Shootings At Connecticut Elementary School

**MATRIX 2** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by J3ff3

@matrix - but if we're talking about concealed weapons then i definitely don't agree. i work in a bar, and too many arguments would escalate imo.

i can understand defense of your home and other recreational purposes, but if you can't conduct your daily life without a weapon, then something seriously needs fixing!

Do you really want to get into this?

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

Do you really want to get into this?

no

thanks for the option

**Arimax** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by claud3

Some times stats can be lies and put together and made to be worse than what they are

That's why I don't trust stats.

You can manipulate them anyway you want.

One thing I will say is Stats just give you half of a picture to the puzzle.

**MATRIX 2** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by J3ff3

i grew up around rifles and shotguns.

i would prefer that people are taught about them, having had several shotguns pointed in my face by shorter friends who have swung round with the gun un-broken on their shoulder.

and i'm not surprised by anyone with hunting equipment being left in cars at school. what i am surprised about is that it would be allowed to have them loose in the vehicle, rather than in a locked box. its not an irrational fear of guns, its common sense. i'd similarly worry about someone with knives in their vehicle, or on their person - which is also not allowed in this country.

again, i don't worry about people having weapons, i worry about how they handle them, so to speak. leaving a weapon loose in a vehicle to me demonstrates a certain disregard for the weapon itself. and if laws are the only way to make people show a gun a little more respect, then so be it. this includes recinding the right of ownership to those that prove they cannot sensibly handle a weapon.

i don't see much wrong with that. are people really saying that responsibility shouldn't be a prerequisite for weapons?

There are a lot of things people should and should not do.

The issue is that is is not the role of the govt. to pass laws that try to legislate morality or protect people from themselves.

RP says it best

The problem with govt. deciding what is in the best interests of its citizens lives is that it never stops. They will never be satisfied with the status of society, they believe there is always more to be done to make society better. Past a certain point they take things too far.

**claud3** · 12-18-2012

That's so true... So before we show off stats as if they are fact.... We need to actually look at what is going on

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

There are a lot of things people should and should not do.

The issue is that is is not the role of the govt. to pass laws that try to legislate morality or protect people from themselves.

its not a moral issue or a question of protecting people from themselves.

i'm not worried about an individual handling a gun carelessly because they will hurt themselves, more that it will hurt others, whether they weild it or not.

and that IS the role of government. to ensure that your individual (negative) liberty does not infringe on someone elses.

as an example - i'm ok with mandatory seat belts in a car - because human bodies travelling at high velocities tend to kill others. in this case its ok for government to alter your liberty. however i'm less in favour of mandatory helmets on bikes, because i believe that to be a personal decision that doesn't affect others to the same degree.

The problem with govt. deciding what is in the best interests of its citizens lives is that it never stops. They will never be satisfied with the status of society, they believe there is always more to be done to make society better. Past a certain point they take things too far.

but this isn't a cut and dry case of infringing on one persons negative liberty. if one individual carelessly weilds a weapon it can have consequences outside of his or her life, and therefore isn't strictly a private matter.

thats the definition of liberty. having the freedom to do what you want within the confines of your OWN life. once it starts affecting others you are actually restricting someone elses freedom, and governments are designed, in theory, to prevent that through law making.

**MATRIX 2** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by J3ff3

its not a moral issue or a question of protecting people from themselves.

i'm not worried about an individual handling a gun carelessly because they will hurt themselves, more that it will hurt others, whether they weild it or not.

and that IS the role of government. to ensure that your individual (negative) liberty does not infringe on someone elses.

as an example - i'm ok with mandatory seat belts in a car - because human bodies driving at high velocities tend to kill others. however i'm less in favour of mandatory helmets on bikes, because i believe that to be a personal decision that doesn't affect others to the same degree.

but this isn't a cut and dry case of infringing on one persons negative liberty. if one individual carelessly weilds a weapon it can have consequences outside of his or her life, and therefore isn't strictly a private matter.

Take most of the people that have done mass shootings in the US. A lot of them (a majority really) have given various indications about what they ended up doing. But nobody acted on these indications and those individuals were able to do what they did. You can't do much for the very rare case where a person snaps (with no previous indicators/signs) and does something crazy. But the vast majority of people that do such things are not like that.

So then it comes down to whether you are willing to restrict peoples rights because of the actions of a few and can't really trust individuals to be responsible enough to not do such things. All under the guise of doing it for the greater good/betterment of society.

Hell look at the events of 9/11 and what our government did in response to that and the shortfalls that led to it occurring. You will see that they had a ridiculous response that people accept primarily because we haven't been attacked again. So obviously all of it must be good and working to have kept us safe so far, right?

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

So then it comes down to whether you are willing to restrict peoples rights because of the actions of a few and can't really trust individuals to be responsible enough to not do such things. All under the guise of doing it for the greater good/betterment of society.

its not a guise of any kind. like i said, it underlies the whole theory of liberty and personal freedom. there are many great thinkers behind it - kant, locke, mill. liberty is defined as the freedom to do as you wish as long as you don't affect others.

and i'm sorry, but guns, whether weilded poorly by many or few (and i would argue its many, regardless of the frequency with which it goes 'wrong'), do affect the liberty of others around you. it isn't about you and your gun, its about how others feel, and are affected by it. it is their 'right' to live unaffected by the poor decisions of others, however infrequent - that's what negative liberty is all about, and that's what laws are designed to enable.

and polls show that (at least) an equal number of people are uncomfortable with the way things are. you do the whole idea of 'rights' and 'liberty' a disservice by dismissing their views out of hand.

**MATRIX 2** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by J3ff3

its not a guise of any kind. like i said, it underlies the whole theory of liberty and personal freedom. there are many great thinkers behind it - kant, locke, mill. liberty is defined as the freedom to do as you wish as long as you don't affect others.

and i'm sorry, but guns, whether weilded poorly by many or few (and i would argue its many, regardless of the frequency with which it goes 'wrong'), do affect the liberty of others around you. it isn't about you and your gun, its about how others feel, and are affected by it. it is their 'right' to live unaffected by the poor decisions of others - that's what negative liberty is all about.

and polls show that (at least) an equal number of people are uncomfortable with the way things are.

The issue is when you look at the number of deaths (all not even discounting justified shootings) the number is so low compared to various other causes of death that it is a rather larges waste of time and money compared to other measures that could be taken to address these kinds of issues or certain causes with more deaths per year.

As for polls. How many of the people who participated in them do you think have a decent knowledge of firearms and the constitution? And lack any irrational fears/hatred of firearms?

Isn't it my "right" to live unaffected by the poor decisions of politicians?

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

As for polls. How many of the people who participated in them do you think have a decent knowledge of firearms and the constitution? And lack any irrational fears/hatred of firearms?

Isn't it my "right" to live unaffected by the poor decisions of politicians?

and therein lies the failure of democracy.

we'd live in much better societies if governments were made up of intellectuals and/or people who actually knew what they were talking about. or if the 'right' to vote required proving some knowledge about party policy.

as it stands you'll just have to put up with everyone else's flawed input in order to uphold their 'rights'. that's assuming you're correct of course.....

**claud3** · 12-18-2012

Right guns are fucking bad and the people that use them for all the wrong reasons are dicks I see that....

But to just go round and round in circles trying to resolve this insane debate... Is getting us no where.

I bet if you go through every post in here and you will see that we have repeated ourselves and repeated others as well....

So lets just face facts

People in here defend the current gun laws and others do not

People support gun control and others do not

People do not understand what they speak off and others do

People living outside the states has learnt and taught a few lessons in here

People have attacked each other over this evil act and did not notice they did...

I have had to say sorry for my previous comments and attacks on my u.s friends.... And their country

Lets just remember we did not lose anyone in the massacre.... But 20 innocent children did and 6 adults did

These are the ones that deserves respect and prayer from us and their families to....

This was not the first and might I hate to say it, this might not be the last....

Yes the states has a gun law that outsiders like me do not fully understand.......But other countries have arms laws that help or not to prevent death and that is fact.......

The amendments are what they are and the 2nd amendment is what it is..... We can not fully understand what was debated when that amendment was written.... But what we do know, it is held dear to a nation of people that knows their forefathers were true to the birth of America...

I just feel its a lost cause for us to keep going on on about this and not getting anywhere

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

thanks for the summary?

**MATRIX 2** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by J3ff3

and therein lies the failure of democracy.

we'd live in much better societies if governments were made up of intellectuals and/or people who actually knew what they were talking about. or if the 'right' to vote required proving some knowledge about party policy.

as it stands you'll just have to put up with everyone else's flawed input in order to uphold their 'rights'. that's assuming you're correct of course.....

Oligarchy?

Pretty sure that has been tried before and its flaws have been made apparent.

Think about this for a second. How many people (if any) are calling for gun control/more gun laws/regulation that have a good understanding of firearms (modern and historical) and our constitution.

Wouldn't these people be the most qualified to have an opinion on this matter and craft legislation pertaining to guns if and when it is deemed necessary?

I have yet to find a single person with these qualifications calling for more gun control/law/regulation.

Why is that?

**J3ff3** · 12-18-2012

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

Oligarchy?

Pretty sure that has been tried before and its flaws have been made apparent.

Think about this for a second. How many people (if any) are calling for gun control/more gun laws/regulation that have a good understanding of firearms (modern and historical) and our constitution.

Wouldn't these people be the most qualified to have an opinion on this matter and craft legislation pertaining to guns if and when it is deemed necessary?

I have yet to find a single person with these qualifications calling for more gun control/law/regulation.

Why is that?

in all honesty? have you looked? it likely doesn't fit with what you want to see - and it doesn't fit with what your government and lobbies really want to hear.

i can find you many scholarly articles that link gun ownership to homicide rates that specifically state that little or no substitution for other weapons would occur if gun availability was reduced. one links illegal arms to homicide rates, and suggests that while no correlation exists in their view between legitimate weapons and homicide, the security of those weapons is important. given that americans won't secure their weapons by choice, the obvious answer becomes some sort of legislation. education can help, but as you've mentioned, you've tried that too. perhaps a combination of the two.

several of the articles also mention that gun legislation struggles to work because of the variance in the laws and number of weapons in circulation in their own and neighbouring states. that just points to poor execution, which is no reason to not consider tighter controls.

anyway, all articles are from major scholarly publications and came up in the first few pages of a simple search (gun crime US). it just isn't as black and white as you want it to be.

Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting SystemLisa Stolzenberg ⇓ andStewart J. D'Alessio

OBJECTIVE: Using four years of county-level data drawn from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for South Carolina and a pooled cross-sectional time-series research design, we investigate whether gun availability is related to violent crime, gun crime, juvenile gun crime, and violent crimes committed with a knife.

RESULTS: Results show a strong positive relationship between illegal gun availability and violent crime, gun crime, and juvenile gun crime. Little or no effect for the legitimate gun availability measure is observed in any of the estimated models. Findings also reveal that illegal guns have little influence on violent crimes committed with a knife. Offenders seem not to be substituting knives or other cutting instruments when illegal firearms become less available. A supplemental analysis also indicates no evidence of simultaneity between gun availability and violent crime. The strong and consistent effect of illegal rather than legal gun availability on violent crime has important policy implications, because it suggests that greater attention should be directed at devising ways for legitimate gun owners to better secure their weapons.

International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.
M Killias

OBJECTIVE: To examine international correlations between reported rates of household gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide with a gun

RESULTS: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.

Firearm suicides and homicides in the United States: regional variations and patterns of gun ownershipMark S. Kaplan ^a^,Olga Geling ^b

OBJECTIVE: Among industrialized countries, the United States has the highest rates of firearm suicide and homicide, as well as the highest rate of gun ownership. The present study compares the differential impact of gun availability on firearm suicides and homicides in the U.S.

RESULTS: We tested the strength of the associations between gun availability and firearm suicide and homicide rates by computing the Spearman correlation coefficients. To help elucidate the role of method substitution, we conducted similar analyses on non-firearm suicide and homicide. The results show that gun ownership has a stronger impact on firearm suicides than homicides. These findings held up after stratifying by gender and race. The study suggests that reducing the aggregate level of gun availability may decrease the risk of firearm-related deaths.

The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns

Philip J. Cook

Abstract

Social scientists have started to find answers to some of the questions raised in the ongoing debate over gun control. The basic factual issue in this debate concerns the effect of gun availability on the distribution, seriousness, and number of violent crimes. Some evidence is available on each of these dimensions of the violent crime problem. The distribution of violent crimes among different types of victims is governed in part by the "vulnerability pattern" in weapon choice. The seriousness of robbery and assault incidents is influenced by weapon type, as indicated by the objective dangerousness and instrumental violence pattern. A reduction in gun availability would cause some weapon substitution and probably little change in overall robbery and assault rates—but the homicide rate would be reduced.

again though - i really don't care enough to get to drawn into this. my point is not to show you that 'i'm right' and 'you're wrong', but to perhaps show you that it isn't just black and white. in all honesty my view is only that you cannot dismiss greater control in an off-hand way. you've barely tried it. plenty of intelligent people disagree with your views based on empirical and theoretical evidence. so why just shut out the other side of the argument?

eitherway i'm pretty much done. no offense, but i've spent a reasonable amount of time on this and i have an exam coming up soon! been interesting though.

**Silver_Knight** · 12-18-2012

I have no idea have accurate this is http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...adman-to-snap/

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

"He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry."

- Joshua Flashman, Newtown resident familiar with Lanza family

Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told FoxNews.com such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza's victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.

Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

"Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed," Flashman said. "I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore."

The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit's end.

A separate neighborhood source also told FoxNews.com that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

SEND TIPS TO NEWSMANAGER@FOXNEWS.COM

Multiple sources told FoxNews.com Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger’s syndrome , a form of autism, and other unspecified mental and emotional problems.

Adam Lanza has also been described by those who knew him as highly intelligent, and a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University told The Associated Press he took college classes there when he was 16, earning a 3.26 grade point average and excelling at a computer course.

Alan Diaz, 20, who was friends with Adam Lanza at Newtown High School, said the Lanza he knew was ill-at-ease socially, but not a monster.

"He was a wicked smart kid," Diaz told FoxNews.com by email. "When I first met him, he wouldn't even look at you when you tried to talk to him. Over the year I knew him, he became used to me and my other friends, he eventually could have full conversations with us.

"I've heard him laugh, he has even comforted me once in a hard time I had," Diaz said. “A big part of me wishes I never dropped contact with him after he left high school, felt like I could have done something."

Flashman said nobody will completely understand why Adam did what he did.

“No one can explain Adam Lanza besides God and Adam Lanza, and I don’t even think Adam Lanza could explain Adam Lanza, to be honest with you.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...#ixzz2FRhmyYWA

**claud3** · 12-18-2012

Reagan on Gun Control and Self-Defense

My thanks to blogger Mark Alexander and his PatriotPost for digging up this great quote from our last truly great president, Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control:

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

It seems to me that Reagan would have known all too well how to relate to last week's massacre at Virginia Tech. After all, he said those words in 1983, after surviving John Hinckley's assassination attempt in 1981.

Indeed, Reagan wasn't a newcomer to his conviction. Back in 1975, then-Governor Reagan wrote:

"Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection."

Yet, time after time, we Americans will cede our responsibility -- and our rights -- to the government in a desperate attempt to guarantee our safety. But the tradeoff is an illusion: we do not become more safe, and it is not free.

Again, Reagan speaks to this fact:

"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government."

It may be that Americans are waking up to the Pyrrhic nature of gun control laws and will instead reassert their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. The State of Tennessee has certainly moved in the right direction here.

But as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently put it, it is still likely that some sort of "people control" will be sought as a result of this latest travesty. "Whenever something terrible happens," Paul explains, "people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty."

Do we really want security cameras and checkpoints to fill every corner of America? Do we really want extensive intrusion into our medical records and the risk of involuntary internment in medical asylums?

As Reagan often said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Government is the problem here for the very reasons Reagan states above: its promises of security actually make us less secure.

The solution -- as much of a solution that can reasonably be expected in a fallen world where evil people will always seek to do evil things -- is personal responsibility. It is the exercise of self-defense -- by exercising our right to bear arms, of course, but also through use of common sense and appropriate caution. And, as ACRU Policy Board member Walter Williams explained so well, this personal responsibility has to include appropriate parental oversight.

In the wake of yet another massacre in a "gun free" zone, we could use some of Ronald Reagan's wisdom. Perhaps then we -- as individual Americans and not as the state collective -- can avert or lessen such senseless travesties

http://theacru.org/acru/reagan_on_gu...d_selfdefense/

**Morganator** · 12-19-2012

Honestly, having a "Democracy" has been the worst transition of government in the history of mankind. We're supposed to remain a "Constitutional Representative Republic". It's what the founders gave us. The only real step up we could have is if we instituted elements of a Technocracy wherein, the best people from respective fields sit at head of the respective areas of government and push policies that benefit everyone as a whole. The only people we keep out are the businessmen/businesswomen and those who have a record of not adhering to the constitution in the strictest sense. People like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, Rick Perry and the bulk of the political establishment should never ever EVER be allowed to hold ANY office whatsoever.

**claud3** · 12-19-2012

You could say that about every government in the world

**Vulgotha** · 12-19-2012

I'm so tired of all this... Damned soccer mom politics.

How is this so hard to understand? The issues =/= guns, its a matter of mental health and the state of male youth in the United States. Why the hell is everyone trying to sideline the real goddamn issues with this red herring?

**claud3** · 12-19-2012

Mental health is not always the reason and making escape goats on a mental problem is to easy

Not all mentally screwed up, are to blame for shootings

**admartian** · 12-19-2012

Originally Posted by Morganator

Honestly, having a "Democracy" has been the worst transition of government in the history of mankind. We're supposed to remain a "Constitutional Representative Republic". It's what the founders gave us. The only real step up we could have is if we instituted elements of a Technocracy wherein, the best people from respective fields sit at head of the respective areas of government and push policies that benefit everyone as a whole. The only people we keep out are the businessmen/businesswomen and those who have a record of not adhering to the constitution in the strictest sense. People like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, Rick Perry and the bulk of the political establishment should never ever EVER be allowed to hold ANY office whatsoever.

Originally Posted by claud3

You could say that about every government in the world

Absolutely. Pretty frustrating when you think about it. To the point where if you dwell on it enough you'd go insane.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

I'm so tired of all this... Damned soccer mom politics.

How is this so hard to understand? The issues =/= guns, its a matter of mental health and the state of male youth in the United States. Why the hell is everyone trying to sideline the real goddamn issues with this red herring?

I don't the majority here are actually blaming guns being present as the cause itself though. Well at least from my perspective, that it played a factor in amking wrose (arguabel I understand) but cretainly not dropping the buck on guins itself.

To me, mental health issue is really the issue, prevention, containment, whatever.

Though I disagree that the liberal (or rather misplaced) control had nothing to do it... Like J3ffe said, it's not about "winning" the argument. It's just as culpable as it is blameless.

We can't have "an all or nothing/with me or against me" approach to this issue at all. On either side.

This seems to fall on deaf ears though; more to the vehemently-pro-gun side I'm afraid.

**claud3** · 12-19-2012

Blaming on country on an issue all countries have, is so stupid

I blame my country on guns all the time. Because I have been close to being knee capped under false information...

So you see

Gun, false info and an innocent person

TO EASY

**J3ff3** · 12-19-2012

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

I'm so tired of all this... Damned soccer mom politics.

How is this so hard to understand? The issues =/= guns, its a matter of mental health and the state of male youth in the United States. Why the hell is everyone trying to sideline the real goddamn issues with this red herring?

no, it really isn't though. it maybe a tool in your armoury, but you won't even get close to "fixing the mental health" of an entire demographic, let alone being able to identify those who might pose a threat, because those who seek treatment do so optionally. and those who have mental health breaks are, by their very nature, the ones who don't seek help.

so unless you are proposing mental health profiling - from which gun restriction would naturally follow anyway - i can't see what you are suggesting be done?

you can improve your social services to offer more help to those in need, but in reality that seems to fly just as much in the face of your way of life as gun control. it seems to me to be a way of placating the population. "everything's fine, we've put more money into social services"....

**Vulgotha** · 12-19-2012

Illustration of how pointless the 1994 AWB (Assault Weapon Ban) was on effecting crime. From the FBI themselves:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1

Nothing. Crime was on a downward trend and literally that 'ban' did nothing except jack up the prices of certain weapons (as they became scarce).

It doesn't. Work.

@Jeffe,

What I'm saying is this entire generation of male youth in the US have been fucked over hard. You want to tackle this? Start looking at how men have been degraded the past few decades and how teenagers are growing up. Pent up resentment, confusion and anger has only one way to go.

These shootings are fairly rare. However, they're all committed by young men with a ton of emotional issues.

I see a connection there. What lead to this? It's just like my first post in this thread, there's a ton of horrifying statistics for the average male in the US that nobody in the US, with their feminist agenda, seems to give two shits about.

Higher divorce rates, men killing themselves exponentially higher than women, living shorter, tons of broken homes, a disproportionate amount of male youth being thrown into jail- btw we arrest and lock up more people than any other western nation on the planet both in terms of raw numbers and proportionally- a system that has incentives in place to have more inmates.

But yea, like, this is "placating the populace" and "nothing can be done" about this shit right?