ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [238] -- Merry Cliffmas!

[ Posted Friday, December 14th, 2012 – 18:07 PST ]

The end times are upon us! Maya Rudolph said so, right?

What's that? Mayans? Not Maya Rudolph? Man, I've got to start paying closer attention to these things. I'm still trying to figure out what sort of omen it is that Paul McCartney performed with Nirvana on 12/12/12, personally. Maybe not the end times, but certainly the strange times.

Ahem. I would say "all kidding aside" but we've got so much silliness at the top of the program this week that it wouldn't be strictly accurate. Because no matter what happens with that whole Mayan thing, this will indeed be the last of these columns of 2012. For the next two weeks we will instead be running our annual two-part homage to the McLaughlin Awards, and stating our picks in all the categories, as we cast our eyes backwards over the year that was. Feel free to offer up your own suggestions for the "best" and "worst" of 2012 in the comments, as we've got a lot of categories to fill! For now, though, we'll just have to wish everyone a "Merry Cliffmas!" and watch how the whole fiscal fight works out for the next two weeks along with everyone else.

But first, let's whip through what happened just in the last week. Obama announced that he would be sworn in for the third and fourth times next January, matching Franklin Delano Roosevelt's record. Watch for this to be a burr under the saddle of Rightwingistan as the event draws closer. The reason Obama's getting a double-helping of swearings-in (swearing-ins?) was caused, in the first and second places, by an incompetent Chief Justice who was too vain to write down the words dictated by the Constitution on a 3-by-5 card -- and instead decided to just wing it, four years ago. This necessitated a "do-over" the next day. This time around, the calendar dictates the double ceremony. January 20th falls on a Sunday this year, and the big outdoor inauguration ceremony is traditionally not held on Sundays (even though it'd be a lot easier, being a weekend day and all). But, like I said, look for the calendar to be somehow "Obama's fault" soon, on a talk radio network near you.

Also grist for the crazy mill on the right bank of the stream, this week a bank got robbed by a guy wearing a Mitt Romney mask. The same bank was robbed a while back by someone wearing a Hillary Clinton mask. I leave it as an exercise for the student as to how these jigsaw puzzles will be put together by the ranters and ravers into some sort of anti-Obama conspiracy theory.

Of course, it's not just the rightwing media that deserves scorn, but also our corporate "mainstream" media as well. The one thing they're good at (pun intended) is monomania. In any complex news story, the "journalists" and "pundits" can be counted on to focus on one distracting aspect of the story, to the exclusion of all else. Case in point: the fiscal cliff negotiations. It's all about (the media would have you think) raising the tax rates on the top two percent. This is "balanced" with stories of slashing entitlement spending. That's the whole debate, as far as the media's concerned.

Earlier this week, FAIR pointed out one of the omissions in this discussion. A tax which could bring in between 35 and 350 billion dollars per year seems like a pretty big omission, when you consider that adds up to between $350 billion and $3.5 trillion over a ten year budget. The entire "grand bargain" Boehner and Obama walked away from was only in the $4 trillion range, for comparison. The tax even has a catchy name -- the "Robin Hood" tax. But the silence of the mainstream (read: "corporate") media is deafening.

Also being ignored are two major reports out from Congress. The first proves that higher taxes on the wealthy do not impact the American economy. They just don't. Republicans are all wet, to put this another way, when they try to scare legislators with tales of recession, depression, and woe (if the wealthiest among us are required to pay an extra four percent). They're just flat-out wrong -- historic data prove so. Heard about it in the mainstream media? I thought not. This report actually came out twice -- and the first time was right before the election. But the news blackout continues.

The other report out is the one which proves the pro-torture folks were likewise just flat-out wrong when they asserted that torturing people gains you important intelligence. This report is still secret, so the only thing we have are secondhand reports of what's in the 6,000-page document, but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't get much airplay on the evening news.

Maybe we should try Jedi mind tricks, instead of torture. The Obama White House is the first in history to embrace the internet's accessibility and social aspects fully, but as anyone who does so quickly realizes, there are both a lot of jokers out there and there are also a lot of fanatics of various type. The White House's "ask us anything" page operates with a promise -- if you get over 25,000 signatures for your petition inside of 30 days, you will get an official answer from the White House to your question. Which leads, at times, to demands that America revamp its military by beginning construction (by 2016) of a Death Star. That's right, a literal Darth Vader military platform in space of planetary proportions. This petition to the White House successfully crossed the threshold of 25,000 just before the deadline was up, so in a few weeks we'll get the official Obama administration position on building a Death Star.

Bet the media will cover that one.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Obama certainly made some reasonable noises this week on the tricky subject of what to do about all those citizens in Colorado and Washington that voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana. But then, we've heard Obama make reasonable noises before on this subject, only to then turn around and crack down harsher than even Republican presidents have done -- so forgive us if we're kind of skeptical, at this juncture. Words are fine, but let's see what actual policies get written before we even consider any awards.

Senator Patrick Leahy, however, deserves an Honorable Mention at least, for deciding to act as well as speak. Leahy announced he will be holding hearings on the subject of marijuana laws early next year. By doing so, he is putting the country on notice. We've all had fun cracking jokes about the stoners in Colorado and Washington for a few weeks now, and now that it's old news it is time to have a much more serious discussion, as a country, about the "War On (Some) Drugs." The war on weed, in particular, has never worked, is not working now, and will never work -- so maybe it's time to stop pouring billions and billions of taxpayer dollars down this rathole of impossibility and move on, rather than continuing to hope that some day throwing obscene amounts of money at the problem (and obscene numbers of people in jail) is going to change things in the slightest. We will be watching Leahy's hearings closely.

Chris Van Hollen also deserves an Honorable Mention this week, for reasons which will be explained in the talking points section, below.

We have two Most Impressive Democrats Of The Week to hand out this week. The first goes to Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren, who will officially be on the Senate banking committee (the "United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs" to give it the proper title) starting next year. There is only one possible thing to say to Wall Street, in response: "Instant karma's gonna get you...."

The other MIDOTW award goes to Senator Tom Harkin, for an article he published as I was writing last Friday's column (didn't see it last week, in other words). Now, punditary bloggers are free to offer up their own suggestions for what to do about taxes and the fiscal cliff (as I did so earlier this week on taxing the rich), and it makes us feel good and perhaps influences the debate a bit. But none of us can write a line which begins "I have put forward legislation that would...." Senator Harkin can. And so he did.

Harkin's plan for Social Security is to raise benefits by an average of $65 a month, figure COLAs (cost of living adjustments) more generously, and pay for it all -- and insure the program's solvency for decades to come -- by removing the cap on Social Security earnings. His article explaining this plan is well worth reading -- because so far, I haven't heard a peep over in the "liberal" mainstream media about this plan. Not one peep.

Harkin's plan deserves to be on the table. This idea deserves to be discussed, every time Social Security is discussed. Harkin is right, and he has the prescription for how to fix Social Security permanently, and by doing so increase benefits. For his leadership, Harkin has also earned a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Call your own senator up today, and ask him or her whether he supports Harkin's bill -- and if not, why not?

[Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren does not have an official Senate page yet, so you'll have to wait to congratulate her until she's sworn in next year. Congratulate Senator Tom Harkin on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. And you can go to the main Senate page to find the phone number for your own senator, to show your support Harkin's plan.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

It was disappointing indeed to see Susan Rice take herself out of the running for Secretary of State this week. By doing so, she avoids a big fight for Obama early next year, but that's about the only good thing that can be said about this whole sorry faux scandal.

Joe Lieberman gave his goodbye speech in the Senate, but we kicked him around last week, so we'll just try not to pop the champagne corks until he's left the building for the last time. See ya, Joe! Buh-bye! Have fun in your new career as a military lobbyist!

The entire rest of the blogosphere is covering the disappointment many felt after today's school shooting tragedy, when the White House spokesman said he didn't think it was time to talk about gun control. When is it time to talk about gun control in Washington? Never, apparently. Sigh.

But we've got a group award for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week and (sadly) two groups to hand it out to. Two Democrats in Washington state, and five Democrats in New York state decided to caucus with Republicans in their state legislative chambers, which threw control of both chambers to the Republicans. This is astonishingly disappointing, and downright shameful, folks.

The Washington state senate and the New York state senate will now be in Republican hands -- with plenty of goodies like chairmanships and patronage jobs for the Democrats who joined them. All seven of these self-serving politicos mightily deserve their Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards.

[We were too disgusted to even type any of these jokers' names into a search engine, so you'll have to search their contact information out on your own. We apologize for the lapse.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 238 (12/14/12)

We've got sort of a mishmash of talking points this week. We're throwing a few fiscal cliff arguments into the mix, because as mentioned this column won't be around during the final seconds of this particular match. Unless it hasn't been resolved by the first Friday in January, of course, which is always an option.

In any case, here is our 238th installment of valiantly attempting to get Democrats to occasionally speak with one voice, and not get lost in the weeds of rhetoric.

 

1
   "Never" shouldn't be the time to talk about guns

This talking point is being made by so many today that it really needs no explanation. For me, the point was best made over a week ago by fellow Huffington Post blogger Will Bunch, who commented about the reaction Bob Costas got for even talking about the subject of guns, right after a football player shot first his girlfriend and then himself. Sadly, Bunch's column points out exactly where we are now with incredible clarity.

So if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were afraid to talk about guns (and they were), no wonder America was so shocked when Bob Costas spoke Sunday night, shocked that a man in his position didn't know the right time to talk about guns in this great nation.

Never.

Call me crazy, but I'm not sure that's how it should be.

 

2
   The GOP's War On Women continues

Really, you'd think some Republicans would have learned their lessons by now. There was that whole election thing, after all. But House Republicans seem not to have gotten the memo.

"I find it disgusting that House Republicans are refusing to let women in America's armed services be covered by their insurance for an abortion after they have been raped. That's right -- women in uniform who are the victims of rape are forced to pay for their own abortions because their insurance doesn't cover it. Other forms of insurance for federal employees do cover abortions for rape victims, but House Republicans are insisting that the women who wear our country's uniform dig into their own pocket because they are the victim of a horrific crime. The War On Women continues, apparently. Way to 'support the troops,' Republicans."

 

3
   Time is running out

Repeating this over and over again is going to make Republicans sweat. Obama has drawn the line in the sand, and if time runs out it'll be to his advantage. So make them sweat!

"Every day that goes by we get a little closer to the fiscal cliff. But I notice that John Boehner is taking the weekend off, and I bet Congress will still make all their flights for their vacations in the next few weeks. Time is running out, and Republicans seem to be wasting a lot of it. Last week, Boehner let all of the House out of school for the weekend on Wednesday, for Pete's sake! John Boehner likes to use the term 'slow-walking' but it's pretty obvious to the American people who is slow-walking and dragging his feet not to cut a deal. It's time to deal, John. Time is running out."

 

4
   GOP wrong on taxes

What does it take to get Democrats to bludgeon Republicans? I mean, here the Congressional Research Office just handed the Democrats a beauty of a blunt instrument, and it's just begging to be swung a few times by Democrats on television, if only to wake the media up a bit.

"The folks Congress relies upon for factual research looked into the question of any relationship between raising taxes on the wealthy and the growth of the American economy. Republicans repeat their mantra that raising taxes will spell doom for the economy, so we wanted to check who was right. After looking all the way back to World War II, the researchers report that there is little or no effect at all -- they said it was 'negligible' at worst. Got that? History proves Republicans wrong on whether raising taxes on the wealthy will impact the economy in a negative way. It won't. Period. The data are in. Examining the history shows that it is absolutely false to claim otherwise."

 

5
   Scrap the cap

Tom Harkin's plan is another thing worth bringing up, because it's no use waiting for the blow-dried "anchorperson" type to ever mention such a thing.

"Solving Social Security is simple, and we do not have to raise retirement ages or cut benefits to do so. In fact, we can even raise benefits and have better COLAs if we do save Social Security by using Senator Tom Harkin's proposed legislation. All we'd have to do is 'scrap the cap.' Remove the cap on earnings that most American workers don't even realize exists, and in one fell swoop the program is solvent past the year 2050. It's a simple step, it's a step most Americans would agree is fair, and nobody's benefits would have to be cut. Which makes me wonder why journalists never even seem to mention it as a possibility, when discussing possible changes in the program. Scrap the cap. That's all you have to do. Ask Tom Harkin, he'll tell you."

 

6
   Boehner's worried about his job

This one is truly brilliant. Just on sheer usefulness alone. Chris Van Hollen, a prominent Democratic voice in the House, this week introduced a wonderful bit of spin into the fiscal cliff talks. This is going to come in handy in January, if we do go over the cliff, folks.

"Is John Boehner really putting all his cards on the table? Or is he more worried about winning re-election as Speaker of the House, as Chris Van Hollen claims? The leadership election takes place on the third day of January. If Boehner refuses to deal and sends us over the fiscal cliff, then he will look strong to his caucus, whereas if he cuts a deal on taxes before then there may be a insurgent push from within his own party to deny him the Speaker's chair for the next two years. If Boehner waits until after the third of January to cut a deal -- which then happens after he's been re-elected Speaker, then I think it'll be plain to all of America that the man is really more interested in power-grasping and his own political career than about what happens to anyone else in the country should we go off the fiscal cliff."

 

7
   Happy Hobbitmas!

While it will not actually be in the first movie (Three movies? Really?), there's a scene from The Hobbit worth quoting this week, from the original Tolkien, as a cautionary tale to anyone overconfident of one particular outcome of the fiscal cliff talks or another. So, in the spirit of "Happy Hobbitmas!" we offer the following as food for thought.

To set the stage: Bilbo Baggins has just bravely swiped a gold cup from the great dragon Smaug's hoard. Smaug awakens....

Smaug was still to be reckoned with. It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him. Dragons may not have much real use for all their wealth, but they know it to an ounce as a rule, especially after long possession; and Smaug was no exception. ... He stirred and stretched forth his neck to sniff. Then he missed the cup!

Thieves! Fire! Murder! Such a thing had not happened since first he came to the Mountain! His rage passes description -- the sort of rage that is only seen when rich folk that have more than they can enjoy suddenly lose something that they have long had but never before used or wanted.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

220 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [238] -- Merry Cliffmas!”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, like I said, look for the calendar to be somehow "Obama's fault" soon, on a talk radio network near you.

    Which, I have to be honest, is a refreshing change from all the "It's Bush's Fault" that STILL comes out of the mouths of the Left everywhere...

    The other report out is the one which proves the pro-torture folks were likewise just flat-out wrong when they asserted that torturing people gains you important intelligence. This report is still secret, so the only thing we have are secondhand reports of what's in the 6,000-page document, but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't get much airplay on the evening news.

    I was wondering if the Left would pounce on this..

    I do have some inside knowledge of this report.. It was written based SOLELY AND COMPLETELY on data that was and is in the public venue. NO PERSONS actually connected to the events were interviewed..

    So, on the one hand, we have a political report based on NOTHING but heresay...

    On the other hand, we have Obama's OWN intelligence officials making official statements AT THE TIME that torture was "instrumental" in bringing down HVTs within Al Qaeda up to, AND INCLUDING Osama Bin Laden..

    But I don't expect anyone here to believe this.

    If Weigantians have proven one thing, they have proven they will believe what they WANT, facts be damned.. :D

    But then, we've heard Obama make reasonable noises before on this subject, only to then turn around and crack down harsher than even Republican presidents have done -- so forgive us if we're kind of skeptical, at this juncture. Words are fine, but let's see what actual policies get written before we even consider any awards.

    Wow.. When I say something like this, Weigantians come down on me like a ton 'o bricks...

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    Joe Lieberman gave his goodbye speech in the Senate, but we kicked him around last week, so we'll just try not to pop the champagne corks until he's left the building for the last time. See ya, Joe! Buh-bye! Have fun in your new career as a military lobbyist!

    Again, I have to comment on how hilarious it is that, in 2004, Leiberman was the cats meow.. The Left couldn't say enough nice things about him.. :D

    The entire rest of the blogosphere is covering the disappointment many felt after today's school shooting tragedy, when the White House spokesman said he didn't think it was time to talk about gun control. When is it time to talk about gun control in Washington? Never, apparently. Sigh.

    That's an easy one. The time to talk about gun control is when it can be done w/o emotion...

    Which means that, since the Left is ALL about emotion and fear-mongering and the Right ain't much better, there will never be a "good" time to talk about gun control..

    Let me just point out one single FACT.. In ALL the mass shootings since 1950, with ONE single exception, ALL mass shootings were in "gun free zones"...

    So, one CAN make the logical argument (with the FACTS to back it up) that it is NOT the plethora of guns that are the problem.

    It is the plethora of gun free zones is the problem...

    In other words. Guns don't kill people. Gun Free Zones kill people

    But we've got a group award for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week and (sadly) two groups to hand it out to. Two Democrats in Washington state, and five Democrats in New York state decided to caucus with Republicans in their state legislative chambers, which threw control of both chambers to the Republicans. This is astonishingly disappointing, and downright shameful, folks.

    I thought ya'all were about "compromise"??

    Sounds like those Dems did exactly what ya'all claim should be done.

    They compromised... :D

    Michale
    0419

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    As is my lot, I give credit where credit is due..

    President Obama's comments on the CT shooting were right on the mark.. I like Obama the parent a LOT more than I like Obama the president.

    I hope, in the coming days, the President resists the pressure that will inevitably come, to turn this tragedy into a political agenda to placate and appease the gun control fanatics..

    Michale
    0423

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since heaping scorn and ridicule on the MSM is a time-honored tradition here in Weigantia and is universally agreed on by all of us (albeit for different reasons), I bring you the latest boneheaded move from our MSM

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/198262/news-orgs-circulate-facebook-profile-of-the-wrong-ryan-lanza/

    Just like the MSM tried to link the Colorado Theater shooting to the Tea Party, now the MSM posts the facebook page of the wrong Lanza...

    I miss the good old days when our news organizations actually FACT-CHECKED their stories before putting them out....

    Michale
    0424

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me just point out one single FACT.. In ALL the mass shootings since 1950, with ONE single exception, ALL mass shootings were in "gun free zones"...

    Since I know Weigantians just LOVE splitting hairs (yea, I'm looking at YOU, michty :D) allow me to clarify..

    "Mass Shooting" is defined as a non-domestic related shooting involving multiple fatalities where the majority of victims were not personally known to the shooter..

    Michale
    0425

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    is defined as a non-domestic related shooting

    In cop-parlance a "Domestic" is family v family violence...

    Next to a traffic stop, a domestic is the most dangerous incident a cop can respond to...

    Michale
    0426

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/279759365328732161

    When will ignorant hysterical people shut the hell up about things they know nothing about???

    Michale
    0427

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In cop-parlance a "Domestic" is family v family violence...

    Next to a traffic stop, a domestic is the most dangerous incident a cop can respond to...

    Actually, Michale, that's common knowledge.

    I miss the really enlightening discussion that used to be a hallmark of this place ...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, Michale, that's common knowledge.

    Really!!???

    I did not know that. :D I would have thought ya'all would think domestic in the context of foreign vs domestic.. :D

    See what I get fer thinkin'!?? :D

    I miss the really enlightening discussion that used to be a hallmark of this place ...

    The problem as I see it is what constitutes enlightening discussion has seem to have metamorphosisied lately.

    Michale
    0428

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It was disappointing indeed to see Susan Rice take herself out of the running for Secretary of State this week. By doing so, she avoids a big fight for Obama early next year, but that's about the only good thing that can be said about this whole sorry faux scandal.

    I was sorry to hear this as well, Chris.

    This was a winnable fight I would have liked to have seen fought. Why? Because it would have highlighted the idiotic FoxNews Benghazi attack.

    My best guess is that the administration thought this would distract from the budget fight or, that Susan Rice just didn't want to go through the media circus.

    It's a shame as if you look at the BATNA for Democrats, I didn't see any downside in this fight.

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was a winnable fight I would have liked to have seen fought. Why? Because it would have highlighted the idiotic FoxNews Benghazi attack.
    Apparently it was enough of a concern to Obama to make it public when he hasn't publicly acknowledge that he is even considering Rice...

    You would think that the fact that it DIDN'T get fought might just cause ya to consider the POSSIBILITY that Benghazi isn't an "idiotic" issue...

    Naaawwww... What was I thinking!? :D

    Michale
    0429

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied
    http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

    See???

    The system works...

    Michale
    0430

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/

    NO red lines!!?????

    "Fascinating"
    -Spock

    Michale
    0434

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

    Anyone watch PERSON OF INTEREST??

    I honestly don't know what's more fascinating..

    The fact that it's the DEMOCRATS who made PERSON OF INTEREST a reality??

    Or the fact that ya'all, apparently, are on board with it..

    Michale
    0435

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note, I am pumped that I might actually hit 600 this year!!!!

    Woot!!!

    If I do, it will be a new personal best!!! :D

    Michale
    0436

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, now we see that Clinton WON'T testify about Benghazi...

    How convenient that she has an upset tummy and bonked her head...

    Timing THAT convenient coming from a Republican would have ya'all hysterical...

    Once again, the almighty '-D' rides again.. :D

    Michale
    0437

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

    Wasn't it ya'all who complained when Bush was President that violating people's privacy to SEE if there is any criminal activity was a bad, bad thing???

    Where is Code Pink???

    Where is MoveOn???

    Where are the Liberals!??????

    Michale
    0438

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I have another nominee for a MDDOTW award...

    Dem. lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must ‘exploit’ shooting
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/

    That's just sick... Sick and perverse...

    What IS it about Democrats that the see such tragedy as a political opportunity to push an agenda!???

    Michale
    0439

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just so it's not ALL negative... :D

    I am glad to see Obama nominate, or more accurately WILL nominate, Kerry as SecState....

    It would have been disastrous for our military for Kerry to be nominated as SecDef..

    But, I can get behind Kerry as SecState...

    Michale
    0440

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    Not sure why you think it would have been disastrous. Whether we are talking about State or Defense or anything else (other than treasury) these cabinet officers take their cue from Obama.

    Why would Kerry have been a disaster at the Pentagon and what do you think about Hagel at Defense; frankly, I would have preferred the reverse with these two but who are we to make those decisions?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure why you think it would have been disastrous. Whether we are talking about State or Defense or anything else (other than treasury) these cabinet officers take their cue from Obama.

    Be that as it may, it would be disasterous for morale of the US Military if a person who falsely accused the US military of "war crimes" would become SecDef.

    Why would Kerry have been a disaster at the Pentagon and what do you think about Hagel at Defense; frankly, I would have preferred the reverse with these two but who are we to make those decisions?

    We are the ones that get to comment ad nasuem on the decisions. :D

    Michale
    0341

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ah, I see.

    When did the US military become so hypersensitive or, should I say, so perfectly noble?

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are the ones that get to comment ad nasuem on the decisions

    Well, Michale, I'm still waiting for you comment about Hagel ... :)

    Oh, I see what you're doing ... you should get to that $1000 mark well before the finish line!

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    When did the US military become so hypersensitive or, should I say, so perfectly noble?

    The military, as a whole, has ALWAYS been "perfectly noble"... :D

    It could not be otherwise... :D

    Well, Michale, I'm still waiting for you comment about Hagel ... :)

    I don't like to comment from ignorance... Let me do some research and I'll get back to ya :D

    Michale
    0343

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Anyone watch PERSON OF INTEREST??

    POI?

    sounds awfully fishy to me...

    :p

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't like to comment from ignorance... Let me do some research and I'll get back to ya :D

    Okay.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua[24]

    Heh. Reminds me of a few lovely luaus in Hawai'i. Actually, my mouth is now watering for some Kalua pua'a ...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    POI?

    sounds awfully fishy to me...

    :p

    I see.. You got jokes.. :D

    Michale
    0347

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    In another "mass shooting" story that is NOT getting reported in the Leftist MSM....

    There was a "mass shooting" at Clackamas Town Center in my old stomping grounds in Oregon at around the same time of the school shooting...

    The reason you don't read about it in the Leftist MSM is because an armed civilian stopped the shooting before dozens of people were killed..

    Guns don't kill people..

    Gun free zones kill people..

    If one of the adults at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed, there might not have been ANY deaths, save the death of the lunatic...

    THAT is the lesson that needs to be learned from this and other tragedies of this nature.

    Responsible gun ownership and rational carry laws will SAVE lives..

    Eliminating guns from responsible civilians will simply make them lambs to the slaughter, at the mercy of armed criminals..

    Michale
    0348

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Hagel for SecDef..

    First off, I am surprised to see Weigantians supporting Hagel..

    He IS a Republican, after all.. :D

    His close ties to Obama are a strike against him..

    He is against pressuring Iran to give up the nuke quest and has flatly ruled out supporting a military strike on Iran..

    These are BIG strikes against him.

    His support for diplomacy is WAY out of proportion than is proper for a SecDef.. Talking is fine, but one must realize there is a time for talking and a time for actions.. Hagel appears to spend way too much time wanting to talk which often allows an enemy to prep the battlefield to IT'S liking.

    "It is better to attack at your convenience than to defend at your enemy's convenience"
    -Sun Tzu

    Hagel seems to be fully comfortable with Obama's Lead From Behind (AKA Coward Of The County) military "strategy"... The kind of strategy that, while may save American lives, results in the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent foreign nationals..

    Hagel's embrace of the LFB strategy will further diminish the US's standing in the world and will increase the chances of the US becoming another tin-plated third world country..

    There are some bright spots in Hagel. A dedicated and decorated combat veteran. But even this seems to have made him too much of a pacifist, someone who wants to avoid combat at ANY cost..

    Such a person is dangerous to have as a SecDef..

    I cannot support Hagel for SecDef.

    Michele Flournoy seems to be a reasonable alternative and would be my first choice for SecDef...

    Michale
    0349

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Who are you quoting in that long comment you made about Hagel?

    Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like you talking ...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who are you quoting in that long comment you made about Hagel?

    Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like you talking ...

    Au contraire' :D

    That IS me talking.. I simply researched Hagel, digested the research and then wrote what my gut tells me..

    "Mr Gambini?"
    "Yes sir?"
    "That is a reasonable, logical and well-thought out objection."
    "Thank you."
    "OVERRULED"

    -My Cousin Vinny

    :D

    Like I said in the previous commentary, I *can* be objective when the conversation lends itself to that.. :D

    "For those who will be our allies, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States. For those who would wish to make war on us and do us harm?
    We can be faithful to that as well."

    -President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    :D

    Michale
    0350

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    First off, I am surprised to see Weigantians supporting Hagel...

    You shouldn't be.

    Don't you remember that, long before the 2008 Democratic ticket was set, I was advocating for a Biden/Hagel fusion ticket.

    On Iran, what do you suppose would happen - in detail, please - after a US military strike on Iran? All those advocating for such action are obliged to spell out the details of what would be ALL of the ramifications of such an action ... on Iran, on the US, on Israel, and the rest of the region.

    I will await your serious and measured analysis.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you remember that, long before the 2008 Democratic ticket was set, I was advocating for a Biden/Hagel fusion ticket.

    I stand corrected.. However I am constrained to point that THAT was when DEM/GOP relations were TONs better than they are now..

    Now, we have prominent Democrats advocating (by commission and omission) that Obama actually JAIL GOP leaders for disagreeing with Obama..

    We have prominent Democrats saying (by commission or omission) that Obama is "our lord and savior".

    In short, times have changed...

    On Iran, what do you suppose would happen - in detail, please - after a US military strike on Iran? All those advocating for such action are obliged to spell out the details of what would be ALL of the ramifications of such an action ... on Iran, on the US, on Israel, and the rest of the region.

    I'll be happy to do so..

    And, as an added bonus I'll give you possible scenarios of the results of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons..

    It's not going to be done quickly, but it will be done today..

    Stay Tuned.. :D

    Michale
    0351

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Gun free zones kill people.

    This message brought to you by the NRA and Smith and Wesson.

    Proudly using fear and tragedy to try to sell more guns!!!

    -David

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    This message brought to you by the NRA and Smith and Wesson.

    Proudly using fear and tragedy to try to sell more guns!!!

    THAT's your counter-argument??

    Blind partisanship??

    I have given you facts and stats..

    Where are yours?? :D

    Michale
    0353

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you WANT to go with blind partisanship, I can point out how the Obama Administration has cut off funding for School Security programs and funding that allowed cops to be posted at schools..

    Another one of those pesky and inconvenient facts ya'all claim to love, but ignore when they don't fit the political agenda... :D

    Michale
    0354

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    No comments on #28??

    Another pesky fact that doesn't fit the Dem/Left agenda so it's ignored by the Left-Biased MSM

    Michale
    0355

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The reason you don't read about it in the Leftist MSM is because an armed civilian stopped the shooting before dozens of people were killed.

    Is this your story about how an armed civilian stopped the shooting?

    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

    Because an armed civilian didn't stop the shooting.

    I have given you facts and stats.

    Where?

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because an armed civilian didn't stop the shooting.

    The hell he didn't...

    "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
    -Armed Civilian

    Gunman sees armed civilian. Likely thinks it's an off duty cop..

    Gunman shoots himself instead of other people..

    How is this NOT a good thing??

    I have given you facts and stats.

    Where?

    Every mass shooting since 1950 has been in Gun Free Zones...

    You never EVER hear of a shooting at a gun range or a cops' bar..

    Now WHY do you think that is??

    Michale
    0356

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every mass shooting since 1950 has been in Gun Free Zones...

    Except one. Forgot that one..

    Michale
    0357

  41. [41] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I am awaiting the usual NRA press release that 'if only the kids were carrying guns this whole thing could've been avoided'.

    Maybe just maybe your country might actually learn something and take some action after this shooting.

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Every mass shooting since 1950 (except one) has been in Gun Free Zones.

    Ok, assume this is true.

    The conclusion 'we should therefore have guns everywhere' does not follow.

    You could also likely say that no mass shootings have occurred at tanning salons.

    Therefore, we should make everywhere a tanning salon.

    If we had guns everywhere, what this would likely mean is that mass shootings would now happen in areas with guns.

    Do you know the one place where no shootings ever happen?

    In places with no guns.

    Please note I'm not advocating for outlawing firearms. But this argument uses your logic: let's look for places where no shootings happen and try to recreate those conditions.

    If you want to look for places where no shootings EVER happen (mass or otherwise), that place would be in places with no guns.

    Gunman sees armed civilian. Likely thinks it's an off duty cop.

    There's no evidence to confirm this one way or another. It's just as likely that he was going to shoot himself anyways. But let's assume for a second that he stopped the shooting.

    If this is the case, he stopped the shooting after someone was already killed.

    So he limited the killing. This seems like a bit of a mixed blessing.

    Notice also the comment about the armed gunman being afraid to fire because of hitting other people. Here, I commend him.

    But you seem to be arguing for a country of armed vigilantes. What would this look like in an elementary school like in Newtown?

    Now there is one group who would be extremely happy about your world and that group is gun manufacturers.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- If anyone wants to see one of the most amazing pieces of propaganda ever ...

    http://www.boingboing.net/images/NR-F8_PERILFINAL.pdf

    You may have to download it and open it from your desktop for it to work correctly.

    It's amazing though ...

    The argument plays to the paranoid. Evil Democrats orchestrated by George Soros are trying to take your guns ... so you better buy a gun to protect yourself.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am awaiting the usual NRA press release that 'if only the kids were carrying guns this whole thing could've been avoided'.

    That's just stupid...

    But if a school official had been packing or a janitor or even a parent on scene had been packing, it could have been avoided..

    That's what you Lefties don't understand.. A gun doesn't walk into a school and start shooting people..

    Maybe just maybe your country might actually learn something and take some action after this shooting.

    I completely agree. We need to get rid of shooting galleries that psychotics can go to and pick off innocent people w/o any fear of retaliation..

    Please note I'm not advocating for outlawing firearms. But this argument uses your logic: let's look for places where no shootings happen and try to recreate those conditions.

    That isn't "MY" logic.. It isn't ANY logic..

    Is there ANY correlation between a tanning salon and gun violence??

    No, there is not..

    Is there ANY correlation between a gun free zone and gun violence?

    Absolutely.. A gun free zone means a gunman will not be opposed... It means he can kill with impunity until someone who DOES have a gun arrives..

    Come'on, David! You're smarter than that!!!

    There's no evidence to confirm this one way or another.

    There IS evidence, but it relies on my personal training so you would be unlikely to see it.

    It's just as likely that he was going to shoot himself anyways.

    Not so.. If he was going to shoot himself ANYWAYS, why not pop off a few more victims. That IS what he was there for, after all.. He had plenty of ammo left when they found him. There is absolutely NO REASON to think that he was only happy with killing two people and then he was done..

    But you seem to be arguing for a country of armed vigilantes.

    Not so..

    But YOU seem to be arguing for disarming innocent civilians and make them helpless before an armed criminal..

    Using YOUR reasoning (no guns = no gun violence) then you are advocating disarming police...

    Michale
    0358

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The argument plays to the paranoid.

    Yea, Democrats would NEVER play to paranoia or use fear-mongering, right?? :D

    Michale
    0359

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is there ANY correlation between a gun free zone and gun violence?

    If there are no guns, there cannot be any shootings.

    Proof by definition. The correlation is 100%.

    :)

    Using YOUR reasoning (no guns = no gun violence) then you are advocating disarming police..

    I merely took your reasoning to a more logical conclusion.

    You were looking for a place where no shootings would occur.

    You suggested 'guns everywhere' because only one shooting has happened at a gun show.

    I suggested a place with no guns because in a place with no guns, shootings are impossible. Unless you can show me where a shooting has occurred without a gun.

    I actually didn't put forth my opinion one way or another. For the record, I don't think a complete gun ban is possible nor desirable, but I do think that laws around gun ownership should at least be equivalent to driving laws and I would ban assault rifles.

    -David

  47. [47] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    Michale and I had a lengthy debate on here about guns after Aurora where I quoted plenty of statistics - http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/07/31/guest-column-lets-talk-about-guns/.

    I am in no mood to repeat myself, the case is very clear for those who are interested (it is exactly like the deficit discussion where there are facts that are very clear and on the other side there are people in denial of these facts spouting rhetoric).

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There is absolutely NO REASON to think that he was only happy with killing two people and then he was done.

    Even if this is true, he still killed 2 people. I notice you didn't address that.

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am in no mood to repeat myself, the case is very clear for those who are interested

    Thanks!

    I'm just about done w/ this as well because I've hashed this out several times w/ Mr. Michale.

    The answer is always:

    1. We need more guns!
    2. Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns!
    3. Something about guns

    -David

  50. [50] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Fwiw the Dunblane massacre happened about 30 mins down the road from where I grew up. I know many friends who were in the school when it happened.

    The response was fast and effective: gun ownership is now pretty much absolutely banned in the UK. 15 years later, guess how many school shootings we've had since then?

    The saddest thing is that this will, as usual, boil over, no changes to gun ownership will be made and a few months down the line we'll be back on here discussing the latest mass shooting...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Even if this is true, he still killed 2 people. I notice you didn't address that.

    Yes, and if their hadn't been an armed civilian, it's likely he would have killed dozens more until his ammo ran out..

    Would that have been a preferable outcome???

    If there are no guns, there cannot be any shootings.

    And if there were no cars, there would be no traffic fatalities...

    It's a facetious and childish argument that is beneath you and has nothing to do with reality..

    I merely took your reasoning to a more logical conclusion.

    You call a "TANNING SALON" a "more logical conclusion?? :D

    I suggested a place with no guns because in a place with no guns, shootings are impossible.

    Ahem.. Sandy Hook Elementary was a "place with no guns"... Look what happened there...

    I actually didn't put forth my opinion one way or another. For the record, I don't think a complete gun ban is possible nor desirable, but I do think that laws around gun ownership should at least be equivalent to driving laws and I would ban assault rifles.

    Even though assault rifles had NOTHING to do with this tragedy..

    You make my argument for me..

    Assault Rifles had NOTHING to do with this, yet Lefties are using it as an excuse to ban assault rifles..

    The simple fact is, guns in the hands of responsible, trained and mature adults are a DETRIMENT to gun violence, not a cause of gun violence..

    You want to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns?? Then monitor the mentally ill better...

    If a mentally ill person gets a license and kills 30 people with his car in a fit of psychotic rage, where is the LOGIC in making it impossible for responsible, mature and trained adults to get cars???

    The same can be said of guns..

    Your's is an emotional argument based on hysterical emotionalism..

    Mine is a logical and rational argument based on facts and precedence....

    Michale
    0359

  52. [52] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The answer is always:

    1. We need more guns!
    2. Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns!
    3. Something about guns

    -David

    I'll add in some more:

    4. A gun is as necessary in day-to-day life as a car (they're basically, totally the same thing). And you wouldn't ban cars would you??
    5. Don't punish responsible people who want to carry around mass killing weapons just because a few bad apples carrying mass killing weapons actually went on mass killings!
    6. If you get rid of guns, what will you do when someone tries to rob you with a (toy) gun!
    7. Other countries have 25-100 times lower gun death rates because they are so different from us that's all! If they brought back guns and let people in those countries carry guns then I'm sure they will have 100-200 times lower death rates!
    8. The right to bear arms is a God given right. Jesus said himself 'Love thy enemy, unless thy enemy pisses you off in which case shoot thy enemy with thy gun'

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would that have been a preferable outcome?

    A preferable outcome would be less shootings.

    There is nothing to indicate more guns lead to less shootings.

    On the contrary, we have some 300 million guns (by far the most in the world) and also by far the most shootings of any country in the world.

    -David

  54. [54] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW ... the NRA appears to have settled on a strategy for dealing with this "crisis"

    http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/nras-social-silence-146007

    -David

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    A preferable outcome would be less shootings.

    There is nothing to indicate more guns lead to less shootings.

    Yes there is. Clackamas Town Center. More guns led to less shooting..

    You just don't want to concede the point because it totally decimates the claim that the guns are the problem..

    There will NEVER be an effective complete ban on guns. You said so yourself.

    The ONLY thing that the Left's kind of ban will do is allow armed criminals to prey on unarmed civilians..

    On the contrary, we have some 300 million guns (by far the most in the world) and also by far the most shootings of any country in the world.

    You really can't compare a country like the USA to a country like the Duchy Of Grand Fenwick.

    There are SO many factors that are unique to the US that NO OTHER country on the planet can lay claim to..

    You are attempting to compare apples and Eskimos..

    Michale
    0360

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, if you think guns are the problem, then disarm police.

    See how THAT plays out, eh??

    Michale
    0361

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The saddest thing is that this will, as usual, boil over, no changes to gun ownership will be made and a few months down the line we'll be back on here discussing the latest mass shooting.

    It seems this is because the NRA has one of the strongest lobbies in the U.S.

    I believe it's backed pretty strongly by the gun manufacturers who stand to lose a lot of money if guns are better regulated or if there is any kind of gun band.

    As such, nothing is likely to change here soon. And as Chris argued in a previous column, we're likely going to have to live with these types of massacres as a consequence. At least in the near term.

    -David

    p.s. This about sums up the gun debate in America

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12613/large/TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png?1355584910

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's approach this from a different angle..

    What kind of gun ban would ya'all propose that would address shootings like the Sandy Hook Elementary one?

    Michale
    0362

  59. [59] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What kind of gun ban would ya'all propose that would address shootings like the Sandy Hook Elementary one?

    I don't know. This is a good question. My thought would be to look at countries with lower rates of shooting and try to figure out what's worked.

    What are your thoughts, Michale?

    Is there a better way to regulate than "more guns = less shooting"?

    -David

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there a better way to regulate than "more guns = less shooting"?

    STAR TREK A Private Little War

    Remember it??

    A little civil war on planet between the Hill People and the Valley People (Actually, the Village People, but didn't want to go there. :D)..

    Klingons were arming the Valley People with crude musket type fire-arms..

    The only logical solution to the problem was to arm the Hill People with the same type of weapons..

    McCoy suggested just collecting up all the arms (a ban) but realized that wouldn't work because they couldn't take back the KNOWLEDGE for the Valley People to simply make more..

    If you cannot 1000% guarantee that NO criminals can get guns (which you have already conceded that you can not) then where is the logic in disarming innocent civilians and leave them unable to defend themselves??

    I don't have a problem with training requirements, psychological testing or the like.. As long as they are not used punitively, such actions would be fine with me...

    But an outright ban simply will not work..

    It's no more logical to ban guns to cut down on shootings than it is to ban cars to cut down on traffic fatalities...

    Michale
    0363

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The Oregon shooting was in the MSM, that was where I read about it. Maybe you need to read a bit more MSM?

    There is a difference here. The Oregon shooter stole the gun and probably had little training in guns in general and the one he used specifically. The Sandy Hook shooter was trained with the weapons he used. His mother was a gun enthusiast and took him to the range. The tragedy also had the two most common deaths from gun ownership: murder of a family member by another family member and suicide of a family member. Arming society more than it already is would probably have less high profile mass killings but more gun deaths over all.

    Give someone a gun and they don't turn magically in to Jack Bauer. A certain amount of people would cower or run just as fast armed or not. I also wonder what would happen if too many people are armed in a situation like this. Someone playing hero comes across a mass shooter with a couple of other people with guns. Would they shoot at the right person? Friendly fire problems in military engagements tells me that they might not...

    On the other hand, how much resistance is required to push a psycho from murder to suicide? I always wonder what would happen if everyone in the room just started throwing stuff at the shooter? Lobbing heavy objects from behind cover from multiple directions might push to shooter to either run or kill themselves.

    A earthquake preparedness/50's era nuclear war drill type of mass training might be the most effective solution. It would give people practice in offering resistance as well as putting in to the minds of would be psychos that they will meet resistance if they go on a killing spree. Which might prevent some from trying in the first place...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Courts have ruled consistently that Law Enforcement are under no obligation to protect individual citizens but rather exist to protect society as a whole.

    Given this (which I vehemently disagree with) you MUST concede that point that, for many people, guns are as much a necessity of life as a car is..

    My own personal situation requires a houseful of guns and one accessible at all times, no matter where I am..

    Ya'all would disarm those people and leave them at the mercy of armed criminals who didn't get the memo that they are not allowed to carry guns??

    Michale
    0364

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    he Oregon shooter stole the gun and probably had little training in guns in general and the one he used specifically.

    The Sandy Hook shooter ALSO stole the guns he used to commit the crimes, after murdering the owner of those guns..

    Give someone a gun and they don't turn magically in to Jack Bauer. A certain amount of people would cower or run just as fast armed or not.

    We're not talking about "giving" someone a gun. We're talking about a mature adult making a conscious decision to protect their property or their loved ones and taking steps to learn and train.

    The vast majority of CCW owners ARE trained to safely handle and carry their weapons.. I had this exact talk with my daughter when she expressed an interest in obtaining a CCW. She is an excellent shot (trained her myself) but would likely not keep up with the training regime I would insist on. Further, I explained to her in very frank and graphic terms the psychological effects of having to take a life, no matter how justified. She opted for a tazer....

    Those that want to play "Jack Bauer" give themselves away quite early in the process and are denied weapons.

    If they want to play out their fantasies (as in the case of the Sandy Hook shooter) they steal their weapons and become the armed criminal that NO BAN will *EVER* stop...

    Since you CAN NOT stop the criminal from acquiring guns, where is the logic in preventing innocents from defending themselves??

    On the other hand, how much resistance is required to push a psycho from murder to suicide? I always wonder what would happen if everyone in the room just started throwing stuff at the shooter? Lobbing heavy objects from behind cover from multiple directions might push to shooter to either run or kill themselves.

    Reminds me of a news story where three armed men tried to rob a chinese restaurant. They left frustrated when no employee in the restaurant understood english.. :D

    If you can't eliminate ALL the guns (which you can't) about the WORST possible solution is to eliminate the guns from the ONE group of people who would NEED guns to survive..

    Michale
    0365

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:
  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Oregon shooting was in the MSM, that was where I read about it. Maybe you need to read a bit more MSM?

    I don't consider KGW-TV Channel 8 as the "MSM" any more than I would consider FireDogLake as the "MSM".. :D

    Michale
    0367

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Oregon shooting was in the MSM, that was where I read about it. Maybe you need to read a bit more MSM?

    The Sandy Hook shooting got national airplay for days after the shooting.. And is still going strong..

    The Clackamas Shooting got a small mention once in a regional outlet blurb, never to be heard from again..

    I hardly consider the two comparable as I doubt anyone else would..

    Michale
    0368

  67. [67] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Those that want to play "Jack Bauer" give themselves away quite early in the process and are denied weapons.

    Not in this country. 2nd amendment pretty much says if you are not a felon or under direct care for mental illness you can buy a gun. Period.

    The Sandy Hook shooter was trained with the guns he used. And stealing guns from your mother that you have already used at a range many times is a bit different than stealing from someone outside the family. Or to use the car analogy , borrowing your parents car without permission is a bit different than grand theft auto.

  68. [68] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The Clackamas Shooting got a small mention once in a regional outlet blurb, never to be heard from again..

    Bull. I read it from multiple sources in my news reader and none were from KGW-TV Channel 8.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Sandy Hook shooter was trained with the guns he used. And stealing guns from your mother that you have already used at a range many times is a bit different than stealing from someone outside the family.

    Not as far as gun registration and Carry/Conceal permits are concerned..

    Fact is, the shooter would NOT have been licensed to carry a gun, let alone PURCHASE a gun, so the argument that there are too many LEGAL guns out there is rendered irrelevant..

    Bull. I read it from multiple sources in my news reader and none were from KGW-TV Channel 8.

    Such as.....?????

    :D

    Michale
    0369

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or to use the car analogy , borrowing your parents car without permission is a bit different than grand theft auto.

    Not in the eyes of the law, if the parents report it as such...

    Michale
    0370

  71. [71] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Such as.....?????

    Don't remember as it was a few days ago and my news reader does not have a history but a quick google search shows that just about every news outlet had an article about the Oregon shooting. Pick one.

    Fact is, the shooter would NOT have been licensed to carry a gun, let alone PURCHASE a gun, so the argument that there are too many LEGAL guns out there is rendered irrelevant..

    Really? Why? He had no felony conviction or other reason for not selling to him. An individual gun shop might not sell to him but if he was determined I have no doubt some would have.

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Given this (which I vehemently disagree with) you MUST concede that point that, for many people, guns are as much a necessity of life as a car is.

    Just skimming as this discussion is boring and really not interesting (since the argument is relatively one-sided and pretty straight forward to sensible, rational people) but I saw this and had to laugh.

    I have travelled extensively (including the US) and lived in many countries. I have never touched a gun, fired a gun or pretty much had anything to do with a gun (the only hand-gun I've actually ever seen was in the US). There are literally BILLIONS of people in the world like me who live their lives free of having anything to do with a gun. Try and find someone who the above applies to with cars... In fact I'd hazard a guess that 99.99999% of Americans have been in a car or road vehicle at some point in their life... Comparing a gun to a car is ludicrously, moronically, maniacally stupid.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Really? Why? He had no felony conviction or other reason for not selling to him. An individual gun shop might not sell to him but if he was determined I have no doubt some would have.

    He had a documented history of mental issues and was on a litany of medications..

    Under the current laws, he would NOT have been able to purchase a handgun and would definitely not have been issued a CCW...

    Michty,

    I have never touched a gun, fired a gun or pretty much had anything to do with a gun (the only hand-gun I've actually ever seen was in the US).

    And you set the standard for everyone else??

    On what planet??

    Comparing a gun to a car is ludicrously, moronically, maniacally stupid.

    In your lifestyle, perhaps..

    But you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.

    It's not allowed.. :D

    Michale
    0371

  74. [74] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And you set the standard for everyone else??

    On what planet??

    Uhm planet earth where there are literally BILLIONS of people like me lololol.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact I'd hazard a guess that 99.99999% of Americans have been in a car or road vehicle at some point in their life..

    Your hazard guess does not evidence nor fact make..

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to speak for six million Americans...

    Michale
    0372

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Comparing a gun to a car is ludicrously, moronically, maniacally stupid.

    In your lifestyle, perhaps..

    Again: and the lifestyle of literally BILLIONS of people. I'm going to make just a small guess that more people have used a car as part of their life than a gun. Just a TAD more looooooooooooooooooooool.

  77. [77] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Your hazard guess does not evidence nor fact make..

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to speak for six million Americans...

    Huh?? You think there are 6 million Americans who have never been in a car or road vehicle in their life?? Any source for this?

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh?? You think there are 6 million Americans who have never been in a car or road vehicle in their life?? Any source for this?

    Yea.. It's the same source that you used that more people have used a car than a gun...

    It's a losing argument, michty..

    There is absolutely NO WAY that you can make the case that my owning a gun is responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting any more than you owning a car is responsible for a 20 car pileup in BumFuq, Kentucky...

    Michale
    0373

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm planet earth where there are literally BILLIONS of people like me lololol.

    WOW...

    And here I thought *I* was the most egotistical one in Weigantia... :D

    Care to cite your source for that little glut of ego there, mate?? :D

    Michale
    0374

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yea.. It's the same source that you used that more people have used a car than a gun...

    Lol since I am such a fan of statistics and facts I will actually entertain you for fun (I don't actually believe you are this stupid (although you could be), more that you're just not willing to give up on an argument where you are clearly wrong)

    Percentage of Americans who consider a road vehicle necessary in day-to-day life = 99.9999999%
    (Anyone who uses a car, public transport or relies on goods being delivered (i.e. EVERYONE who isn't Amish))

    Percentage of Americans who will use a gun in day-to-day life = 0.6%
    (800k cops, 1m working in security + Michale)

    So yeh guns and cars are definitely comparable in their place in society LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

  81. [81] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Care to cite your source for that little glut of ego there, mate?? :D

    Again since I'm a fan of statistics I will entertain you (again I don't believe you are stupid (but could be) just that you will never give up when you're clearly wrong).

    China = 1.3 billion people. Guns are illegal there.
    India = 1.2 billion people. Guns are heavily licensed there.

    So yeh there are LITERALLY billions of people like me who have never touched or fired a gun and live their day-to-day lives happily without the 'need' for a gun. Let's compare this to cars:

    China = >250 million cars
    India = >100 million cars

    So yeh guns = cars clearly LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol since I am such a fan of statistics and facts I will actually entertain you for fun (I don't actually believe you are this stupid (although you could be), more that you're just not willing to give up on an argument where you are clearly wrong)

    I can do that too..

    100% of ALL Earth Inhabitants Think That Michty's ideas are frak'ed

    I even BOLDed it, just like you did..

    China = 1.3 billion people. Guns are illegal there.
    India = 1.2 billion people. Guns are heavily licensed there.

    You are comparing the US to a couple of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet!

    Is THAT your argument? That the US should be like China??

    Face it... Ya'all have ONE big problem with your argument.

    It's based on nothing but hysterical "OH MY GODS, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" emotionalism.. It's fear-mongering at it's worst..

    The logic and rationale for gun ownership is simply unchallengable..

    EVERY time Dems get a hair up their ass to take away people's guns, they are firmly beat down..

    Now, WHY do ya'all think that is??

    Because the vast majority of Americans think like me and the a very VERY small (yet vocal) minority feel like you do..

    Your argument is an emotional argument..

    Which is a very good part of why it's the WRONG argument..

    Michale
    0375

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    And do you want to know WHY the vast majority of Americans are on my side in this issue??

    I have another nominee for a MDDOTW award...

    Dem. lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must ‘exploit’ shooting
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/

    That's just sick... Sick and perverse...

    What IS it about Democrats that the see such tragedy as a political opportunity to push an agenda!???

    Because Democrats use sick and perverse tactics like this..

    Michale
    0376

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats had any moral courage, they would have the gun control debate ANY time, rather than wait for a tragic shooting with the deaths of innocent so that they can exploit it for their political agenda..

    The simple fact that no one here has condemned such perverse exploitation would indicate a tacit approval of such moral depravity...

    Michale
    0377

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh look, michty!!

    #83 is in BOLD so it HAS to be true!!! :D

    Michale
    0378

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You are comparing the US to a couple of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet!

    Is THAT your argument? That the US should be like China??

    Omg I am actually starting to believe that you really are stupid. My argument was BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON EARTH LIVE THEIR LIVES WITHOUT THE USE OF GUNS OR EVEN TOUCHING A GUN. FACT. PERIOD.

    The argument that guns are used in every day life, like cars - which ARE USED BY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY - is a moronic, stupid, laughable, maniacal, crazy, ludicrous, clutching-at-straws, nonsensical piece of idiocy.

    I did think you were not stupid enough to believe this argument but now I'm starting to wonder...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warner said his resolve to pursue a solution solidified over the weekend while attending a Washington Wizards game. Many people approached him to talk about the tragedy, in which a gunman with a military-style rifle killed 20 first-graders and seven adults.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/nra-a-rated-sen-warner-seeks-gun-control/2012/12/17/43442064-4877-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

    Now the Leftist MSM is literally LYING about the facts...

    And there are STILL people who don't believe that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama and the Democrats...

    Amazing...

    Michale
    0379

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    The argument that guns are used in every day life, like cars - which ARE USED BY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY - is a moronic, stupid, laughable, maniacal, crazy, ludicrous, clutching-at-straws, nonsensical piece of idiocy.

    Once again, you change the argument when you get nailed on the facts.

    We're talking about in the US, dipshit...

    Not aboriginal natives in outer mongolia...

    Jeezus, dood. Get a clue..

    Michale
    0380

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'll try one more time. Saying a gun is like a car is like saying a telephone is like a fishing rod: one of these is used by billions of people all over the world daily, the other one is never even touched by billions of people, who probably wouldn't even have a clue how to operate it even if they did touch one...

    (This analogy doesn't quite work since you don't use fishing rods to mame and kill innocent people, but it might hopefully get the idea through to your head)

  90. [90] 
    michty6 wrote:

    We're talking about in the US, dipshit...

    Not aboriginal natives in outer mongolia...

    Jeezus, dood. Get a clue..

    The argument applies to the US. 99.99999999999999999% of people in the US have been in a car or road vehicle and 99% use one daily - in fact for some people a car is necessary to survive.

    Literally 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000% of people would have survival issues if you took their guns away.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would actually be comical if it wasn't so sadly perverse..

    The Left is all in hysterics about assault rifles, yet there was NO ASSAULT RIFLE used in the Sandy Hook shooting!

    Could the Left be any more transparent in their perversion...

    I can't WAIT til we get a GOP president that will FORCE every American to buy a gun and become proficient in it's use..

    Apparently, the government can do that now...

    Michale
    0381

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    The argument applies to the US. 99.99999999999999999% of people in the US have been in a car or road vehicle and 99% use one daily - in fact for some people a car is necessary to survive.

    Literally 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000% of people would have survival issues if you took their guns away.

    You keep saying it..

    But like everything else you spew here, it's 1000% complete bull-puckey

    Michale
    0382

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/17/civility-nra-leaders-and-members-getting-death-threats-n1468555

    Funny how the Hysterical Left doesn't mind guns if they can use them to kill people they disagree with...

    Bunch of hypocrites...

    Michale
    0383

  94. [94] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Has it been confirmed that the Sandy hook shooter was on medication or was under the care of a psychologist/psychiatrist? Was he refused the gun because of a back ground check or as some articles state because of the waiting period under Connecticut laws? Also, all the articles have reported this third hand. Has there been confirmation from authorities that he tried to buy the gun?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has it been confirmed that the Sandy hook shooter was on medication or was under the care of a psychologist/psychiatrist? Was he refused the gun because of a back ground check or as some articles state because of the waiting period under Connecticut laws? Also, all the articles have reported this third hand. Has there been confirmation from authorities that he tried to buy the gun?

    It's been confirmed that there was a history of mental illness..

    CT State Gun Laws are amongst the most strict in the country..

    It would likely be the model for Federal Gun Laws, should any be enacted..

    And a mass shooting STILL happened there..

    Why can't ya'all seem to fathom one simple point?

    The answer to psychotics shooting up gun free zones does NOT lie with controlling guns..

    This scumbag could have ran his car onto the playground and killed 20 children..

    The TOOL is not the issue..

    And only the ignorant think it is...

    No offense...

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK

    Michale
    0384

  96. [96] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The Left is all in hysterics about assault rifles, yet there was NO ASSAULT RIFLE used in the Sandy Hook shooting!

    Many of the articles I have read states the shooter had a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle. Some articles state it was in the trunk of his car and others state there have been .223 shell casings found at the school. Others have listed this gun as the primary one used. Has there been confirmation of which is accurate?

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You keep saying it..

    But like everything else you spew here, it's 1000% complete bull-puckey

    Loooooooool now I know you really are a lunatic. I'd really love to go down the rabbit hole one day and see this perverse Michale-fantasy-world where guns are more useful in day-to-day life than transportation.

    I know you say you served around the world, but have you really been outside of America?? I'm struggling to believe it. Like to another country that has no guns but does have cars? You should go to these places, it would be an interesting experience - in fact there is 1 of them just north of America called Canada.

    In this country people don't ride guns to work, like they do in Michale-fantasy-world, but they actually ride in cars - it is quite amazing, something to be seen. In fact, guns are banned and people go about their day-to-day activities unfettered (!) - you really should check it out, for someone who lives in this surreal world that you do it would be quite eye opening...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    You have stated you know nothing about guns, have never used or handled one or been with anyone who has used or handled guns.

    What makes you think you are qualified to sit in judgment as to how they must be viewed??

    By your own admission, you are completely, utterly and unequivocally ignorant of guns and their use.

    Why should anyone listen to you regarding guns???

    I am just curious...

    Michale
    0385

  99. [99] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    in fact there is 1 of them just north of America called Canada.

    Ah, no. That one is just not true. Canada has pretty high gun ownership.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    No assault rifle was used in the attack.. There are reports that an M-16 knockoff (.223) was in the trunk of his vehicle, untouched..

    The only weapons fired was a SigSauer 9mil and a Glock 9mil...

    This is confirmed from multiple sources including ATF, CT State Police and the FBI..

    Let me be clear on one point..

    Regardless on any mental health issues, permits or denial of permits or what have you.

    You cannot own a gun in CT unless you are 21...

    The scumbag was 20..

    The gun laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with this shooting...

    This dipstick VIOLATED the law simply by HAVING guns..

    Does ANYONE here honestly believe that MORE laws would have made any difference??

    Jeeez, it's like talking to fence posts who can only recite by rote, "GUNS AND BAD, GUNS ARE EVIL, NEED MORE GUN LAWS"...

    NO LAW IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE CAN PREVENT A MASS SHOOTING IF THE SHOOTER IS NOT GOING TO OBEY THE LAW ANYWAYS!!!

    Seriously......

    Michale
    0386

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You have stated you know nothing about guns, have never used or handled one or been with anyone who has used or handled guns.

    What makes you think you are qualified to sit in judgment as to how they must be viewed??

    By your own admission, you are completely, utterly and unequivocally ignorant of guns and their use.

    Why should anyone listen to you regarding guns???

    Very good question Michale.

    You see unlike you, I grew up in a country that acted when there was a mass shooting (not far from where I lived). And, unlike you, I saw the consequences FIRST HAND of the implementation of a gun ban. During my very lifetime I have lived in a country where guns were legal at one point, and banned at another.

    And guess what happened when we banned them? The apocalypse never came. Life went on. Less people were shot. Our firearm homicide rate plummeted.

    So you see in the context of the current discussion I am well equipped to advise that every single piece of rhetoric bullshit that comes out of pro-gun-owners mouths about what will happen and how criminals will behave if guns are banned is exactly that: complete and utter bullshit.

    My evidence is that I have seen it with my own eyes and grew up in a society to see the effects first-hand - not only this but I know the impact very well (statistically and otherwise); your evidence is bull-shit rhetoric about what you BELIEVE and THINK will happen - completely ignoring the statistics and ACTUAL evidence.

  102. [102] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Does ANYONE here honestly believe that MORE laws would have made any difference??

    Jeeez, it's like talking to fence posts who can only recite by rote, "GUNS AND BAD, GUNS ARE EVIL, NEED MORE GUN LAWS"...

    NO LAW IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE CAN PREVENT A MASS SHOOTING IF THE SHOOTER IS NOT GOING TO OBEY THE LAW ANYWAYS!!!

    Lol you are clueless. We have talked about this before but YES STRICTER GUN LAWS DO MEAN LESS GUNS. Duh.

    It's simple supply and demand economics. Reduced demand for a product creates reduced supply. And there is no finer way to reduce demand than making something illegal...

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    You should go to these places, it would be an interesting experience - in fact there is 1 of them just north of America called Canada.

    Been to Canada quite often..

    Many gun owners there..

    And they are also fighting restrictive laws that make no sense..

    The ONLY way a gun ban will work is if you can guarantee 1000% GUARANTEE that criminals well never get guns..

    If you can't, then it's irresponsible in the EXTREME to take guns away from decent law-abiding citizens..

    You don't want to have a gun.. Fine.. That's your right..

    But it's NOT your place to impose your anti-gun lunacy on others..

    It's against the rules. :D

    Michale
    0387

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    And guess what happened when we banned them? The apocalypse never came. Life went on. Less people were shot. Our firearm homicide rate plummeted.

    Yes, we have had this discussion before..

    Firearm homicides plummeted..

    But violent crimes against innocents skyrocketed.. How many innocent people lost their lively hood because of all the riots there??

    Guns in responsible hands would have prevented much of the needless death, rapes and violence that permeates the UK today...

    Michale
    0388

  105. [105] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No assault rifle was used in the attack.. There are reports that an M-16 knockoff (.223) was in the trunk of his vehicle, untouched..

    The latest reports I have read state that a shotgun was found in the car, and the medical examiner has found all the wounds he has examined were from a "long gun". I think you are wrong here, the assault weapon was the primary gun used.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The latest reports I have read state that a shotgun was found in the car, and the medical examiner has found all the wounds he has examined were from a "long gun". I think you are wrong here, the assault weapon was the primary gun used.

    That's yer prerogative... :D

    Everything *IS* still fluid, so you might be right.. But according to the experts on scene, two handguns were the only weapons fired..

    Michale
    0389

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:
  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Guns in responsible hands would have prevented much of the needless death, rapes and violence that permeates the UK today.

    Hmmm ... I've been to the UK and found it to be quite hospitable.

    Perhaps it's because they have higher standards for beer also :)

    -David

  109. [109] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And guess what happened when we banned them? The apocalypse never came. Life went on. Less people were shot. Our firearm homicide rate plummeted.

    But did the overall homicide rate fall? Or did killers just use other weapons?

  110. [110] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But according to the experts on scene, two handguns were the only weapons fired.

    Is there such a thing as a semi-automatic pistol?

    This is a serious question btw. I have no qualms about admitting my ignorance of guns.

    -David

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note:

    "We surmise that it was during the second classroom episode that he heard responders coming and apparently at that decided to take his own life,"

    Like in the Clackamas Shooting, the shooter thought LEOs were near, stopped shooting innocent people and took their own worthless lives...

    This would seem to indicate that people showing up with guns to oppose shooters will cause said shooters to self-destruct...

    Too bad no one at Sandy Hook elementary school were packing.... The entire tragedy would likely have been averted...

    Michale
    0391

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there such a thing as a semi-automatic pistol?

    All pistols (sans the revolver variety) are of the semi-automatic type..

    There are automatic pistols but they are A>heavily regulated and not available to the public and B> impossible for anyone but the most trained expert to wield successfully...

    Michale
    0392

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    My last post because we're just going round in circles and you aren't even able to admit that cars/transportation are much more important to survival for almost every single person on the planet than guns - so there isn't much rational discussion to be had. My last points:

    The ONLY way a gun ban will work is if you can guarantee 1000% GUARANTEE that criminals well never get guns...

    Nope. No-one is saying if you take away guns there will be NO (ZERO) guns in the hands of criminals or NO (ZERO) shootings. What we are saying (and is easily proved with statistics) is that taking away guns leads to:
    (1) Less guns available (simple supply and demand)
    (2) Guns are harder to get and much, much, much more expensive to obtain (again: supply and demand)
    (3) Many many many less shootings occur (not ZERO shootings - you seem to find it hard to differentiate between ZERO and LESS as you tend to think in absolutes)

    But violent crimes against innocents skyrocketed.. How many innocent people lost their lively hood because of all the riots there??

    Lol nope. Violent crime is also on the decrease. Again DECREASE does not equal ZERO. So picking one example is not 'proving' of anything since all you are proving is that there was more than zero (which I agree with anyway lol).

    Anyway I'm done on this again. I have written enough comments in the Aurora discussion and it's pretty clear from the car vs gun discussion that you aren't capable of thinking rationally, logically or with any sense at all regarding guns...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    But did the overall homicide rate fall? Or did killers just use other weapons?

    Micthy counted just gun deaths total..

    He made no distinction between gun deaths of a criminal nature vs gun deaths of a self-defense/justifiable nature..

    Personally, I think there is a HUGE difference, but that's just me.. Apparently..

    Michale
    0393

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol nope. Violent crime is also on the decrease. Again DECREASE does not equal ZERO. So picking one example is not 'proving' of anything since all you are proving is that there was more than zero (which I agree with anyway lol).

    Again, that's what you SAY..

    Yet you provide NO facts or evidence to back that up..

    There is a reasons for that..

    None exists...

    Michale
    0394

  116. [116] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I will post once more to non-Michale comments ;)

    David,
    Perhaps it's because they have higher standards for beer also :)

    Haha true. It's also cheaper ;)

    Bashi,
    But did the overall homicide rate fall? Or did killers just use other weapons?

    Yes, in fact homicides in 2012 are at all time record lows. It makes sense when you think about it logically: guns are the most deadly weapon, so taking away these means that any attacks are likely to be less deadly.

    In fact I posted some good stats about this before. Here they are from the other thread:

    Non Fire-arm Homicide Rates:
    USA - 1.58
    UK - 1.33
    Canada - 1.04

    Pretty similar. As you'd expect from 3 industrialised, democratic nations with an inter-linked history and similar cultural background.

    Firearm Homicide Rates:
    UK - 0.12
    Canada - 0.54
    USA - 2.97

    So it's just pure coincidence then that when you look at the firearm homicide rate they are now ranked exactly in order of how easy it is to get a gun and the type of gun you can get.

    The US has a 0.18 times higher non-firearms homicide rate than the UK; the firearms homicide rate is 25 times higher. But it must be the 'people' not the guns right?

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Hmmm ... I've been to the UK and found it to be quite hospitable.

    Betcha weren't there during the many riots, eh?? :D

    Michale
    0395

  118. [118] 
    michty6 wrote:

    (Non Fire-arm Homicide Rates + Homicide Rates = Overall Homicide Rates)

    (Obviously!)

  119. [119] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    He made no distinction between gun deaths of a criminal nature vs gun deaths of a self-defense/justifiable nature..

    Add suicide to the list and you are just as guilty...

    I looked it up. The homicide rate in the UK went down a little bit for the year after the gun ban then climbed for a while but has really come down in the last few years to quite a low level. I would say, the gun ban has not curbed homicide rates much at all in the UK but something else accounts for it...

  120. [120] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bashi,

    There is a Gov white paper (from 2010 I think) that discusses this. I linked it in the Aurora thread I think.

    The conclusions of the paper were that not only had the gun banned worked, but guns should be EVEN MORE restricted that the current extremely limited ownership that is allowed.

    Naturally our current Government being Conservative, they rejected the findings of this paper ;)

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    You guys seem to miss the point.. AGAIN.. :D

    CT has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country..

    They didn't do anything to stop Sandy Hook..

    WHY do ya'all think that NEW laws will make a difference???

    Michale
    0396

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Add suicide to the list and you are just as guilty...

    Touche' :D

    I looked it up. The homicide rate in the UK went down a little bit for the year after the gun ban then climbed for a while but has really come down in the last few years to quite a low level. I would say, the gun ban has not curbed homicide rates much at all in the UK but something else accounts for it...

    People who want to kill people will find a way to do so..

    Banning guns *MAY* lessen mass shootings, but there will still be numerous-fatality crimes.. With cars, with cleavers, with baseball bats, whatever...

    But the DOWN side to banning guns, more innocents being raped, attacked and murdered by other means without ANY possibility of defending themselves??

    Well, I don't think it's worth it..

    And, since I am *intimately* familiar with gun violence, I can assure you that, in MANY people's lives, guns are a means of survival..

    And they have as much right to survive as any other person..

    Michale
    0397

  123. [123] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michty6,

    Unless gun bans take a decade and a half or so to kick in, which is possible, it's not in the statistics. Just seems like murder by sharp object is the determiner of homicide rate in the UK. Gun related deaths are slowly decreasing but are over shadowed by a much higher usage of sharp objects. The curve of homicide rate from the gun ban until this year curves up for quite some time before falling off sharply in the last half decade or so. Makes me think that either there is a serious time delay or something else is in play. Probably a combination of the two.

  124. [124] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Not to anyone in particular, but I just wanted to quote one of my favourite stats on gun control:

    As many people kill themselves by accidentally shooting themselves with their gun in America than are killed by ANY METHOD of homicide (in total) in Japan...

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bashi
    The best way of analysing it would be to chart it alongside the gun ownership rate or estimated number of guns in the country (if such a statistic were available).

    The other thing is that gun bans do take a while. They have had many gun amnestys since the gun ban was introduced (I think they still have them occasionally) and I remember a rather large one in 2003 (6 years after the gun ban) where they were still bringing in thousands of guns...

    There are plenty of independent civil service produced Government studies out there to read if you are so inclined :)

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    As many people kill themselves by accidentally shooting themselves with their gun in America than are killed by ANY METHOD of homicide (in total) in Japan...

    In this case, I believe Darwin said it best.... :D

    Michale
    0398

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best way of analysing it would be to chart it alongside the gun ownership rate or estimated number of guns in the country

    In other words, skew the data to show what you want it to show...

    (if such a statistic were available).

    And, if that doesn't work... Just make shit up... :D

    Michale
    0399

  128. [128] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As many people kill themselves by accidentally shooting themselves with their gun in America than are killed by ANY METHOD of homicide (in total) in Japan.

    Heheh. Maybe Darwin will simply eventually handle this problem all on its own.

    BTW, michty ... I'd like to put in a plug for our gracious host, Chris W. He needs a new computer and if you haven't sent a tip his way yet, I'd encourage you to. If you have already, my apologies.

    Info is available by clicking on the header up top.

    His column has been a regular favorite of mine since 2008 or so and as a disclaimer, I will say I'm in no way, shape, or form related, just a fan.

    Cheers and damn your cheap better beer!

    -David

    p.s. Funny story. I have a friend who used to be a beer distributor for a microbrewery out of Michigan. They started selling this beer at our local baseball stadium and it was doing so well, the major brewer who had a contract with the team stepped in and convinced the stadium to ban it from all but one remote location.

    I mention this story because it says so much about our country. We're a country that claims to represent capitalism and freedom of choice, yet our biggest companies constantly exert the leverage they have to create what in a sense are monopolies.

    If you look at almost any industry, you find examples of this in our system.

  129. [129] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And, since I am *intimately* familiar with gun violence, I can assure you that, in MANY people's lives, guns are a means of survival..

    Not statistically if you don't live in a gang infested hood. Really, by a large margin, the most likely victim of a gun is the owner or a family member and either by suicide or homicide by another family member or accident involving a family member. Random shootings are rare really not much of a problem. Though they seem to get the most press.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Random shootings are rare really not much of a problem.

    And yet, here we are, having the same old discussion again and again... :D

    Which was kind of my point above..

    I would respect the position a LOT more, if it didn't come at the exploitation of a tragedy...

    Ya'all want to make the gun control case??

    Make it based on logic and rational discussion... Not on the "OH MY GODS THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" hysterical emotionalism...

    David,

    Heheh. Maybe Darwin will simply eventually handle this problem all on its own.

    See!!?? We DO think alike!!!

    Scary, ain't it.. :D

    Michale
    0400

  131. [131] 
    akadjian wrote:

    See!!?? We DO think alike!

    LOL ... :)

    Actually it's partly why I've been holding out on this conversation because I'm honestly torn.

    Here's where I'm torn ...
    1) I know many responsible gun owners (like yourself, Michale)

    Here's where I'm not torn ...
    1) The idea that more guns = less gun deaths
    2) I believe assault weapons should be banned (regardless of whether they were used in this instance or not)

    Regardless, all I'd ask is if it's ok to have a conversation about ways to try to reduce the shootings and balance the right of responsible people to bear arms.

    Kind of like we're doing. And Michale, I give you credit for your consideration of different kinds of background checks and better licensing.

    I'm torn because if all gun owners were like the gun owners I know, there wouldn't be an issue. But it's pretty clear something is amiss as these shootings are becoming all too commonplace.

    -David

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I understand completely your dilemma.

    But I think the point is, you are trying to address the SYMPTOM of the problem and ignoring the ROOT of the problem..

    The problem is not the availability of guns.. The problem is the mentally ill who would do what they do with guns..

    If they didn't have guns, they would use cars.. or other weapons.. 22 people were knifed in China at the same time that the Sandy Hook shooting was occurring..

    Let me put it to you this way..

    What would you think of the idea of having police institute a program where an officer would be located at every school in the country.

    Do you think that THAT would lesson school shootings???

    Michale
    0401

  133. [133] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I think the point is guns are a minor determiner of crime and homicide rates. Getting rid of or increasing guns will not change much but if a society decides to have them, then expect a shooting spree more often than if you decide to not have them...

    If they didn't have guns, they would use cars.. or other weapons.. 22 people were knifed in China at the same time that the Sandy Hook shooting was occurring..

    Interesting you bring this up. The big difference is no one died in the china attack...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting you bring this up. The big difference is no one died in the china attack...

    True... But it was, nonetheless, traumatic for those being knifed..

    The point is still valid.

    People who want to do violence against other people will find a way to do that violence..

    The use of guns are a SYMPTOM of the problem, not the problem itself..

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked David..

    Would a police officer at every school in the country lessen the chance of tragedies such as what occurred at Sandy Hook??

    Michale
    0402

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The use of guns are a SYMPTOM of the problem, not the problem itself...

    then why has it been the topic of discussion for the last hundred thirty-something posts. i believe gun control overall is a good thing, but neither side of the gun argument can reasonably assert that this particular shooting, or any such incident, "might not have happened if only [insert gun control opinion here]." it's an absurd argument to be having.

    gun control is a worthwhile discussion, but it's the wrong one for this week's tragedy. we should be talking about mental illness, social ostracism, lack of a sense of community and mutual responsibility. those poorly treated (if at all), combined with a glorification of deadly violence in every medium imaginable, are a recipe for destruction no matter what the "gun laws" might be.

    a friend sent me this article today, see what everyone thinks of it:

    http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

    ~joshua

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    gun control is a worthwhile discussion, but it's the wrong one for this week's tragedy. we should be talking about mental illness, social ostracism, lack of a sense of community and mutual responsibility. those poorly treated (if at all), combined with a glorification of deadly violence in every medium imaginable, are a recipe for destruction no matter what the "gun laws" might be.

    In my ham-handed, bloviated way that has EXACTLY been my point..

    This particular incident (and MANY incidents like it) has not been about guns... It's been about mental illness and the best way to identify threats to society..

    Whether or not they can use a gun or not is incidental..

    It's JUST as tragic if 20 people die in a hail or gunfire or in the fumes and burning rubber of an auto driven by the assailant..

    GUNS aren't the problem..

    The mental illness is the problem..

    Unfortunately (as I have pointed out time and again) the BEST way to identify such persons is a process that is anathema to Democrats and the Left in general...

    a friend sent me this article today, see what everyone thinks of it:

    http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

    It illustrates the problem perfectly..

    GUNS are not the problem. CT's gun laws PREVENTED the shooter from legally obtaining firearms..

    The GUN SYSTEM worked...

    The Mental Health system did not..

    Holding guns responsible for Sandy Hook is as idiotic as trying to treat an alcoholic by taking away his cigarettes....

    Michale
    0403

  137. [137] 
    akadjian wrote:

    we should be talking about mental illness, social ostracism, lack of a sense of community and mutual responsibility.

    It's a good point and I read that article also. However, it's more than about just this incident.

    It's about a pattern of incidents. And a pattern of shootings. And an outrageous amount of gun violence.

    Much of this is due to the easy availability of firearms capable of doing a lot of damage in a hurry.

    And as mentioned, it's not just the firearms. It's also the culture of gun violence supported by the gun industry. The Newtown shooting is just the latest instance.

    22 people were knifed in China at the same time that the Sandy Hook shooting was occurring.

    And no one died.

    -David

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    It's about a pattern of incidents. And a pattern of shootings. And an outrageous amount of gun violence.

    Your missing the point. Guns are just the SYMPTOM... Someone in the throes of mental illness can devise MANY ways to kill a lot of people, if they choose.. Especially those who are mentally ill, yet possess an incredible amount of intelligence...

    Guns are just convenient.. If it weren't guns, it would be something else.. Explosives.. Vehicles.. Kitchen utensils...

    Attacking guns is just a politicians way of saying, "We're doing something about the problem" when, in fact, they are doing NOTHING about THE PROBLEM, but rather just putting a bandaid..

    I'll ask again....

    Do you think that, if we posted a police officer at every school in the country, it would alleviate school massacres???

    And no one died.

    Have you ever been stabbed?? Have you ever had to console persons who have been stabbed??

    I can assure you that the trauma associated with stabbings makes death look like a pleasant alternative..

    It's NOT the choice of weapon that is the issue.

    That's the point (no pun intended) that you simply refuse to comprehend..

    It's the mental illness that prompts people to TAKE UP weapons, ANY weapons, against innocent human beings..

    That's what you simply won't acknowledge because it shows up the Left's gun control agenda for what it is..

    A sham...

    A useless bandaid on a problem that Democrats simply refuse to see, let alone do anything about...

    If you ban guns, the mentally ill will use cars.. You ban cars, the mentally ill will use knives.. You ban knives, the mentally ill will use clubs...

    "But less people will be killed"

    Yea, yea... The same old Leftist lame response..

    Do you think that matters to the dead!?? To the families of the dead!?? To the friends and loved ones of the dead!??

    What?? Ya'all are going to say to them, "Hay, sorry your husband/wife and kids were killed by the lunatic in a car.. But at least the lunatic didn't have a gun and wasn't able to kill a dozen more people?? That's a good thing, right??"

    SERIOUSLY!???

    Address the frakin' problem!!!

    If Democrats don't have the moral courage, the cajones to address the REAL problem, then they better not take away a person's right to self defense...

    If they do??

    Then ALL the blood of the next massacre in another Gun Free Zone will be on THEIR hands...

    Michale
    0404

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I didn't get to your analysis, getting side-tracked by the current debate and all..

    I promise I'll address it first thing in the AM, likely before you wake up.. :D

    Michale
    0405

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/give-me-a-break--tarantino-tires-of-defending-ultraviolent-films-after-sandy-hook-massacre-8422467.html

    Of course, the Left's darlings in Hollywood don't see ANY problem with racist violent films......

    My oh my, what a conflict of interests, eh???

    I would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic...

    But to see Leftists hoisted on their own Petard???

    No, no, no...

    Guns are the SOLE problem.. NOTHING else is an issue, despite MASSIVE amounts of factual evidence to the contrary....

    Michale
    0406

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's not forget how Jamie Foxx said "how much fun it was to kill all the white people" in his new movie...

    Yea, REALLY a lot of "fun", eh??

    And THIS is a Democrat!???

    And no one says "boo"....

    Amazing....

    Michale
    0407

  142. [142] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Well, I'm glad you found your bogeyman, Michale, and you've worked in bashing the "Left"

    I guess things are back to normal. When do you add "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

    -David

  143. [143] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Guns don't kill people, Michale bores people. Seriously, when will the sane commentariat stop encouraging his foamings? Michale exists in a reality none of us have ever experienced; couldn't we PLEASE just leave him to it? Cue predictable blatherings from him.
    Sigh, yawn.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Guns don't kill people, Michale bores people. Seriously, when will the sane commentariat stop encouraging his foamings? Michale exists in a reality none of us have ever experienced; couldn't we PLEASE just leave him to it? Cue predictable blatherings from him.

    I can always tell when I really have ya'all on the run...

    Kevin steps in and bashes me. :D

    Michale
    0408

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I'm glad you found your bogeyman, Michale, and you've worked in bashing the "Left"

    Worked in?? Hell, it's ALWAYS been about the Left and THEIR "gun bogeyman".

    Why do ya'all bash and ridicule the slightest inane gaff coming from the Right, yet utterly moronic, insulting and racist spewage from the Left is given a pass??

    I guess things are back to normal. When do you add "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

    Why should I add it when you already know it's true... :D

    When Democrats are actually ready to address the REAL problems instead inventing straw dragons that they can ride in and get their asses kicked by AGAIN, come talk to me..

    My guess, is we won't hear dick about Gun Control after a few more days, a week at the most.. That's about the shelf life of Democrats being able to exploit another tragedy..

    Of course, we'll NEVER hear from Democrats about the REAL problem with these shootings...

    {sigh} Another tragedy that Democrats didn't let go to waste....

    Michale
    0409

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, Liz... Iran...

    I am going to divide my Iran Attack scenarios into best case, worst case and most likely..

    A follow-up post will deal with the Iran As A Nuclear Power scenarios, again in best case, worse case and most likely..

    A Best Case Scenario for an Iran Attack is easy..

    Israeli IAF squadrons, supported by US AWACS and Refueling hit Iran and hit it hard.. The US has outfitted Israeli bombers with Ground Penetrating hardware. Wild Weasel fighters go in first, taking out radar guided SAM sights, which gives the Israeli air armada total dominance of the skys.

    Israeli fighters make short work of a token amount of Iranian fighters that do make it into the air. Most Iranian air assets are destroyed on the ground, thanx to support by US Naval power in the Persian Gulf and Gulf Of Oman who unleash a barrage of cruise missiles. Aegis Destroyers provide a missile umbrella over the region. Iran is able pop off a few homegrown missiles at US Forces in the region and towards Israel, but the missile umbrella works flawlessly, validating Ronald Reagan's Star Wars push..

    Total T.O.T. is around 90 minutes and when Israeli forces finish their grand tour and leisurely turn back towards home, Iran has ceased to exist as a viable country, let alone a regional power.

    Iranian casualties number in the hundreds of thousands due to Iran's policy of placing military assets in proximity of civilian population centers. Allied Forces suffer no casualties and only 2 aircraft were lost due to equipment failure..

    "We dance, we kiss, we schmooze, we carry on, we go home happy."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    Michale
    0410

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me just add to the above BEST CASE scenario that, due to foresight and prep by the IDF and stationing a massive amount of ground forces along the northern and southern borders, the promised retaliation of Hezbollah and Hamas doesn't materialize.

    They try to lob some missiles into Israel, but the Iron Dome performs admirably again and there are no Israeli casualties. Knowing the wisdom of keeping one's powder dry, Hamas & Hezbollah wisely decide not to tweak the tail of the tiger..

    Michale
    0411

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran Attack

    Worst Case Scenario

    This is also an easy one.

    IAF fighters hit a wall of sophisticated SAM sites and are utterly decimated. US Naval support from the Gulfs is non-existent due to Iranian Naval assets being able to hound and harrie US ships, coming close enough in to strike but darting away before a weapons lock can be established.

    Iran is able to strike at US forces throughout the region, putting US casualties into the high tens of thousands..

    Hamas and Hezbollah roll in from the south and north respectively. Armed with sophisticated weapons from Iran, they make short work of the IDF who are overwhelmed by sheer numbers.. Number of Israeli casualties are in the millions as enemy ground forces give no quarter and do not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

    Israel ceases to exist. Iran is the only regional superpower, as US forces are sent limping towards home.

    Recognizing the power shift and unable to stand against Iran, countries in the region promptly make accommodations with the new regional superpower.

    Iran now has their Islamist Caliphate that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean thru North Africa all the way to the Himalayas...

    The beginning of the end...

    I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

    Michale
    0412

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most likely scenario of an Iran Attack..

    OK, this is going to be a little disjointed, as I am pulling from a lot of different sources, not the least of which are the deep cobwebs within my brain..

    An Israeli attack on Iran will begin one of two ways. Either as a BOOTB (Bolt Out Of The Blue) attack or under the guise of a regional military exercise. IDF forces are famed for their surprise attacks and I believe they will be so again, even though many within the circles I run believe that an Iran attack is all but inevitable..

    How we will hear about it will likely be in the form of news reports of Israeli ground forces massing at their Northern and Southern borders. Talking Heads, IGNORANT talking heads here in the US will likely write this off as another Snipe Hunt campaign for terrorist missile emplacements.

    The tip off, though, will be that there has been no increase of rocket attacks that would normally prompt such prep work for a ground offensive. That the IAF will be conspicuously absent (other than support aircraft, likely all rotor-wing types) from any of this prep work will be another indication that their services are being utilized elsewhere.

    In this, Israel is fortunate. Virtually no ground forces will be needed for an air assault and virtually no air forces (beyond rotor-wings) are needed to secure the northern and southern borders..

    This is how an Israeli strike will look at it's inception.

    I am going to stop right here, as it just occurred to me that visual aides might make things easier for everyone to understand..

    So, I'll begin the attack with an explanation of the relevant TOE and Timeline later today...

    Michale
    0413

  150. [150] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Seriously, when will the same commentariat stop encouraging his foamings?

    Kevin-

    At this point, I hope you understand that it's not about Michale. It's about living in a world where the powers that be pay to strengthen the signals of people like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, etc because they realize they can make a lot of money while the people fight.

    Our media has a new business model: entertainment or propaganda.

    So how will any other thoughts and ideas propagate?

    Right now it's on the Internet and on the fringe of our media (the back pages and letter sections and comments and comedy shows).

    If these are shut down as well by noise, how do we communicate?

    I'm sorry you feel frustrated, Kevin. If this is the case, don't get sucked in. Me, as I've said, I know I'll never convince Michale, but I will convince 9 out of 10 other people I talk to. And I'll take those odds. Partly because I've had so much practice.

    Maybe I'm saying this ineloquently, but I feel we have to learn to fight with the best that highly paid propagandists are distributing.

    -David

  151. [151] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Perhaps a better way to say it is this. Let go of the idea that you're ever going to convince Michale.

    Why? Because this is a war for him. Just as much as it would be if he were fighting in Iraq. And ... as in war, the use of any tactic is justified.

    This is why he spends so much time 'liberal baiting'. Again ... why?

    Because if you can make someone angry, they lose sight of their message, and are unable to convince. If you don't believe me, this is what all the conservative literature from Beck to Coulter to Rush preaches. Make a liberal angry, you win.

    So the correct response, rather than getting angrier, is an even sharper message.

    Or ... another good response is to take the discussion to people who aren't playing this game.

    And I'm sure there's plenty of other good responses as well. Just not thinking of them this early.

    -David

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    At this point, I hope you understand that it's not about Michale. It's about living in a world where the powers that be pay to strengthen the signals of people like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, etc because they realize they can make a lot of money while the people fight.

    Because if you can make someone angry, they lose sight of their message, and are unable to convince. If you don't believe me, this is what all the conservative literature from Beck to Coulter to Rush preaches. Make a liberal angry, you win.

    And herein lies the reason while you will never convince any free thinking objective person of the validity of your position..

    You think that the problem begins and ends with the Becks, the Coulters and the Limbaughs of this country.

    You COMPLETELY ignore the Maddows, the Mahers and the Matthews and the Foxxes of this country and give them a pass no matter how ugly, racist, inane and moronic their statements and/or actions...

    Objective free thinking people not enslaved by Party ideology would be more inclined to attempt to understand your positions if you were more even handed in your condemnations..

    But with the vast majority of Weigantians, the comments are always the same..

    A noun, a verb and it's all the GOP's fault.

    Just ONCE I would like to see from rank and file Weigantians the condemnation of Democrats approach the level that we see with the condemnation of Republicans.

    Just once...

    Now, if you will excuse me... I have an attack to plan.. :D

    Michale
    0414

  153. [153] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Another way to put it is that what I take away from these discussions are things like:

    - Michty's brilliant statistical comparison of gun violence in Britain w/ Canada w/ the US

    - nypoet's posting of the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" story and expansion of the issue

    - Bashi's excellent portrayal of how the media did indeed cover the Portland shooting (it just got overwhelmed by the Newtown shooting)

    - CW's always extremely topical insights. My favorite here was his #1 talking point which addresses the argument the NRA always puts forth "Now is not the time to talk about guns ..." And, it's always now. Ridiculous.

    -David

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Michty's brilliant statistical comparison of gun violence in Britain w/ Canada w/ the US

    Without ANY substantiation whatsoever..

    But you accept it because it is what you WANT to believe..

    - nypoet's posting of the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" story and expansion of the issue

    "expansion" my arse!.. Joshua DEFINED the issue. It's not about guns at all.. It's about the mental illness of the people that use them for evil purposes.. That's the point that the Left just NEVER understands..

    - Bashi's excellent portrayal of how the media did indeed cover the Portland shooting (it just got overwhelmed by the Newtown shooting)

    Again, without ANY substantiation whatsoever...

    And, it's always now. Ridiculous.

    No more ridiculous than Democrats only want to talk about guns after a mass shooting strategy...

    I'll make two points AGAIN, because you completely ignored them the first time..

    There are already laws in place in CT, which have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.... Given complete and utter foresight of the Sandy Hook tragedy, what laws could YOU put into place to insure that the tragedy didn't occur.

    Answer?? ABSOLUTELY NONE..

    Why?? Because the shooter IGNORED the laws!!???

    What makes you think MORE LAWS would have prevented Sandy Hook???

    {{{{cchhhiiirrrrrppppp}}} {{chhiiirrrrpppppppp}}

    The ONLY thing that would have prevented Sandy Hook was if there was a police officer stationed within the school..

    Would you agree with this?

    Michale
    0415

  155. [155] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What makes you think MORE LAWS would have prevented Sandy Hook?

    It might have, it might not have. You can never know whether anything will impact one particular instance.

    What it would do is reduce the firearm homicide rates

    Firearm Homicide Rates:
    UK - 0.12
    Canada - 0.54
    USA - 2.97

    That's the point that the Left just NEVER understands.

    Except that this point was brought to you by the "Left". And certainly mental illness is part of the conversation.

    What it's not is all of the conversation which, quite naturally, you want it to be because you are a gun advocate.

    C'mon. Is there a reason for high-capacity ammo clips other than killing lots of people? Is there a valid reason for owning an assault rifle other than killing lots of people?

    -David

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    It might have, it might not have. You can never know whether anything will impact one particular instance.

    Yes, we can know..

    Because it already was illegal for that scumbag to HAVE guns..

    Why do you think MORE laws would have changed things when it's clear the guy wasn't going to obey the laws already in place??

    Except that this point was brought to you by the "Left". And certainly mental illness is part of the conversation.

    It SHOULD be the ENTIRE conversation..

    By throwing up the straw bogeyman of guns, Democrats guarantee that NOTHING will ever get done about the REAL problem...

    Democrats are laying their political fortunes on guns being the evil bogeyman. For them to address the mental health issue, they will have to concede that guns aren't the real problem..

    There is as much chance of that as there is me being elected Obama's Fan Club president..

    C'mon. Is there a reason for high-capacity ammo clips other than killing lots of people? Is there a valid reason for owning an assault rifle other than killing lots of people?

    Is there a reason for owning a car you can never drive? Is there a reason for owning a bottle of wine you will never drink??

    The problem is, to adopt your reasoning, you have to assume that people WILL commit mass-murder...

    I thought the Left was against such profiling???

    I am going to keep asking until I get an answer.

    Do you think a good solution to the problem of school shootings is to place a police officer at schools??

    Michale
    0416

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Firearm Homicide Rates:
    UK - 0.12
    Canada - 0.54
    USA - 2.97

    And still NO ONE can provide a cite for this stat..

    Geee... I wonder why that is....

    Michale
    0417

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if the stat IS true, it doesn't mean a damn thing..

    So, the US has the highest firearm homicide rate. Unless you can separate the LEGAL from the ILLEGAL firearms, your stat doesn't mean squat...

    As Bashi pointed out above there is absolutely NO SOLID LINK between a gun ban and lower homicide rates.

    NO LINK WHATSOEVER..

    So, why don't we forget about the guns and concentrate on something that WILL prevent mass-shootings..

    The identification and treatment of the mentally ill...

    THAT is the real culprit here...

    Michale
    0418

  159. [159] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There's a good chart here. Probably not exactly the same as what michty provided but it seems to be consistent.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

    The identification and treatment of the mentally ill.

    I'm all for it. I believe the ACA also has many provisions which help the mentally ill.

    But I thought this was an entitlement?

    -David

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a good chart here. Probably not exactly the same as what michty provided but it seems to be consistent.

    The US is 28th on the list with the most gun murders figured on a proportional basis per population...

    Big whoopee de sheets...

    That and $5.99 will get you a gallon of gas in California...

    But I thought this was an entitlement?

    Even if true, who gives a rip... It will have a LOT more effect on mass-casuality crimes than taking guns away..

    Ya know what would REALLY have an impact in stopping school shootings???

    Having a cop at every school..

    Wouldn't you agree???

    You and I both know why you don't want to answer that question..

    Because the ONLY logical and rational response to that question totally decimates your "Guns Are The Problem" argument and blows it out of the water...... :D

    Michale
    0419

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a good chart here. Probably not exactly the same as what michty provided but it seems to be consistent.

    Funny thing about that chart...

    Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet... Just ask US Marine Jon Hammer..

    Yet, it's murder rate is TRIPLE that of the United States when proportioned for population....

    You can spout stats til the cows come home..

    But the simple fact is, there is absolutely NO DIRECT Correlation between gun laws and gun murders...

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    There are too many variables to say with ANY degree of reliability that the availability or non-availability of guns is a factor in a high or low crime rate..

    So, please.. Cut the bullshit...

    Michale
    0420

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even more funny thing about that chart..

    Israel has some of the LAXest gun laws on the planet..

    It's murder by gun rate is nearly non-existent, a mere 3rd of what it is in the US...

    Switzerland rates NUMBER 3 in the world for gun owners IE persons owning at least ONE gun..

    The murder by gun rate in Switzerland is .7

    Countries that have very restrictive gun laws have some of the highest rate of gun murders..

    Countries that have very lax gun laws have some of the lowest rate of gun murders..

    There is absolutely NO provable link between gun laws and gun murders..

    Once again.. Can we cut the bullshit and deal with reality???

    Michale
    0421

  163. [163] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the simple fact is, there is absolutely NO DIRECT Correlation between gun laws and gun murders.

    There is a correlation. Are their other variables in the equation? Certainly.

    For example, Mexico also has a huge drug war going on. Most of the South American countries on there I would guess similarly.

    A few other examples of where this has worked. Australia, Scotland, and Finland.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/121217/sandy-hook-newtown-shooting-gun-control-australia-scotland-finland-changed-gun-laws-after-shooting

    Now you do bring up a good point. Are we more like Australia or Scotland? Or are we more like the 3rd world countries near the top?

    There are too many variables to say with ANY degree of reliability that the availability or non-availability of guns is a factor in a high or low crime rate.

    In the case of your argument that "more guns = less gun deaths", I would agree with you.

    I'm glad you finally looked closer at the data.

    However, there is ample evidence to support a correlation between the easy availability of firearms and the firearm homicide rate.

    -David

    p.s. And ... one final quick note. Remember, correlation does not equal causation, but this doesn't mean it can't be a valuable tool if you're able to take other variables into consideration.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now you do bring up a good point. Are we more like Australia or Scotland? Or are we more like the 3rd world countries near the top?

    That's the point I made above..

    The US has so many unique characteristics..

    Do we have more gun deaths because we have more guns?? or is it because we're more arrogant?? So many factors, it's impossible to point to ONE and say, "THAT is why things are the way the are"...

    However, there is ample evidence to support a correlation between the easy availability of firearms and the firearm homicide rate.

    No, there is not..

    In Israel and in Switzerland, there is a gun in every cupboard, yet they have some of the lowest murders by gun on the planet..

    Countries that have very restrictive gun laws have some of the highest rate of gun murders..

    Countries that have very lax gun laws have some of the lowest rate of gun murders..

    It's impossible to point to ONE thing (availability) and say, "THAT is the reason things are the way they are".

    p.s. And ... one final quick note. Remember, correlation does not equal causation, but this doesn't mean it can't be a valuable tool if you're able to take other variables into consideration.

    Agreed...

    It seems to me that the data on mental illness is a LOT more indicative than the data on gun availability....

    Interesting how NO ONE has thought to put THAT data out there, eh???

    It's easy to make guns the boogeyman....

    Michale
    0422

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's easy to make guns the boogeyman....

    Why aren't we having a debate on mental illness??

    Same reason why reporting on the Sandy Hook shooting smothered the reporting on the Clackamas Town Center shooting...

    Because it doesn't fit the Left's agenda...

    It's that simple...

    Aside to Liz... Almost done!! :D

    Michale
    0423

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh the irony.... :D

    California Teachers’ Retirement Plan Invested In Gun Manufacturer
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/california-teachers-retirement-plan-invested-in-gun-manufacturer/

    Michale
    0424

  167. [167] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's easy to make guns the boogeyman.

    It's also easy to change the subject.

    -David

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's also easy to change the subject.

    Yea, right! Now around here.. Most times, ya'all ignore what ya can't address and just go with the Party line.. :D

    Like having cops at every school... :D

    As your OWN stats have shown, guns aren't the problem. Availability of guns aren't the problem.

    Maybe.. JUST maybe, something else is the problem, eh???

    Michale
    0425

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, right! Now around here..

    NOT around here...

    My bust...

    Michale
    0426

  170. [170] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No, there is not.

    Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates can be found in developing countries and those with political instability.
    - Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science

    Similar economic circumstances. Similar political circumstances. 8 times higher.

    Yeah, sorry Michale, but there is.

    -David

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it.

    Based on what criteria??

    You see?? You can tweak the stats to "adjust" for compatibility and similarity, but without a standard or even a synopsis for what constitutes "similarity" it's all so much bullshit..

    What's the standard for deciding what is and isn't "similar"??

    If you can't show that, your stat is meaningless..

    Using the statistics YOU and MICHTY provided, I have proven that lax gun laws do NOT equal more gun murders..

    Using the statistics YOU and MICHTY provided, I have proven that strict gun laws do NOT equal less gun murders..

    Those were YOUR stats.. Now, all of the sudden you are shopping around for different stats because you don't like what YOUR stats have shown??

    I won't even BOTHER to point out that your newest Stat Buddy was from almost a DECADE ago...

    Firearms and Violence:
    A Critical Review
    Status: Available Now
    Size: 340 pages, 6 x 9
    Publication Year:2004

    Hardly relevant in the here and now... Whereas the stats that ya'all posted previously, the stats that PROVE there is no correlation was from July of 2012...

    The problem isn't guns.. The problem isn't the availability of guns...

    The problem is the mental health of those who would USE guns...

    This has been established...

    Michale
    0427

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering the disaster that was FAST AND FURIOUS, are Democrats REALLY going to lecture us on the issue of gun availability???

    SERIOUSLY????

    Michale
    0428

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was reading thru your new Stat Buddy..

    Interesting note in Chapter 4...

    Also, the number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%).
    Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Chapter 4". Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science. ISBN 0-309-09124-1.

    Once again, your OWN stats refute your case for a correlation between gun availability and gun crimes..

    Michale
    0429

  174. [174] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Those were YOUR stats.. Now, all of the sudden you are shopping around for different stats because you don't like what YOUR stats have shown?

    Indeed. And looking at the top countries (number of firearm homicides per country), something seemed similar:

    1. Honduras
    2. El Salvador
    3. Jamaica
    4. Venezuala
    5. Guatamala
    6. Saint Kitts and Nevis
    7. Trinidad and Tobago
    8. Columbia
    9. Belize
    10. Puerto Rico
    11. Brazil
    12. South Africa
    13. Dominican Republican
    14. Panama
    15. Bahamas

    3rd world countries. In fact, most of the countries in the top 50 are 3rd world countries. Politically and/or economically more unstable.

    Oddly enough, we have almost exactly the same percentage of firearm homicides as the West Bank & Gaza. A country I believe you called uncivilized.

    That other research merely confirms what's in these numbers. I was simply curious if it had been researched. You can knock it as 2004 if you like, but I don't think the situation has changed that drastically.

    It's just interesting to see the correlation.

    -David

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oddly enough, we have almost exactly the same percentage of firearm homicides as the West Bank & Gaza. A country I believe you called uncivilized.

    Yea, and China has some of the least amount of gun murders.

    Ergo, we should try to be more like China, right??

    There are too many variables to make a direct, or even an indirect correlation between gun laws and gun crimes.

    In the decades following the Gun Control Act Of 1968, violent gun crimes soared...

    For every stat you come up with that says Gun Control is the answer, I can come up with a matching stat that says Gun Control is the problem..

    You can knock it as 2004 if you like, but I don't think the situation has changed that drastically.

    Fine. Then you have to concede that:

    the number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%).

    Again.. YOUR stats. Saying the exact opposite of your claims...

    Michale
    0430

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    IRAN Attack
    PART III

    OK, we have set the stage on how an Iran Attack will begin… Note that links to visual aids must be manually entered into browser address window.

    Before moving into the attack phase, we have to identify the targets and establish the TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment), the attack plan bible, keeping in mind that military wisdom dictates that NO battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy…

    sjfm.us/temp/iran5.jpg

    The HVTs (High Value Targets) will predominantly be the research centers. The brain trusts of the Iranian Nuclear Program. The primary of these would be the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. Ostensibly “abandoned” in 2003 (strictly for propaganda purposes) this is the premier research center, due to it’s proximity to Tehran. Located some 40 miles west of Tehran, it is the most heavily fortified and defended of the Iranian nuclear sites due to it’s proximity to the capital of Iran...

    Slightly further west and north is the Nuclear Research Center at Karaj. Considered an “annex” to the TNRC, it was here that the most sensitive work was transferred to when the main TNRC site was “abandoned”. The proximity of these two targets make it “easy” for IAF forces to strike. Complicating this “ease” is the fact that it is one of the most heavily defended of the strike package. Rounding out the HVTs are the Research Centers at Isfahan, several hundred miles south of Tehran, Yazd to the east, Bonab near the Turkish border and Darkhoven on the gulf coast. Effective strikes against these targets will set the Iranian Nuclear Program back at least a dozen years, as it will decimate the “brains” of the program…

    Running a VERY close second in the HVT race would be the Uranium Processing Areas. These really complicate the attack as most are built deep underground. Israel does not possess competent ground penetrating munitions, which is why she has allowed the US to call the shots to date.

    However, getting TO the sites is very problematic.

    Iranian Air Defenses consist of an outer layer of older Soviet-Era KS-19 100mm Triple Ack layered in three deep. Further in are the more modern Russian SA-15s SAM SHORAD (Short Range Air Defense) sites

    sjfm.us/temp/iran6.jpg

    This is a 2011 satellite shot of the SAM Sites protecting the Uranium Processing Site at Natanz. The latest site, at Qom, is even more heavily protected.

    sjfm.us/temp/iran7.jpg

    So, to sum up. Israel will have a hard time reaching targets. Strategic surprise will be impossible. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that, eventually, Iran will be hit.

    But Tactical Surprise is a must. If it cannot be achieved, then it is likely that any attack will fail.

    It should also be noted that there are very pressing reasons why Iran must be attacked sooner rather than later.

    sjfm.us/temp/iran8.jpg

    This is an estimation of the coverage net that is near completion. Once this project is done, it’s very likely that Israel won’t be able to make a dent in these defenses and a strike on Iran’s nuclear program will be all but impossible.
    Next up, we’ll move onto what the actual attack will look like, including illustrating Israel’s assets and likely ingress and egress points. We’ll then follow that up with the aftermath and the possible political fallout of the attack..

    Apologies for breaking this up into parts like this. I have a lot on my plate at the shop and just cannot resist the gun control debate.. :D

    Michale
    0431

  177. [177] 
    akadjian wrote:

    For every stat you come up with that says Gun Control is the answer, I can come up with a matching stat that says Gun Control is the problem.

    We know. You're for 'gun rights'.

    Even the NRA though seems to think that perhaps a little more regulation is a good thing.

    http://fallschurch.patch.com/articles/after-newtown-nra-ready-to-make-meaningful-contributions-80cbfdfe

    This is good news! Maybe a conversation can be had about how to balance individual rights while putting some better regulations in place.

    -David

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    We know. You're for 'gun rights'.

    And your against them.. Does that make our facts any less valid??

    Even the NRA though seems to think that perhaps a little more regulation is a good thing.

    I never claimed it wasn't..

    I am simply for COMMON SENSE rather than hysterically lashing out.

    NO LAWS will stop a mass shooting if the shooter is not going to obey the law anyways..

    NOTHING would have prevented Sandy Hook. All the laws were upheld. All the 'i's were crossed and the 't's were dotted.. Yet Sandy Hook STILL happened..

    You want mandatory training and better checks?? I don't have a problem with that..

    But making the claim "no one needs an assault rifle" is NOT common sense. It is vindictive profiling that assumes guilt where none is evidenced to exist...

    It is pushing an agenda that the vast majority of Americans have voted down again and again and again..

    And the ONLY reason it's being brought up now is by exploiting a terrible tragedy...

    This is good news! Maybe a conversation can be had about how to balance individual rights while putting some better regulations in place.

    Again, I am in 100% agreement.. But the talking points to date have NOT been about "balancing individual rights". It's been about sacrificing individual rights on the altar of hysterical emotionalism.

    If the Gun Control fanatics want to make their case, let them make in in the cold light of objectivity w/o any emotional baggage.. If they can do that under those conditions, they DESERVE to have their agenda pushed thru..

    But you and I both know that they CAN'T make their case under those circumstances. The Gun Control lobby MUST have hysterical emotionalism and exploitable tragedies to even bring their case up to the public..

    I think THAT says it all re: the validity of their agenda. Don't you??

    Michale
    0432

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, just so everything is not gloom and doom...

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-25-funniest-autocorrects-of-2012

    :D

    Michale
    0433

  180. [180] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the talking points to date have NOT been about "balancing individual rights". It's been about sacrificing individual rights on the altar of hysterical emotionalism.

    Hahahahahah. Yes, Michale, this tragedy is really about you. You're the victim.

    What about your talking points:

    1. If everyone had a gun, there would be no problems
    2. Silencing any discussion about gun regulation ("Now is not the time to talk about gun control ..." or all of your usual "hysterical left" comments
    3. Using the tragedy to promote 'gun rights'

    And your against them.

    I never said that. I've just been trying to have a conversation about the issue. Because there seems to be an issue.

    I'm for trying to do something about the pattern of homicide shootings in our country.

    And I don't think we can continue to ignore the role guns play in shootings.

    At the same time though I think we could achieve some kind of balance between those who want to own guns and a safer country.

    Again, I am in 100% agreement.

    Well then why do keep screaming about 'liberals' and hysterics and the Left somehow keeping you down?

    -David

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahahahahah. Yes, Michale, this tragedy is really about you. You're the victim.

    Why must everything be about me?? :D

    1. If everyone had a gun, there would be no problems
    2. Silencing any discussion about gun regulation ("Now is not the time to talk about gun control ..." or all of your usual "hysterical left" comments
    3. Using the tragedy to promote 'gun rights'

    False, False and False

    And I have never made ANY of those claims..

    Especially #3. It's been the Gun Control fanatics that have been using the tragedy.. It was even STATED that the plan is to "exploit" the tragedy...

    So, please. Stick with the FACTS..

    I never said that. I've just been trying to have a conversation about the issue. Because there seems to be an issue.

    But the issue that YOU want to have a discussion about is not THE issue that NEEDS to be discussed..

    We have an epidemic of alcoholics and you want to discuss ways to reduce their smoking...

    And I don't think we can continue to ignore the role guns play in shootings.

    I don't think we can continue to ignore the role that cigarettes play in alcoholics...

    At the same time though I think we could achieve some kind of balance between those who want to own guns and a safer country.

    Then quit making prejudicial statements like "Does anyone really NEED to own an assault rifle?"

    Well then why do keep screaming about 'liberals' and hysterics and the Left somehow keeping you down?

    Because YOU keep screaming that guns are the problem, that getting rid of guns will make everyone safer..

    And that is simply NOT an accurate statement.

    It's wishful thinking, pure and simple..

    Michale
    0434

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because YOU keep screaming that guns are the problem, that getting rid of guns will make everyone safer..

    And that is simply NOT an accurate statement.

    It's wishful thinking, pure and simple..

    And it's YOUR stats that MAKE the case that guns aren't the problem..

    Michale
    0435

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi, I know you are just taking the opposite position just to bump up my post count.. :D

    I actually appreciate that. I want to hit at least 600 by the end of the year.. :D

    Michale
    0436

  184. [184] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the issue that YOU want to have a discussion about is not THE issue that NEEDS to be discussed.

    The issue is a statistically high number of gun-related homicides.

    No?

    You seem to want to shift the discussion to one single case. Why?

    -David

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    The issue is a statistically high number of gun-related homicides.

    No?

    No.. The issue is the high number of multi-casualty attacks perpetrated by the mentally ill.

    You seem to want to shift the discussion to one single case. Why?

    Because this "one single case" is simply the latest in a long line of multi-casualty attacks perpetrated by the mentally ill..

    By concentrating on the tool used, rather then the REAL problem, you set the stage for more multi-casualty attacks.

    But what burns my ass is that this is done, NOT for the good of the people, but rather because of a political agenda..

    The exploitation of tragedies with no regards to the facts, but rather putting forth hysteria and fear-mongering solely to further a political agenda.

    Like I said above. Let the Gun Control fanatics make their case in the cold light of objectivity with absolutely no hysterical emotionalism. If they can make their case at THAT time, then they have a point.

    But you know they CAN'T make their case at that time because their case relies SOLELY and COMPLETELY on hysterical emotionalism so as to obfuscate the FACTS...

    And the FACT is there is simply NO CREDIBLE evidence to support the claim that lax gun laws = more gun violence and stricter gun laws = less violence..

    NO.... CREDIBLE.... EVIDENCE....

    Your own stats make that case.. Switzerland has the THIRD largest number of gun owners per capita.. Their gun crimes are amongst the lowest on the planet.

    Israel has a gun in every cupboard. Their gun crimes are virtually non-existent..

    Mexico has some of the STRICTEST gun laws in the world. I won't even bother pointing out THEIR gun violence stat...

    CT has one of THE strictest set of gun laws in the country. And Sandy Hook STILL happened..

    This is NO FACTUAL or CREDIBLE evidence that correlates the number of guns with gun violence..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH... NADA....

    Your entire argument is an emotional argument..

    And, nine times out of time, a position based on emotion is the WRONG position..

    Michale
    0438

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the FACT is there is simply NO CREDIBLE evidence to support the claim that lax gun laws = more gun violence and stricter gun laws = less violence..

    But there IS credible evidence (plus a buttload of common sense) that indicates guns in the hands of responsible people will STOP multi-casualty shootings BEFORE dozens of people are killed..

    Michale
    0439

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to ask yourself...

    If Gun Control is such a life and death issue, WHY wasn't anyone making the case a month ago??

    Two months ago???

    Six months ago???

    The answer is simple..

    There was no political benefit in making the case then...

    There is now...

    It's all about politics and political agendas.

    PERIOD..

    Michale
    0440

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's look at this from your perspective and say you are dead on ballz accurate..

    The plethora of guns in this country has reached a life and death tipping point..

    For the sake of the discussion, let's say it's true.

    Then our political leaders, on BOTH sides of the aisle are criminally negligent and completely and unequivocally responsible for the deaths at Sandy Hook, at Aurora and every other shooting in the past 2 decades...

    If you are correct, if guns are solely and completely responsible, then our leaders are being criminally negligent for not addressing the issue with all their will and totally ignoring political ramifications..

    This being the case, I look forward to your denunciation of our political leaders... :D

    Michale
    0441

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I had a lot of bad people after me & I carried a gun every place I went”
    -Harry Reid

    Ooooooo you just HAVE to love the irony.... :D

    Michale
    0442

  190. [190] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The issue is the high number of multi-casualty attacks perpetrated by the mentally ill.

    Studies have shown that the mentally ill account for roughly 5% of violent crimes.

    What about the other 95% of firearm homicides?

    Let's be honest. You want to change the subject.

    If Gun Control is such a life and death issue, WHY wasn't anyone making the case a month ago?

    It's been an issue for a long time. Except the NRA has managed to put enough political pressure on politicians to keep it from coming up.

    Then horrible events like Sandy Hook happen and bring it into the media.

    -David

  191. [191] 
    akadjian wrote:

    if guns are solely and completely responsible

    Good lawd, man. No one is saying this!

  192. [192] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But there IS credible evidence ...

    Where?

    I've heard the so-called "common sense" arguments and they don't make much common sense to me, but I haven't seen any credible evidence that more guns = less violence.

    And speaking of common sense, it seems to that if violence is going to take place, guns take it to the next level. And bigger guns take it even to the next level.

    -David

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Studies have shown that the mentally ill account for roughly 5% of violent crimes.

    Studies (YOUR stdy) ALSO show that only .011% of guns are used to commit crimes..

    Let's be honest. You want to change the subject.

    Damn skippy I want to change the subject. I want to change the subject to the (as Joshua pointed out)......

    "Al, what are you doing? Why are you dragging me into this?"
    -Genie, ALLADIN

    :D

    ... to the issue that is ACTUALLY the problem and not some red herring that is being used to score political points and further an unpopular political agenda by exploiting little children's brutal murders..

    It's been an issue for a long time. Except the NRA has managed to put enough political pressure on politicians to keep it from coming up.

    Bull shit.. It hasn't been an issue since 2004 and was even an unpopular issue back then... And if it was such a life and death issue as you think it is, then NO LOBBYIST could EVER stand in it's way because NO real leader would let them...

    Tell you what...

    For the next year, let's get together on the 14th of EVERY month and discuss the current actions on gun control..

    We'll chart how important an issue it is by how many political leaders are arguing for it.

    You game???

    Good lawd, man. No one is saying this!

    Then let's ignore the guns and concentrate on other contributing factors...

    You game??

    Michale
    0443

    ACTUAL issue and not some red herring

  194. [194] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then let's ignore the guns

    Yep. Changing the subject.

    It seems your argument is that guns play no role in gun shootings.

    Please ...

    -David

  195. [195] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you're not so interested in changing the subject, Michale, how come you have never brought up this issue before?

    Why is it suddenly important now?

    -David

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep. Changing the subject.

    How can we be changing the subject if guns are not the SOLE cause of the incident??

    Obviously, you think that is the case...

    It seems your argument is that guns play no role in gun shootings.

    Good lawd, man. No one is saying this.. :D

    You agree that guns aren't the whole issue. So, let's talk about the other contributing factors..

    Why does that scare you???

    Are you afraid you might learn that guns were but a small part of the entire issue?? :D

    If you're not so interested in changing the subject, Michale, how come you have never brought up this issue before?

    Why is it suddenly important now?

    Because the Gun Control fanatics have made it "important" by trying to lay the blame elsewhere, thereby facilitating more attacks of this nature in the future..

    The Gun Control fanatics want to put a bandaid on a heart attack patient rather than address the CAUSE of the violent attacks..

    And this is being done for the rankest and most perverse of reasons..

    To push forth an unpopular agenda..

    Why are you so afraid that guns MIGHT not be the issue???

    Michale
    0444

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way...

    Was mental health an issue in the Sandy Hook shooting??

    Of course it was...

    Why aren't we discussing mental health issues then???

    Answer: Because there is no political benefit in doing so, even though there is tangible benefits in preventing the kinds of attacks that occurred...

    But, because there is no tangible POLITICAL benefit, THAT issue, the MAIN issue, is ignored..

    As evidenced by the fact that you will ignore this point, as you ignore any other point I make that shows your position is flawed...

    Which is more than a little annoying, I don't mind telling you.... :D

    When anyone here puts forth a point that shows me in error, I don't ignore it. I compliment the person and admit, "yea, ya got me on that one. Yer right. I'm wrong"...

    Funny how that never seems to pass the fingers of any of the rank and file Weigantians, eh?? :D

    Michale
    0445

  198. [198] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You agree that guns aren't the whole issue. So, let's talk about the other contributing factors.

    Yes but ...

    Then let's ignore the guns

    No.

    -David

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides.. I would think having Bashi and me arguing the SAME point from the SAME side would cause ya to think, "hmmmmmm maybe they're on to something.."

    :D

    Michale
    0446

  200. [200] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are guns an issue in the Sandy Hook shooting and all other shootings?

    Of course.

    Why isn't it ok to talk about guns then?

    -David

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then let's ignore the guns

    No.

    We've talked guns to death. Let's talk about other factors...

    Why does that scare you???

    Why aren't we discussing mental health issues then???

    Answer: Because there is no political benefit in doing so, even though there is tangible benefits in preventing the kinds of attacks that occurred...

    But, because there is no tangible POLITICAL benefit, THAT issue, the MAIN issue, is ignored..

    As evidenced by the fact that you will ignore this point, as you ignore any other point I make that shows your position is flawed...

    {sssssiiiiiggggghhhhhhhh}

    Michale
    0447

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are absolutely convinced that the ONLY issue worth discussing are guns.. That NO OTHER issue with regards to Sandy Hook is relevant..

    How is that NOT making guns solely and completely responsible???

    Michale
    0458

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why isn't it ok to talk about guns then?

    Probably because we have spent the last 5 days talking about it and all that CAN be said, HAS been said..

    Why is it not OK to talk about the OTHER issues that you say you believe exist but refuse to talk about them??

    Probably another point that will be ignored...

    Michale
    0459

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi probably hates me more than Kevin (but not as much as Matt :D) and he and I are on the same page as far as the issue of correlation between gun violence and gun laws.

    Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING??? :D

    Shouldn't you at least CONSIDER the possibility that you are wrong???

    Nope???

    Didna think so... :^/ :D

    Michale
    0460

  205. [205] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That NO OTHER issue with regards to Sandy Hook is relevant.

    Nah. It's a great issue to discuss and it's good to see it finally getting some attention.

    It's just funny that the only reason it's getting attention is because right wing media is trying to shift the conversation away from guns.

    Our ClearChannel station just aired an interview w/ a mental health expert. I think this must be a first (which is good).

    Too bad the big driver for this is protecting gun makers.

    -David

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Our ClearChannel station just aired an interview w/ a mental health expert. I think this must be a first (which is good).

    So, let's discuss mental health...

    Too bad the big driver for this is protecting gun makers.

    Yea, THAT's apparent from all the KILL THE NRA and SHOOT THE REPUBLICANS slogans and twits floating around.. :^/

    That was sarcasm in case you missed it...

    Michale
    0461

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let's discuss mental health...

    Because, lets face it. The gun issue is a losing issue. EVERY stat you come up with actually PROVES that there is NO correlation between gun laws and gun violence...

    All the Gun Control fanatics got is hysterical emotionalism and 20 dead kids that are being exploited...

    Not a winner by ANY stretch of the definition..

    They should let the children rest in peace. Let the families mourn in peace...

    They should quit using them as pawns to further an unpopular political agenda that would never even be bottom line news or politics if not for the tragedy...

    "Indiana?? Indiana...??? Let it go..."
    -Sean Connery, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    Michale
    0462

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems Democrats must have been praying to the right political gods and goddesses..

    First Hurricane Sandy seals Obama's victory..

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/18/review-board-slams-state-benghazi-security-failure/

    Then Sandy Hook takes Benghazi off the front burner...

    I guess that proves the old adage...

    Better to be lucky than good...

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just when you thought that politicians couldn't sink any lower....

    “After what we’ve gone through over the past several months, a devastating hurricane and now one of the worse tragedies in our memory, the country deserves the folks to be willing to compromise for the greater good.”
    -President Barack Obama

    Obama using dead little kids to push tax hikes...

    Disgusting....

    Completely and utterly disgusting...

    Michale
    0464

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Biden has been tapped to lead Obama's anti-gun crusade..

    Which is REALLY hilarious...

    “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.”
    -Senator Biden, 2008

    Michale
    0465

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    And just when you thought that politicians couldn't sink any lower....

    “After what we’ve gone through over the past several months, a devastating hurricane and now one of the worse tragedies in our memory, the country deserves the folks to be willing to compromise for the greater good.”
    -President Barack Obama

    Obama using dead little kids to push tax hikes...

    Disgusting....

    Completely and utterly disgusting

    I nominate that disgusting statement as this weeks MDDOTW award...

    Michale
    0466

  212. [212] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, let's discuss mental health.

    What do you want to talk about?

    -David

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you want to talk about?

    Ways to recognize the potential for acts of violence before the actual acts occur..

    Don't you think it's a worthwhile avenue of research and political effort??

    Michale
    0467

  214. [214] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Don't you think it's a worthwhile avenue of research and political effort?

    I think prevention, understanding, and treatment would be more interesting.

    And what do you mean by "political effort"?

    -David

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think prevention, understanding, and treatment would be more interesting.

    Agreed...

    But, before you can prevent, understand or treat, you must detect..

    So, detection would be the priority..

    And what do you mean by "political effort"?

    Look at all the political effort into going after guns..

    THAT'S the kind of political effort we need to see in the area of detecting, preventing, understanding and treating mental health issues..

    Ironically enough, such political efforts would serve the needs of the American people rather than the agenda of any one Party..

    It's a Win/Win....

    Michale
    0468

  216. [216] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Look at all the political effort into going after guns.

    You just can't stop can you?

    :)

    -David

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    You just can't stop can you?

    :)

    Oh like you weren't thinking it!! :D

    But am I wrong??

    If the kind of effort is mounted addressing Mental Health as is being mounted going after guns, how could it go wrong???

    Completely and utter bi-partisanship in an effort for something that has REAL and TANGIBLE benefit to each and every American...

    How can that be bad!!??? :D

    Michale
    0469

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know I am going to regret this..... :D

    http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3tiqyl5v8uajmspxlriiiw.gif

    The number one thing that Americans want to see to curb school shootings??

    POLICE PRESENCE IN SCHOOLS...

    Interestingly enough, that answer is above 50% for Republicans (55%), Independents (53%) **AND** Democrats (52%)...

    So, it's safe to say that a police presence in schools enjoys complete bipartisan support..

    Again, a VERY good thing...

    "Detente... It's a wonderful thing."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

    Michale
    0470

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me close this discussion by quoting the immortal words........

    "In the immortal words of Socrates... 'I drank WHAT?' "

    :D

    .... the immortal words of the father of the indomitable James T. Kirk...

    "A civilization flourishes best when it can protect itself."
    -Lt Commander George Kirk, FINAL FRONTIER

    Michale
    0476

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]