Criminal Deeds

[kandrathe]

Great that we could stop this thread now that the NRA has found a brilliant solution.

There is no real good solution, right? You can't make every public mall, theater, school, museum, etc. an armed bunker. As in other places without easy access to guns... They use blunt instruments, chemicals, illegal explosives, big knives, or get illegal guns.

Just looking at recent mass murderers from The Netherlands -- Ondrej Rigo, Karst Roeland Tates, or Tristan Van Der Vlis.

Tristan is a good example of how even someone with known psychiatric issues gets permits for guns, and acquires illegal weapons even when investigated for possessing illegal weapons. This is with the strict gun control of the Netherlands.

Here is what I know from living through having someone obsessed with killing someone in my family; insane sociopaths are dangerous and need close supervision. We are too lax with the obviously insane.

[eppie]

No, it is much simpler than that. Luckily these nra guys are smarter than the rest of us. I would however take it a step further. Not only do we need armed guards at elementary schools, i also think teachers should pack. As well as some of the children (the ones over the age of 9 of course).
In a related issue: firemen should also start carrying heavy automatic weapons while on the job.


Seriously, how long ago was newton? And then to see tweets with images of guys posing happily with their new ar15 (or whatever it is calleed) they got for christmas......makes me really sick.

[kandrathe]

Seriously, how long ago was newton? And then to see tweets with images of guys posing happily with their new ar15 (or whatever it is calleed) they got for christmas......makes me really sick.

Well, seriously then.

2.5 million AR15's have been sold since 1986. How many are involved in mass shootings? One is too many, but still you see the point. The bigger issue I see is that mass shootings are getting more prevalent, while gun ownership getting less prevalent. From 1972 to 2008, the ATF has estimated that the number of gun owning households has dropped from 58% to 32%. At that time, they estimated that there are 294 million guns in the US (nearly one per person). But, incidents of "insane" mass shootings have increased.

It's not that more people have access to guns. It's that the "wrong" people have access to guns. Normal people, like you and I, don't feel compelled to kill people -- even the ones with which we are angry. If you want to stop murder, then you need to focus on the murderers.

[eppie]

It's not that more people have access to guns. It's that the "wrong" people have access to guns. Normal people, like you and I, don't feel compelled to kill people -- even the ones with which we are angry. If you want to stop murder, then you need to focus on the murderers.

Maybe you should look at the brilliant people who write these forms you have to fill in when flying to the US.
Did you pack your back yourself?
Do you have a gun with you?
Do you plan to murder someone?
That will probably be enough.

[kandrathe]

That will probably be enough.

How do you protect the trains, buses, big stadium events and crowded markets?

When it comes to flying... we are almost to the point of making everyone fly naked and without any gear. Here is your TSA paper gown for the flight. Everyone is treated as a criminal, scanned, searched and can't carry on liquids, plastic knives, or anything deemed to be capable of heinous use. Now? Now do you feel safe?

[Occhidiangela]

Here's a thought:

Sorry, you weren't quick enough to catch it. It's gone, leaving you in the dust.

[eppie]

@kandrathe: i guess you understood i was beibg ironic.
@occhi: great that you agree with me. It must be great being part of such a noble organisation.

[Occhidiangela]

Eppie, I don't like stupidity.
Post #67 was an example of it.
Please don't use it without a license.
PS: it is none of your business, by the way, what we do with our rights and our laws.

Unless you bring a lot of lumber to the table.

Happy New Year.

[FireIceTalon]

Eppie, I don't like stupidity.
Post #67 was an example of it.
Please don't use it without a license.
PS: it is none of your business, by the way, what we do with our rights and our laws.

Unless you bring a lot of lumber to the table.

Happy New Year.

The only thing you bring to the table is being a professional asshole. Not to mention a hypocrite.

You don't like stupidity, but this is what describes 99.9% of YOUR posts.

Secondly, since we make it OUR business what other countries "rights" and "laws" are, I see no reason why our political and social organization cannot come under the scrutiny of others. I know it pisses you off when people question the mythical greatness of your little precious, shining city on the hill - that was built on the blood and misery of slaves and working men and women, but that's because it isn't the center of the universe (and it never was, nor will it ever be), no matter how much you may think so. Now pardon me as I make it my New Years resolution to break the record on American flags burnt, and I wouldn't urinate on them to put the fire out.

Happy Motherfucking New Year.

[eppie]

Eppie, I don't like stupidity.

So your life must suck, living in Texas.

No seriously, when your government decides to attack you, the citizen of the US you will be able to defend yourself for a while. Up till then your weapon-hapiness has a cost. And I think that most US citizens are willing to pay that price.
And that is indeed none of my business, but like you I hate stupidity so that is why I comment on it.
I personally find basing the way you set up a country on a few 100 year old document 'strange', but I guess the weapon lobby is a bit like a church in that sense.....using such an old document is a great way of getting what you want...people tend to respect it more than some angry old white guys.

[kandrathe]

No seriously, when your government decides to attack you, the citizen of the US you will be able to defend yourself for a while.

But... It's not only them. It's really anyone. Going back to "the rights of humanity" -- we have the "right" to self defense.

Up till then your weapon-hapiness has a cost. And I think that most US citizens are willing to pay that price.

And... we have a big benefit. Freedom. We live in a society where people are FREE to defend themselves.

I personally find basing the way you set up a country on a few 100 year old document 'strange', but I guess the weapon lobby is a bit like a church in that sense.....using such an old document is a great way of getting what you want...people tend to respect it more than some angry old white guys.

No. Our laws (and Constitution) are built upon the foundation of the ages of political thought. The Magna Carta, John Locke, Voltaire, Cicero, Demosthenes, Aristotle... etc. Patrick Henry, (one of our founding revolutionaries) said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

The mechanism of government being necessary to ensure that rights are secure and covenants are kept -- without which we descend into the anarchy of "might over rights".

[eppie]

But... It's not only them. It's really anyone. Going back to "the rights of humanity" -- we have the "right" to self defense.

I also have the right to defend myself...I think most people in most countries have that. I just don't find a 6 year old stands much of a chance against a guy with a semi-automatic rifle. It is great the kid has the right, but practically that is not worth anything.

SO what the NRA suggest is armed guards at schools (all of the time). I guess they also suggest this for firemen, etc. etc. etc.
So in what sense does that make a society safer? Because of a fear your government wants to harm you you start creating more and more government jobs (or in the US case you of course use private companies) that require more and more armed people around.....is this not just the thing you want to prevent?
What would tell you that the guy that has to protect your kids isn't a bit unstable and wants to kill people himself??

No. Our laws (and Constitution) are built upon the foundation of the ages of political thought. The Magna Carta, John Locke, Voltaire, Cicero, Demosthenes, Aristotle... etc. Patrick Henry, (one of our founding revolutionaries) said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

The mechanism of government being necessary to ensure that rights are secure and covenants are kept -- without which we descend into the anarchy of "might over rights".

So in order to argue against what I said you mention even older documents? Most of which don't mention heavy automatic weaponry I presume.
Again, it seems to me a religious zeal with which NRA people defend this right. I guess you agree with me that many life rules out of the bible and similar documents are very much based on the times in which they were written (the not eating pork for example, because of diseases).
But this is actually a whole different discussion and doesn't have anything to do with weapons per se.

[FireIceTalon]

Seriously, I'm so sick of people throwing around the word "freedom", I am ready to scream. WTF does this word mean anyway (rhetorical question)? It is a complete buzzword that right-wing (and some supposedly "left" wing) hacks use, that is subjective in its context and meaning, and has little place in any serious, objective political discourse. Fuck that word. One man's "freedom" is another man's "tyranny" (another subjective buzzword). Yea, we have the "freedom" to defend ourselves (to an extent, and as long as you are the right race and class), as most western countries do. "Freedom" in America is a code word for white privilege and capitalist supremacy, the right to discriminate those who are minority, female, homosexual, or atheist, as well as the right to subjugate the labor of those who do not own capital (often correlated to the aforementioned identities).

[kandrathe]

I also have the right to defend myself...I think most people in most countries have that. I just don't find a 6 year old stands much of a chance against a guy with a semi-automatic rifle. It is great the kid has the right, but practically that is not worth anything.

A 6 year old, or many adults don't stand much of a chance (unarmed) against a 230 lb raving sociopath with a knife, or baseball bat either.

SO what the NRA suggest is armed guards at schools (all of the time). I guess they also suggest this for firemen, etc. etc. etc. So in what sense does that make a society safer?

If you are not going to deal with the insanity issue in the society, then the alternative is to have designated armed defenders. We do that now so that not everyone needs to pack a gun, and we call them police.

Because of a fear your government wants to harm you you start creating more and more government jobs (or in the US case you of course use private companies) that require more and more armed people around.....is this not just the thing you want to prevent?

I don't want the needed armed federal government agents (tsa, fbi, cia, etc.) targeting normal US civilians. The power to police is reserved to the localities and states.

What would tell you that the guy that has to protect your kids isn't a bit unstable and wants to kill people himself??

Same as for anyone else. His family, friends, and coworkers would most likely know if he were a danger to society. How many of these past incidents were committed by people in some type of psychiatric care?

So in order to argue against what I said you mention even older documents? Most of which don't mention heavy automatic weaponry I presume.

You said it was "strange" to "base the way you set up a country on a few 100 year old document". I said, it's not based on a 100 year old document. It's based upon the collected wisdom of political and social philosophy spanning recorded civilization.

Again, it seems to me a religious zeal with which NRA people defend this right. I guess you agree with me that many life rules out of the bible and similar documents are very much based on the times in which they were written (the not eating pork for example, because of diseases).

They feel that with out the "power" of the 2nd amendment, the rest of our rights would not be defendable. There was a reason that the 1st amendment is 1st, and the 2nd is next.

To understand what ended up in the US constitution, you should look to the pre-existing individual State charters. Much of the US bill of rights is derived from the State of Virginia's bill of rights penned by George Mason.

Which has written; " That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

---

WTF does this word mean anyway (rhetorical question)?

It hardly surprises me at all that you don't understand it.

[Sir_Die_alot]

"Freedom" in America is a code word for white privilege and capitalist supremacy, the right to discriminate those who are minority, female, homosexual, or atheist, as well as the right to subjugate the labor of those who do not own capital (often correlated to the aforementioned identities).

You mean freedom is the right to think how you want? Should it be something else? Could it be something else?

Freedom of thought invariably will consist of various things people disagree with. That you only list some social dregs and link them to your more hated political angle speaks poorly of your thought process. It is ironic that you would link those examples, since the further you get from "white privilege and capitalist supremacy" the less progressive those views become.

Be careful trying to encourage thought police. That is not a tame animal. (quick swerve back on topic) The right to bear arms is a way for citizens to keep away its bite. Whether that be from the government or just irate people. Guns are power, it is simple as that. No government in the world is immune to that fact. Where that power is and should be concentrated is really what this topic boils down to.

[FireIceTalon]

It has zero to do with my thought process (or anyones thought process for that matter) - it is an objective and observable sociological condition and historical process. Some social dregs? It only takes ONE in class antagonist systems - because ruling class ideology is also, ultimately, the prevailing ideology in the social organization and structure of society. I don't give a rats ass how much my politics are hated - they are hated because they point out inconvenient historical truths that people who scream meaningless buzzwords like "freedom", "liberty", "tyranny", yada yada yada, want to sweep under the rug. And besides, the feeling is most certainly mutual. Very likely I abhor your politics just as much, if not more so, than you do mine, but emotions are irrelevant here. Which is why words like freedom or tyranny are completely subjective and have no place in any intelligent or meaningful political discussion.

Nor does it have anything to do with encouraging thought police, but If you are worried about that, I suggest you go talk to the FBI, CIA (literally a Nazi organization), all the media pundits, our banking system of education and the rest of the bourgeois institutions and state apparatus that pump pro capitalist propaganda into our heads every day, so that the current social relations stay intact. People with anti-capitalist views and who are open about it are pretty much barred from being allowed any sort of voice in media outlets, and you're telling me that I'm an advocate for thought police?? Ha! No offense man, but such remarks are pure comedy and naivety on your part. The very system WE LIVE IN IS THE THOUGHT POLICE.

[eppie]

A 6 year old, or many adults don't stand much of a chance (unarmed) against a 230 lb raving sociopath with a knife, or baseball bat either.

So what you (and the NRA) actually say every adult who is able to use a gun better than the next man has the right to defend himself?
Well also the guy who is not really very good at aiming has the right to defend himself but we all know this is a bit of a wax nose because he will get shot anyway.

Of course I agree with the fact that also a 230 lb raving sociopath with a knife can kill lots of people but we were talking about the right to bear arms and defend yourself.

The scary thing is that with a gun you kill more people, quicker in a less personal way and you (if your mad at the world) have a very easy way of not having to face the wrath of other people because you can very easily kill yourself with it. For knifing yourself to death you need extra courage that most of us don't have.


In Belgium a few years ago Kim de Gelder went into a daycare center and stabbed two toddlers to death (an a teacher). He was mad at the world and wanted to make as many people suffer the worst way possible (by having their kids killed). He wanted actually to do this in a few more daycares. Now there were 3 victims....if this guy had a gun, probably 10s more.
The gun is not the cause, but it helps to make things worse.

[kandrathe]

So what you (and the NRA) actually say every adult who is able to use a gun better than the next man has the right to defend himself?

Well also the guy who is not really very good at aiming has the right to defend himself but we all know this is a bit of a wax nose because he will get shot anyway.

Of course I agree with the fact that also a 230 lb raving sociopath with a knife can kill lots of people but we were talking about the right to bear arms and defend yourself.

Well, a small person with a gun has a better chance to defend against the 230 lb raving sociopath without a gun. If the sociopath were also armed, then they perhaps have a more equal chance against each other. That is all the right of defense can hope for is to reasonably level the ground a bit.

The scary thing is that with a gun you kill more people, quicker in a less personal way and you (if your mad at the world) have a very easy way of not having to face the wrath of other people because you can very easily kill yourself with it. For knifing yourself to death you need extra courage that most of us don't have.

Those bent upon harm, to themselves or others, are inventive enough to find a way. There was a guy here in Minneapolis who mixed Chlorine Bleach with HCL to flood a home with poisonous gas in the middle of the night in an attempt to kill all the occupants.

In Belgium a few years ago Kim de Gelder went into a daycare center and stabbed two toddlers to death (an a teacher). He was mad at the world and wanted to make as many people suffer the worst way possible (by having their kids killed). He wanted actually to do this in a few more daycares. Now there were 3 victims....if this guy had a gun, probably 10s more. The gun is not the cause, but it helps to make things worse.

So, again, we need a better way in our society to identify the sociopaths like "Kim de Gelder's" to be able to intervene before they kill. Putting all of society into "the rubber room of safety", or in other words, removing/regulating all possible harmful things from our lives, will only serve to remove freedom from those who are already law abiding and peaceful. Criminals / sociopaths will ignore the laws - e.g. ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel... Any Tom, Dick, or Timothy McVeigh can tell you how to make Anfo -- it's even easier if you are willing to suicide along with your mass homicide. However, when not made into explosives, fertilizer is also useful, and so is diesel fuel.

[Jester]

So, again, we need a better way in our society to identify the sociopaths like "Kim de Gelder's" to be able to intervene before they kill. Putting all of society into "the rubber room of safety", or in other words, removing/regulating all possible harmful things from our lives, will only serve to remove freedom from those who are already law abiding and peaceful.

What level of deep surveillance would be required to separate the sociopaths from the "already law abiding and peaceful"? What freedoms would that "remove"? How do we "intervene" as a society of laws, to stop a crime that hasn't even been committed, and may never be?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What level of deep surveillance would be required to separate the sociopaths from the "already law abiding and peaceful"? What freedoms would that "remove"? How do we "intervene" as a society of laws, to stop a crime that hasn't even been committed, and may never be?

In hindsight, for many of these cases of mass homicide, even the militant ones like McVeigh, they alerted their family, friends, the public, and sometimes even government officials. They often gave big red glowing neon clues that something was wrong and dangerous. These sociopaths are not always the stereo typed silent loners who one day decide to go strike back at someone or the society. They alarm and creep out everyone around them who are seemingly powerless or maybe just clueless to do anything about the impending social train wreck.

In this case, allegedly the parents were committing him. In the Colorado theater case, James Holmes freaked out his college and was getting mental health care -- the same person who tried to report him to campus security. The Portland Mall case, with Jacob Tyler Roberts. was a little less obvious. The One L. Goh case in Oakland was another hard luck case of a man seeking revenge against a society that tormented him. There is a common "going postal" revenge theme, where the killer goes after someone and ends up killing many more.

I've seen this up close and personal. My parents insisted to the court officials for the kid that tried to kill my family member that he needed psychiatric help -- instead he was sent off to juvenile corrections -- only to be released (without any help) a year later -- only to be returned back to the same abusive family that made him, to the same school, and it was not shocking that he attempted to kill again. Then, as an adult (18) he served time in a criminal psychiatric hospital for attempted murder. But, I heard he still got into more similar trouble after that obsessing over some other person.