says it wants to plant garlic in every town to save the population from terrorist vampires. And you'll vote for the vampire people because that sounds more threatening than having idiot children shooting each other in the face for fun.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Or here's an idea.
> 
> You know how if you have an annoying child that keeps drawing on your freshly painted walls with crayon, you tell him off then confiscate the crayons until they can learn not to be complete little shits and act responsibly with their toys.
> 
> ...



I can actually agree with this fully.

It's kinda like barring someone from driving due to their previously-shown shitty-ass dangerous driving.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Well I can see that you're not willing to shift your on the whole at all as you're close to a broken record at this point, but nowhere did I say that regulation shouldn't be a thing. What I think is ridiculous is banning things without a single afterthought as a knee-jerk reaction because of one recent event.
> 
> I think it's extremely important that guns are licensed, regulated, traceable, with responsible ownership and usage encouraged, much like cars. Where was it implied that I don't? Or where did you last explain yourself on HOW guns should be controlled other than "HURR WE DONT NEED THEM THEY ARE EVIL".
> 
> ...



Read my previous post. 
I am aware of your ideals on gun policy. Mine reflect the status quo in mainland Britain. 

Also 'the police are becoming increasingly inefficient' is one of the phrases that is repeated just like 'this is the rudest most vile generation yet'. 

It is a problem that our police service isn't as good as it could be. I don't think introducing arms into the civilian population will solve that problem, unlike you. I think it will result in weapons being distributed to the wrong hands more often. 

Guns _aren't _equalisers as the principle of mutually assured destruction insists about powerful and universal ownership of weapons, this philosophy is dangerous and unstable. The same problems which underpin arguments against MAD apply here, namely that the idea everyone will be too scared to attack eachother is BS.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Also 'the police are becoming increasingly inefficient' is one of the phrases that is repeated just like 'this is the rudest most vile generation yet'.



The problem is both of these.



> Guns _aren't _equalisers as the principle of mutually assured destruction this philosophy is pinned upon is a dangerous and unstable one. The same problems which underpin arguments against MAD apply here, namely that the idea everyone will be too scared to attack eachother is BS.



Okay. Picture a bloke in a wheelchair. His wheelchair moves like, well, a wheelchair. He's also extremely skinny and brittle. One fine day, a bunch of thugs in hoodies with their faces covered completely move in to beat the shit out of him, they may even stab him with a knife (which is illegal to carry). You've got to be friggin' joking if you want him to defend himself with his fists, or by running away like you'd suggest for most people. Tazers and knives won't help him very much due to being surrounded and suffering from the "arms reach" issue, being more or less immobile, and pepper spray is a joke. He cannot ask the police to bring justice down as he cannot identify these people, and because the police are fucking useless anyway, they won't go far even if he could indeed identify them.

Tell me exactly what would level the playing field for this unfortunate innocent man in his struggle against these thugs.

The same thing could be repeated for all sorts of cases. Like a case of a criminal with an ILLEGAL weapon shooting at you, a small woman vs a 200lb rapist bodybuilder, an old man against a young man, a normal man against multiple home intruders, and many more.

Unless you want innocent people to die, you're gonna have to give them something that can level the playing field for them so they can remain intact.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> And you've just entirely proven my point. You fucks elected these people, encouraged this status as it is. It's the people who keeps voting in crazies and keeping the status quo. One party says it wants to improve schools, the other says it wants to plant garlic in every town to save the population from terrorist vampires. And you'll vote for the vampire people because that sounds more threatening than having idiot children shooting each other in the face for fun.


It's called the tea party.  The majority of tea party members here are baby boomers who still think it's the 1950's and that women belong in the kitchen and that gays should be sterilized.

Things politically are going to begin changing rapidly soon because the baby boomers who constitute the majority of the republican party's voterbase are beginning to die off of old age.  As well as they have driven their own party off a cliff P.R. wise.  Politically what is probably going to happen in 2014 is the democrats will regain the majority in house and by 2016 rolls around enough of the baby boomers will begin to die of old age that the republican party will have to begin adopting less and less extremist ideals to remain electable.

What does this mean for gun control?  If/when the democrats gain a majority in the house in 2014 then we may be looking at a assault weapons ban or something to the effect of banning higher calibre round guns.  Past 2016 we may be looking at much stricter gun control and once all of the baby boomers die of it's very possible that we may be looking at a repeal of the second amendment all together.

To use a analogy imagine if the Scottish National Liberation Army was a political party.  OH wait!  That's right there is a political party in your land like that!  It's called the Scottish Separatist Group.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 26, 2012)

What really hurt the Tea Party is Space Case Lyndon LaRouche who is the wellspring of that fucking, "If you are in the Tea Party you are immediately Fuzzy Lumpkins from the Powerpuff girls" thing.  There are plenty of people who are younger than baby boomers who don't subscribe to gun control, also. 

We are not looking at an assault weapons ban, though. We're looking at a ban of all guns manufactured in the past 108 years.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I  If/when the democrats gain a majority in the house in 2014 then we may be looking at a assault weapons ban



Problem is, assault weapons are already banned.

The AK-47/74 derivatives and AR-15s you hear about a lot function in the almost exact same way as hunting rifles, hell, they're usually the exact same calibre. They were put in the market to compromise for the lack of assault rifles. They are absolutely not assault rifles. 

They just look scary, this is why the media are exploding about it.

Take a look at this gun: http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/rifle/7/1288257913.jpg

This would be classified as a hunting rifle, and from looking at it, you'd think rightfully so, hm? The funny part is is that it's almost identical in function to the weapons that people are trying to ban in the US right now. They don't know what they're banning, or anything about what they're banning, hence the sensationalizing you see with stuff like "high capacity assault clips", "baby-seeking terrorist bullets", "cop killer rounds", "100 bullets a minute", and of course, "assault weapons".

The rifles they're trying to ban are only ones that just look cooler to the owner.

I do think they should put a restriction on C-Mags though. Not only does it ACTUALLY hold 100 bullets, but it also looks like a penis and we can't have kids seeing it.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> To use a analogy imagine if the Scottish National Liberation Army was a political party.  OH wait!  That's right there is a political party in your land like that!  It's called the Scottish Separatist Group.



Yes, except the most deadly weapon they use is graffiti, and they haven't been heard of for years. So yeah, totally a comparable group. A bunch of bigotted street artists and a nationwide group of mysogynists, psychopaths, racists and inbreds armed with guns and attempting to incite armed uprising who are supported by one of the major global broadcasting networks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Yes, except the most deadly weapon they use is graffiti, and they haven't been heard of for years. So yeah, totally a comparable group. A bunch of bigotted street artists and a nationwide group of mysogynists, psychopaths, racists and inbreds armed with guns and attempting to incite armed uprising who are supported by one of the major global broadcasting networks.


And there's the problem.  Even though the tea party is a borderline terrorist group and members of their party have done terrorist attacks in the past they are backed by a major news network and have taken control of a major political party.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And there's the problem.  Even though the tea party is a borderline terrorist group and members of their party have done terrorist attacks in the past they are backed by a major news network and have taken control of a major political party.



Yes, so how is that comparable to a group of Scots racists who nobody has ever heard of?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> The problem is both of these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You _genuinely_ think this generation is the most vile, or is that sarcasm? _Every_ single generation thinks that about the next generation. 

You're making the argument of mutually assured destruction, it doesn't operate because people don't behave in this way. Large national governments have barely kept the doomsday clock from 5 minutes to midnight, what do you expect of individual creatures of passion? 

Peace is not reciprocated by this measure, violence is.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Yes, so how is that comparable to a group of Scots racists who nobody has ever heard of?


My point is imagine if they had the backing of a major news network constantly white knighting them and attacking anyone who disagrees as "nazis", now imagine if they took over a major political party.
Shit's going to hit the fan.

One of the reasons why the usa is so fucked up right now is that any and all attempts to try and fix anything is met with "ermaghad them nazis are taking away our *FREEDOM*"
Want to try and keep people with past felonies from buying guns?
Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
Want to keep the mentally ill from buying guns?
Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
Want to make sure firefighters are safe from crazies out to kill as many people as they can before an hero themselves?
Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
Want to make sure children are safe while going to school?
Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
Want to pass new restrictions on guns?
Their response, "*FREEDOM*"

If these nut jobs had their way every man, woman, child and baby would be duel wielding barret 50 cal guns, wearing combat armor and going to school in tanks instead of schoolbuses and have the schools guarded by missile launchers and landmines.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> My point is imagine if they had the backing of a major news network constantly white knighting them and attacking anyone who disagrees as "nazis", now imagine if they took over a major political party.
> Shit's going to hit the fan.



Not really, even with tv backing, there's only about 3 Scottish liberation Army people compared to millions of teabaggers.

But the problem is you lot seem to listen to these crazy fuckjockies, and let them have their way. If your country was as sensible as you seem keen to convince us it is, somebody would have told them to shut the fuck up and go sit in a corner somewhere. Instead they've been allowed a media platform, and people have still watched that platform instead of turning it off and ignoring it.

Just the fact that America is able to support groups like the teabaggers and Westboro with apparently no repercussions just goes to prove how dumb you are.


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> One of the reasons why the usa is so fucked up right now is that any and all attempts to try and fix anything is met with "ermaghad them nazis are taking away our *FREEDOM*"
> Want to try and keep people with past felonies from buying guns?
> Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
> Want to keep the mentally ill from buying guns?
> ...


*
FREED**OM and SAFETY *apparently dont mix.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Not really, even with tv backing, there's only about 3 Scottish liberation Army people compared to millions of teabaggers.
> 
> But the problem is you lot seem to listen to these crazy fuckjockies, and let them have their way. If your country was as sensible as you seem keen to convince us it is, somebody would have told them to shut the fuck up and go sit in a corner somewhere. Instead they've been allowed a media platform, and people have still watched that platform instead of turning it off and ignoring it.
> 
> Just the fact that America is able to support groups like the teabaggers and Westboro with apparently no repercussions just goes to prove how dumb you are.


Spoiler
[YT]XUSiCEx3e-0[/YT]


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You _genuinely_ think this generation is the most vile, or is that sarcasm? _Every_ single generation thinks that about the next generation.
> 
> You're making the argument of mutually assured destruction, it doesn't operate because people don't behave in this way. Large national governments have barely kept the doomsday clock from 5 minutes to midnight, what do you expect of individual creatures of passion?
> 
> Peace is not reciprocated by this measure, violence is.



If I remember correctly, there was a rise in crime in the second half of the 20th century after the first half, and the 21st century is pretty high too. Yes, it has to be this generation, or at least the way culture has changed for this time.

So yes, I genuinely think that the people of today are pretty vile. 

Btw, the image is from a document called _A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900._

That'll teach you to insult my google skills.

You can also see that while the crime rate fluctuates occasionally only to not drop very far and just increase some more, and with how news has been for the noughties, we'd still be pretty high up, occasional minor declines or no.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 26, 2012)

Smelge said:


> It's not a single event though. It's a school shooting every other fucking week.
> 
> I don't exactly see how removing guns from the general populace is not going to reduce gun crime. If there's less weaponry in circulation, it's harder for the psychopaths to get their hands on weapons. They'll still be able to, but it'll take longer to organise, improves the chances of discovery and neutralisation and so on.
> 
> ...



Also, Exhibit B: Bullet-proof backpacks for children.

Holy fudgesticks. Next it'll be kevlar nappies and jumpsuits for toddlers.

And the worst part? 



> But some school safety experts disagree, saying that Amendment II and companies like it profit from parents' fear - and sow another kind of danger.
> [...]
> Studies have shown that highly visible efforts to increase school safety, such as cameras and armed guards, decrease students' feelings of security, said Eric Rossen, a clinical psychologist and administrator at the National Association of School Psychologists. That's another risk with bulletproof backpacks, he said.
> 
> *Children who don't feel safe also don't feel connected or understood, ultimately undermining their ability to learn and to form trusting relationships, he said.* (emphasis added)



Not only is this profiting from tragedy, this sort of things sows the seeds for ever-more-socially-disconnected kids to grow up into exactly the kind of people who perpetuate these kind of killings in the first place!


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> If I remember correctly, there was a rise in crime in the second half of the 20th century after the first half, and the 21st century is pretty high too. Yes, it has to be this generation, or at least the way culture has changed for this time.
> 
> So yes, I genuinely think that the people of today are pretty vile.
> 
> ...



I don't think we are warranted in stating our generation is the most vile, or that humanity is doomed to successively more horrid generations. 

We must be aware of bias due to counting. For instance consider the exponential rise in the diagnosis of autism:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xoGzfth0t...BAKw/s640/Autism+Speaks+prevalence-graph1.jpg

Does this mean our generation is 'the most autistic ever'? Not necessarily, as communications population density transport etcetera have improved the probability of an individual being diagnosed has climbed, so we should be aware that this bias potentially influences other hockeystick graphs too. 

Although with a rising population density it is likely that crime has risen throughout the twentieth century, because denser populations afford more opportunity from the greater number of human interactions, I don't think we are merrited in being disugsted at every new generation we turn out. 

Ours is a generation which since 1990 has cut the mortality rate of under5's by 60%, which has been among the least war mongering in history and rejected many of the ill prejudices of the previous generations, such as their definition of homosexuality as an illness and the routine use of lobotomy. 

The human development is a mixed picture, but it's certainly not all doom and gloom. We are not likely to find our future by retreating into a fondly remembered past.


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Want to try and keep people with past felonies from buying guns?
> Their response, "*FREEDOM*"
> Want to keep the mentally ill from buying guns?
> Their response, "*FREEDOM*"


Actually, this is wrong. People with felonies or are mentally ill (by court or sent to a mental institution) are prohibited from purchasing firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.


----------



## Saga (Dec 26, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> Actually, this is wrong. People with felonies or are mentally ill (by court or sent to a mental institution) are prohibited from purchasing firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.


 I was going to point that out earlier. The meaning behind it is that some people dont agree with limiting the purchase/possession of firearms w/ the mentally ill, so they plead the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 27, 2012)

XVII1931 said:


> Maybe it all comes back to what I said in the firearms thread about reinstitutionalizing mental health.


 The odd thing there, though, is the same things you're saying "Eh, it's too little too late to fix now" in regard to the Prison System are the _exact same things_ you're talking applying our treatment of mental patients. This wouldn't make anything better: We already crack down _way_ too hard on crime to the point that we've had people turn imprisonment into a friggen business (I'm not joking: Several states have been busted with privatized prisons paying schools, parents, and so-on to basically redefine what is or isn't a criminal so as to pad their pockets). Borrowing after the prison system and then applying it to already mentally unstable people is basically the same as trying to put out a fire at a gas station with rocket fuel.

We have evidence that the system in places like Norway works. It's something of a series of facts. The only alternative argument that can be made is that Americans / prolonged American exposure leads to a new sub-variety of humans that are abnormally aggressive, resistant to corrective procedures, and in generally are defined as "Can't stop here, this is batfuck insane country". And I don't think most people who argue that our system is not being hard enough are also willing to say "Americans are abnormally murderous and crime-disposed lots over other nations by a significant margin" (which, to be fair, is a good thing to not claim, but at the same time the only way one can really argue that the system has little to stand by borrowing from our 1st World Neighbors).


----------



## Batty Krueger (Dec 27, 2012)

The HOT HOT HOT is referring to a book called Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.  It's very good.

Gunment can take my guns away when they pry them from my cold dead hands.


----------



## NewYork (Dec 27, 2012)

Would anyone believe the government could prevent any  random disgruntled kid from loading up on guns and shooting up a  school, or a grocery store, or anywhere where lots of people gather? Why do we believe them when they say that allowing  warrant-less wiretapping and spying and all other sorts of invasion on  our privacy has protected us in the least bit.  How hard is it to load  up on guns, or build a bomb in the privacy of your own basement, and  then wander into a crowded room full of people and set it off. A psychopathic teenager with a garage filed with chemicals and a book on constructing explosives probably wouldn't find such a feat so hard.


  It always made  me wonder how it is so hard for a terrorist to attack, when a school kid can do it  every other year. Gun control is a step in the right direction, but its simply not enough to do us any good. Instead of turning our eyes towards the tragedies that happened, we should open our ears and listen to the needy. *We need to help the mentally-ill.*


I want to finish my post by acknowledging the firemen and to send my thoughts to their families. It takes balls to be a firefighter. The risks are incalculable and these two in particular served with great valor.

Just throwing my two lousy cents in...


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 27, 2012)

XVII1931 said:


> Lol, come on. You know and I know that you are not going to "rehabilitate" someone like this. I know we have the world's largest prison population, and I know that the system doesn't work like it should, but you're not going to somehow magically fix the violently criminally insane, of which the prison system in the US unfortunately seems to have more of than a hive has bees. Maybe it all comes back to what I said in the firearms thread about reinstitutionalizing mental health.



I know? I'm not a crimonal psychologist and neither are you. We don't know.



Inciatus said:


> Actually, this is wrong. People with felonies or  are mentally ill (by court or sent to a mental institution) are  prohibited from purchasing firearms under the Gun Control Act of  1968.



Evidently they still get them, perhaps because there is a massive loophole. Normal citizens can trade arms and they are not required or expected to perform background checks like those you mentioned. Normal citizens can also sell one another weapons which are so aggressive they would not be up for sale in official gun shops.


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 27, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Evidently they still get them, perhaps because there is a massive loophole. Normal citizens can trade arms and they are not required or expected to perform background checks like those you mentioned. Normal citizens can also sell one another weapons which are so aggressive they would not be up for sale in official gun shops.



And adding more restrictions is going to magically remove this?

Also, I was responding to the CF's comment. I am perfectly aware that they still can get a hold of these things and am not arguing that. No one here is shouting FREEDOM at those two points.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 27, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> And adding more restrictions is going to magically remove this?
> 
> Also, I was responding to the CF's comment. I am perfectly aware that they still can get a hold of these things and am not arguing that. No one here is shouting FREEDOM at those two points.



Doing something to stop guns changing hands between regular people. If a gun changes hands between 20 people 19 can be normal people with no bad intentions and none of them can be aware it could be heading to one person with ill intentions. 

Currently in the states you can exchange guns like this and I believe gift them to each other and it's all legal and fine.


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 27, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Doing something to stop guns changing hands between regular people. If a gun changes hands between 20 people 19 can be normal people with no bad intentions and none of them can be aware it could be heading to one person with ill intentions.
> 
> Currently in the states you can exchange guns like this and I believe gift them to each other and it's all legal and fine.


I'm not entirely sure how you plan to regulate that.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 28, 2012)

NewYork said:


> Would anyone believe the government could prevent any  random disgruntled kid from loading up on guns and shooting up a  school, or a grocery store, or anywhere where lots of people gather? Why do we believe them when they say that allowing  warrant-less wiretapping and spying and all other sorts of invasion on  our privacy has protected us in the least bit.  *How hard is it to load  up on guns*



In the US, not hard at all it would seem.



NewYork said:


> or build a bomb in the privacy of your own basement, and  then wander into a crowded room full of people and set it off. *A psychopathic teenager with a garage filed with chemicals and a book on constructing explosives probably wouldn't find such a feat so hard.*



I rather doubt that. Not only did the Colombine gunmen's propane bombs failed to go off, it seems that _adult terrorists_ like the infamous "shoe bomber", "underpants bomber",  these inept bastards and (my personal favourite) the "kami-khazi" suicide bum-bomber all spectacularly _failed_ in their bombing - or in the last case, "bum-bing" - of their targets.

Hell, the Glasgow Airport bombing proved that the best defence against terrorist attacks is a row of security bollards and an angry Scotsman 
[yt]5XZ7M4pWSzw[/yt]


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 28, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> I'm not entirely sure how you plan to regulate that.



I assume the way it is done in other countries which don't have a problem to that degree. I'm not an expert on gun control so I can't provide a complete specific breakdown, but I can point in what I think is the right direction from my low-resolution point of view.


----------

