So what should we do, Jack? Outlaw all firearms and confiscate?

Since you have jumped the shark and compared these shootings by psychos like the SH shooter to the Cold War, let's have some answers.

We're waiting.


"An armed society is a polite society"--Robert Heinlein

 

Exactly. The gov't doesn't even keep statistics on how often guns prevent robberies, rapes, etc.

 

Just for you, Jack: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Secret-Service

"Not counting SS"

 

From a yahoo article about the firefighter shooting you referenced above: "Spengler was convicted in 1981 in the death of his 92-year-old grandmother a year earlier. He served time in prison and was released in 1998, Pickering said." Spengler beat Rose Spengler to death with a hammer 1980, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported. Rose Spengler had lived in the home next to William Spengler on Lake Road at the time of her death."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...163105823.html

Why was he out of jail for murder (He beat his grandmother to death with a hammer!) and why did NYS allow him access to weapons? Looks like 2 failures of gov't (at least) to me.

 

Frank, as usual, you've clearly not remembered anything I've said previously on this subject. I've NEVER advocated outlawing firearm ownership. As I've stated repeatedly, I own pistols, rifles, shotguns, swords, daggers and some knives. However, I don't feel the need to rush out and buy more of these things just because some nuts decide to commit mass murder.

And I simply said defending against a potential armed threat by assuming an armed posture at all times reminded me of the Cold War.

I think SSCULLY had the best idea, "...have people act civil towards each other."

Since that is very hard to "legislate", I suspect the laws protecting individual freedoms might need tweaking. We used to be able to institutionalize people who were seen as a threat to society. Then, we became "enlightened", and closed down those State-run hospitals. Yes, there were people in them who were unjustly confined, but, there were also people in them who needed this service both as protection for society and protection from society. The trick is learning how to identify those that rightly belong in these institutions.

The other thing is responsibility. When a weapon is seen as a "toy", it is not going to be handled in a mature and respectful manner. People are hurt every day by weapons that are viewed as toys. Once someone "accidentally" shoots someone else, or allows a child to "play" with a weapon, I feel that person should forfeit all rights to future firearm ownership.

- Jack

 

Why on earth is this administration even talking about limiting LEGAL weapons to LEGAL US citizens when it will not answer why it was providing ILLEGAL weapons to drug cartels? I know there is always going to be a little bit of hypocrisy in government but the gall of these __________s is unbelievable!

(fill in the blank with your oath of choice)

 

How can I "remember" when you keep making statements like this earlier in the thread, "OK, now will the NRA advocate having armed police accompany all firefighters to the scene of a fire? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2358822.html"

The firefigher shooter in NY should NEVER have been released from prison. In fact, in Georgia he would've been executed years ago for murdering his grandmother in 1980. Obviously, 2 firefighters would still be alive today if justice was originally served.

We have a people and a punishment problem in this country. I agree that more people should be institutionalized and I will add that we must devise a computerized system to keep the mentally ill from purchasing weapons along with felons.

Additionally, we have a place called Hollywood that glorifies murder and glorifies guns. Psychologists have stated that movies and graphic video games DO have an impact on young minds.

 

Memory difficulties are a sign of early Alzheimer's, Frank. Of course it could just be some other form of dementia. Have you been getting regular checkups?

Of course the guy should not have been released, but, he was, and lawfully so. But, I don't see him as a simple, cold-blooded killer who should have been executed. I suspect he was seriously mentally ill, and he should have been institutionalized and treated, not simply warehoused and released after an arbitrary number of years. I think it's entirely appropriate for some people to spend all of their lives in an institution, if they can't be "fixed".

And yes, movies, TV, music, video games and even books glorify killing and make it commonplace and "normal". That would disappear if there weren't such a high demand for that type of entertainment. You'll notice there are very few G-rated musicals being produced in current times. I don't blame the producers of violent entertainment any more than I blame the manufacturers of guns for the recent murders. The blame has to fall on the individual committing the murders. I believe very strongly in individual responsibility.

- Jack

 

You don't believe someone who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer deserves to be executed? Really?

No wonder you can't resist insulting me as you did in your first sentence. Makes perfect sense.

 

Very good point, and one the MSM intentionally fails to mention as they run interference for Obummer.

 

Frank. Jack. take it easy. Please.

 

Frank, you need to stop taking yourself so seriously. No one else does.

- Jack

 

Jack, It's a good thing you're a mod here, because everyone else knows you'd have gotten a vacation with your insults/flames. Prime example above.

You get cornered with your rhetoric, and out comes the claws.

 

Part of personal responsibility IS being punished for your crimes. Hiding behind the defense of mental illness is not taking personal responsibility. Your reasoning that you feel this guy must be mentally ill, because he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer is a throw back to the early days of mental health in the criminal justice system. It was not uncommon for a defense lawyer to argue mental health issues by asking, "would a person without a mental health issue commit such a heinous act?" In effect the person had a mental health issue because they committed the act, not they committed the act because they had a mental health issue. That line of thought has long been done away with, because it is invalid.

 

In effect the person had a mental health issue because they committed the act, not they committed the act because they had a mental health issue.

I'm not sure what you mean here?