Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Mass Shootings a Recent Phenomenon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    While we are at it I will bring this up as it is related to the subject at hand.

    "Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fam...b7Kz&ocid=iehp
    I'll see your Stoner, and raise you one Kalashnikov.

    Mikhail Kalashnikov, who died last month aged 94, designed the weapon that became synonymous with killing on a sometimes indiscriminate scale.

    He was seen in the Soviet Union as a national hero and symbol of Moscow's proud military past.

    However, Kalashnikov had said he never intended for the rifle to become the preferred weapon in conflicts around the world.

    He wrote to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in May 2012, wondering if he was responsible for the many deaths caused by the weapon he had created. . . . .

    "I keep having the same unsolved question: if my rifle claimed people's lives, then can it be that I... a Christian and an Orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths?" he wrote.

    "The longer I live, the more this question drills itself into my brain and the more I wonder why the Lord allowed man to have the devilish desires of envy, greed and aggression." . . . .

    "AK-47 rifle inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov wrote letter saying he regretted creating weapon," ABC-dot-net, 13 Jan 2014
    It should be noted that a vast number of AK-type weapons in circulation today were practically given away by communist governments, rather than purchased privately.

    Anyways, once the genie's out of the bottle, there's no way of putting it back.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
      You are using Beslan as part of some kind of anti-gun control argument. That is beyond asinine. Did you want the kids to be carrying and magically shoot the attackers? Perhaps the families could have got together and shot all the baddies. Real life is not a Rambo film.
      Underlined quote actually did happen, the storming of the school was started by FSB troops firing RPO-Schmel flamethrowers and RPG rockets (presumably intended to knock holes in the walls, but tragically starting the fire that lead to the roof collapse which killed many of the children. However the main assault (which included T-72 tanks firing rounds at the building) also included many locals (both formal and informal militia) with their own weapons. By all accounts it was the out of control assault that led to most of the casualties, so it can't really be listed as a mass shooting.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege

      http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inp...058690132.html

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
        Gangland murder also cause less social tension as long as the dead are all gangsters. The best crime bosses keep the casualties in the shadows. When mobsters start hitting "civilians" they start getting hit by crackdowns.
        This is very true when it comes to social perception and not just law enforcement, and could also be extended to other communities and social groups besides the explicitly criminal ones.

        Consider inner-city crime - most of it is poor minorities attacking each other, so those events remain more distant and separate for people outside those racial or ethnic groups.

        When crime is committed within a group, it just doesn't affect people outside it as much unless they a) hit innocents and "off limit" sub-groups like women and children or b) it is a particularly egregious and noteworthy event (the Saint Valentine's Day massacre springs to mind).

        As long as a group contains its violence within its own community (career, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) then it will more easily slip under the radar for outsiders. And this directly affects the perception of threat as well.

        Look at all the people railing against Islamic terrorism and the threat Islam poises to the world, yadda yadda. Only a fraction of these people would be frothing at the mouth about the "religion of peace" (ha) if not for Islamic attacks on non-Islamic targets in Europe and North America.

        As long as a community does the polite thing and sticks to killing its own people, outsiders just don't concern themselves as much. This applies to all groups, whether they're co-criminals or just happen to share a nationality, and is a deep part of human nature.

        Comment


        • #49
          From the Eugene Stoner article:

          But their comments add unprecedented context to their father's creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war never intended for civilians.

          http://www.guns.com/2013/02/07/photo...ar-15-sporter/

          "If you're a hunter, camper or collector, you'll want the AR-15 Sporter. At any Registered Colt Dealer. $189.50."

          Let me guess, Eugene Stoner had no idea that his rifle was being sold to civilians in 1963?
          Last edited by Nichols; 21 Jun 16, 11:30.
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post
            From the Eugene Stoner article:

            But their comments add unprecedented context to their father's creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war never intended for civilians.

            http://www.guns.com/2013/02/07/photo...ar-15-sporter/

            "If you're a hunter, camper or collector, you'll want the AR-15 Sporter. At any Registered Colt Dealer. $189.50."

            Let me guess, Eugene Stoner had no idea that his rifle was being sold to civilians in 1963?
            One of the major questions I see asked by people supportive of (or on the fence about) more restrictions is the old "Why do you need a [insert weapon/attachment/magazine size here] in this day and age?"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              One of the major questions I see asked by people supportive of (or on the fence about) more restrictions is the old "Why do you need a [insert weapon/attachment/magazine size here] in this day and age?"
              I think the first thing that needs to happen is the current laws on the books need to be enforced. Once that happens, then we need to take a closer look at this issue. If there is no need then the Constitution should be amended.

              An interesting article on the subject from Newsweek:

              http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun...nforced-390456

              Another from CNN:

              http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...forcement-gap/
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                I think the first thing that needs to happen is the current laws on the books need to be enforced. Once that happens, then we need to take a closer look at this issue. If there is no need then the Constitution should be amended.

                An interesting article on the subject from Newsweek:

                http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun...nforced-390456

                Another from CNN:

                http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...forcement-gap/
                Problem there is that an amendment is impossible in this political climate. The NRA and gun right's folks fight every restriction tooth and nail, and they won't tolerate an amendment curtailing (or clarifying) the 2nd amendment.

                The Democrats love to argue about gun control, but it's also a no go for them overall - you'll see Democrats in the south and mid-west distancing themselves from what big city and coastal Democrats preach regarding guns.

                And thirdly, an amendment would require some hard work and a lot of political horse trading, and neither party is willing to work across the aisle on such a contentious piece of legislation - and the state's ain't gonna do it themselves.

                Both parties will bicker, they'll pass/strike down dubious laws in congress when they have control, and it will eventually be settled by the supreme court (as our system sort of insists upon these days).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  Problem there is that an amendment is impossible in this political climate. The NRA and gun right's folks fight every restriction tooth and nail, and they won't tolerate an amendment curtailing (or clarifying) the 2nd amendment.
                  I agree with you on this, that is why I implied the first step is to enforce the current laws on the books. Once that is done a key argument from the pro gun lobby will be silenced. It is at that time we can have a sane, logical discussion on guns.

                  Something that the President said in the CNN article:

                  Obama said. "And those very same members of Congress then cut (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law."

                  If he is correct and they don't have the budget to enforce the current laws............. what good would making additional laws have being that they can't be enforced?
                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                    I agree with you on this, that is why I implied the first step is to enforce the current laws on the books. Once that is done a key argument from the pro gun lobby will be silenced. It is at that time we can have a sane, logical discussion on guns.

                    Something that the President said in the CNN article:

                    Obama said. "And those very same members of Congress then cut (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law."

                    If he is correct and they don't have the budget to enforce the current laws............. what good would making additional laws have being that they can't be enforced?
                    Well, passing laws are what they're paid to do. It's one of the measures of "success" because it gives them something to point to as an accomplishment, results be damned.

                    Plus, neither side really has an interest in making the concessions to garner and end to the gun control issue. After all, just ask yourself - how much would you want the GOP to concede to the Democrats on, say, Obamacare, to get a moderate, satisfactory solution on guns? What are you willing to give them to get what you want?

                    And even then, neither side wants to give ground as working with the enemy is the same as being one yourself.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X