Horrific Newtown, CT school shooting

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I was probably a lot easier for them to reach out to. My only full brother was a very good athlete, still has the school track and field record for the javelin, I think. My oldest brother (half) was the best pitcher in the city. I had two younger brothers and two older ones, and just from studying them, I knew how to act to fit in with guys.

The Asperger's diagnosis saved me from my parents.

My mom and step dad would take me in the basement and beat the hell out of me with a huge wooden paddle.

Eventually, they got so frustrated because all of the paddling, ear-pulling, and head slapping wasn't working...that they took me to a few doctors.

Dr. Barber diagnosed me with it. And liked me so much that he went around filming me. The Barber Center here used me as the film for sort of the textbook case.

Anyway, my mom and stepdad just backed off of me at that point. All of the efforts to discipline me stopped ... all of her dreams that I would one day be a CEO were crushed -- and she accepted it.

I refused to do homework -- but I would shuffle up and memorize 3 decks of playing cards ... stuff like that would drive her almost to violence.

I attended a workshop on teaching classes of special needs kids and the woman leading it recalled a class she taught that included a severely autistic child, who spent the class standing in the back, swaying and talking to himself. She let him be, and conducted the class. His regular teacher later told her (via his mom) that when he got home that night he recited what she had said, word for word. He clearly got a great deal of things, if he was left to experience them in a way that worked for him.

I think your incredible gift for seeing patterns is one of the things that makes you such a good handicapper.

Temple Grandin referred to NASA as one big workplace for people with autism. Speaking of, did you ever see the HBO Temple Grandin film? I thought the filmmakers did some pretty clever things in attempting to help the viewer "see" the way Grandin does, and I was very curious if someone who has tested on the spectrum thought they did a good job at it. (Have I asked you this before? I can't remember.)

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GPK

Military style assault rifles

Thanks. I didn't know either.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thanks. I didn't know either.

Some cal them MSR. Evidently the CEO has made the call to stop selling them ASAP.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GPK

Some cal them MSR. Evidently the CEO has made the call to stop selling them ASAP.

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

As you point out, this nutjob didn't buy the weapon himself. He took his mom's weapons. But once you make the step to something like "If person A didn't have the guns, person B wouldn't have been able to commit the crime", it's unenforcable short of bans and confiscation on everybody.

Even then, criminals, by virtue of the very status conveyed by that word, don't follow rules or laws. Therefore, as the oft-repeated but true cliche' goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have them." - not counting the police who always have to show up AFTER a crime has occurred or started.

[Danzig]

i want a tank. i guess i should be able to buy one, fully operational. wonder if they're available on ebay?
of course, i would only use it for target practice. i'd never actually blow up anything.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh I answered it. I'll be more clear:

Your opinion of what others need is irrelevant. This is a free society, meaning by definition that whatever is not prohibited is allowed. And citizens are not a bunch of children that need supervision by self-proclaimed elites in Washington.

Wanting something is enough so long as you have the means to legally acquire it, and that often means money. Money to buy whatever it is, money to maintain it, insure it if necessary, take lessons on how to operate it.

Paul Newman used to own racecars and compete in races. He had the money. He paid to get lessons to be every bit as good as the other drivers. Paid his own pit crew.

John Travolta has an airliner parked in back of his house. He paid to learn how to fly, get all the licenses.

For most people, race cars and airliners are out of reach financially. Obviously an unprepared or malevolent person could take out more people with an airplane (and maybe a racecar) than somebody with a rifle.

[Dahoss]

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

[Dahoss]

You shouldn't think. You might hurt yourself.

I think my point of view is pretty easy to understand. You might not agree but I am not for banning things that serve no purpose. I am for banning things that we should not have because it poses safety risks.

Things like military assault rifles. Not pet rocks.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

Like a Woman's right to choose. Some will say you stop caring about protecting our kids once they come out of the womb. Not me mind you but others may think that.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You shouldn't think. You might hurt yourself.

Spoken like a true intellectual, with manners no less.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Like a Woman's right to choose. Some will say you stop caring about protecting our kids once they come out of the womb. Not me mind you but others may think that.

Who's hijacking now? Nice try.

It's more the reverse: 99% of us are upset about what happened Friday at Sandy Hook, especially because kids were killed. Almost all of us - on both sides of the gun control argument - are upset by that. Six year olds should not be killed.

The number drops to 50% for babies 6 months premature and prior, via the "right to choose" (destruction of the growing baby) - just completing that oft-repeated sentence fragment.

Maybe they don't see it that way, but it is one way to look at it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Who's hijacking now? Nice try.

It's more the reverse: 99% of us are upset about what happened Friday at Sandy Hook, especially because kids were killed. Almost all of us - on both sides of the gun control argument - are upset by that. Six year olds should not be killed.

The number drops to 50% for babies 6 months premature and prior, via the "right to choose" (destruction of the growing baby) - just completing that oft-repeated sentence fragment.

Maybe they don't see it that way, but it is one way to look at it.

Not Hijacking just making a point but it is big of you to admit to your prior hijack.