This one's for you...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/19/teacher-letter-to-fallen-teachers-sandy-hook-elementary-school/

Michale
0477

"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

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

:)

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

You just can't stop can you?

:)

-David

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

I think prevention, understanding, and treatment would be more interesting.

And what do you mean by "political effort"?

-David

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

What do you want to talk about?

-David

And just when you thought that politicians couldn't sink any lower....

Completely and utterly disgusting

I nominate that disgusting statement as this weeks MDDOTW award...

Michale
0466

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that NOT making guns solely and completely responsible???

Michale
0458

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???

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

Of course.

Why isn't it ok to talk about guns then?

-David

:D

Michale
0446

Yes but ...

Then let's ignore the guns

No.

-David

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

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

Why is it suddenly important now?

-David

Yep. Changing the subject.

It seems your argument is that guns play no role in gun shootings.

Please ...

-David

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

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

Good lawd, man. No one is saying this!

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

Ooooooo you just HAVE to love the irony.... :D

Michale
0442

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

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

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

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

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

I actually appreciate that. I want to hit at least 600 by the end of the year.. :D

Michale
0436

It's wishful thinking, pure and simple..

And it's YOUR stats that MAKE the case that guns aren't the problem..

Michale
0435

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

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

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-25-funniest-autocorrects-of-2012

:D

Michale
0433

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERIOUSLY????

Michale
0428

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

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

NOT around here...

My bust...

Michale
0426

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

It's also easy to change the subject.

-David

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michale
0417

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

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

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

- 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin steps in and bashes me. :D

Michale
0408

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

-David

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

And THIS is a Democrat!???

And no one says "boo"....

Amazing....

Michale
0407

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Michale
0398

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 :)

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...

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.

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

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