I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: MooseMom on December 19, 2012, 04:32:06 PM
-
Let's continue the discussion here, OK? Perhaps we should leave the other thread for those who want to solely express their grief. Let's be respectful to those who do not want to enter/read any discussion about what we should/can do in the aftermath of what happened in Newtown.
EDITED: Topic moved to the Political Section - jbeany, Moderator bowing to the inevitable....
-
Let's continue the discussion here, OK? Perhaps we should leave the other thread for those who want to solely express their grief. Let's be respectful to those who do not want to enter/read any discussion about what we should/can do in the aftermath of what happened in Newtown.
Sounds good Moosemom,
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=28031.100;topicseen
Dear Moosemom, we will have to wait and see how all of this turns out politically. One woman I went to college with won't be satisfied until we have gun confiscation in the US. Certainly, it appears that there will be a ban on high capacity ammo magazines. CA and other states already limit them to 10 and outlaw the 30 bullet magazines already. I have no problem with FFL required for all private sales since that is the system in CA already.
Those are certainly reasonable considerations, but how far will they go. Will they ban all "black rifles?" Will they ban all semi-automatic weapons?
There is one very simple fact, gun laws don't prevent criminals having guns, nor do they prevent these atrocities as Norway and Germany among others demonstrate. Will gun laws keep people from gaining access to illegal guns so declared? History says that the answer to that question is no.
The simple fact remains that the only way to approach monsters with guns already in action is to meet force with force. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. I can't imagine any law that will prevent the wrong people having access to guns. Nor does gun confiscation prevent murders as we have seen in Russia and other countries that have gone that route.
When I was in between my first and second year of medical school, a friend of mine got me a summer job at Boston State Mental Institution. Ironically, that is where my mother and father met. (Hang on, my mother was a nurse and my dad worked nights for room and board while he was going to grad school) That is closed now as are most inpatient mental hospitals. All of these shooters in the most recent incidents of mass shootings were known at risk individuals where the system did not get them the treatment they needed, nor protect innocent lives from their madness.
How the politics of this tragedy settles will in many ways define how safe our children will be in the future. Will we focus on the mental health failures, or will they instead continue with the anti-gun agenda that we have long expected from the Obama regimen? Time will tell, but I am skeptical that the nation will enact true security measures for all which includes responsible gun ownership.
-
Despite the constant terrorist threats, one aspect of the Israeli school security plans are selected members who carry concealed. These people are not identified. Massad Ayoob, a well know firearms and police expert believes we should immediately implement the same steps that they have in Israel, Peru and the Philippines which have essentially eliminated mass killings in their schools. Here is his commentary.
If I were a parent of a child in an elementary school, I would seriously consider what Mr. Ayoob proposed, namely having a trained, armed individual on patrol at the school, but I would NOT want that person to be my child's teacher. That teacher would have to have a weapon loaded and easily accessible at all times, and to have that in a classroom of young children just does not strike me as safe.
Perhaps, as had been an idea floated around, the National Guard can have a role here.
I do think that the parents of the children in schools should have a major input in whatever decisions are made.
Actually, I carry around my young grandchildren every day and they have no idea nor need to know that I do. Properly adhered to, concealed carry is not visible and it is safe. My wife prefers that I have my gun available wherever we go. I am in the process of moving from CA to Idaho since CA denies access to normal folks getting a permit in LA County. Once again, I have LOT of friends here in Idaho that carry on a daily basis. Done properly, it is safe an not noticed at all. In fact, my little grandchild has been on my lap with my gun inches from her while I do dialysis. She doesn't know it is there and is secured from her. Guns and safety are not separate issues.
In the upcoming political discussions, any decision that does not acknowledge the dangers of gun free zones as a target to these creeps will completely miss the underlying situation and root causes. The Aurora theatre was not the largest, nor closest to the shooter, but it was the only one the prohibited concealed carry. Is that just a coincidence? No, they seek places that prevent victims of shooting having the necessary force to respond immediately.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13942-gun-free-zones-called-magnets-for-mass-shooters
As far as the national guard, no need to go to that extreme. Once again, there are some very simple things that can be done, essentially invisible to the kids that works well already in Peru, the Philippines and Israel, all with much worse trends in violence than the US. For some reason, I seriously doubt that what we will get will approach common sense security measures. I suspect will get anti-gun political posturing instead which will not fix the problem.
-
*
-
Moosemon quote from Newtown, CT thread
Reply #102 on: 12/19/12 07:04:50 PM »
I don't know if you saw President Obama's news conference this morning, but this is exactly what he said/did, although he has appointed the Vice President himself to head it up. The President talked about guns, mental health and the American culture of violence just as Mr. K did. That these two would agree on such an emotive issue is a Christmas miracle in and of itself. Maybe the deaths of these teachers and children will not have been in vain after all. It is up to us as a society to give their deaths a meaning. Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is what Dr. Krauthammer was afraid would happen - Obama trying to capitalize on the Sandy Hook tragedy to get firearm restrictions passed. Appointing Biden - a gun control restrictions advocate going back to his years in the Senate - shows this is more about politics and an agenda than coming up with solid reccommendations to help solve/get a better understanding of the nature of mass shootings. If not, why the rush to have legislation for Congress to vote on by the end of January? Do you really feel six weeks of discussion is adequate for such a complicated, multi-layered issue that goes beyond gun control?
By the way, here are the results of a 12/18/12 Gallup Poll on the public view of how to prevent mass shootings at schools. Banning the sale of assault and semiautomatic weapons was fourth on the list.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx
Interesting poll. The top two choices have the most potential on the list. Like I said, all of us gun owners understood what the reelection of Obama would mean for gun rights. The greatest danger is not what will happen politically with guns with this event, but instead what happens if the power balance in SCOTUS changes. The entire second amendment would face elimination. Unfortunately, our gun rights are on a limited time frame I am sure. The progressive agenda all over the world is to strip away gun rights and disarm the population. The promise of safety when that happens will never materialize, just the opposite will occur.
Sadly, not much we can do about those outcomes over time. People today seem to have no concept of freedom and what it entails any longer. Surrendering all of our rights to a larger and larger government is not a pretty way to go. Lawful possession of firearms by responsible people is not a threat to this nation. In fact, the founding fathers saw the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental element of freedom.
-
I have a question. If CT has some of the strictest gun laws then why did the mother have the automatic weapon? I thought CT kept the ban on them.
She must have had them illegally?
-
I have a question. If CT has some of the strictest gun laws then why did the mother have the automatic weapon? I thought CT kept the ban on them.
She must have had them illegally?
Thanks for the PM Rerun, you are the best.
This is not an automatic rifle, but instead semi-automatic. You must pull the trigger each time. Full automatic shoots multiple shots with one trigger pull. This is a common and popular rifle for hunting, target shooting and some have them for self defense purposes. The polymer "black rifles" are very popular in shooting competitions for accuracy.
Gun control fails due to the wrong premise, fewer guns equals less crime and less violence. That is not what the history of gun control produces nor is it the findings of academic studies.
Israel prevents school terrorist actions through simple security measures. If we are really serious about protecting our children, then lets implement proper security precautions.
-
I have a question. If CT has some of the strictest gun laws then why did the mother have the automatic weapon? I thought CT kept the ban on them.
She must have had them illegally?
This is not an automatic rifle, but instead semi-automatic. You must pull the trigger each time. Full automatic shoots multiple shots with one trigger pull. This is a common and popular rifle for hunting, target shooting and some have them for self defense purposes. The polymer "black rifles" are very popular in shooting competitions for accuracy.
It is pretty easy to acquire what you need to convert many semi-auto's to full auto though. And it's dreadfully easy (and usually legal) for anyone reasonably competent with gun conversions to get a trigger kit that lets you "bump fire" - or quickly and repeatedly pull the trigger so it appears to be a full auto. Same results on the other end of the gun, slightly harder on the shooter's trigger finger. Combine with speed loaders and extended magazines, the results are similar to full auto - lots of damage in a very short span of time.
-
saw this on FB, I thought some of you may find this interesting.
http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/
-
I couldn't read the whole article but that is complete bullshit. In the beginning it was just bad reporting and greed to get the first snippet of information. There are 2 survivors in the hospital that will talk when ready. I hope they are being protected from the rude and vial media. I'm sure if they would have warned all the media they should not see this horrific scene.... and opened the door.... they would have trampled each other to get the first pictures! My God! There are conspiracy theorist that think our government took down the trade towers. Now, our government killed kids to get gun laws changed. I don't believe either.
Hemodoc, thank you for explaining the one trigger pull for automatic and each trigger pull for semi automatic. I had not put that together.
Jbeany.... You sound like you know too much information about guns. You a packer? Maybe I missed it if you said you were.
-
I couldn't read the whole article but that is complete bullshit. In the beginning it was just bad reporting and greed to get the first snippet of information. There are 2 survivors in the hospital that will talk when ready. I hope they are being protected from the rude and vial media. I'm sure if they would have warned all the media they should not see this horrific scene.... and opened the door.... they would have trampled each other to get the first pictures! My God! There are conspiracy theorist that think our government took down the trade towers. Now, our government killed kids to get gun laws changed. I don't believe either.
I thought similar when I read it, too. From what I understand, the perp was not let in by anyone after he buzzed in, instead, he took the window down with force. I don't know if that was with the gun and bullets or something else. And yes, what Rerun said. This was a time of chaos, and information was coming all over from all kinds of ends. That is typical in a tragedy of this magnitude. Everyone wants to be the first, and when you think of the game of telephone we all played as kids, it's easy to see how how all of that information can get misconstrued. Of course, when you really stop and think about it, how can you trust anything that you read? It sucks, it really does.
I haven't had the time to check out the links on that article, so I may do that when I have more time. But, I also agree with Rerun about how those 2 witnesses in the hospital need to heal first before talking to the media. I just wish we weren't all having this discussion. I sometimes watch the Sunday politial shows that are on in the morning. As I watched them this last Sunday, all I could think was how much I wish they were just talking about the fiscal cliff instead. Just because that would mean that this wouldn't have happened, and those beautiful children and their teachers and staff would still all be here. I wish that "mother" had the intelligence and common sense to lock up those guns, and to not have ever taken her sick son to the gun range. We all wouldn't be mourning, and I put the full blame on her and her son.
KarenInWA
-
I have a question. If CT has some of the strictest gun laws then why did the mother have the automatic weapon? I thought CT kept the ban on them.
She must have had them illegally?
This is not an automatic rifle, but instead semi-automatic. You must pull the trigger each time. Full automatic shoots multiple shots with one trigger pull. This is a common and popular rifle for hunting, target shooting and some have them for self defense purposes. The polymer "black rifles" are very popular in shooting competitions for accuracy.
It is pretty easy to acquire what you need to convert many semi-auto's to full auto though. And it's dreadfully easy (and usually legal) for anyone reasonably competent with gun conversions to get a trigger kit that lets you "bump fire" - or quickly and repeatedly pull the trigger so it appears to be a full auto. Same results on the other end of the gun, slightly harder on the shooter's trigger finger. Combine with speed loaders and extended magazines, the results are similar to full auto - lots of damage in a very short span of time.
Only a criminal would do such a task and most the gang bangers don't have that type of knowledge. It is NOT legal at all to modify any weapon in that manner and I don't know anyone who has done such a thing. In addition, the M-16 used by the military has a 3 round burst since you really can't accurately shoot full auto with any accuracy beyond a very short burst.
People can legally own full auto machine guns with an incredible amount of red tape and applications in a limited number of states. Not many folks go through the required permitting process to own a full auto machine gun. Guns remain the most highly regulated commodity in America.
Guns of all types can shoot rapidly and be reloaded quickly even old fashioned revolvers. World record holder Jerry Miculek makes a revolver sound like a machine gun shooting 12 shots in less than 3 seconds. The entire semi-auto hysteria is just that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ
Gun control will not remove any of the old weapons in America nor do I believe they should. The only manner in which to remove guns from Americans is confiscation, once again something I would hate to see. Do we really want criminals and the government the only people with guns and law abiding citizens with no means of effective self defense? An assault weapon ban or semi-auto ban of the "black rifles" will not in any manner make American school kids any safer.
In addition, it will only increase the black market sales of these weapons used by criminals. I would remind everyone of the horrible nationwide gang problem we have that is venturing into another form of organized crime. Selling drugs and other criminal activities are supported by illegal firearm possession. What will happen to personal crime statistics if we severely restrict legal ownership to law abiding folks? Will that make us safer?
Focussing on proven and relatively simply school security measures offers the best solution. Mass shootings were becoming very common in America's churches until many churches instituted their own private security "ministries." I know of one very large Baptist church that places active and retired law enforcement officers into a very coordinated security force with ear phones and the whole coordinated security detail you see with dignitaries. Churches are no longer the big targets for mass shootings as they were more than a decade ago. Most people in the church never notice these security precautions.
In 2007, one of those security details prevented a large loss of life when a gunman killed two people in an outside church parking lot and then entered the building with over a thousand rounds of ammo. Although heavily outgunned, the security person confronted and engaged the shooter. The shooter was wounded and then took his own life. The security team in most of these churches are unpaid volunteers.
http://blutube.policeone.com/police-training-videos/935831023001-jeanne-assam-and-the-new-life-church-shooting/
-
Hemodoc,
I wish you would not use the term "gang bangers" in this discussion as it is obvious you are not aware of its meaning.
On another note, I find it extremely disconcerting (and sad) to be in a place mentally that we even consider it an option to have armed security personnel in schools.
And would this mean that ALL schools would need to be "armed" or folks with mental problems leading them toward violence would target those schools that weren't?
This sounds almost like an arms race. :embarassed:
-
Hemodoc,
I wish you would not use the term "gang bangers" in this discussion as it is obvious you are not aware of its meaning.
On another note, I find it extremely disconcerting (and sad) to be in a place mentally that we even consider it an option to have armed security personnel in schools.
And would this mean that ALL schools would need to be "armed" or folks with mental problems leading them toward violence would target those schools that weren't?
This sounds almost like an arms race. :embarassed:
Dear Willowtree,
Sorry, I live among gang bangers so please don't presuppose that I don't understand their dangers. Up until about 4 years ago, we had an entire household of about 25 active drug dealers and gang bangers in a HUD home three doors down from my house, so I will simply correct your false allegation. In addition, a close female relation was jumped into the crips gang at the age of 13 by four creeps she didn't know. We didn't find out about this until after she attempted suicide when she was 16 and she revealed it to us in a large group session that she had been gang raped and her "best friend" set up the encounter and enticed her to the place it occurred. Her saga continued but I think you get the picture. I understand very well the many nuances of the moniker gang banger thank you.
I have no problem calling them gang bangers because that is exactly what they are and they destroy lives daily through their gang banging activities. It has affected me in very personal ways. In addition, my neighborhood in CA outside of LA has been plagued with smash and grab robberies by young teenage members of these gangs riding around on bikes with back packs. Enough said.
Secondly, most that support Obama that have little understanding of security issues believe that taking guns away from law abiding folks will solve the problem. That is magical thinking at its best. Once again, other nations have had worse security issues in their schools and the first thing that they did was to make them gun zones, not gun free zones as in America.
Most of these school shootings are planned in advance sometimes over several months time such as Columbine. The premise is that they can do maximal damage before the police respond and no one will be armed immediately at the onset of their attack. In the case of having a select number of concealed carry people in a school who are well trained and anonymous, that makes the response time of 5-10 minutes down to less than a minute or even less if they are stopped at their entry point as happened with the 2007 church incident in Colorado Springs.
I would further point out that a large number of churches now have their own private security teams, most of them completely voluntary and unpaid that makes them a less viable target for these kinds of creeps. There is a reason that churches are no longer one of the major killing zones as they were more than 10 years ago. Understanding the threat, churches have responded dramatically. Most people don't even see the security forces since they are often anonymous members of law enforcement in their area. Schools could have more than a decade ago responded as the churches did to this new and evolving threat but in large part due to political correctness and anti-gun political agendas, folks instead hid their head in the sand and the carnage continues unabated. We truly do not need a large political task force trying to find a solution to this problem. Security experts have made concrete recommendations for years that politicians have chosen to ignore.
If folks wish to keep to political correctness and denial, so be it. Gun control will not solve this terrible problem. Israel, Peru and the Philippines brought their school killings to an end. Understanding the risks and further understanding that you can defend yourself safely and effectively will add the further dimension of deterrence. There is much written on these issues from security experts, but I seriously doubt you will see much of that knowledge in the President's task force.
-
Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.
-
Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.
Chris,
As a gun owner, the privilege of owning a gun comes with many responsibilities not the least of which is properly securing your guns. Most owners have a large gun safe if they have multiple firearms. The untold story is how the mother failed to keep her guns away from her child.
With the amount of money she has, there is really no excuse for not having a large safe and a retention safe bedside for immediate access for self protection. If the mother had secured her weapons from him, we never would have heard of this tragedy. Very sad situation all the way around.
-
Nancy Lanza was buried yesterday in an undisclosed location. In all of the memorials, she was never mentioned. When people talk about now many were killed, she is not included. I find this to be extremely sad and completely lacking in compassion.
Adam Lanza was not a "child". He was an adult who was obviously intent upon wreaking havoc. For all we know, his mother DID keep her guns secure, but perhaps her son was so determined to get to them that he found a way. She was asleep at the time, and if he had been planning this deed for a while, he may well have discovered a way to bypass her security measures. Even "responsible" people can make a mistake. So please, can we have a little bit of Christian compassion for this woman? We don't yet know enough to be able to so roundly comdemn her.
I know we have the Constitutional right to bear arms, but we also have the right to decide what kind of weapons and ammunition we have access to. There is this soldier that has returned from Afghanistan, and when he heard about the weapons used in Newtown, he remarked that the Bushmaster was the same gun he used during battle, and how can it be that civilians in the US have access to the same weapons? That's a very valid question.
"Gun control" seems to mean different things to different people. I do not see why we cannot require the closing of such loopholes like lack of comprehensive background checks of people buying guns at shows, or why we cannot outlaw the purchase of ginormous magazines. If what you really want, as a "responsible gun owner" is to have a weapon for self-protection, then please explain why you need a Bushmaster. I really do not understand this reasoning. From a purely logistical point of view, you can't very well conceal/carry such a weapon, so what do you do? Keep it loaded and accessible by your bedside? What if you have children in the house? Can you keep such a weapon securely stored yet still have easy access to it, in the dark, should an intruder come into your home at night?
And can we please get away from this meme that President Obama has some sort of agenda which would ultimately take away everyone's guns? That's that bastard Wayne LaPierre talking, and his sole goal is to frighten silly people into spending yet more money on guns, shoveling shedloads of money into the gobs of gun manufacturers. That man is a menace. Truly responsible gun owners should disavow every word that man utters.
Many liberals have been scathing in their criticism of Obama, that he has done nothing about gun control. When did he once address this issue in either of his campaigns? Nowhere. Yet LaPierre hallucinates and starts babbling about some great conspiracy to "take away our guns", causing a run on weapons purchases, which is exactly what he wants. Gullible Americans start hallucinating, too, which is exactly what this man wants. More money. It's all about money, tarted up as some threat to "freedom and liberty". Responsible gunowners are anything but if they believe this BS.
Lastly, we need to stop thinking of this issue solely in terms of mass murders. People are gunned down every day in this country, and most of the time we don't even hear about it. THOSE victims are part of this discussion, too.
-
Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.
This kid was 20 years old. Not a child! Said to be a genius? You don't think he could figure out a way to get to her guns in a safe? If you know your kid or person living with you (age 50?) has mental problems you get the guns out of the house.
-
Jbeany.... You sound like you know too much information about guns. You a packer? Maybe I missed it if you said you were.
Only a criminal would do such a task and most the gang bangers don't have that type of knowledge. It is NOT legal at all to modify any weapon in that manner and I don't know anyone who has done such a thing. In addition, the M-16 used by the military has a 3 round burst since you really can't accurately shoot full auto with any accuracy beyond a very short burst.
Rerun, I married a man with a family gun shop and have done my share of target practice. I haven't fired a gun since he moved in with his mistress and I divorced him. (Best to avoid temptation whenever possible.)
And no, Hemodoc, you don't need to be a criminal to modify a gun - those who shoot competitively and even dedicated hobby shooters routinely adjust grips, triggers, and exchange barrels on weapons. Making a trigger more responsive is a common thing in competitive shooting. It doesn't take much knowledge at all and it is legal - the kits are easy to find and sold at plenty of gun shops. It won't take a great leap of intuition to figure out how to adjust the available kits to change a semi-auto to an auto if you are familiar with the process.
Assuming that a "gang banger" can't or wouldn't obtain knowledge that might give them a competitive advantage in a turf war is awfully short-sighted of you. A lack of formal education and opportunities does not equate to a lack of intelligence.
I'm also reasonably certain the madmen planning to mow down a crowd aren't all that concerned with the accuracy, or lack thereof, in an automatic weapon.
-
Lastly, we need to stop thinking of this issue solely in terms of mass murders. People are gunned down every day in this country, and most of the time we don't even hear about it. THOSE victims are part of this discussion, too.
:o PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! >:D
-
Rerun, I married a man with a family gun shop and have done my share of target practice. I haven't fired a gun since he moved in with his mistress and I divorced him. (Best to avoid temptation whenever possible.)
:rofl; least we be tempted! :rofl;
-
Jbeany.... You sound like you know too much information about guns. You a packer? Maybe I missed it if you said you were.
Only a criminal would do such a task and most the gang bangers don't have that type of knowledge. It is NOT legal at all to modify any weapon in that manner and I don't know anyone who has done such a thing. In addition, the M-16 used by the military has a 3 round burst since you really can't accurately shoot full auto with any accuracy beyond a very short burst.
Rerun, I married a man with a family gun shop and have done my share of target practice. I haven't fired a gun since he moved in with his mistress and I divorced him. (Best to avoid temptation whenever possible.)
And no, Hemodoc, you don't need to be a criminal to modify a gun - those who shoot competitively and even dedicated hobby shooters routinely adjust grips, triggers, and exchange barrels on weapons. Making a trigger more responsive is a common thing in competitive shooting. It doesn't take much knowledge at all and it is legal - the kits are easy to find and sold at plenty of gun shops. It won't take a great leap of intuition to figure out how to adjust the available kits to change a semi-auto to an auto if you are familiar with the process.
Assuming that a "gang banger" can't or wouldn't obtain knowledge that might give them a competitive advantage in a turf war is awfully short-sighted of you. A lack of formal education and opportunities does not equate to a lack of intelligence.
I'm also reasonably certain the madmen planning to mow down a crowd aren't all that concerned with the accuracy, or lack thereof, in an automatic weapon.
Dear Jbeany,
Trigger jobs for competitive guns is like you said very common that is only to modify how many pounds of trigger pull it takes to fire the gun. Many competitive folks want a 1 or 2 pound trigger pull. Manufacturers on most hand guns have a 10 pound trigger pull for double action and 5-7 pounds on single action. Competitive shooters do modify their weapons often.
One of the aspects of concealed carry that gives them an advantage over the usual gang banger is that they don't get the training that we do. I saw a film of a gang banger shooting where the man only had 3 bullets in his magazine when he shot a rival gang member. A well trained CCW permit holder always carries a full magazine and usually has one or two spare magazines as well. No, the data from the law enforcement folks is that most gang bangers are not sophisticated weapon experts and thank the Lord for that fact. My source for that is Ed Santos of Center Target Sports. He is an international firearms and security expert.
Modifying a trigger so that you have full automatic is quite illegal and I don't know of anyone that would do that who is a competitive shooter WITHOUT the proper permits and in selected states. Gun owners may despise many of the restrictive gun laws, but they like their guns more so that do adhere to all of the laws in place today. Once again, a trigger job to make the gun easier to shoot for competitive shooting is not at all the same as making a legal gun full auto.
As far as field stripping a "black rifle," they are designed to be fixed and cleaned in the field within a couple of minutes. Changing the components is not harder than field stripping one of these rifles to make it function properly again. They are designed to have very few interchangeable parts. Many gangs do have ex-military people who get advanced military training and bring it back to their gangs. However, the average teenage kid involved in these gangs does not at all have that type of training and expertise on weapons. Once again, it is one of the advantages that law enforcement counts in their encounters. It only takes a soldier a couple of days to learn how to field strip and assemble these weapons designed to do just that. However, making the gun full auto is not something folks are taught. I am sure the sophisticated competitive shooters who are a special breed all to themselves know their guns inside and out. But they don't want the ATF taking all of their guns so they don't. I would venture that the number of cases of modified full auto that have been prosecuted could be counted on one hand. In ordinary gun circles, it simply does not happen no matter how simple or complicated it is. Competitive shooters want to keep their guns pure and simple. Having an illegal gun is just not something that happens.
As far as accuracy of full auto, Jbeany, give me a break, I am simply stating a fact of how our US military uses full auto. For the ordinary soldier they don't, they have three round bursts or pure semi-auto. Seals and Delta force is a different issue. They found that full auto in combat wasted ammo, was less accurate and less useful. I just spoke to a friend of ours who is in a private security firm in Iraq. He just went back in country last Thursday. I discussed the full auto issue with him. He is an expert in firearms and he stated you can't hit anything with full auto, you don't have the control needed. He does prefer semi-auto for combat purposes but states that the three round burst in a firefight is very useful and easy to control. In any case, full auto is completely off topic since none of these mass shootings used full auto that I am aware of. I will have to double check the Columbine shootings to confirm that, but Aurora and this one and the Arizona shooting were all semi-auto.
Now, how fast does a semi-auto shoot, as fast as you pull the trigger. How fast does a revolver shoot, as fast as you pull the trigger. Once again, Look up Jerry Miculek and you will see that the whole semi-auto issue is truly a non-issue. We have many rapidly repeating firearms that are not at all semi-auto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI
Once again, will America implement effective security measures in schools that are simple, well proven and non-obtrusive or will we just get political wrangling from this administration.
-
Nancy Lanza was buried yesterday in an undisclosed location. In all of the memorials, she was never mentioned. When people talk about now many were killed, she is not included. I find this to be extremely sad and completely lacking in compassion.
Adam Lanza was not a "child". He was an adult who was obviously intent upon wreaking havoc. For all we know, his mother DID keep her guns secure, but perhaps her son was so determined to get to them that he found a way. She was asleep at the time, and if he had been planning this deed for a while, he may well have discovered a way to bypass her security measures. Even "responsible" people can make a mistake. So please, can we have a little bit of Christian compassion for this woman? We don't yet know enough to be able to so roundly comdemn her.
I know we have the Constitutional right to bear arms, but we also have the right to decide what kind of weapons and ammunition we have access to. There is this soldier that has returned from Afghanistan, and when he heard about the weapons used in Newtown, he remarked that the Bushmaster was the same gun he used during battle, and how can it be that civilians in the US have access to the same weapons? That's a very valid question.
"Gun control" seems to mean different things to different people. I do not see why we cannot require the closing of such loopholes like lack of comprehensive background checks of people buying guns at shows, or why we cannot outlaw the purchase of ginormous magazines. If what you really want, as a "responsible gun owner" is to have a weapon for self-protection, then please explain why you need a Bushmaster. I really do not understand this reasoning. From a purely logistical point of view, you can't very well conceal/carry such a weapon, so what do you do? Keep it loaded and accessible by your bedside? What if you have children in the house? Can you keep such a weapon securely stored yet still have easy access to it, in the dark, should an intruder come into your home at night?
And can we please get away from this meme that President Obama has some sort of agenda which would ultimately take away everyone's guns? That's that bastard Wayne LaPierre talking, and his sole goal is to frighten silly people into spending yet more money on guns, shoveling shedloads of money into the gobs of gun manufacturers. That man is a menace. Truly responsible gun owners should disavow every word that man utters.
Many liberals have been scathing in their criticism of Obama, that he has done nothing about gun control. When did he once address this issue in either of his campaigns? Nowhere. Yet LaPierre hallucinates and starts babbling about some great conspiracy to "take away our guns", causing a run on weapons purchases, which is exactly what he wants. Gullible Americans start hallucinating, too, which is exactly what this man wants. More money. It's all about money, tarted up as some threat to "freedom and liberty". Responsible gunowners are anything but if they believe this BS.
Lastly, we need to stop thinking of this issue solely in terms of mass murders. People are gunned down every day in this country, and most of the time we don't even hear about it. THOSE victims are part of this discussion, too.
Dear Moosemom,
1) Securing weapons is not only an issue of personal responsibility, it is also a legal issue. If Lanza had not killed his mother, it is likely she would today face criminal and huge civil liability issues. Thus, as gun owners understanding this responsibility and criminal civil liability issue, how she allowed any access under any circumstance to a kid that she understood was mentally unstable is absolutely an area of criticism. Many parents have already been prosecuted when young children possessed their weapons and were hurt or killed. Here is one example:
http://potomaclocal.com/2012/08/09/step-father-charged-in-child-shooting-death/
In fact, don't be surprised if her estate is sued by the many victims just because of her lawful duty to secure her weapons. In reality, this is the smoking gun failure of this entire tragedy. It is an absolutely valid criticism of the mother of the shooter to ask this question. Believe me, lots of lawyers are doing just that right now and whatever is left of her estate is already a target for them.
2) Semi-auto firearms are a very OLD invention dating back to 1885.
Early history (1885–1945)
The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.[1] The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles.[2] Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894, which employed an unusual blow-forward action and held five rounds of 6.5 mm ammunition that were fed into the M1894 by a stripper clip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
Once again, how fast does a semi-auto shoot? As fast as you pull the trigger. How fast does an "old fashioned" revolver shoot? As fast as you pull the trigger.
3) There are no differences functionally between popular mini-14 ranch rifle semi-auto and these "black rifles."
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
Yet in prior legislation, they did not at all address the mini-14 ranch rifle used by many western ranchers in the US. Many have gone to the exchangeable parts of the AR-15 platform since they are so simple to replace and cost effective. What about semi-auto pistols and semi-auto shotguns? All shoot the same .223 round that is also used in military rifles. I would point out that the .223 round is dwarfed by ordinary hunting rounds for large game such as the 30-06. The .223 shoots a very small bullet at high velocity. The 30-06 shoots a large bullet at high velocity. The 30-06 was the weapon of choice in the WWI all the way through to the Korean conflict. The .223 is tiny in comparison. Since the 30-06 is "military" rifle, one of the most successful for military purposes, should we ban 30-06 as well?
4) Obama has publicly been anti-gun for a long time. The fact that he did not speak about gun control or venture into it during his first term was simply a tactical part of his reelection since there are a lot of democrats and independents who are also gun enthusiasts.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/26/Obama-Demagogued-Gun-Control-in-Illinois-Vetting
5) Moosemom, please, let's discuss facts and issues, not liberal media propaganda talking points.
Four of the five SCOTUS members are anti-gun. One more justice and Americans who enjoy legally owning guns see great danger to this right.
Obama is publicly anti-gun, this is not some hallucination from Wayne.
The NRA is not very popular among many gun owners. He does not speak with a united voice for all of us. There are actually other gun forums more popular among gun owners, but they are the largest.
The overwhelming majority of democratic politicians are anti-gun with some exceptions such as Harry Reid because of the popularity of guns in Nevada.
The UN is VERY anti-gun and is developing the small arms treaty that Clinton and Obama support. In fact, Clinton gave approval to the current draft the day AFTER Obama was elected.
No, Obama just was biding his time until his second term. Gun owners have understood this for several years and it is no surprise at all that he has a commission now to look at gun control. Yes, you are right, if this was before the election, he would not mention gun control at all just as he didn't do it with the Aurora shootings.
5) Gun deaths in the US have decreased dramatically over the last two decades. Many attribute that in part to the popularity of concealed carry laws.
-
Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.
This kid was 20 years old. Not a child! Said to be a genius? You don't think he could figure out a way to get to her guns in a safe? If you know your kid or person living with you (age 50?) has mental problems you get the guns out of the house.
Actually, that is the responsible action many people do, removing weapons from the house all together in similar situations with unstable people in the house. If the kid had any access to the weapons, then yes, she should have removed them from the house.
-
Hemodoc, how exactly do you define "gun control"?
Sorry, I don't buy the whole "Obama's out to get your gun" conspiracy theory. The greatest force behind the current anti-gun sentiment is not President Obama but is, instead, Adam Lanza. Sure, I believe that Obama is anti-gun. I suspect that now, a lot of people are anti-gun, but I'm not seeing anyone demanding the total confiscation of everyone's firearms. Just what exactly is it that you and Mr. LaPierre think he is going to do?
I have no doubt that people are already lawyering up to sue Nancy Lanza's estate. But I urge you once again to remember that her son was not a child and must bear some responsibility, if not ALL of the responsibility.
Then again,that's the risk any gunowner runs if s/he keeps any sort of weapon in her home and it is stolen by a third party. Are you saying that any gunowner who has a weapon stolen bears responsibility if that weapon is used to murder someone? If your weapon is stolen, then it obviously wasn't adequately secured.
How do you keep your weapons secured? How does the law respond in your state if your gun was stolen from you and was used in a crime?
Everyone, keep in mind that the investigators don't have all of the information yet regarding how Nancy Lanza stored her weapons. But legally, she had the right to keep her guns in her home. There is no law against that. Perhaps she thought she had adequately secured them. And that brings me to this question...should any gunowner who has a mentally unstable person living in his/her home be legally banned from keeping their legally acquired weapon at their home? Does the Second Amendment not apply to the parents/family members of people who are suspected of being mentally ill?
-
Hemodoc, how exactly do you define "gun control"?
Sorry, I don't buy the whole "Obama's out to get your gun" conspiracy theory. The greatest force behind the current anti-gun sentiment is not President Obama but is, instead, Adam Lanza. Sure, I believe that Obama is anti-gun. I suspect that now, a lot of people are anti-gun, but I'm not seeing anyone demanding the total confiscation of everyone's firearms. Just what exactly is it that you and Mr. LaPierre think he is going to do?
I have no doubt that people are already lawyering up to sue Nancy Lanza's estate. But I urge you once again to remember that her son was not a child and must bear some responsibility, if not ALL of the responsibility.
Then again,that's the risk any gunowner runs if s/he keeps any sort of weapon in her home and it is stolen by a third party. Are you saying that any gunowner who has a weapon stolen bears responsibility if that weapon is used to murder someone? If your weapon is stolen, then it obviously wasn't adequately secured.
How do you keep your weapons secured? How does the law respond in your state if your gun was stolen from you and was used in a crime?
Everyone, keep in mind that the investigators don't have all of the information yet regarding how Nancy Lanza stored her weapons. But legally, she had the right to keep her guns in her home. There is no law against that. Perhaps she thought she had adequately secured them. And that brings me to this question...should any gunowner who has a mentally unstable person living in his/her home be legally banned from keeping their legally acquired weapon at their home? Does the Second Amendment not apply to the parents/family members of people who are suspected of being mentally ill?
First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election. If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.
Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.
Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.
Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.
We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.
Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.
Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.
Most states do not hold you responsible for stolen guns used in crimes, but from what I have heard, that is a provision of the UN small arms treaty, but that is only a rumor at this time since it has not been finalized.
I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.
-
First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election. If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.
OK, so Mr. Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control (I'm not sure that it really is, but I'll take your word for it). So what? He can't do much by himself, now, can he? Any new gun control measures will have to be passed by Congress or by the representatives of local cities/states.
Whatever is "widely understood by the gun owners of America" isn't necessarily true. "Widely understood" can be synonymous for "wildly believed." I seriously doubt that we would be having this national conversation if it had not been for Newtown. What evidence do you have that the President's second term would be a platform for the repeal of the Second Amendment (is THAT what is "widely understood"?). The President shouldn't even HAVE to be thinking about this issue because he has more important things to do. If the gun owners of America really WERE more responsible, then the President could just get on with grappling with things like the economy and Afghanistan.
Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.
Rereading my last post, it DID look like I was associating you with the NRA; that was not my intention. My apologies.
As for having armed personnel in schools, first of all, it is really sad that we are having to discuss this at all. Shows that something is fundamentally wrong with this country. I don't know if it is "political correctness" that has kept us from having armed security experts at our schools' doors...I don't even know what you mean by that. I suspect it is more a feeling of incredible sadness that America's children have to be protected in such a way...this sadness that it may indeed be necessary. Maybe we as a "civilized" society don't want to have to admit that we are having to kowtow to those who have to have their guns above all else.
It is my understanding that there was an armed guard at Columbine at the time of that shooting. A lot of good that did. Schools have multiple entrances and exits, and most high schools are enormous. College campuses have many buildings including dormatories and recreational facilities. I just don't see how practically it would work. And the expense would be enormous. Who would pay for having what would really have to be a small army protect, say, The University of Texas? Congress certainly wouldn't allocate funds for that. Would the states pay for it? Let's see...having adequate, armed protection at daycare centers, community centers, parks, swimming pools, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, community colleges, massive state universities, private universities...anywhere where children and/or students congregate...where does it end? These are specific questions I put to you, Hemodoc. Do you have any good practical ideas on how we might do this AND pay for it?
Would you support a special tax on all gun purchases and ammunition that would specifically pay for the armed protection you are calling for?
Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.
I wouldn't trust "unpaid volunteers" to protect all of America's schools. We're going to have to allocate a massive amount of money to give special training to and gainfully employ the people we expect to protect our children. There will need to be armed personnel in place by 7:30 AM at the earliest at each door of every school in America, and that personnel must remain in place until after every child/student has left the premises, and they must be there EVERY school day. You cannot expect an "unpaid volunteer" to accept this sort of serious commitment. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and "politically correct". You cannot do this on the cheap.
Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.
There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that he was insane. Nothing.
We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.
This is where your argument starts to get a bit screwy. There probably ARE people in this country who would LOVE to have a wholesale confiscation of guns, just as there are undoubtedly those who would LOVE it if EVERY American has his/her own private arsenal. Does anyone really believe that we are "at risk" of confiscating all the guns in this country? Really?
Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.
Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.
Again, Adam Lanza wasn't a kid. He was an adult, and he very possibly used a blow torch or some other extraordinary measure. We don't yet know. Since he resided in his mother's home and had used these weapons in the past under her supervision, I am not sure that it can be argued that he stole anything. How would a prosecuting attorney who wanted to sue Nancy Lanza's estate support that argument? If she had the legal right to have those weapons and had the necessary documentation (which she, in fact, did) and license, then I am not sure on what grounds the estate could be sued. Hmm...just wondering out loud. What do you think, Hemodoc?
And that brings me back to what I think is my very intriguing question. While it might be "responsible" to keep weapons and ammunition out of your home if you suspect a family member who lives with you has some mental or psychological issue, it is not illegal to keep guns in your home under these circumstances. Do you feel that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment should not extend to those who have a mentally ill person living with them? How about if you just SUSPECT someone in your home is mentally ill? I am wondering if you thought your son was crazy, you might hesitate to get him treated out of fear that you might have to remove your guns from your home. Do you see the problem? Anyone have any thoughts in this regard?
I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.
Surely you don't believe that anyone should be able to have whatever weapons and whatever ammo they want, whenever they want! Maybe it's the ammunition and the clips and magazines that we should be taking a serious look at.
I'm sure that most gunowners THINK their weapons are always secure. Sure, gun ownership goes along with responsibility, but how many times have you complained about how few people these days exercise "personal responsibility"?
-
First of all, Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control. If the Adam Lanza incident prompted him to engage in this endeavor, then why was he not moved likewise by the Aurora shooting or the Arizona shooting. Please, it is a political calculation that he could not engage in gun control before the election. This has been widely understood by the gun owners of America that gun control would be a big issue after his election. If you don't believe me, go to some gun forums and look up old posts prior to the election. This is not news to us, we have been expecting this.
OK, so Mr. Obama's record is clear on his position on gun control (I'm not sure that it really is, but I'll take your word for it). So what? He can't do much by himself, now, can he? Any new gun control measures will have to be passed by Congress or by the representatives of local cities/states.
Whatever is "widely understood by the gun owners of America" isn't necessarily true. "Widely understood" can be synonymous for "wildly believed." I seriously doubt that we would be having this national conversation if it had not been for Newtown. What evidence do you have that the President's second term would be a platform for the repeal of the Second Amendment (is THAT what is "widely understood"?). The President shouldn't even HAVE to be thinking about this issue because he has more important things to do. If the gun owners of America really WERE more responsible, then the President could just get on with grappling with things like the economy and Afghanistan.
Secondly, why are you associating me with the NRA. I am not a member and they are simply another large POLITICAL organization that do not always represent the interests of gun owners. Many gun owners are rightfully soured on this political institution. There are many security experts who have for a very long time advocated for armed personnel in schools, especially since Columbine in 1999. The fix was accomplished in other nations, yet America continues in its political correctness.
Rereading my last post, it DID look like I was associating you with the NRA; that was not my intention. My apologies.
As for having armed personnel in schools, first of all, it is really sad that we are having to discuss this at all. Shows that something is fundamentally wrong with this country. I don't know if it is "political correctness" that has kept us from having armed security experts at our schools' doors...I don't even know what you mean by that. I suspect it is more a feeling of incredible sadness that America's children have to be protected in such a way...this sadness that it may indeed be necessary. Maybe we as a "civilized" society don't want to have to admit that we are having to kowtow to those who have to have their guns above all else.
It is my understanding that there was an armed guard at Columbine at the time of that shooting. A lot of good that did. Schools have multiple entrances and exits, and most high schools are enormous. College campuses have many buildings including dormatories and recreational facilities. I just don't see how practically it would work. And the expense would be enormous. Who would pay for having what would really have to be a small army protect, say, The University of Texas? Congress certainly wouldn't allocate funds for that. Would the states pay for it? Let's see...having adequate, armed protection at daycare centers, community centers, parks, swimming pools, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, community colleges, massive state universities, private universities...anywhere where children and/or students congregate...where does it end? These are specific questions I put to you, Hemodoc. Do you have any good practical ideas on how we might do this AND pay for it?
Would you support a special tax on all gun purchases and ammunition that would specifically pay for the armed protection you are calling for?
Gun control will not reduce or eliminate the threat. It is time to do what American churches have already done, mostly through unpaid volunteers. You can't prevent every shooting, but you should have a plan in place to eliminate the threat of mass killings done in the minutes it takes for the police to respond.
I wouldn't trust "unpaid volunteers" to protect all of America's schools. We're going to have to allocate a massive amount of money to give special training to and gainfully employ the people we expect to protect our children. There will need to be armed personnel in place by 7:30 AM at the earliest at each door of every school in America, and that personnel must remain in place until after every child/student has left the premises, and they must be there EVERY school day. You cannot expect an "unpaid volunteer" to accept this sort of serious commitment. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and "politically correct". You cannot do this on the cheap.
Adam Lanza likely was insane at the time of the shootings and thus under our legal system is NOT responsible for his actions. That is where the not guilty by insanity defense comes from.
There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that he was insane. Nothing.
We have already had confiscation of firearms in several nations, pretending we are not at risk for that action here in America is likewise simply avoiding the truth. There are many with that goal.
This is where your argument starts to get a bit screwy. There probably ARE people in this country who would LOVE to have a wholesale confiscation of guns, just as there are undoubtedly those who would LOVE it if EVERY American has his/her own private arsenal. Does anyone really believe that we are "at risk" of confiscating all the guns in this country? Really?
Securing weapons is under the reasonable person's actions. In other words, what would a reasonable person do to secure their weapons. Gun locks and safes are the standard in CA.
Stealing guns is an entirely different issue, but most kids don't have the ability to steal an entire safe or blow torches to get them open by cutting through the steal. Two very different issues altogether. The issue is possession of your firearms. Gun locks and safes are the standard in most states.
Again, Adam Lanza wasn't a kid. He was an adult, and he very possibly used a blow torch or some other extraordinary measure. We don't yet know. Since he resided in his mother's home and had used these weapons in the past under her supervision, I am not sure that it can be argued that he stole anything. How would a prosecuting attorney who wanted to sue Nancy Lanza's estate support that argument? If she had the legal right to have those weapons and had the necessary documentation (which she, in fact, did) and license, then I am not sure on what grounds the estate could be sued. Hmm...just wondering out loud. What do you think, Hemodoc?
And that brings me back to what I think is my very intriguing question. While it might be "responsible" to keep weapons and ammunition out of your home if you suspect a family member who lives with you has some mental or psychological issue, it is not illegal to keep guns in your home under these circumstances. Do you feel that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment should not extend to those who have a mentally ill person living with them? How about if you just SUSPECT someone in your home is mentally ill? I am wondering if you thought your son was crazy, you might hesitate to get him treated out of fear that you might have to remove your guns from your home. Do you see the problem? Anyone have any thoughts in this regard?
I don't believe you should ban guns at all. If you cannot secure your weapons, then you should consider keeping them elsewhere or sell them. That is ALREADY the legal requirement today anyway. Gun ownership goes along with the legal responsibility of securely possessing them as well.
Surely you don't believe that anyone should be able to have whatever weapons and whatever ammo they want, whenever they want! Maybe it's the ammunition and the clips and magazines that we should be taking a serious look at.
I'm sure that most gunowners THINK their weapons are always secure. Sure, gun ownership goes along with responsibility, but how many times have you complained about how few people these days exercise "personal responsibility"?
Dear Moosemom,
You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.
As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings.
If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.
-
^
-
gang·bang or gang-bang (gngbng)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse, often rape, involving one person or victim and several others who have relations with that person in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
v. gang·banged or gang-banged, gang·bang·ing or gang-bang·ing, gang·bangs or gang-bangs
v.intr.
1. Vulgar Slang To participate as an aggressor in a gangbang.
2. Slang To participate in violent gang-related activities.
v.tr. Vulgar Slang
To subject to a gangbang.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
gangbang [ˈgćŋˌbćŋ] Slang
n
an instance of sexual intercourse between one woman and several men one after the other, esp against her will
vb
1. (tr) to force (a woman) to take part in a gangbang
2. (intr) to take part in a gangbang Also called gangshag [ˈgćŋˌʃćg]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
On the other hand, the Urban dictionary DOES have the definition that you use listed (5th) with the above definition listed as first. Since this discussion has focused on guns (and not even guns used by gangs, except for the arguments you bring up), I still think it would be better to leave off the use of "gang banger."
Noah, thank you for the Post article. It is food for thought.
Hemodoc you say:
Dear Moosemom,
You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.
I doubt I am the only one who disagrees that this is the ONLY viable answer.
I posted a link earlier about how the confiscation of assault weapons in Australia affected mass shootings in that country. Did you look at that link? Unfortunately both sides of the argument can cherry pick statistics to support their view.
You also dismissed Jbeany's knowledgeable post on legally altering the trigger mechanisms .
As an educator I am most concerned about the "culture" part of the equation. And although it will take time and effort, I think we could make a difference there. One of the basic tenets of Montessori education is teaching for peace. I am not about to have ANY weapons on school property as a regular security measure. In fact, a dad who is a policeman actually asked permission to come on the property to collect his child while in uniform, since he would have his firearm on his person. That goes to show how seriously our parents take our peace education and policy on weapons. This dad was not even going to be getting out of his car!
America is a violent nation. We have had a culture of violence from our very inception. but does it still serve us well?
Handgun deaths only last year:
48 Japan
8 Great Britain
34 Switzerland
52 Canada
58 Israel
21 Sweden
42 W. Germany
10,729 US
That is about 30 deaths a DAY. Of those roughly half are children under 19 years of age.
As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.
-
Well it seems from previous news also that the one problem in common is that parents do not store the guns properly in a safe area that can be locked down to restrict access. Definitly would make it easier to access if it was key locked and a key was in the room or on the owner, but memory or a code does hinder access more.
Most of the gang shootings tho are done with illegal purchased firearms where gun laws would not help. However there should be something for proper gun ownership for those who obtain guns properly, but do not store them properly to avoid kids accessing the firearms.
So it seems with some reports the mother knew her son had some issues, yet may not have taken steps to properly lock down her firearms to prevent easy access.
This kid was 20 years old. Not a child! Said to be a genius? You don't think he could figure out a way to get to her guns in a safe? If you know your kid or person living with you (age 50?) has mental problems you get the guns out of the house.
I did not call him a kid. Of course there will always be "if there is a will, there will be a way", ot's human. However something that can slow them down can give someone time to interfere, warn, or get out of the house and call 911.
-
As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.
As should any individual who has ever been violently assaulted (including sexual assault) or family of anyone who has been killed because they were unarmed due to a law preventing them from obtaining, and using, a concealed carry permit.
-
What about knife owners? In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick". Do people have those shoulder missile launchers. You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey! Please tell me 'no'.
:yahoo;
-
As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.
As should any individual who has ever been violently assaulted (including sexual assault) or family of anyone who has been killed because they were unarmed due to a law preventing them from obtaining, and using, a concealed carry permit.
PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :o
-
gang·bang or gang-bang (gngbng)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse, often rape, involving one person or victim and several others who have relations with that person in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
v. gang·banged or gang-banged, gang·bang·ing or gang-bang·ing, gang·bangs or gang-bangs
v.intr.
1. Vulgar Slang To participate as an aggressor in a gangbang.
2. Slang To participate in violent gang-related activities.
v.tr. Vulgar Slang
To subject to a gangbang.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
gangbang [ˈgćŋˌbćŋ] Slang
n
an instance of sexual intercourse between one woman and several men one after the other, esp against her will
vb
1. (tr) to force (a woman) to take part in a gangbang
2. (intr) to take part in a gangbang Also called gangshag [ˈgćŋˌʃćg]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
On the other hand, the Urban dictionary DOES have the definition that you use listed (5th) with the above definition listed as first. Since this discussion has focused on guns (and not even guns used by gangs, except for the arguments you bring up), I still think it would be better to leave off the use of "gang banger."
Noah, thank you for the Post article. It is food for thought.
Hemodoc you say:
Dear Moosemom,
You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.
I doubt I am the only one who disagrees that this is the ONLY viable answer.
I posted a link earlier about how the confiscation of assault weapons in Australia affected mass shootings in that country. Did you look at that link? Unfortunately both sides of the argument can cherry pick statistics to support their view.
You also dismissed Jbeany's knowledgeable post on legally altering the trigger mechanisms .
As an educator I am most concerned about the "culture" part of the equation. And although it will take time and effort, I think we could make a difference there. One of the basic tenets of Montessori education is teaching for peace. I am not about to have ANY weapons on school property as a regular security measure. In fact, a dad who is a policeman actually asked permission to come on the property to collect his child while in uniform, since he would have his firearm on his person. That goes to show how seriously our parents take our peace education and policy on weapons. This dad was not even going to be getting out of his car!
America is a violent nation. We have had a culture of violence from our very inception. but does it still serve us well?
Handgun deaths only last year:
48 Japan
8 Great Britain
34 Switzerland
52 Canada
58 Israel
21 Sweden
42 W. Germany
10,729 US
That is about 30 deaths a DAY. Of those roughly half are children under 19 years of age.
As Moosemom says, these victims should be part of the conversation.
Dear Willowtree,
Thank you but I will continue to call gang bangers just that. Perhaps you could share your personal experiences with gang related activity and how it has affected you. I have been personally affected by this with one of the members of my family. I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. I already stated this to you including the gang rape jumped into the gang initiation. DID YOU READ THAT? I already know and understand what gang bang means thank you and I understood the vulgar dictionary definition when I was about 13. Are you for real?.
Here read this one:
Definition of GANGBANGER
: a member of a street gang
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gangbanger
gang·bang·er (gngbngr)
n.
1. Slang A member of a violent street gang.
2. Vulgar Slang One who takes part as an aggressor in a gangbang.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gangbanger
gangbanger
gang·bang·er [gang-bang-er] Show IPA
noun
a member of a violent street gang.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gangbanger
Good grief, gang banger is what I will continue to call them. Thank you. If it is good enough for Merriam-Webster and the others, it is good enough for me.
Did you read the links I gave on mass murders in Norway and Germany who have very stringent gun control?
If you want to believe that gun control of law abiding citizens will stop mass murders in gun free school zones, go ahead. You will continue to have this problem by taking guns away from law abiding people. You can talk about about peace all you want, but that does not mean that evil will stop existing in this world. That is plain and simple denial and completely void of the facts.
in any case, far be it from me that I try to change folks minds on this issue. Israel, Peru and the Philippines controlled this problem of school shootings by placing anonymous concealed carry individuals into the school zone. If you wish to reject this proven strategy, good luck staying safe in your schools. The only way to counter someone with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. You simply cannot get around this fact.
Once again, the churches in America got the message more than a decade ago and now arm, unpaid, volunteer security teams have already saved lives from mass murders. If the American public wishes to believe gun control will make them any safer, good luck.
The same principle works for defending against mass murders…it just doesn’t work HERE, because it is politically incorrect to employ it HERE. After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols. Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent. Similar programs are in place in Peru and the Phillippines, with similarly successful results.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/
As far as what Jbeany stated, if you read my post, with all due respect, she was wrong. Once again, the trigger jobs she was talking about is to make it easier to pull the trigger. This has nothing to do with making a semi-auto full auto. I guess you likewise did not look at the link I gave on how to field strip these very easy to use weapons. They are built with small component parts that can be interchanged very easily. Sorry, Jbeany is wrong about making guns full auto. That is NOT what her husband did, trust me, or he would be dead or in jail today no doubt.
-
What about knife owners? In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick". Do people have those shoulder missile launchers. You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey! Please tell me 'no'.
:yahoo;
LOL, no, that is definitely a way to get dead quickly from the police or a long paid vacation without much of a view. Very much illegal, but who knows with our open borders if some terrorist group could bring them here.
-
What about knife owners? In the beginning I'm sure it was "who had the biggest stick". Do people have those shoulder missile launchers. You see them put them on their shoulder and it launches a missile and it hits a building and kapowey! Please tell me 'no'.
:yahoo;
LOL, no, that is definitely a way to get dead quickly from the police or a long paid vacation without much of a view. Very much illegal, but who knows with our open borders if some terrorist group could bring them here.
Hey Rerun, just google "potato gun" or "pumpkin gun" - they can build 'em, just not the ammo to go in 'em! ;D And I'm thankful for that....I've seen how far one of my neighbors could launch a pumpkin with his home-made veggie cannon. :rofl;
-
It is interesting how some of the most anti-gun politicians are only anti-gun for your rights. Senator Diane Feinstein, a long standing anti-gun senator was at one time a concealed carry permit person herself.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/19/Flashback-Dianne-Feinstein-s-own-conceal-carry-permit-story
So does Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer.
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/17/political-elite-with-concealed-carry-permits-a-symptom-of-only-ones-not-support-for-gun-rights/#axzz2FlJ3FHNv
Many of the same movie folks who outwardly and publicly oppose concealed carry have them for themselves. The politically connected often oppose for you and me, but they get their permits through their connections.
Security with firearms is good for them, but not for us is the underlying message that many of them send.
-
Every President alive past and present has security guards packing guns follow them around and their family. What would happen if we stopped that?
Why not have various people in our schools pack. No one would know. A nut job would know that his life would or could be short lived.
Although these jerks usually have a bulit proof vest or head gear.
Just thinking outloud. :waving;
-
Dear Moosemom,
Columbine did have an armed guard on campus and a second cop was nearby. Both engaged the shooter outside, but when he went inside, they secured the perimeter and waited for the SWAT team to show up. That was the police protocol in 1999. That is NOT the protocol in place today. The police now have Active Shooter programs where the first responders go in before SWAT gets there.
That was the training in mind for the 2007 Colorado Springs church shooting. What was the effect that time, the shooter was stopped at the point of entry into the building by an incredible act of courage of a single security person. She wounded the shooter and then he committed suicide with a shot to the head. She saved many lives that morning.
Likewise, the police who arrived first on the scene at the latest school tragedy immediately entered the building. Sadly, it was already over. In addition, most police cars have shotguns and the same black rifles people want to ban. Handguns best use is to be able to fight back to your rifle. Now the police enter with the rifle and their handgun is a backup weapon. Much different thinking on this whole issue than in 1999.
Shoot first: Columbine tragedy transformed police tactics
Around the United States, police say the strategy has saved lives time and again.
In North Carolina, active-shooter training became part of the state's law enforcement academy curriculum in 2001. Last month, a rampage at a Carthage, North Carolina, nursing home that killed a nurse and seven helpless patients was cut short when 25-year-old Officer Justin Garner entered the facility alone and wounded the gunman with a single shot. Garner had undergone active-shooter training.
"Fifteen years ago, if I heard about what that officer in North Carolina did, I would have said 'What a fool, he violated every procedure that we knew about,"' said Steve Mitchell, program manager with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies in Fairfax, Viriginia. "It's been a complete turnaround."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm
-
Dear Moosemom,
You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.
As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings.
If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.
Securing a single church one day a week is VERY different from securing all of our schools, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. I have not rejected your "only viable answer", rather, I am asking pointed questions about how you envisage it happening, but you have not given me your ideas. So I will repeat myself...
Schools have multiple entrances, are very large in the case of middle schools and high schools, and have multiple buildings spread out over a large area in the case of colleges and universities. How are you proposing to make these institutions secure, and how are you proposing that it will be paid for? Please refrain from ducking the issue and trying to distract us by claiming that I "dwelling" on anything. I am considering your idea (and Rerun's) of having an armed presence at our schools and am merely asking how this would be done. Like I have said, to do this right will take a considerable amount of planning and money. I do NOT want "volunteers" being made responsible for our children's security at school, and I do not see how this can be done on the cheap. I ask you once again...how will this work, and how will it be funded? I am interested in anyone's thoughts in this regard.
No one will be able to prove that Adam Lanza was or was not insane, so insanity will not be used in as any kind of legal defense. If he did not have an official diagnosis of severe mental illness (the term "insane" cannot be used in any sort of legal proceedings as it is not an offically recognized diagnosis, as I'm sure you know), then this is a non-starter.
As you also know, self-harm is not uncommon among young people, but they are rarely institutionalized as a result.
You are right in that if Lanza did blowtorch anything, we'd probably know it. We will probably never know how he accessed the guns. Maybe he spied on his mother and saw where she kept the key without her knowing that he discovered her hiding place. If he was bound and determined to get at those weapons, he would find a way.
-
Noahvale, I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the homeless have mental issues. Once again, because we don't like to spend money on those who are ill and need treatment, many mental health facilities have been closed down, and consequently these people have nowhere to go. None of them have insurance, so they cannot access treatment.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1329
So, here are my questions...
1. In the wake of Newtown, there have been calls to have an experienced, armed presence at our schools. How do we logistically accomplish this, and who will pay for it?
2. There have also been calls to look more closely at provisions/treatment for the mentally ill and to improve mental health services. Again, how do we accomplish this, and who will pay for it?
Folks, it all comes down to money. It's not a freedom issue. It's not a liberty issue. It's not a security issue. It's not a social issue. It IS, fundamentally, a MONEY issue. The NRA wants to scare us into buying more and more weapons and ammo, feeding the gun industry. Mr. LaPierre blames the violence spewed out by the entertainment industry, another profit-making behemoth. Do you really think the entertainment industry is going to stop making violent movies, TV shows and video games? No, they are far too lucrative, and they are going to keep feeding us this crap, and we are going to keep demanding it. That's the sad part. We keep demanding guns and violent entertainment. We are more than willing to keep buying guns and violent images because our entertainment is what is most important to us.
We will happily pay for crap that excites us, but we are much more resistant to paying for the side effects of quenching our desires. We have no intention of paying for better mental health facilities and treatment for those who are mentally ill despite our calls for such things. And we have no intention of paying for armed guards at every educational facility in the land. We won't even pay more for quality education, quality medical care for all and a much-needed revamping of our roads and bridges, which, frankly, are of third-world quality.
It's all about the money and for what we are willing to spend...or not spend.
-
Dear Moosemom,
You reject the only viable answer to this tragedy, armed guards capable of stopping them just as they did in the 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs. You continue to dwell on issues that have no proven record of reducing violence. I have pretty much already addressed all of the issues in the last post.
As far as Adam Lanza, if the mother was seeking to have him involuntarily committed and he was burning himself, there is certainly some red flags to consider he may indeed have been insane at the time of the shootings.
If the kid had blow torched his mother's gun safe, I suspect we would have already had a story on that in the press from someone. I would be very surprised to hear that is how he secured the guns.
Securing a single church one day a week is VERY different from securing all of our schools, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. I have not rejected your "only viable answer", rather, I am asking pointed questions about how you envisage it happening, but you have not given me your ideas. So I will repeat myself...
Schools have multiple entrances, are very large in the case of middle schools and high schools, and have multiple buildings spread out over a large area in the case of colleges and universities. How are you proposing to make these institutions secure, and how are you proposing that it will be paid for? Please refrain from ducking the issue and trying to distract us by claiming that I "dwelling" on anything. I am considering your idea (and Rerun's) of having an armed presence at our schools and am merely asking how this would be done. Like I have said, to do this right will take a considerable amount of planning and money. I do NOT want "volunteers" being made responsible for our children's security at school, and I do not see how this can be done on the cheap. I ask you once again...how will this work, and how will it be funded? I am interested in anyone's thoughts in this regard.
No one will be able to prove that Adam Lanza was or was not insane, so insanity will not be used in as any kind of legal defense. If he did not have an official diagnosis of severe mental illness (the term "insane" cannot be used in any sort of legal proceedings as it is not an offically recognized diagnosis, as I'm sure you know), then this is a non-starter.
As you also know, self-harm is not uncommon among young people, but they are rarely institutionalized as a result.
You are right in that if Lanza did blowtorch anything, we'd probably know it. We will probably never know how he accessed the guns. Maybe he spied on his mother and saw where she kept the key without her knowing that he discovered her hiding place. If he was bound and determined to get at those weapons, he would find a way.
Moosemom, why do you always accuse me of "ducking" questions. I give the most detailed answers of anyone discussing this issue on IHD. Just because you don't like my answers at times does not mean I am ducking anything. In point of fact, you continue to pose the same questions in various forms again and again.
What is the problem is that these schools and other areas such as the Aurora theater are gun free zones. The right to self defense is a fundamental human right that even the Bible recognizes. The right to self protection dates back over a thousand years in English law. The English common law is where America derived a substantial portion of our own constitutional rights, one of the most fundamental is the right to keep and bear arms. This right is not only for hunting, nor for personal defense, but it is a fundamental protection of free societies.
One of the first steps tyrannical governments place on their people is "gun control" and gun confiscation. We are now in a new era where "peaceful" governments in western nations are now imposing gun confiscation on their populace. That has already happened in Canada, England and Australia. Studies show no decrease in violence and England now has more than twice the number of gun crimes today as they did before the ban. In addition, personal violence against innocent law abiding people is climbing and they have no recourse to defend themselves especially with home invasion crimes. So, it appears that you are the one dwelling on issues that have no proven track record on reducing violence. Israel has not had a mass school shooting since 1974. Here is a quick overview of how they accomplished this. Yes, they have paid security, at least one, but they also have several armed volunteers who are well trained as well. We have millions of well trained folks with concealed carry that would gladly volunteer just as Israel. I would gladly spend time when my grandchildren are old enough to go school. Today, I would be arrested for trying to do that. Makes no sense.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12/17/kalberg-why-there-are-no-school-shootings-in-israel-11515
Churches often have daily activities AND private Christian schools. When was the last time you saw a Christian school suffer a mass shooting. I would point out that the Amish school massacre is a much different event and a much different theology. School security once again is a proven success in other nations that don't have to deal with all of the political correctness of America. I have already cited those resources several times. That is a PROVEN method of stopping these crimes used by other nations that are just much more practical than the US. The manner in which Israel accomplished this was with a volunteer group carrying concealed handguns with anonymous volunteers. What sort of budget did that cost for an unpaid volunteer force. That is exactly what the churches of America already did.
Secondly, remove the restrictions for carrying concealed on school campus for lawful citizens with CCW permits. If you are going to put in place an airport style gun free zone, you cannot do this without having armed security to protect those that would violate that provision and engage in violent attacks. If you are going to make a certain place a gun free zone denying the fundamental right of self protection, then you MUST have your own security forces to guarantee personal protection of the people that visit your gun free zone. That is what the TSA does at airports. You are not allowed, but they provide the protection. That is simply reality. Sticking our head in the sand and continuing in denial that some sign or law saying you can't bring a gun to school will protect the kids. Here is a learning point, laws don't protect us, but guns in the hands of the good guys do.
It is unlawful to shoot any of our high ranking political figures, but they have several federal agencies with guns protecting them.
In addition, there are already many school systems with full time deputies stationed at these schools. The schools in my California town are so protected with two deputies in each school. Coupled with the active shooter tactics adopted since Columbine, we are much better prepared to respond. I remember one night walking the empty halls at the hospital after midnight only to hear someone running behind me. I turned and saw a cop with a 12 ga shotgun running to the pediatric area. There was a man with a gun threatening the staff. He ran when the alert went up and no one was shot that night. The cops no longer set up a perimeter and wait for the special weapons and tactics folks to show up. I have seen that reaction in person with this event that thankfully ended with the creep running instead of shooting.
Now, kids that hurt themselves ARE placed into inpatient centers all the time because that by definition is being a danger to themselves or others. Not sure where you got your information on that. Any child that has documented self mutilation will gain the attention of health care officials very quickly.
As far as Adam Lanza, his mother believed he was in need of inpatient mental health care which implies that his condition exhibited elements of insanity depending on how that is defined. A family member voiced this and it was confirmed by the police as a likely motive for the killings. If he had survived the shooting and surrendered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the insanity defense would be his defense. Above and beyond that, can't speculate at present any further.
-
Every President alive past and present has security guards packing guns follow them around and their family. What would happen if we stopped that?
Why not have various people in our schools pack. No one would know. A nut job would know that his life would or could be short lived.
Although these jerks usually have a bulit proof vest or head gear.
Just thinking outloud. :waving;
That is the solution in Israel and it has worked well since 1974.
-
Noahvale, I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the homeless have mental issues. Once again, because we don't like to spend money on those who are ill and need treatment, many mental health facilities have been closed down, and consequently these people have nowhere to go. None of them have insurance, so they cannot access treatment.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1329
So, here are my questions...
1. In the wake of Newtown, there have been calls to have an experienced, armed presence at our schools. How do we logistically accomplish this, and who will pay for it?
2. There have also been calls to look more closely at provisions/treatment for the mentally ill and to improve mental health services. Again, how do we accomplish this, and who will pay for it?
Folks, it all comes down to money. It's not a freedom issue. It's not a liberty issue. It's not a security issue. It's not a social issue. It IS, fundamentally, a MONEY issue. The NRA wants to scare us into buying more and more weapons and ammo, feeding the gun industry. Mr. LaPierre blames the violence spewed out by the entertainment industry, another profit-making behemoth. Do you really think the entertainment industry is going to stop making violent movies, TV shows and video games? No, they are far too lucrative, and they are going to keep feeding us this crap, and we are going to keep demanding it. That's the sad part. We keep demanding guns and violent entertainment. We are more than willing to keep buying guns and violent images because our entertainment is what is most important to us.
We will happily pay for crap that excites us, but we are much more resistant to paying for the side effects of quenching our desires. We have no intention of paying for better mental health facilities and treatment for those who are mentally ill despite our calls for such things. And we have no intention of paying for armed guards at every educational facility in the land. We won't even pay more for quality education, quality medical care for all and a much-needed revamping of our roads and bridges, which, frankly, are of third-world quality.
It's all about the money and for what we are willing to spend...or not spend.
The estimated cost is 5 billion a year for the entire nation with one armed guard at $50,000 a year. That is not even what we pay for one day of the Federal budget. We spend 11 billion a day by the Feds. So for 12 hours of our government, we could place armed security in every US school. It is not about money at all since many school systems already deploy deputies on staff today to the schools since that prevents a lot of the police responses without having them deployed there. That actually reduces over all police costs in those cities. Yes, money is one of the issues, but deploying police in the trouble spots actually decreases costs and saves lives by preempting crime. It is not about money, it is about priorities and overcoming political correctness. I disagree that we can't afford this.
It is all about freedom, liberty, security and choices our society will make. Protecting our children is a very simple fix but America lacks the political will to do so. That is on us and our shame that we don't care enough to provide a truly secure area for our kids to learn.
Lastly, the NRA is NOT trying to scare anyone to buy more weapons. In fact, it is Obama that has scared folks into buying guns, you have it backwards. We already have millions of guns in this nation with millions of people who know how to use them well. Make schools open for concealed carry by permit holders and much of the target of schools as gun free zones disappears. You have it backwards, the NRA is protecting our rights to keep and bear arms. They are not the only gun rights group as well and many of us in the gun community don't support the NRA because it is a political entity that often compromises our rights.
The Oregon mall shooting a couple of weeks ago came to an end when a concealed carry person confronted the shooter with a handgun but did not shoot. That was enough for the creep to take his own life since these creeps are cowards at heart and seek the helpless and defenseless people in malls and schools that cannot defend themselves. That is the MO.
-
In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987
Banjarsari massacre
The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.
By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.
We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.
-
Dear Moosemom,
I just found some interesting information on concealed carry in public schools. For quite a while, Utah was the only state to allow people with a concealed carry permit to carry in public schools and colleges. Private schools retain the right to restrict concealed carry. Teachers in Utah today are allowed to carry if they wish. I can't recall any mass shootings in Utah in recent history. Apparently Oregon and New Hampshire also allow CCW permit holders to keep their weapons when on campus. I will have to look up some more references to confirm that.
Legally Carry at Utah Public Schools?
Until very recently, Utah was the only State in the Union to allow a concealed weapons permit holder to lawfully carry on public school property. I recently learned, that Oregon and New Hampshire now also have similar laws.
After decades of banning guns on University campuses, in 2004, the Utah State Legislature, after much debate, finally passed a law expressly allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry on state property. This law was subsequently challenged and upheld in 2006 by the Utah Supreme Court.
The current law in Utah provides that it is lawful for a Utah CCW Permit holder to carry on any public school property (K-, and colleges). A private school retains the right to elect to prohibit firearms. So, the distinction under Utah law, is public vs. private schools.
http://utah-concealed-carry-permit.com/gunsatschool.php
Here is a CCW instructor from Oregon talking about the right to carry in public schools in Oregon with a CCW permit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8yXKxtyWOw
-
In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987
Banjarsari massacre
The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.
By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.
We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.
Sadly, I think we need to do both, but you are right, Hemodoc, that gun control isn't the only issue we need to look at...
After all, the worst school attack in US history didn't involve guns at all. A man in Bath, Michigan blew up the local school and set off shrapnel loaded bombs though out town. 46 people died from injuries sustained that day.
Haven't heard of that one?
It was in 1927.
-
In countries with very limited exposure to guns, mass killings still occur. The worst knife attack was the 1987
Banjarsari massacre
The massacre began at Wirjo's home, where he attacked his adoptive son Renny and his friend Arbaiyah, both 4-years-old, with a parang and a sickle. While Renny managed to escape, Arbaiyah was hit in the neck and died. Wirjo then entered the home of Maskur, a neighbour, where he first killed Mrs. Maskur with the sickle, before turning against her 80-year-old husband, who tried to help her. Afterwards he made his way through the village, assaulting people at random.
By the end of the day Wirjo had hacked a total of 32 people, most of them farmers on the way to their fields and students going to school. 18 of his victims died at the scene, while two others later succumbed to their wounds in hospital. As the culprit was nowhere to be found authorities temporarily suspended classes at local schools, while people locked themselves in their homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
In the Osaka school massacre in 2001, 8 children were killed by a man with a knife.
We are focussing on the tool not the underlying issue of mental health and school security.
Sadly, I think we need to do both, but you are right, Hemodoc, that gun control isn't the only issue we need to look at...
After all, the worst school attack in US history didn't involve guns at all. A man in Bath, Michigan blew up the local school and set off shrapnel loaded bombs though out town. 46 people died from injuries sustained that day.
Haven't heard of that one?
It was in 1927.
Actually I am aware of that tragedy which killed 46 people if I remember correctly and injured 58 more. The man killed his wife, set his farm on fire and then detonated bombs he had secretly planted in the school over several months. When fire and police showed up at the school, he drove up in a car and exploded a suicide bomb that killed several more people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Once again, Utah has several years experience of allowing teachers and others with concealed carry permits to legally carry on public school grounds. Despite Moosemom's dismissal of this as part of the solution, Utah already is ahead of the curve and it looks like two other states now allow it as well possibly.
Colorado already has several colleges that allow students over the age of 21 to conceal carry with the proper permits. This has not resulted in increased violence, in fact, not a single incident has occurred with the armed students. Demonizing guns will not give us the solution folks are looking for.
-
^
-
Like clockwork, every time the dems try to pass more legislation restricting gun ownership, sales go up - exponentially. Here are just a few articles from newspapers in areas holding gun shows this weekend...
The AR15 buying frenzy resembles depression era bank runs, some firms have suspended taking orders or started waiting lists, and at least one company has resorted to taking their phones off the hook so they can get some work done on their backlog. You know supply is tight when you start hearing from cops asking if you have any extras you are willing to sell (yes, really). I've seen "crisis runs" on guns before, but nothing on the scale of what is happening now.
-
There was a similar run right after Obama's first election - on guns and ammo of all kinds. Stores had empty shelves. I think that one WAS the NRA - they were pushing the idea that Obama was going to pass really harsh gun laws. However, he didn't really do much at all with them the first 4 years.
-
*
-
I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments
I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts. He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now. All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.
He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem. It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.
I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals. Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?
After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why? Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate? Do you have anything to add?
I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.
Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not! LOL!
-
I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments
I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts. He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now. All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.
He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem. It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.
I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals. Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?
After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why? Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate? Do you have anything to add?
I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.
Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not! LOL!
I don't have an "arsenal" as you state. I have one carry gun, several hunting rifles and two woods handguns. We have big bears here in Idaho. You have to have something loose in your brain to walk around the woods up here without something.
The biggest reason I carry a handgun is the huge number of pit bulls that you see everywhere today. Most dogs I could handle with my bare hands, not a pit bull.
Secondly, it is an American right that if not exercised will disappear.
-
I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments
I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts. He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now. All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.
He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem. It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.
I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals. Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?
After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why? Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate? Do you have anything to add?
I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.
Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not! LOL!
Sorry, I read that article which I would challenge just from the title, since when has Michael celebrated the prince of peace? He is completely antithetical to a Christian view point.
In addition, I don't carry a gun because of racism or other of his convoluted reasons. Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America. Thank the Lord that there are still places in America that remember what it means to be an American. Michael Moore is NOT one of them nor are most of the folks at the Huff post.
-
Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America
Michael Moore has a privately hired armed security detail. Back in 2005, one of his bodyguards was arrested in NY as he did not have a valid carry permit in that state and attempted to declare a gun at an airport. The old "guns for me but not for thee" cry of the elite.
-
Moosemom, I done shot that reindeer that ran over my grandma! :rofl; :rofl;
-
^
-
Hemodoc, most Americans do not live in Idaho under threat from big bears. You have explained why you yourself carry/own guns (and I never claimed that you have an "arsenal"), but I am asking you to give your thoughts about why majority of gunowners feel the need to carry so many weapons. You do not have to have a shred of respect for the likes of Michael Moore. My question isn't about Michael Moore but is, rather, about some of the explanations he offers, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that you do not get to define "American". Michael Moore and "the folks at Huffpost" are as American as you are. You're just going to have to live with that fact, hard as it may be.
Noahvale, there is no need for you to be snide. I have noticed that you often give very valuable information to people who have dialysis related questions, and I am very glad that you are kind enough to take the time and effort to respond to members here on this forum. It would be really nice if you could use the same helpful, even thoughtful tone in discussions such as these. I ask you to go back and reread my post with the link to Mr. Moore's essay. I defy you to find one single aggressive word from me. Why must you be so snide and condescending? I do not require you to "humor me", sir, so get the hell out of my face. The abundant quotes that you have provided are familiar to me, and I understand that many thoughtful people are looking inward to their own communities to identify and cope with problems. Maybe next time you could respond using your own words instead of those of countless other people.
"Humor" is obviously not in your lexicon. Please do not burden yourself with "humoring me".
-
Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America
Michael Moore has a privately hired armed security detail. Back in 2005, one of his bodyguards was arrested in NY as he did not have a valid carry permit in that state and attempted to declare a gun at an airport. The old "guns for me but not for thee" cry of the elite.
Michael Moore is an elitist? I guess I am not sure how you define "elite". Maybe Mr. Moore has an armed security detail because he knows he is controversial and suspects some crazy person with a gun might show his, urm, disagreement.
-
*
-
I wasn't trying to be snide or condescending.
I don't believe you for a single second.
- that is your projection.
Don't put the blame on me. Take personal responsibility for your words.
So, ma'am get the hell out of my face!
Then be more mindful of your words and your tone.
I quote others because they can better articulate my feelings and views. At least I give credit where due.
That's fair enough. I can respect that.
-
Hemodoc, most Americans do not live in Idaho under threat from big bears. You have explained why you yourself carry/own guns (and I never claimed that you have an "arsenal"), but I am asking you to give your thoughts about why majority of gunowners feel the need to carry so many weapons. You do not have to have a shred of respect for the likes of Michael Moore. My question isn't about Michael Moore but is, rather, about some of the explanations he offers, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that you do not get to define "American". Michael Moore and "the folks at Huffpost" are as American as you are. You're just going to have to live with that fact, hard as it may be.
Noahvale, there is no need for you to be snide. I have noticed that you often give very valuable information to people who have dialysis related questions, and I am very glad that you are kind enough to take the time and effort to respond to members here on this forum. It would be really nice if you could use the same helpful, even thoughtful tone in discussions such as these. I ask you to go back and reread my post with the link to Mr. Moore's essay. I defy you to find one single aggressive word from me. Why must you be so snide and condescending? I do not require you to "humor me", sir, so get the hell out of my face. The abundant quotes that you have provided are familiar to me, and I understand that many thoughtful people are looking inward to their own communities to identify and cope with problems. Maybe next time you could respond using your own words instead of those of countless other people.
"Humor" is obviously not in your lexicon. Please do not burden yourself with "humoring me".
Dear Moosemom,
If you look at a map of those counties that went to the GOP in the last several elections, you will find that the Dems hold only urban areas. The vast majority of rural counties which comprise the majority of land mass in America are conservative. I will leave the demographics of urban vs rural to someone else, but the majority of US counties are rural and conservative. Once again, it is the urban centers that keep electing democrats. It seems most the folks in that "traditional America" want to keep things the way that they are. Those folks in the urban centers are the ones that want a United States of Europe here in the US. Many in the Urban centers are not even citizens, so not sure what point you are trying to make about me "defining" what is an America. You asked why I carry and use firearms and I answered. I would have to state almost universally, my answer is what my friends I know would answer as well.
http://notesironbound.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-with-county-by-county-election.html (http://notesironbound.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-with-county-by-county-election.html)
Lastly, I don't believe Noah was snide, he simply answered your question in frank manner. I did not find them slyly disparaging at all, just quite frank and to the point.
Look at who Michael Moore glorifies such as Chavez and Castro and his health care system for instance and you get know what Michael Moore is all about. He is a leftist elitist just as Noah stated. Moore has close family connections to large labor, his uncle was one of the founders of the United Auto workers union. Understanding the connection between big labor and leftists movements including the ACORN group gives you a lot of understanding of what Michael Moore is all about.
I answered your question first and then I went and read Michael Moore's essay. He is way off base especially when it comes to the racism issue. In any case, have a great day.
-
Hemodoc, thank you for your thoughts. However, I'm not sure what "urban areas" is code for, but for anyone to say that "many" people who live in "urban areas" aren't even citizens is a bit of a sweeping statement. If so many of those people are really not citizens, then they wouldn't have voted, anyway, so their voices don't count for much. How citizenship or the definition of being "American" applies to Michael Moore and those on HuffPost is unclear to me. I apologize if I am not understanding what exactly you mean.
And thank you for your explanation for why you yourself carry guns. I didn't mean to imply that your answer was irrelevant, rather, I meant to point out that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to why other people carry guns, but if you do not know and do not want to put words into other peoples' mouths, then I can certainly respect that.
I'm afraid we're getting sidetracked, and perhaps that's because I used Michael Moore as a template for asking some questions about society in general. I'm not particularly interested in Michael Moore himself, and he is not supposed to be the issue. Anyone can dispute his ideas without having to disparage him personally.
If you feel that Mr. Moore is way off base when it comes to the racism issue, then I respect your opinion. You didn't feel that you had to "humor me" by bothering to reply. Yours was a "frank" reply, and I appreciate it.
I am the most thick skinned person I know. I truly can remember only one instance in which I felt personally jabbed, so I know "frankness" from "snideness". I am not so easily insulted that I jump on anyone who has a "frank" difference in opinion.
-
Hemodoc, thank you for your thoughts. However, I'm not sure what "urban areas" is code for, but for anyone to say that "many" people who live in "urban areas" aren't even citizens is a bit of a sweeping statement. If so many of those people are really not citizens, then they wouldn't have voted, anyway, so their voices don't count for much. How citizenship or the definition of being "American" applies to Michael Moore and those on HuffPost is unclear to me. I apologize if I am not understanding what exactly you mean.
And thank you for your explanation for why you yourself carry guns. I didn't mean to imply that your answer was irrelevant, rather, I meant to point out that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to why other people carry guns, but if you do not know and do not want to put words into other peoples' mouths, then I can certainly respect that.
I'm afraid we're getting sidetracked, and perhaps that's because I used Michael Moore as a template for asking some questions about society in general. I'm not particularly interested in Michael Moore himself, and he is not supposed to be the issue. Anyone can dispute his ideas without having to disparage him personally.
If you feel that Mr. Moore is way off base when it comes to the racism issue, then I respect your opinion. You didn't feel that you had to "humor me" by bothering to reply. Yours was a "frank" reply, and I appreciate it.
I am the most thick skinned person I know. I truly can remember only one instance in which I felt personally jabbed, so I know "frankness" from "snideness". I am not so easily insulted that I jump on anyone who has a "frank" difference in opinion.
Come on Moosemom, there is NO CODE WORD for urban areas. look at the maps and you can see the urban west, the urban Chicago and and other areas and the urban east coast. Urban means large cities and not rural areas. Superimpose a map of the cities of the US and you will see that the blue areas are almost uniformly urban centers in those states. When you drive across this nation and see all of the open areas and farmland, that is almost uniformly conservative republican areas and almost all of the areas with tall buildings close together are democratic. Check it out for yourself. These urban centers are also the centers of the union labor movements as well for the most part.
No hidden code or underlying meanings whatsoever. Sometimes you don't have look any further than the end of your nose.
-
Hemodoc, I'm afraid that there are many people for whom "urban areas" are code for "non-white areas". I'm glad you are not one of those people.
You are absolutely correct in your observation that people in big cities do tend to vote one way and those in rural areas in another way. But the majority of Americans live in or around big cities these days. We are no longer an agricultural/rural society. We are now a nation of service industries and tech innovation, and those economic activities do tend to be concentrated in more highly populated areas.
-
No hidden code or underlying meanings whatsoever. Sometimes you don't have look any further than the end of your nose.
I think Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
-
I've also noticed that the majority of blue votes tend to live in areas near large bodies of water - the coasts, the Great Lakes, etc. In my own state, WA, there are more "blue" voters near the Puget Sound/Pacific Coast than there is on the east side of the state, which has mainly rivers and some lakes. This is just a simple observation, and not a political statement.
KarenInWA
-
Hemodoc, I'm afraid that there are many people for whom "urban areas" are code for "non-white areas". I'm glad you are not one of those people.
You are absolutely correct in your observation that people in big cities do tend to vote one way and those in rural areas in another way. But the majority of Americans live in or around big cities these days. We are no longer an agricultural/rural society. We are now a nation of service industries and tech innovation, and those economic activities do tend to be concentrated in more highly populated areas.
If you look at the demographics of those areas, there are obviously larger minority involvement in some of those areas, but many of the blue counties out west are rural and have a large hispanic population such as in New Mexico and Colorado for instance. The hispanic population is growing faster than any other demographic and the cities in many ways are losing populations in some areas. Yes, demographics obviously matter in national political elections, but that is not the point I was making. We are talking about traditional America which is still alive and well in the majority of rural areas. It has not nor will die off any time soon. Simply because urban areas have more of a vote does not in the least mitigate the millions of people who still are old school conservatives. If anything, we really have two America's now in many ways. Traditional America is still out there folks.
-
"Old school conservatism" is what is now in peril. There is a more virulent element now that doesn't resemble what "conservatism" used to be and that now has ignored the tradition of compromise when creating policy.
We've always had two Americas, Hemodoc. We've always had an underclass upon whose cheap labor has enabled "traditional America" to thrive. We've always had "us" and "them".
-
"Old school conservatism" is what is now in peril. There is a more virulent element now that doesn't resemble what "conservatism" used to be and that now has ignored the tradition of compromise when creating policy.
We've always had two Americas, Hemodoc. We've always had an underclass upon whose cheap labor has enabled "traditional America" to thrive. We've always had "us" and "them".
Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.
Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise? No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.
-
Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.
Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise? No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.
OK, Hemodoc. I think everything that anyone has had to say has been said. I guess there is nothing more to discuss. Except for one thing...
As I have pointed out before, I have read many of your posts for a long, long time. It occurs to me, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, that not once have you ever expressed any curiosity about anyone else's views or opinions. You do not ask questions, and I must assume it is because you have no interest in what anyone else has to say, what they believe and/or why they believe as they do.
It seems that if someone does not share your opinion, then that person is silly or is labouring under leftist propaganda or is part of some conspiracy to turn America into a God-hating culture that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like the Queen's tea party. Your world view seems to be shrouded in fear and loathing that must be either defended by the institutionalization of hatred of "the other" or abandoned with the slogan, "Your side won, so go live in the putrid world that you are creating."
Perhaps I do have a skewed view of the "traditional America", but maybe, just maybe, you do, too. And that's why I asked this question in the first place. I was curious to know how other people defined it. Our definition of what is "traditional" is a reflection of our own life experiences, but apparently that has not occurred to you. Your definition of "traditional America" will surely not be the same as someone's who was unable to eat at a certain restaurant in 1960 because of their skin color. Hemodoc, surely you have some modicum of imagination.
Conservatives and their left leaning counterparts have been compromising since this nation began. Our Constitution, which I know you hold dear, demands it. The nation today demands it of our Congress.
Actually, today there are many more nations where one can rise to great wealth very quickly. Those happen to be the same nations that are starting to see ever widening gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Brazil is a prime example (they are quickly buying up expensive and desireable American real estate and are paying in cash!), and Russia is right there, too. Sadly, the fact that personal wealth in Russia is rising is due often to crime and corruption engendered in the new freer market economy. China is seeing the same phenomenon with the loosening of Communist strings, but even there you can see yet another country experiencing the same economic gap between the haves and the have nots. In this country, the rich are getting richer and the poor are working harder to keep what they have. While there is certainly nothing wrong with being very wealthy, that ever widening gap just feels immoral.
I can certainly understand why someone would refuse to compromise on abortion. But surely there are other issues that this nation cares about on which our policymakers (ie, Congress) can compromise. This is how Congress traditionally has functioned. What's different now?
Oh, never mind. I keep asking the same questions over and over yet get no replies that don't have disparaging remarks in them. I truly do not care if anyone thinks I am wrong or silly or a doormat for commies. In fact, I am quickly becoming majorly uninterested in what anyone believes. It's just too much like hard work to expect thoughtful opinions thoughtfully expressed. I don't give up easily, but I am now.
(PS...I do want to make it clear, Hemodoc, that I have a great deal of affection for you although I have no idea why. You can be utterly frustrating, but I admire your passion. I will refrain, however, from asking more questions of you as I am probably being intrusive although I do not mean to be. I can see where some might construe my curiosity as nosiness.)
-
"Your argument on the internet has completely changed both my mind and my vote."
Said no one.
Ever.
-
My thought on the abortion issue:
This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.
Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge????
I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what????? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!
So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.
KarenInWA
-
Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.
Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise? No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.
OK, Hemodoc. I think everything that anyone has had to say has been said. I guess there is nothing more to discuss. Except for one thing...
As I have pointed out before, I have read many of your posts for a long, long time. It occurs to me, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, that not once have you ever expressed any curiosity about anyone else's views or opinions. You do not ask questions, and I must assume it is because you have no interest in what anyone else has to say, what they believe and/or why they believe as they do.
It seems that if someone does not share your opinion, then that person is silly or is labouring under leftist propaganda or is part of some conspiracy to turn America into a God-hating culture that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like the Queen's tea party. Your world view seems to be shrouded in fear and loathing that must be either defended by the institutionalization of hatred of "the other" or abandoned with the slogan, "Your side won, so go live in the putrid world that you are creating."
Perhaps I do have a skewed view of the "traditional America", but maybe, just maybe, you do, too. And that's why I asked this question in the first place. I was curious to know how other people defined it. Our definition of what is "traditional" is a reflection of our own life experiences, but apparently that has not occurred to you. Your definition of "traditional America" will surely not be the same as someone's who was unable to eat at a certain restaurant in 1960 because of their skin color. Hemodoc, surely you have some modicum of imagination.
Conservatives and their left leaning counterparts have been compromising since this nation began. Our Constitution, which I know you hold dear, demands it. The nation today demands it of our Congress.
Actually, today there are many more nations where one can rise to great wealth very quickly. Those happen to be the same nations that are starting to see ever widening gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Brazil is a prime example (they are quickly buying up expensive and desireable American real estate and are paying in cash!), and Russia is right there, too. Sadly, the fact that personal wealth in Russia is rising is due often to crime and corruption engendered in the new freer market economy. China is seeing the same phenomenon with the loosening of Communist strings, but even there you can see yet another country experiencing the same economic gap between the haves and the have nots. In this country, the rich are getting richer and the poor are working harder to keep what they have. While there is certainly nothing wrong with being very wealthy, that ever widening gap just feels immoral.
I can certainly understand why someone would refuse to compromise on abortion. But surely there are other issues that this nation cares about on which our policymakers (ie, Congress) can compromise. This is how Congress traditionally has functioned. What's different now?
Oh, never mind. I keep asking the same questions over and over yet get no replies that don't have disparaging remarks in them. I truly do not care if anyone thinks I am wrong or silly or a doormat for commies. In fact, I am quickly becoming majorly uninterested in what anyone believes. It's just too much like hard work to expect thoughtful opinions thoughtfully expressed. I don't give up easily, but I am now.
(PS...I do want to make it clear, Hemodoc, that I have a great deal of affection for you although I have no idea why. You can be utterly frustrating, but I admire your passion. I will refrain, however, from asking more questions of you as I am probably being intrusive although I do not mean to be. I can see where some might construe my curiosity as nosiness.)
Dear Moosemom,
As far as asking questions about liberal views, I have stated several times on IHD that I was originally a Boston liberal as is all of my family, well I guess my brother is now an independent. I quite understand the liberal view since I lived it until I was 36 years old when I became a born again Christian. In addition, there are lots of folks that tell me their views here on IHD without me asking. I don't make an assumption that I know what they are thinking or what motivates them.
As far as advancing above the situation you were born into, that in short is called the American dream. No doubt, that is a dying notion in this nation as it turns more and more into a European socialist type of state. That was not so a mere generation ago. But make no doubt, rising above your situation you were born into is known worldwide as living the American dream. Sadly, it is dying today.
As far as compromise, there are many issues where you must be true to your principles. Unfortunately, we have very few in Congress who are true statesmen any longer. That may be why you believe compromise is what drives America. There are some things worth fighting for. Sadly, fewer and fewer people have those kind of strong moral compasses any longer.
The constitution DOES NOT demand compromise. Instead it is set up for lively debate and strong opinions Let the best win out. The constitution places no restraints on political views or opinions, it instead promotes free speech and separate spheres of competing power. No, some of the greatest debates in our history occurred in the 1800's during the infancy of our nation. Compromise, no that is not at all the basis of our constitutional powers.
COMPETITION AND THE CONSTITUTION
Competition is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It is not among the national aspirations set forth in those documents: equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, protected and promoted by a republican union. But competition is a foundation of our constitutional order and a critical means of achieving our aspirations. In particular, it shapes our common life through elections, the separation of powers, federalism, free speech and religion, and competitive enterprise.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/competition-and-the-constitution
-
"Your argument on the internet has completely changed both my mind and my vote."
Said no one.
Ever.
LOL
-
If you are like me and think there are way to many gun deaths in America, then you should be concerned that research into gun safety and gun deaths is absent. Here is an article from the American Medical Association explaining why there is no federally funded research on gun safety http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470)
There is also the question of how many gun deaths there are each day. That data isn't collected. However, Slate is trying to pull the information together by keeping track of every gun death since Newtown (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.single.html):
"Of course, this data is incomplete. Not all reports get caught by @GunDeaths’ news alerts or his followers. Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported. Nevertheless, we at Slate want to assemble this data as best we can.
And the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be. You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation, and he’ll add it to his feed. (If you’re not on Twitter, you can email slatedata@gmail.com.) His data feeds our interactive feature."
One way to work around the federal ban on gun research funding is this sort of crowd sourcing efforts. We could all participate to make the tally as complete as possible.
The graph of the deaths since Newtown is chilling. As of yesterday there have been nearly 200 gun deaths (including 5 children) since the 28 in Newton.
-
My thought on the abortion issue:
This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.
Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge????
I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what????? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!
So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, you have lost me on this. This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.
There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?
Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.
Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.
Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis. She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment. She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens.
http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/
-
My thought on the abortion issue:
This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.
Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge????
I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what????? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!
So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, you have lost me on this. This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.
There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?
Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.
Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.
Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis. She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment. She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens.
http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/
My only concern is the feelings of the women on this board who have had to go through this decision, whether they wanted to or not. HemoDoc, with all due respect, you do not know the personal health histories of everyone on this board, and neither do I. I have probably read more of the different threads on here than you have, and have seen some very personal and tragic stories on here. These are whom I think of. No matter my feelings on abortion, I would never bring it up on a page like this one, and especially compare it to the evil of the Newtown tragedy like was done on a different thread earlier this month. All I am simply saying is to think first of these women before going off about abortion.
Also, as for transplant patients being pregnant, it really does depend on the patient and the state of their transplant. Some of the medications are very harmful to the fetus, and a woman may not be able to be off of them for any period of time, depending on the state of the transplant. In my case, my transplant was injured by a biopsy. My creatinine is stable at 3.3, w/a GFR of 17. I am forever grateful to my live donor who was so kind, generous, and loving as to give me this wonderful gift. However, due to a biopsy, it is not performing optimally. I most likely would not be able to carry a pregnancy to term *and* keep this gift working as well. This is a reality for me. Who knows what other patients realities are? We are not them, we do not live their lives, we are not their doctors. Each case is unique and individual. To judge otherwise is none of our business.
That is all I am saying. I prefer to be compassionate rather than judgemental or all-knowing.
KarenInWA
-
My thought on the abortion issue:
This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.
Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge????
I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what????? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!
So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, you have lost me on this. This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.
There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?
Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.
Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.
Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis. She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment. She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens.
http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/
My only concern is the feelings of the women on this board who have had to go through this decision, whether they wanted to or not. HemoDoc, with all due respect, you do not know the personal health histories of everyone on this board, and neither do I. I have probably read more of the different threads on here than you have, and have seen some very personal and tragic stories on here. These are whom I think of. No matter my feelings on abortion, I would never bring it up on a page like this one, and especially compare it to the evil of the Newtown tragedy like was done on a different thread earlier this month. All I am simply saying is to think first of these women before going off about abortion.
Also, as for transplant patients being pregnant, it really does depend on the patient and the state of their transplant. Some of the medications are very harmful to the fetus, and a woman may not be able to be off of them for any period of time, depending on the state of the transplant. In my case, my transplant was injured by a biopsy. My creatinine is stable at 3.3, w/a GFR of 17. I am forever grateful to my live donor who was so kind, generous, and loving as to give me this wonderful gift. However, due to a biopsy, it is not performing optimally. I most likely would not be able to carry a pregnancy to term *and* keep this gift working as well. This is a reality for me. Who knows what other patients realities are? We are not them, we do not live their lives, we are not their doctors. Each case is unique and individual. To judge otherwise is none of our business.
That is all I am saying. I prefer to be compassionate rather than judgemental or all-knowing.
KarenInWA
Sorry Karen, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a political thread and I gave a reason why some things are beyond compromise. Sorry you don't appreciate that view, but again, this is a political thread.
I will let Nancy Spaeth's two kids born in the ancient past of CKD treatments speak loudly. The hope for women with CKD is that many have chosen to still have families and done well. Of course it is high risk and no I am not looking at anyone's individual medical records, but the bottom line, it is no longer an absolute certainty that you can't carry a full term pregnancy with advanced CKD.
-
here I thought id stop posting on this one... but after reading the last few, i feel i must inform...
I am a mom. I am not pro life, or pro choice. In fact, I am not even sure what I think about it. I guess I am nutral life? ha ha For me, personally, I dont know that I could go through with it(if i hadnt had a hysterectomy lol) , BUT i do know that I would have to. Let me explain why.
My pregnancy was short. I didnt realise that I had kidney failure, and I got very sick with my pregnancy. I nearly died, when they decided to take my child by c-section at 26 weeks. He was born 3 months early. He was ONE pound and 3 oz. He too nearly died then. He is now 8 years old, with health issues related to being premature.
Knowing that, I dont think I could do it again. As much as I would love to, because of my own personal beliefs, and knowing if i didnt want the child that adoption is an option... i fear id die, or the child, or both...
Ya, its possible to have a child on D, ive seen it with my own eyes, but its dangerous for both mother and child. many doctors advise against it. Why put your life in danger, or the childs? and what if you both live, and hes got a lot going on medically, and obviously so do you. Do you have an idea how hard it is? raising a child is hard work, raising a child with special needs is even harder. Doing that while also being on dialysis... priceless? heh its hard. Ive done it by myself for the better part of his 8 years. Its not easy to find part time child care, and the cost of childcare is ridiculous.
I love my son, and I am soo glad to be his mom, no matter what life wants to through at us. But, it is difficult, and It made me be a bit more understanding toward women who chose to do that. I still dont really think its the best option (adoption!!!)
There are a few reasons I think abortion would be completely understandable, like when drugs are involved, insest, rape, medical problems, etc. But the PROBLEM is when you use it as a form of birth control. That should be the issue.
Also, id like to point out if we did ban abortion, do you really think that will stop it from happening? people will find a way, no matter what. it wont stop them. desperate people do desperate things....
MM, you know I love you, so I have to say it, but You do know what the definition of insanity is? (DOing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results?) Dont let some ... person *ahem* cause you to feel or be insane. some people are just stubborn...
i love that you ask questions and stuff, so dont let one person change that in you.
its been my experience that people suck and they all have opinions. some are askewed, terribly. especially when you bring up topics with politics, religion, etc.
It would be nice to live in a world, with love and understanding, but I doubt we ever see that day.
-
Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.
NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.
Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.
Just because it has been done BY OTHER PEOPLE does not mean that Karen or anyone else would or could have the same outcome. It is some wickedly bad science to suggest that anyone with CKD could have a successful pregnancy without serious, even fatal, consequences. I was advised to have an abortion by a transplant nephrologist if I wanted to save my kidney. I think he knew a bit more about the situation than anyone here does.
Karen, I agree with you and made a similar argument about how homosexuality is discussed on here. Just because it is a political section does not mean anything goes. If people are going to compare having an abortion to shooting children in a school, that analogy is, in my husband's words, "heinous". It is sad when appealing to a person's human decency fails to bring about even a slight change in tone or words. I agree that this is entirely disrespectful to the women of IHD who have made that choice (whether to save their lives/health or for other reasons) and to the women on here who know they would be forced to make that choice should the situation arise.
-
Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.
NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.
Don't leave now, cariad. We're here as a support group. Removing ALL the political threads has been discussed by the mods and admins more than once. We're here originally and primarily to help those with CKD. The amount of vitriol and tantrums that come from the political discussions - and the excessive amount of time we spend dealing with them - has frequently made the staff question the wisdom of letting them continue. So far, our choice has been to keep true to Epoman's vision of a support site that wasn't censored. He loved a good debate on politics and religion himself. But he did NOT tolerate personal attacks. He regularly blocked members from accessing the site, both temporarily and permanently, to deal with problems. The current admins rarely exercise that option, except with spammers.
Banning is still an option however, and a cautionary thought that everyone who likes to participate in the debates needs to keep in mind before hitting the "Post" button. Reread, rewrite, or delete first, everyone, please. I've done it myself to tone down my initial sarcastic responses.
-
I think its mostly a support site too, with added topics.
I have felt attacked on a few occasions but I think we handled it quite well and I know I got over it, and I think the others did too.
I also think people need to calm down and realise that even if we differ in opinions on such topics as religion, politics, or what have you, we are all people and deserve respect and understanding. We can always agree to disagree and keep it civil. If we cant, then there should be consequences. Just like in real life... You cant go around being a jerkface, and not expect their to be a consequence to your actions.
For people with thinner skin, they should just avoid clicking on topics they know will get under their skin. its pretty simple really. it says right up there, for people with thick skin, doesnt it?
Tattling should really have some kind of consequence too, because we arent children... thats just silly, and creates more problems for our mods who work very hard to keep this site running smoothly. We are adults (i think a very high percentage of us are, anyway) and we should be able to take care of it ourselves. The mods aren't our mommies and daddies...
And for people who cant obey human decency, should first get a warning via email, and if they still cant, they should be banned for so many days, and if they continue offending they can be banned permanetly. Is it just me, thinking that would be the simplest way to keep things running smoothly, that would limit the work load of our mods? "Have our cake and eat it too" so to speak?
This seems like commons sense to me...*shrugs* perhaps it isnt?
We are all here for a common reason, so lets just get along and enjoy our adult conversations.
-
MM, you know I love you, so I have to say it, but You do know what the definition of insanity is? (DOing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results?) Dont let some ... person *ahem* cause you to feel or be insane. some people are just stubborn...
i love that you ask questions and stuff, so dont let one person change that in you.
Yeah, I know. LOL! The men in the white coats may be out looking for me!
I can understand why admin might seriously consider removing these political threads altogether. However, and I know I am repeating myself, I believe that we are more than diseased kidneys. We are all people with different life experiences that have been affected by CKD, so I find it much more satisfying to offer support to a whole person who I "know". I also find it wonderful that we can offer support and comfort to people with whom we may disagree on other topics. These political threads, in my very humble view, provide the perfect opportunity to live up to what some have termed "Christian ideals", to show compassion and care to those who are ill no matter who they are or what they believe.
-
Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.
NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.
Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.
Just because it has been done BY OTHER PEOPLE does not mean that Karen or anyone else would or could have the same outcome. It is some wickedly bad science to suggest that anyone with CKD could have a successful pregnancy without serious, even fatal, consequences. I was advised to have an abortion by a transplant nephrologist if I wanted to save my kidney. I think he knew a bit more about the situation than anyone here does.
Karen, I agree with you and made a similar argument about how homosexuality is discussed on here. Just because it is a political section does not mean anything goes. If people are going to compare having an abortion to shooting children in a school, that analogy is, in my husband's words, "heinous". It is sad when appealing to a person's human decency fails to bring about even a slight change in tone or words. I agree that this is entirely disrespectful to the women of IHD who have made that choice (whether to save their lives/health or for other reasons) and to the women on here who know they would be forced to make that choice should the situation arise.
You are too funny. LOL.
-
erm, whats funny about that?
-
erm, whats funny about that?
Let me see, I make a statement WHY conservatives who believe that life starts at conception would not compromise and you folks are off to some pickle race to see who can make the prunes stand tall with my comment. Sorry, that is ridiculously funny. And then to complain about discussing politics on a political thread in a section called off topic and this section is:
Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry
Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling - post at your own risk
So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.
-
Banning is still an option however, and a cautionary thought that everyone who likes to participate in the debates needs to keep in mind before hitting the "Post" button. Reread, rewrite, or delete first, everyone, please. I've done it myself to tone down my initial sarcastic responses.
Thanks, jbeany, you're the best. Believe it or not, everyone, I've done this many, many times before my posts, and the longer I am here the more I try to exercise caution and care before posting.
I can also understand why admins and mods don't want to deal with politics on this board, it is just so divisive. However, I don't think it would ever be possible to eliminate discussions going this direction, and eliminating the specific board might just make matters worse because then people could not avoid the topics that they do not want to read about. I do sometimes wish there were a way to completely block the politics section from even coming on the screen if desired - the way that some forums can let you block yourself from seeing a certain member's posts. That probably sounds really lazy, but I've tried to take breaks from politics from time to time on here, only to find myself accidentally reading posts about some pretty sensitive subjects when scrolling through unread posts. I do wonder if I'm the only one who makes these mistakes and accidentally reads a political discussion that I've sworn off. (Wouldn't surprise me if I were, actually!)
GLM, "jerkface" hee-hee, you sound like me talking to my kids. One of my faves when describing someone who isn't very nice without resorting to the naughtier words. :) I don't know if there should be consequences for alerting a mod, that would get kind of complicated I should think. I mean, you don't want people abusing it of course, but then you don't want people to hesitate if someone is genuinely having a go at them. I can remember a few vicious attacks toward me, but these were people who I believe "self-banned" in the end, and I found that there were plenty of people jumping up to defend me against those insults. (And I love them for it! Thank you!)
I also find it wonderful that we can offer support and comfort to people with whom we may disagree on other topics. These political threads, in my very humble view, provide the perfect opportunity to live up to what some have termed "Christian ideals", to show compassion and care to those who are ill no matter who they are or what they believe.
I agree, MM. That was one of the first signs I had that I'd found a really great group - that the same people that were on the opposite side of a heated discussion with me were also dropping everything to offer me support when I really needed it. Is it just me or has that corroded somewhat in the past year? It seems that the political discussions have turned much angrier - if I had to pick a turning point, I would say I noticed it around the whole Saul Alinsky kerfuffle that spread over about 3 different discussions.
-
You are too funny. LOL.
So you've told me! Quite frequently! Message received.
-
So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.
I know I was referring to your statements in the first thread about Newton in which shooting 20 six and seven year olds was compared to abortion. I found it tasteless. And disrespectful to women, yes. I didn't say anything about it being a personal attack.
And you're welcome!
-
So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.
I know I was referring to your statements in the first thread about Newton in which shooting 20 six and seven year olds was compared to abortion. I found it tasteless. And disrespectful to women, yes. I didn't say anything about it being a personal attack.
And you're welcome!
Fair enough, but from the other thread, I was the third person after Rerun and Moosemom to discuss abortion on that thread. My comment was in response to theirs. All innocent shedding of blood is distasteful including the 3000 aborted children daily. I find that very disrespectful to the aborted kids. I believe God is more than angered by this as well according to his word.
In any case, this is and the others are political threads. So be it.
-
I don't want to see these political threads removed either! However, I do feel that personal character attacks should not enter. I know I have been quilty of it myself, and always regret it in the end.
But all in all, I love reading the threads. Especially the ones that are passionate about thier politics or beliefs. I find it all educational, informative and yes, quite commical at times. By reading others post, tells me alot about that individual. Nobody will sway my beliefs, unless I allow them to. Please do not do away with these threads, help us more by "toning it down" but don't do away with them!
Just my 2 :twocents;
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
After giving it some thought, I have to admit that I can understand how certain folks participating in this discussion could draw an analogy between what they see as the "slaughter" of abortion and the huge amount of gun-related deaths that is endemic in the United States
Guns are made to kill. Period. Whether it is another human being or an animal, they are used to kill. I do make an exception for those who use guns in competition/target shooting. As in most things, there are exceptions.
Despite the fact that so many people die because of guns, owning a gun is legal.
Abortion used as mere birth control is tragic. I personally do not think of a newly fertilized egg as a baby, but I understand that others do. But even though I feel very uncomfortable with using abortion as birth control, there are just too many cases where continuing a pregnancy is too dangerous for a woman, and exceptions must be made. What is too often ignored is that a woman who should not continue with a pregnancy for medical reasons often has other children and a husband for which she must care, and it is wrong to willfully deprive the children who already exist of their mother and to willingly deprive a man of his wife.
Despite the fact that embryos (refuse to call them "babies") are aborted daily, abortion is legal.
So, I can see the parallels, but I can also see where we shouldn't view either of these issues uncompromisingly.
Hemodoc, if a pregnant woman with severe CKD is advised by her nephrologist to have an abortion, or if a woman with a transplant is advised by her tx nephrologist to have an abortion, what do you think she should do? Should her husband's and children's needs be a factor in her decision? What do you think?
-
After giving it some thought, I have to admit that I can understand how certain folks participating in this discussion could draw an analogy between what they see as the "slaughter" of abortion and the huge amount of gun-related deaths that is endemic in the United States
Guns are made to kill. Period. Whether it is another human being or an animal, they are used to kill. I do make an exception for those who use guns in competition/target shooting. As in most things, there are exceptions.
Despite the fact that so many people die because of guns, owning a gun is legal.
Abortion used as mere birth control is tragic. I personally do not think of a newly fertilized egg as a baby, but I understand that others do. But even though I feel very uncomfortable with using abortion as birth control, there are just too many cases where continuing a pregnancy is too dangerous for a woman, and exceptions must be made. What is too often ignored is that a woman who should not continue with a pregnancy for medical reasons often has other children and a husband for which she must care, and it is wrong to willfully deprive the children who already exist of their mother and to willingly deprive a man of his wife.
Despite the fact that embryos (refuse to call them "babies") are aborted daily, abortion is legal.
So, I can see the parallels, but I can also see where we shouldn't view either of these issues uncompromisingly.
Hemodoc, if a pregnant woman with severe CKD is advised by her nephrologist to have an abortion, or if a woman with a transplant is advised by her tx nephrologist to have an abortion, what do you think she should do? Should her husband's and children's needs be a factor in her decision? What do you think?
Dear Moosemom, you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.
-
MM, I don't agree and think the abortion analogy lacks merit but I don't want to get into the whys beyond making that quick statement. It has been suggested that abortion is off-topic and should have its own thread. I really dislike talking about abortion myself and try to avoid the subject and avoid reading others views of it. I feel so strongly about this one issue that it tends to negatively color my view of other people when I learn that we are on different sides of that particular ideological fence. You've titled your thread "what to do after Newton" and I think that really suggests we should try to stick to talking about ways to avoid this sort of tragedy in future - gun control, arming teachers, better mental health access, whatever other ideas people have. If no one ever had another abortion in the US again, that is not going to do a thing to stop mass shootings. (It may stop clinic bombings, but thankfully we haven't had one of those in quite some time!) Suggesting that women who choose abortion or doctors who perform them are no better than a gunman who wanders into a schoolroom and kills the much-loved children of 20 different families is cruel and breathtakingly judgmental. And I think those traits don't really belong on IHD, not even in the political threads, but that could just be me.
Could we please just sequester the abortion discussion in its own thread?
-
Dear Moosemom, you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.
Whoa! I was CERTAINLY not focusing on that term with regards to you, Peter, and I did not think that GLM was either. I took that solely to mean that she was talking about very general and hypothetical standards, and a person who refuses to meet those standards would be behaving like a 'jerkface'. I am not sure why you thought she was talking about you? I saw no evidence that anyone is trying to get you banned, either, unless something has happened behind the scenes that I don't know about.
-
Cariad, I agree with your sentiments and would also prefer not to discuss abortion. If an IHD member chooses to create a separate topic on that issue, that's fair enough, but I for one will not be participating.
However, I would like to clarify that I myself believe it is a false analogy, but considering the opinions of certain members and how they feel about certain topics, I can understand how THEY might make that analogy. Perhaps the analogy lacks merit, but the discussion can still be valid. But I have no wish to go there.
Thank you for essentially pointing out that we should get back on topic! LOL!
-
Perhaps the analogy lacks merit, but the discussion can still be valid. But I have no wish to go there.
Oh, definitely, I agree with this, including (especially) the part about not wishing to go there.
Thank you for essentially pointing out that we should get back on topic! LOL!
And thank you - all of you - for being too polite to point out that I've been calling the town Newton (as in Isaac) for goodness knows how long! D'oh! :rofl;
-
And no, Hemodoc, you don't need to be a criminal to modify a gun - those who shoot competitively and even dedicated hobby shooters routinely adjust grips, triggers, and exchange barrels on weapons. Making a trigger more responsive is a common thing in competitive shooting. It doesn't take much knowledge at all and it is legal - the kits are easy to find and sold at plenty of gun shops. It won't take a great leap of intuition to figure out how to adjust the available kits to change a semi-auto to an auto if you are familiar with the process.
Really? Did you know that the full auto M16 has a different hammer; bolt carrier; selector/safety switch than the semi-auto M16; that it also has an extra part (auto sear), and that even drilling the holes above the trigger mechanism to accommodate an auto sear is a serious federal felony if you don't have a pre-86 regestered sear or lower (figure $10K+ and law enforcement approval for this part alone), and that's before you even get into stuff like the little ratchet to do 3 shot burst (which is an abomination of a design but outside the scope of this thread).
Competition AR15 trigger kits currently sold are designed for light trigger pulls with a crisp break for accurate target shooting, but are in no way something that can be easily converted to full auto. They don't even have the extra metal on the hammer for the notch required to engage the auto sear. Even if they did, the auto sear wouldn't trip without also replacing the semi auto bolt carrier with a full auto version having the extra metal designed to trip said sear.
There are some other guns (and you would not guess which ones) that are more easily converted to full auto, however, I am not going to provide instructions/details on a public forum. Walk into any gun shop asking to buy parts to do an "off books full auto conversion" and expect a cold reception.
-
*sigh*
Really? Did you know that the full auto M16 has a different hammer; bolt carrier; selector/safety switch than the semi-auto M16; that it also has an extra part (auto sear), and that even drilling the holes above the trigger mechanism to accommodate an auto sear is a serious federal felony if you don't have a pre-86 regestered sear or lower (figure $10K+ and law enforcement approval for this part alone), and that's before you even get into stuff like the little ratchet to do 3 shot burst (which is an abomination of a design but outside the scope of this thread).
Competition AR15 trigger kits currently sold are designed for light trigger pulls with a crisp break for accurate target shooting, but are in no way something that can be easily converted to full auto. They don't even have the extra metal on the hammer for the notch required to engage the auto sear. Even if they did, the auto sear wouldn't trip without also replacing the semi auto bolt carrier with a full auto version having the extra metal designed to trip said sear.
There are some other guns (and you would not guess which ones) that are more easily converted to full auto, however, I am not going to provide instructions/details on a public forum. Walk into any gun shop asking to buy parts to do an "off books full auto conversion" and expect a cold reception.
Really, the point was that it's possible for anyone to figure out if they want to. Obviously you have. And while I've never had the desire or need to learn the terms or techniques you've blithely rattled off, I've spent plenty of time in the company of men who were more than capable of doing the conversions, or milling any parts they couldn't easily lay their hands on - the type of men who thought making their own gun barrels was an entertaining way to spend the weekend.
And no, of course adjusting a semi-auto to full-auto isn't legal - but if you look at the earlier post I was responding to, the previous statement was that only criminals ever modify ANY guns.
And while a gun shop owner who wants to maintain a sales license isn't going to cheerfully sell you conversion parts, if you can't mill your own there are plenty of places to buy just about anything you want on the internet. If it's been made for use by anyone, it's been stolen from somewhere and offered for sale someplace.
-
Dear Moosemom, you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.
Whoa! I was CERTAINLY not focusing on that term with regards to you, Peter, and I did not think that GLM was either. I took that solely to mean that she was talking about very general and hypothetical standards, and a person who refuses to meet those standards would be behaving like a 'jerkface'. I am not sure why you thought she was talking about you? I saw no evidence that anyone is trying to get you banned, either, unless something has happened behind the scenes that I don't know about.
Dude, this is the second time you have taken something I said waaaaaaaaaay wrong. I was NOT addressing "jerkface" to you. I meant If ANYONE was being a jerkface. ANYONE. If I meant you, I would have said Hemodoc, because I am blunt like that.
Do you feel guilty of being a jerkface? because I didnt say you were ... Not everything is about you. Stop assuming. (like I suggested last time you assumed something I said)
cariad, yes i use jerkface instead of far more... vulgar terms haha since im not sure the age groups that read this, and some older folk dont dig the foal language either.
I do agree that it could potentially cause someone who needs to go to a mod not to want to but im sure there are plenty of people who abuse that... but i better not say that, someone might think im talking about them....
I really think I wont post on these threads anymore, because I have come to the conclusion my words are unread, and when they are, they are taken wrong, so what the hell is the point?
-
I really think I wont post on these threads anymore, because I have come to the conclusion my words are unread, and when they are, they are taken wrong, so what the hell is the point?
GLM, I read your posts because you speak from the heart without lots of BS. Just so you know... :cuddle;
Aleta
-
Thank you :) :cuddle;
-
I thought I posted this already, but apparently not...
I was NOT talking about you directly, hemodoc. I was speaking in general. I am blunt enough to say "hemodoc is being a jerkface" IF that is what I meant. It wasn't. Stop assuming things in reguards to me please.
My apologies for making you assume such a thing...
There are more than a few people on this site that can occasionally be 'jerkfaces' Hell, even myself can occasionally be one, im sure. Dont think everything is about you.
And I would expect that If I were being an ass, I would want to be told, so I can wake up and behave, or get out. Not a threat to you, Hemodoc. A statement that anyone who is being less than kind shouldnt be allowed to participate. In no ones post was your name mentioned specifically. Not one of them. Not sure why you would feel like it was about you....
because it was not.
-
This is absolutely nuts:
A man who found six children in his driveway in Newtown, Conn., after their teacher had been shot and killed in last month's school massacre has become the target of conspiracy theorists who believe the shootings were staged.
“I don’t know what to do,” Gene Rosen told Salon.com. “I’m getting hang-up calls, I’m getting some calls, I’m getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I’m lying, that I’m a crisis actor, ‘How much am I being paid?'”
Rosen, a 69-year-old retired psychologist who lives near Sandy Hook Elementary School where the shootings took place, says his inbox is filled with emails like this one:
"How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting’. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov’t sponsored hoax anyway?"
“The quantity of the material is overwhelming,” Rosen said, adding that he's sought the advice of a retired state police officer and plans to alert the FBI.
...
A quick Web search for Rosen's name reveals some of what he's opened himself up to: Appearing online are photos of his home, his address and phone number, several fake YouTube accounts and plenty of conspiracy theories.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html
-
Yeah, I watched the YouTube conspiracy thing on Sandy Hook and it is nuts. I also watched every minute of the Sandy Hook situation as it unfolded. The Medical Examiner was not an actor he is a weird guy that has this job. I'd probably be weird too if I had that job. So he laughed at one point... I remember that and the reporter's question was so damn dumb that I would have had a (I can't believe you just said that) laugh too. The couple who were smiling and laughing were talking about their daughter/or son and how special he/she was that is why they are smiling. The old guy who found 6 kids at the end of the driveway ..... should have called police or 911 to report it. I don't know why he didn't.
No, we did not see the bodies of anyone. So, did this actually happen? Considering any group of people CANNOT agree on anything? Therefore someone would slip up and tell. I think this is real.
I do have one question. They said there were one or two people in the hospital. Where are they? Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.
-
I do have one question. They said there were one or two people in the hospital. Where are they? Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.
Perhaps privacy issues? We don't have the right to interview or follow up on them.
-
I do have one question. They said there were one or two people in the hospital. Where are they? Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.
Perhaps privacy issues? We don't have the right to interview or follow up on them.
Well, I'm sure the police followed up on them. I just would like to know who they were and what they saw. Maybe there was no one. That State Trouper said again and again when they have turned over every rock and have every question answered they would tell us. This is a huge news item. People have poured out their hearts to that town. That's it? No followup? Was it just staged? (I don't believe that)
-
you know, this isnt the first time thats happened.... I cant remember right now what it was, but i vaguely remember, when i was living with my dad, we watched the news all the time, and something was going on... then it just stopped talking about it out of the blue. I asked dad If i had missed anything, because there was never a conclusion... it went on for weeks, then nothing.
-
I found a link to this article over on RenalWeb and thought it would be an interesting read for those who have posted on this thread...
Gun-Related Deaths: How Australia Stepped Off “The American Path”FREEONLINE FIRST
Simon Chapman, PhD; and Philip Alpers
Annals of Internal Med. 12 March 2013
Australia and the United States share many characteristics. Both are English-speaking democracies of multicultural immigrants. The 2 nations have been allies for nearly a century. Australians and Americans consume similar diets of movies, video games, popular music, recreational drugs, and alcohol. Both have vast interiors, early histories of armed European settlers mistreating native populations, plenty of feral pests to shoot, and many firearm enthusiasts. Yet the 2 countries currently differ dramatically on the issue of gun violence. The U.S. population is 13.7 times larger than that of Australia, but it has 134 times the number of total firearm-related deaths (31 672 vs. 236 in 2010) and 27 times the rate of firearm homicide (11 078 [3.6 per 100 000] vs. 30 [0.13 per 100 000] in 2010) (1).
The event that spurred this change in Australian gun control occurred on 28 April 1996 at the tourist site of Port Arthur, Tasmania, when a gunman killed 20 people in 90 seconds with his first 29 bullets. This “pathetic social misfit” (the judge's words) was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semiautomatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as “assault weapons.” Like most mass shooters in Australia and New Zealand, the killer had neither a criminal record nor a diagnosed mental illness.
In the 12 days after this event, Australia's 6 states, 2 territories, federal government, and opposition parties agreed to enact a comprehensive suite of firearm law reforms (2). John Howard, the newly elected and conservative Prime Minister, quickly reformed gun control laws. Since then, there have been no mass shootings and an accelerated decline in total gun-related deaths (3). All sides of Australian politics view tighter gun laws as a triumph of Howard's administration.
Key components of the reforms included a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic long guns and pump-action shotguns; a market-price gun buyback program financed by a small, one-off income tax levy on all workers; proof of genuine reason for firearm possession; the formal repudiation of self-defense as a legally acknowledged reason to own a gun; prohibition of mail or Internet gun sales; and required registration of all firearms (2). In a long series of state and federal gun amnesties and guns being voluntary surrendered for destruction, Australians have smelted more than 1 million firearms, or one third of the national civilian arsenal. An equal number in the United States would be 90 million guns (3).
On the day of the massacre in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, one of us tweeted a link to our report on gun deaths in Australia during the decade after the Port Arthur massacre and ensuing reforms (4). In the 6 years since our paper was published, readers had accessed it online 14 742 times. During December 2012, 82 310 people accessed it (see http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/articleusage?rid=12/6/365). Demand led to the reprinting of a book detailing the events surrounding Australian gun control (5), which was also made available as a free download. The world, particularly Americans, seems thirsty for information about the Australian experience.
The U.S. gun lobby argues that, because people (not guns) kill people, gun control will not reduce gun deaths. The Australian experience can inform this debate.
Whereas firearm suicides and single-victim homicides, such as domestic murders and criminal-on-criminal shootings, dominate the landscape of firearm-related deaths in industrialized nations, it was a mass shooting that outraged Australians and oxygenated public demand for gun control. The firearms banned from civilian ownership in Australia are frighteningly efficient, mass-killing machines originally designed for military combat. These weapons contribute little to target shooting or hunting. At the time, and across all mainstream media, gun lobby pleas to allow open civilian access to weapons designed for the battlefield were labeled as “un-Australian” extremism (5). Prime Minister Howard stated that, “this country, through its governments, has decided not to go down the American path in regard to guns.” But few predicted that a ban on semiautomatic weapons to prevent massacres would have had a significant impact on Australia's total gun deaths. Then, as now, unintentional shootings and suicides were responsible for 75% to 80% of gun deaths. Yet, the ban on semiautomatic weapons led not only to a 16-year absence of gun massacres but also an accelerating decrease in the total rates of gun deaths (3).
The rate of firearm homicide, which was decreasing by 3% per year before the reforms, decreased 7.5% per year after the new laws. This change failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.15) because of the relatively small numbers involved, but it remains notable (4). Firearm-related suicides in Australian men declined from 3.4 to 1.3 deaths per 100 000 person-years (a 59.9% decline) between 1997 and 2005, while the rate of all other suicides declined from 19.9 to 15.0 per 100 000 person-years (a 24.5% decline), suggesting no substitution effect (6). The yearly change in firearm-related suicides in men was −8.7% per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, −10.2% to −7.0%), and the yearly change in other suicides was −4.1% (CI, −4.7% to −3.5%), less than half the rate of decrease in firearm suicide (6). Although gun lobby researchers in Australia have sought to repudiate these data (7) using methods that have been heavily criticized (8 - 9), to date, no peer-reviewed research has established a plausible alternative cause for these accelerated declines. Meanwhile, others have attributed even stronger public safety effects to Australia's firearm reforms (10).
A nation's incidence of firearm deaths reflects many cultural, economic, and legislative factors. Those implacably opposed to Australia's reforms remain intent on attributing the declining incidence of gun death to anything but the new gun laws and the destruction of one third of the nation's firearms. But Australia's public health initiatives resemble the explanatory elephant in the room. No factor other than the dramatic reduction in access to the semiautomatic weapons needed by those planning massacres has been advanced to plausibly explain the cessation of mass shootings in Australia.
Although pro-gun spokespersons remain obsessed with the injustice of “decent law-abiding shooters” being “treated like potential criminals,” this rhetoric finds little traction in Australia, where drivers are regularly treated as potential public menaces at random breath-testing checkpoints and travelers as possible terrorists when passing through airport security.
Recently, a public health approach to gun control has taken root in the White House. Each of President Obama's recommendations has its basis in evidence-based public safety interventions patiently researched by our U.S. colleagues. Interventions similar in intent and design to those that successfully reduced the toll of guns on the lives of Australians may, perhaps, take hold in the United States.
References
1. Alpers P, Wilson M, Rossetti A. Guns in Australia: facts, figures and firearm law - Death and Injury, Total Gun Deaths and Gun Homicides compared to the United States. Sydney, Australia: Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney; 2013. Accessed at www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths/65,66,69,87,136,177,192,194 on 28 February 2013.
2. Commonwealth of Australia. Resolutions from a special firearms meeting. Canberra, Australia: Australian Police Ministers Council; 10 May 1996.
3. Alpers P. The big melt: how one democracy changed after scrapping a third of its firearms. In: Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr; 2013:205-11. Accessed at http://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1421411113_updf.pdf on 11 February 2013.
4. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M. Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Inj Prev. 2006;12:365-72. [PMID: 17170183]
5. Chapman S. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control. Annandale, VA: Pluto Pr; 1998. Available for download at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8938.
6. Chapman S, Hayen A. Declines in Australian suicide: a reanalysis of Mcphedran and Baker (2008) [Letter]. Health Policy. 2008;88:152-4. [PMID: 18571279]
7. Baker J, McPhedran S. Gun laws and sudden death: did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference? Br J Criminology. 2007;47:455-69.
8. Neill C, Leigh A. Weak Tests and Strong Conclusion: A Reanalysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback. EPS Journal Discussion Paper 555. Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University, Centre for Economic Policy Research; 2007.
9. Hemenway D. How to find nothing. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30:260-8. [PMID: 19806067]
10. Leigh A, Neill C. Do gun buybacks save lives? Evidence from panel data. American Law and Economics Review. 2010;12:462-508.
-
Minnesota radio host Bob Davis has a heartwarming message for the Newtown families (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/conservative-radio-host-families-of-newtown-shooting-victims-can-go-to-hell/).
"Deal with it, and don't force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I'm sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid -- they're terrified of these victims. ... I would stand in front of them and tell them, 'Go to hell.'"
What a wonderful American.
-
Will background checks on people who buy "Pressure Cookers" solve anything? It is domestic terrorism and they will not fill out a background check sheet......EVER!!! There are bad people who have bad ideas. We need to catch them and hopefully justice will be done.
-
Background checks for buying guns is a no-brainer. Anything can be used to kill and maim - but guns are primarily used to kill or maim. What else do you do with them? You can display one over the fireplace, but that's not why most people buy them. Most people buy them to shoot, and if you shoot without aiming properly, you end up killing or injuring someone. A gun can't cook you a meal (although it can kill one for you), it can't get you from point A to point B. Therefore, a background check is needed. NO-brainer.
KarenInWA
-
Bad people are NOT going to do it. No brainer..... Not saying you can't still have a list of good people that have guns.
-
I'd like to know how these two Boston bombers got their guns. Were any background checks done on them?
-
Background checks for buying guns is a no-brainer. Anything can be used to kill and maim - but guns are primarily used to kill or maim. What else do you do with them? You can display one over the fireplace, but that's not why most people buy them. Most people buy them to shoot, and if you shoot without aiming properly, you end up killing or injuring someone. A gun can't cook you a meal (although it can kill one for you), it can't get you from point A to point B. Therefore, a background check is needed. NO-brainer.
KarenInWA
The Virginia Tech killer passed his background check.
The Arizona shooter passed his background check.
The Aurora theatre killer passed his background check.
The Columbine killers bought their weapons in a straw purchase avoiding the background checks.
The Newtown killer stole his mother's weapons avoiding a background check.
Background checks are essentially a failure in preventing mass shootings.
Background checks as proposed by the Dems includes registration, there is no other way to track private sales without it and the Dems have opposed plans that did not include the registration proposal as well.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-background-checks-wont-work
Background checks will not make America safer. Universal background checks is the back door to universal gun registration. That is the true end result that they are looking for. Universal background checks sounds great as a sound bite, but it is not a workable policy and it imposes severe risks of civil liberties.
In any case, after watching the Boston police rape the constitutional rights of innocent law abiding citizens in Watertown MA, not sure how much civil liberties it is that we have left to protect any longer. The amazing aspect is how the city of Boston rose up to cheer those who placed them in "lockdown", i.e. Martial law for 24 hours. I guess the 4h amendment means nothing any longer in this nation. The 1st and 2nd are not far behind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8
-
Hemodoc! It's great to see you!
-
Hemodoc! It's great to see you!
Always a pleasure Moosemom. The answer to question above is no, the Boston bombers obtained their guns illegally. In fact, the older brother was in a prohibited category due to a prior arrest on domestic violence. One more such case where background checks failed since the weapons were obtained illegally.
-
If he bought his gun off the internet or at a gun show, how would that be a failure of background checks? It could have been through a straw purchaser and legislation strengthening laws blocking straw purchases has also been blocked.
-
If he bought his gun off the internet or at a gun show, how would that be a failure of background checks? It could have been through a straw purchaser and legislation strengthening laws blocking straw purchases has also been blocked.
Bill, straw purchases have been against the law for quite some time with serious consequences but that does not prevent criminals from circumventing the law. Interviews of criminals confirms that further gun regulation will not change their behavior.
The issue of the Boston bombers is that under current regulations, the older brother was not eligible for gun possession or ownership. Thus, even before he shot at the police, he was breaking the law and didn't care. Under current law, he was not allowed to even hold a gun in any manner. Criminals don't keep the laws we already have.
In addition, most internet gun sales require sending the gun to an FFL for clearance and all gun show sales done through FFL have background checks. Private sales conducted anywhere including gun shows are legal and no background checks are conducted. Different states such as CA don't allow any sales unless through an FFL with background checks. Further, all guns sales in private are illegal if the seller knows of any precluding reasons that a person would fail a background check at an FFL. There are already consequences for selling to ineligible people at Federal and state levels.
You cannot mail a handgun to a private party and only a resident of a given state can buy a handgun in that state. Long guns, shotguns and rifles, can only be shipped to private parties within a given state if there is no state prohibition. Otherwise, to go from one state to another, you must ship to an FFL and abide by the state laws in place. The laws in place are already very comprehensive.
Once again, stopping criminal behavior for folks who don't follow the law remains a difficult issue no matter how many gun laws we already have or will ever add in the future.
-
Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?
-
Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?
No, I believe we have violence and a crime problem for which no one seems to have an answer. What spawns and breeds violence in this nation is where the discussion needs to go since those that wish to do violence can place gun powder in a pressure cooker with nails and ball bearings and do great harm. People can take a knife and injure 14 people in a few minutes. Or you can take ordinary fertilizer and add gasoline and kill hundreds. I live in Idaho where just about everyone I know carries concealed guns yet the crime rate is very low. If guns were the underlying problem, then where I live in Idaho should be very dangerous. Hunting, camping, shooting are frequent activities for the folks up there with people owning several guns in each household.
Yet, it is southern CA where guns are severely restricted that I am at greatest risk.
Violence in its many forms is the underlying issue. I believe God has the answer to that problem, yet America is more and more dismissing that as an answer. Rescinding the second amendment will not solve the problems of guns or violence in this nation since these laws do nothing to address the criminal element.
-
Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?
No, I believe we have violence and a crime problem for which no one seems to have an answer. ...
It's certainly not just guns which are a problem. I live in rural South Dakota, and the rate of gun ownership and use is quite high, but with little violence. Perhaps problems arise when there is a combination of high population density and guns?
But, I'm intrigued by the article MooseMom posted about Australia. As described, it would appear as though gun control efforts there have had a dramatic effect on gun violence.
Regarding violence and guns -- humans are very much creatures who tend toward convenience. While individuals intent on violence can certainly find ways, doesn't the fact that guns are relatively convenient and effective for committing violent acts suggest there may be more of a connection?
cheers,
skg
-
The amazing aspect is how the city of Boston rose up to cheer those who placed them in "lockdown", i.e. Martial law for 24 hours. I guess the 4h amendment means nothing any longer in this nation. The 1st and 2nd are not far behind.
I would be most interested to know what other way than a "lock down' would have sorted the problem - they know who did it, the offenders are in the area, they have nothing to lose - surely it is the safest option to take. Everyone in the area being confined to their home for 24 hours is surely a small price to pay for the eventual outcome.
Coming from Australia, it might be that on the odd occasion that we have a (very much smaller) need for a 'lock down', it has always seemed the safest move.
-
The lockdown failed. The police did not find this creep in their unwarranted and unprecedented imposition of martial law not only in Newtown but in Boston and several surrounding municipalities.
How did they find the creep? A private civilian found him on his property AFTER the police had already investigated his property during the lockdown. It seems allowing private citizens the right to keep their own property would have reduced the amount of time needed to find the creep.
In addition, they didn't simply tell folks to stay in their homes, they searched many homes treating the occupants like criminals taken outside at gun point and searches conducted without any warrant which is against our 4th amendment. Watch the video below and see if that is how you would want to be treated by the police when someone else acts in an unlawful manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8
-
I would still like to know how you would have 'solved' the problem in another manner. We don't have as much information in Oz as you have. The lockdown and the atmosphere it and the bombing produced, would have had everyone in the area extraordinarily alert, which is probably why the guy with the boat found the bomber.
Under the conditions prevailing at the time, being treated the way the video showed would have been rather scary. If it had happened to me, I would have understood that it was considered necessary - someone could have phoned in with a 'tip' - and that it was a temporary arrangement. I'm not sure how I would have got down the front steps with my hands up - I have to use the hand rail.
-
I would still like to know how you would have 'solved' the problem in another manner. We don't have as much information in Oz as you have. The lockdown and the atmosphere it and the bombing produced, would have had everyone in the area extraordinarily alert, which is probably why the guy with the boat found the bomber.
Under the conditions prevailing at the time, being treated the way the video showed would have been rather scary. If it had happened to me, I would have understood that it was considered necessary - someone could have phoned in with a 'tip' - and that it was a temporary arrangement. I'm not sure how I would have got down the front steps with my hands up - I have to use the hand rail.
There have been thousands of manhunts across the years that captured the suspect without invoking martial law. It was not necessary, it did not work and it was a serious infringement of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unfortunately, many in America are now willing to trade freedom for security. Ben Franklin had an interesting comment about this more than 200 years ago.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-
Have any of the residents who had their homes searched complained? Or sued?
-
Have any of the residents who had their homes searched complained? Or sued?
Actually, Moosemom, whether there are complaints or lawsuits is not the issue. The issue is how many people tolerated this intrusion of their constitutional rights without complaint. That is simply an indication of how little regard many people hold these rights and how easily they are cast aside. It is a fundamental change in our society that does not bode well for keeping these freedoms that America has enjoyed for over 200 years. If people are so ready to dismiss the constitution, it won't be long before it is all but gone.
-
The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.
-
Perhaps, Hemodoc, the people didn't view it as an intrusion. Perhaps they viewed it as cooperation. Someone had blown up people in their own turf, and that someone was still on the loose. Perhaps finding the bomber was their top priority.
If you had been one of those homeowners, what do you think you would have done? Do you think that Constitutional concerns would have been uppermost in your mind in that situation?
-
The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.
What do you mean?
-
Perhaps, Hemodoc, the people didn't view it as an intrusion. Perhaps they viewed it as cooperation. Someone had blown up people in their own turf, and that someone was still on the loose. Perhaps finding the bomber was their top priority.
If you had been one of those homeowners, what do you think you would have done? Do you think that Constitutional concerns would have been uppermost in your mind in that situation?
I would not submit to a search of my private home without a warrant. That is my legal constitutional right. Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal. If that is OK with you, then not much more to talk about. The two women in CA who were shot by anxious cops understand well how dangerous police can be. If folks think that kind of police behavior is fine, then get used to it, I suspect that will be the new norm quite soon.
In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
The right to self defense, the second amendment, is under attack since Newtown. The spectacle in Boston with police doing searches of private property for people not involved in any criminal activity whatsoever illustrates one of the fundamental reasons the founders gave us the second amendment and the fourth amendment. Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well. It does not bode well for the future of true freedom in America especially if so many readily and freely submit to illegal searches of themselves and their property.
-
The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.
Actually, under laws signed by Bush and Obama's National Defense Authorization Act last year, the president can suspend habeas corpus for anyone that he wishes. In other words, by the "authority" of the NDAA, what the Boston police did is perfectly "legal," although quite bothersome to anyone that delves into constitutional issues. Thus, at the whim of the government under the discretion of the president, they can enact martial law when they feel it is "appropriate." In a very real sense, yes, the constitution is null and void whenever the commander in chief wishes.
-
Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal.
I don't think I'd like that one bit, but I'm not sure it is accurate to assume that the homeowners felt like they were being treated like a criminal. It would make more sense to believe that they were all too aware of the circumstances and were happy to coorperate.
In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I don't think they picked their target just because it was in a state with gun restrictions. These two were familiar with the area and its customs. They lived there and had been educated there, and they knew that the Boston Marathon would be a good target for their purpose.
I am sure the armed residents of Idaho would have been all too happy to gun down the suspects themselves...if they could have found them. Seems like it would be pretty easy to hide in someplace like Idaho.
Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well.
Who believes this? Anyone in Boston?
Anyway, I'm really glad to see you back on IHD. I'm off now, so have a terrific weekend! We finally have some spring weather here, and I hope you have the same wherever you are. Are you in Idaho right now? Or are you in CA? Are you picking up your socks like a good Hemodoc? LOL! Bye!
-
Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal.
I don't think I'd like that one bit, but I'm not sure it is accurate to assume that the homeowners felt like they were being treated like a criminal. It would make more sense to believe that they were all too aware of the circumstances and were happy to coorperate.
In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I don't think they picked their target just because it was in a state with gun restrictions. These two were familiar with the area and its customs. They lived there and had been educated there, and they knew that the Boston Marathon would be a good target for their purpose.
I am sure the armed residents of Idaho would have been all too happy to gun down the suspects themselves...if they could have found them. Seems like it would be pretty easy to hide in someplace like Idaho.
Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well.
Who believes this? Anyone in Boston?
Anyway, I'm really glad to see you back on IHD. I'm off now, so have a terrific weekend! We finally have some spring weather here, and I hope you have the same wherever you are. Are you in Idaho right now? Or are you in CA? Are you picking up your socks like a good Hemodoc? LOL! Bye!
Actually, if they go out in the boonies, the bears, the mountain lions and the wolves will make them think that option again.
Now, I didn't state - "gunning them down," I simply stated that folks in Idaho and other places like Texas take their own self defense into account personally. When you give up individual rights to the state, you may not appreciate how far the state will take that.
-
In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?
-
In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?
Hmmm, the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms?? Yes, that is the law of this land, or at least it is supposed to be the law of this land.
Secondly, who stated taking the law into our own hands??? The right to self defense is the law of the land still. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no constitutional duty to protect thus putting the emphasis back on personal responsibility when you understand what that ruling truly means:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
Thirdly, I heard a commentary on the radio a couple of days ago about how America has become a nation that is unable to defend itself at the individual level. Imagine, a city of over a million people shut down by two creeps. Amazing really when you think about it. My father's generation would not have been so. People have bought into the notion that our personal safety is the responsibility of the police and the officials. Well, I would remind you of the Supreme Court decision above:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Fourthly, who said anything about going around shooting up the bombing suspects after the bombing at the marathon?? The suspects were not even identified until AFTER the Watertown and MIT shootings.
I was referring to the "lock down" that occurred after the MIT and Watertown shootings. Interestingly, I lived in that exact neighborhood for a year while in medical school and did a rotation at Mt Auburn Hospital as well.
Most folks here in Idaho are dedicated hunters who put food on the table for their families with the abundant elk, deer, moose and bear. There is also a tradition of self reliance in dangerous situations. I have friends up here in Idaho who owned ranches, were loggers and farmers. It is hard way to make a living. Almost everyone I know carries concealed guns and they have every right to do so. In many instances, they carry not because of criminals but because of what is in the woods with lots of bear, mountain lions and federally sponsored non-native wolves. Where I live in Idaho, crime is very low. 30 minutes west in Spokane WA, crime is out of control. Yet, it never seems to migrate 30 minutes away to our area in part due to the freedom to keep and bear arms we still enjoy in Idaho.
Interestingly, we have very little road rage, home invasions or other such violent crimes. It turns out as some have said, that an armed society is a very polite society. I feel much safer in Idaho where many of the folks I encounter on a daily basis are carrying guns, some of them openly just like in the old wild west.
In any case, most folks here in our town have dogs that serve to alert the owner if someone is on their property and most can defend their own home quite well. Sorry, that is not at all taking the law into their own hands. It used to be the way it was even back east.
Instead, we have images of people subjected to searches of their person and property without any warrant. Amazingly, people celebrated and embraced this treatment. Such an invasion of constitutional rights by the police would never be tolerated here in Idaho or in Texas where folks actually read and understand the constitution. I have felt for quite some time that the constitutional protections would probably not outlast me. What happened in Boston did not deter that impression whatsoever. Do we really wish to surrender our rights to the government for the alleged promise of security?
-
[quote author=willowtreewren link=topic=28065.msg456527#msg456527 date=1367025477
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?
[/quote]
Hi Aleta! I hang around alot of gun toting citizens. 9 times out of 10 (we cant be perfect here) no innocent by standers would fall if I were to aim. Most gun carring citizens would not be carrying if there werent criminals in our mist. We carry for our protection only. Law enforcement are the only ones who can carry in the open with exception of a few. I personally carry concealed (have a permit) for Protection only. If I draw to protect from a threat from another with a deadly weapon, innocent bystanders won't have to worry for their safety. Just saying!
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
[quote author=willowtreewren link=topic=28065.msg456527#msg456527 date=1367025477
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?
Hi Aleta! I hang around alot of gun toting citizens. 9 times out of 10 (we cant be perfect here) no innocent by standers would fall if I were to aim. Most gun carring citizens would not be carrying if there werent criminals in our mist. We carry for our protection only. Law enforcement are the only ones who can carry in the open with exception of a few. I personally carry concealed (have a permit) for Protection only. If I draw to protect from a threat from another with a deadly weapon, innocent bystanders won't have to worry for their safety. Just saying!
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
[/quote]
Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out. Fortunately, concealed carry permit holders are one of the safest group of people to be around, actually, in one study I read recently, even safer than the group comprised of law enforcement officers. In this study, the LEO's committed more crimes than the concealed permit holders. Something to think about.
In addition, concealed carry is guided by very strict definitions of when you can or cannot lawfully use a gun in self defense. There is a great misconception of "gun toting" folks taking the law into their own hands which is far from the truth. In fact, concealed carry permit holders are one of the MOST law abiding groups in America. The suggestion that anyone would shoot into a large crowd of people is simply ridiculous.
Concealed carry is for personal protection. We are not LEO's. It is not our duty to apprehend anyone. In many cases, the best thing for a concealed carry person to do is just be a good witness and that is all. The decision to use a concealed weapon in self defense is not taken lightly and there are many instances where not even revealing the weapon is the best approach. Just give them the wallet and call to cancel your credit cards. In a crowded restaurant, the ONLY time I would engage anyone is if it were an active shooter intent on being the latest on the national news scene by killing as many people as he can in a short period of time. In addition, there is the added danger that you could become the target of the police when they respond in such a situation as well. But there are several cases where a person with a concealed permit has aborted a mass shooting by engaging the shooter. Many times, once the shooter has any resistance, they will often go into their end game suicide deed.
A must read book for all that choose the lawful option of concealed carry is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Mas Ayoob, a firearms expert and law enforcement officer. The book is over 30 years old, but still relevant today. The title states it all, In the Gravest Extreme, is the only time when lethal weapons are lawfully justified.
http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001
-
The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.
Actually, under laws signed by Bush and Obama's National Defense Authorization Act last year, the president can suspend habeas corpus for anyone that he wishes. In other words, by the "authority" of the NDAA, what the Boston police did is perfectly "legal," although quite bothersome to anyone that delves into constitutional issues. Thus, at the whim of the government under the discretion of the president, they can enact martial law when they feel it is "appropriate." In a very real sense, yes, the constitution is null and void whenever the commander in chief wishes.
Or, consider the case when AT&T was found to have cooperated with the feds in illegal wiretaps via equipment in a secret locked room at the San Francisco switching center that only the NSA had access to. The government's reaction? Pass a special law granting AT&T immunity from any civil suits brought by wiretapees.
And then there is the case of the "secret docket" system in federal courts - allowing for "secret trials" when the government decides it is harmful to let the public know of the proceedings.
Consider the concept of the "national security letter" - a letter functioning much like a warrant, with criminal sanctions upon the recipient for disclosing the receipt of said letter.
But, so far, the 3rd amendment appears to be pretty much intact.
-
The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created. Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector. Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now, but you know how technology becomes cheaper and cheaper pretty quickly. How do you all think this new tech will affect our guns laws? Now that this particular genie is out of the bag, what should happen next?
Gun manufacturers make a good deal of money from selling their products, but this could undercut them tremendously. Do you think the gun industry should be protected?
I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry. Anyone have any thoughts?
-
The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created. Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector. Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now,...
I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry. Anyone have any thoughts?
I have some students who have built a 3D printer and have been making a living using it. (They make custom action figures, e.g. My Little Ponies.) While it has been shown that it is possible to use a 3D printer to create a gun, it is decidedly non-trivial.
Just to get something as simple as a whistle printed out can take many, many hours of dedicated work.
I am certain that there are far, far easier ways to get a functional gun.
cheers,
skg
-
I am certain that there are far, far easier ways to get a functional gun.
cheers,
skg
But not a functional gun that can also go through a metal detector.
This 3D printing technology has been used to build a transplantable bladder, and they are hoping that it might be used to build functional, transplantable kidneys. There's irony for you.
-
The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created. Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector. Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now, but you know how technology becomes cheaper and cheaper pretty quickly. How do you all think this new tech will affect our guns laws? Now that this particular genie is out of the bag, what should happen next?
Gun manufacturers make a good deal of money from selling their products, but this could undercut them tremendously. Do you think the gun industry should be protected?
I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry. Anyone have any thoughts?
Did you see how ugly that gun is??? And all that for $10,000 only??
No, I don't see them competing with the established gun makers who make some pretty impressive products. The interest in the 3D printers is to bypass gun control legislation outlawing the selling especially of hicap magazines where the 3D printing has its greatest potential. However, illegal is still illegal and I doubt 3D printing will be much more than a passing fad and fancy of the gun control environment in our current political makeup unless and until the technology makes gun making far cheaper than what they can do today. Is it a thing of the future? Perhaps, we will have to wait and see, but they have much more efficient manufacturing technology already making a better product.
-
Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out.
You would be surprised just how many folks can legally carry concealed in Massachusetts. The availability of an unrestricted LTC (the MA term for a concealed weapons permit) depends almost completely on one's town of residence. Sure, Boston is a bit tough .... but if you live in the boonies you can get a permit to carry when you visit the city. There are hundreds of thousands of concealed weapons permits in MA and criminal use, or excessive "self help", on the part of the holders thereof is almost non-existant.
But, it wouldn't have done any good in the Boston bombing. Even those cops who instinctively drew their weapons at the boom could not find anything to shoot at.
-
Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out.
You would be surprised just how many folks can legally carry concealed in Massachusetts. The availability of an unrestricted LTC (the MA term for a concealed weapons permit) depends almost completely on one's town of residence. Sure, Boston is a bit tough .... but if you live in the boonies you can get a permit to carry when you visit the city. There are hundreds of thousands of concealed weapons permits in MA and criminal use, or excessive "self help", on the part of the holders thereof is almost non-existant.
But, it wouldn't have done any good in the Boston bombing. Even those cops who instinctively drew their weapons at the boom could not find anything to shoot at.
Looks like it is over 200,000 class A permits as of a year ago.
Altogether, state residents held a total of 246,775 Class A licenses as of Feb. 1 - an 8.4 percent increase from April 2010, when licenses totaled 227,612.
Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newburyport/news/x586055064/Gun-sales-permits-rise-in-Massachusetts#ixzz2gzKCFdwm
Follow us: 141301585931853 on Facebook
-
Looks like it is over 200,000 class A permits as of a year ago.
This only tells part of the story, as only a subset of the Class A permits allow concealed carry ("restrictions: none"). Some of the Class A's are restricted to recreational and target shooting.
-
Looks like it is over 200,000 class A permits as of a year ago.
This only tells part of the story, as only a subset of the Class A permits allow concealed carry ("restrictions: none"). Some of the Class A's are restricted to recreational and target shooting.
Wow, that puts it in a different light. That would severely limit the total number of legal gun owners then. Do they have stats on how many gun owners they have in MA?
-
Driving Interstate 84 in Connecticut today, I passed the exit for Newtown/Sandy Hook. It just made me sad. Over 27,000 Americans have lost their lives to gun violence or gun suicide since then.
Sad.