OT: Safety is an Illusion

[paramount]

One very disturbing case I didn’t forget, but for some reason chose not to mention was the October 2010 shooting at Kelly Elementary School.

The sicko TOTAL POS got 189 years, he should have been hung IMO.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]I remember the Brenda Spencer story pretty well. I grew up in that area.

Just a few years earlier, and just a couple of miles away, a high school senior, Danny Alstadt took an axe, and gave his father 40 whacks. And when he saw what he had done, he did the same to his mother and sister.[/quote]Channeling Lizzie Borden?

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=enron_by_the_sea]My conclusion: Liberty comes from culture, not from the barrel of a gun![/quote]History disagrees with you.. as well as Mao Zedong..

political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. – Mao Zedong

That is in part why they are banned from the public in China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_ownership_law_in_China

The Nazi(s) in Germany instituted strict gun control before they started to purge the Jews. When the populace found out what was happening, they could no longer oppose Hitler. Beside, initially everything was “good” for the Germans under Hitler.. except for the Jews which were completely banned from owning firearms.

There are several more examples of where strict gun control was instituted.. and short, within 10 to 20 years, a despot gains power and the people are not able to stop them.

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. – Adolf Hitler

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. – Sarah Brady

Note: On this last one, there are claims that the statement is not true.. but remember that Sarah Brady is associated with the Brady Center, and has taken no effort to refute it. There are other quotes from her along the same lines.[/quote]

So are you trying to say that Chinese people before Mao or Jewish-German people before the time of Hitler were the societies where semi-automatic guns were freely available and universally owned?

If not, how should I then conclude that loss of semi-automatic weapons leads to loss of liberty? In reality there are 100 other things that could have gone on too.

Just because Mao and Hitler said something, should it make it true?

Sarah Brady might have agenda to ban all guns, but I am not Sarah Brady! If you read what I said before, I am not talking about that. I am asking why this NRA’s love with semi-automatic weapons & high capacity magazines, allergy to registry or any notion of liability for anyone?

[ucodegen]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]So are you trying to say that Chinese people before Mao or Jewish-German people before the time of Hitler were the societies where semi-automatic guns were freely available and universally owned?[/quote]Strawman Argument, though with Jewish-German people, they were readily available.. though not universally owned. It is a sore point for old Jews from Germany.. The JDL is very anti gun regulation.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Just because Mao and Hitler said something, should it make it true? Besides Mao said “power” not “liberty”.[/quote]My is that every splitting a hair. The truth of it is in its demonstration during their rule and the number of deaths of the unarmed innocents who could do nothing but die. Mao rose to power through the ‘point of a gun’.. and then banned guns so that he himself would not be displaced.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am asking why this NRA’s love with semi-automatic weapons & high capacity magazines, allergy to registry or any notion of liability for anyone?[/quote]It is not necessarily love.. but an issue of encroachment/infringement upon a Constitutional right.

If the citizenry has to defend itself against the government, then the citizens will have to go against such things as the Mini-Gun(30cal rifle round, fired at 6000 rounds per minute), M2 Browning(50 cal BMG with armor piercing, incendiary rounds.. fire at up to 800 rounds per minute – these rounds can go through brick walls and 1 inch plate steel), M240 (Can include a grenade launcher, fires 30 cal 7.62 at almost 1000 rounds per minute). I have fired these.. and they scare the s**t out of me in terms of thinking of being on the other end.

Now try to imagine dealing with an errant government and using an old bolt-action against this.. doesn’t work.

In terms of fast rate of fire, a semi-auto is not much faster than a revolver for a knowledgeable person. In fact, there used to be ‘revolver-rifles’ before the semi-auto mechanism was perfected. It is also possible to reload a revolver using an autoloader within a few seconds. Some revolvers also had replaceable/removable cylinders (ie. Peacemakers) making it almost the same as a clip. Therefore banning semi-auto really doesn’t get you anything.

What I find interesting about the gun-regulation people, is the complete lack of knowledge on weapons that they possess. Most of the mass killings have been close up, and none of the guns being banned is the most dangerous close up. The most dangerous at 45 feet and under is a shotgun. There are 8 rounds per shell of 00 buckshot, about the size of a 38 caliber bullet. That means every time it fires once, it is equivalent to a 38 caliber handgun being fired 8 times at the same target. Don’t even think of what the slug is like.

Of course it doesn’t look ‘nasty’ like an ‘assault’ rifle.. and it is not as useful when protecting against an errant government.

Finally registration: There are several instances of where gun registration was later used to confiscate weapons.. including more recently in New York.

[CA renter]

Good posts, ucodegen.

Think I’ve told this story before, but my mom and most of her friends lived through WWII in Europe. They were telling stories one day about how parents would dig holes in the forests and hide their kids in these holes overnight to protect them from the soldiers (from all sides, BTW) who would come through the towns, often drunk, and rape the women and children.

When, as a young and naive person, I asked why the people didn’t do anything to stop them, they laughed and said:

“With what? They took our guns away before these things happened, and we willingly gave them away, because they told us it was for our own protection. They said that guns were dangerous in criminals’ hands, so we turned them in.”

Never say, “it can’t happen here,” because that’s exactly what they thought, too.

I cannot imagine what those parents felt as they had to helplessly watch their children being raped and all of their possessions being stolen by soldiers from various armies. For that reason, I fully support the rights of citizens to own guns that, in sufficient number, can fight armies. This is why there is such powerful opposition to the banning of “semi-automatic” guns and gun registration (which was used in those days to locate the people who owned guns). These people are not “crackpots” in most cases. They just understand history and how it tends to repeat.

[ocrenter]

[quote=desmond]oc,

I see you have passion but you just do not understand guns, your questions lack sense. Not your fault, you probably have not been around guns (?). Read my post again for clarification. It really does not matter whether it is a rifle or a pistol, (the V. Tech guy used pistols) either gun can fire hi powered rounds so fast you would think it was an automatic. Small 10-15 round clips can be discharged and loaded that the shooting never stops. You are probably thinking about the Bolt-Action gun that requires repeated motions to shoot one bullet, they still make those for target shooting and hunting but the popularity for the Military type gun has skyrocketed. Banning certain guns will do nothing, there are just to many other type of guns with the same shooting power.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. Again, why do we need semi-automatics readily available at your friendly neighborhood sporting goods store? if you dont want to answer that simple question, you dont have to. But there’s no need to go down the patronizing route and start teaching Guns 101.

[Coronita]

I think folks, you’re missing the point. Doesn’t matter what type of gun was used. The point is, the wrong person had access to it….And there’s no amount of legislation that’s going to prevent that from happening.

What the mother was thinking is beyond me…

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/connecticut-nancy-lanza-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Warning signs that the kid was in the process of being a social misfit already shown. I don’t know, but seems like the mother was either in denial that her son had a problem or that she so out of touch with keeping a bunch of guns in the house with a home-schooled pseudo-sociopath would pose a danger to society….On top of that, she ok’ed her son’s gun hobby????

Um, sorry I hate people who say “society failed this person” or some crap like that. Society didn’t fail… That mother failed…first as a responsible parent and second as a responsible citizen and third as general common-sense human being. And now 26 people are dead because of her.She might as well pulled the trigger herself, because she sure as hell enabled her psuedo-psycho son to do it. And surprising, some people will probably try to argue that it’s not her mother’s fault at all….She fvcked up..Bigtime.

I guess we’ll just have to put up with it…Because no amount of legislation/laws/rules will regulate stupidity, unless we’re talking about a full complete ban (which I’m not particular fond of myself)….

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Good posts, ucodegen.

Think I’ve told this story before, but my mom and most of her friends lived through WWII in Europe. They were telling stories one day about how parents would dig holes in the forests and hide their kids in these holes overnight to protect them from the soldiers (from all sides, BTW) who would come through the towns, often drunk, and rape the women and children.

When, as a young and naive person, I asked why the people didn’t do anything to stop them, they laughed and said:

“With what? They took our guns away before these things happened, and we willingly gave them away, because they told us it was for our own protection. They said that guns were dangerous in criminals’ hands, so we turned them in.”

Never say, “it can’t happen here,” because that’s exactly what they thought, too.

I cannot imagine what those parents felt as they had to helplessly watch their children being raped and all of their possessions being stolen by soldiers from various armies. For that reason, I fully support the rights of citizens to own guns that, in sufficient number, can fight armies. This is why there is such powerful opposition to the banning of “semi-automatic” guns and gun registration (which was used in those days to locate the people who owned guns). These people are not “crackpots” in most cases. They just understand history and how it tends to repeat.[/quote]

So I got my answer on the “necessity” of assault weapons. It is so when true patriots need to rise up against the oppressive government, they have the ability to do so.

Given that same line of thought, it is then ok to have some innocent casaulties along the way to maintain that ability to launch armed resistance against future government encroachment real or imagined.

But why stop at semi-automatics, why not have the ability to keep a few tanks and maybe even go nuclear.

[ucodegen]

[quote=ocrenter]So I got my answer on the “necessity” of assault weapons. It is so when true patriots need to rise up against the oppressive government, they have the ability to do so.

Given that same line of thought, it is then ok to have some innocent casaulties along the way to maintain that ability to launch armed resistance against future government encroachment real or imagined.

But why stop at semi-automatics, why not have the ability to keep a few tanks and maybe even go nuclear.[/quote]Or tactical nuclear weapon? It all has to do with the amount of damage that the device does. With semi-auto, it would take a large portion of the populace. With more powerful weapons, it would take fewer people. Potentially too small of a group to truly represent the populace’s wishes.

With the current tech in tanks.. I do get concerned. What if they are used against the populace. How do you stop an M1A2? Anti-tank weapons were not too effective against them in Iraq.

Instead of just looking at weapons, also consider that this guy was able to get into a school that had instituted new safety measures to protect its kids. Safety measures that mandated parents signing in, etc. How did he get past these? A perv could also go past these same security measures to ‘snatch’ a kid.

I also wonder if some of the ‘protecting’ that parents do for their kids combined with some of the video games, may also make them unfeeling. How do you understand and emphasize with someone being shot unless you know something more than what a video game shows you. How do you understand that is something you don’t want happening to you.. and that there is no ‘respawn’/’rebirth’ button?

Somethings not right here.. and it is not the guns. Guns have always been in our society and there have not been problems like this. Particularly, not as many. Why do they feel compelled to use a deadly weapon on the weakest portion of society?

PS: There are some people who collect tanks…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=flu]I think folks, you’re missing the point. Doesn’t matter what type of gun was used. The point is, the wrong person had access to it….And there’s no amount of legislation that’s going to prevent that from happening.

What the mother was thinking is beyond me…

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/connecticut-nancy-lanza-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Warning signs that the kid was in the process of being a social misfit already shown. I don’t know, but seems like the mother was either in denial that her son had a problem or that she so out of touch with keeping a bunch of guns in the house with a home-schooled pseudo-sociopath would pose a danger to society….On top of that, she ok’ed her son’s gun hobby????

Um, sorry I hate people who say “society failed this person” or some crap like that. Society didn’t fail… That mother failed…first as a responsible parent and second as a responsible citizen and third as general common-sense human being. And now 26 people are dead because of her.She might as well pulled the trigger herself, because she sure as hell enabled her psuedo-psycho son to do it. And surprising, some people will probably try to argue that it’s not her mother’s fault at all….She fvcked up..Bigtime.

I guess we’ll just have to put up with it…Because no amount of legislation/laws/rules will regulate stupidity, unless we’re talking about a full complete ban (which I’m not particular fond of myself)….[/quote]

jeepers…the article says she was getting 250k a year in alimony….couldnt she just get a topnotch alarm system for personal protection?

[all]

[quote=ucodegen] Safety measures that mandated parents signing in, etc. How did he get past these? A perv could also go past these same security measures to ‘snatch’ a kid.
[/quote]

He used the gun.

[paramount]

Mrs. Lanza was preparing for some fantasy doomsday collapse, but the doom was in her own house.

[ucodegen]

[quote=craptcha][quote=ucodegen] Safety measures that mandated parents signing in, etc. How did he get past these? A perv could also go past these same security measures to ‘snatch’ a kid.
[/quote]

He used the gun.[/quote]Umm.. how did he get past the locked door??? They had to first let him in, if the supposed security measures were in effect.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=paramount]Mrs. Lanza was preparing for some fantasy doomsday collapse, but the doom was in her own house.[/quote]

that sounds about right.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=squat300][quote=paramount]Mrs. Lanza was preparing for some fantasy doomsday collapse, but the doom was in her own house.[/quote]

that sounds about right.[/quote]

She was a true patriot worried about an oppressive government.

[Author]

Posts