Connecticut (et al)

[Seth]

On assassinations and guns.

Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.

A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.

So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.

Still deny that guns are a problem?

Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns weapons You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.

In that case, and following your logic, why do the guards carry only guns?

They don't, but the reason to carry guns is that they are the most effective tool for general self defense ever invented. They have the broadest application, the broadest levels of force available, and the capacity to stop an attacker instantly and with finality.

When someone invents the Star Trek "Phaser" that can "stun" someone 100 percent reliably from a distance without killing them, I'll be most happy to hang up my gun and substitute a Phaser.

Until then, the handgun is the best available tool, so I'll continue to use it.

[Seth]

On assassinations and guns.

Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.

A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.

So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.

Still deny that guns are a problem?

Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns. You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.

Yes, let's reflect on that. These are highly trained professionals, always on alert when on duty, and are tasked with protecting one single person whose carefully planned out movements they know in advance. And even they get it wrong. How do we expect Joe or Jane Q. Public to perform? And when the Secret Service have saved someone's life, it's rarely, rarely by using their own gun. Several times it has been by putting themselves bodily between the assassin's bullet and the President (or whoever they're protecting). Honorable and incredibly brave, but one doesn't need a gun to do that.

Yeah? So what? The issue is not how well Joe or Jane performs, that's a matter for them to determine through practice or lack thereof. The issue is that they have a right to make that choice for themselves. Contrariwise neither you nor anyone else, including the government, has the right (or authority) to disarm anyone, thus leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals, as a matter of public policy.

Individuals may forfeit their right to armed self-defense through bad conduct, but that right may not be infringed unless and until they do so. Until then their individual right to be armed for effective self-defense trumps all your or anyone else's concerns about gun violence in society.

[amused]

Today the NRA showed that they are pure, fucking, evil.

[orpheus]

On assassinations and guns.

Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.

A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.

So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.

Still deny that guns are a problem?

Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns. You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.

Yes, let's reflect on that. These are highly trained professionals, always on alert when on duty, and are tasked with protecting one single person whose carefully planned out movements they know in advance. And even they get it wrong. How do we expect Joe or Jane Q. Public to perform? And when the Secret Service have saved someone's life, it's rarely, rarely by using their own gun. Several times it has been by putting themselves bodily between the assassin's bullet and the President (or whoever they're protecting). Honorable and incredibly brave, but one doesn't need a gun to do that.

Yeah? So what? The issue is not how well Joe or Jane performs, that's a matter for them to determine through practice or lack thereof. The issue is that they have a right to make that choice for themselves. Contrariwise neither you nor anyone else, including the government, has the right (or authority) to disarm anyone, thus leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals, as a matter of public policy.

Individuals may forfeit their right to armed self-defense through bad conduct, but that right may not be infringed unless and until they do so. Until then their individual right to be armed for effective self-defense trumps all your or anyone else's concerns about gun violence in society.

No, the issue is the questionable morality of that choice.

[Blind groper]

Seth and others have tried to tell us that guns are reasonably controlled in the USA, with background checks of purchasers done. This is only true through some venues. In many states, 'private' sales of guns do not require background checks, and some dealers are known to declare themselves as 'collectors of guns' and sell off their products at gun shows, with no background checks done at all. This is especially bad in Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_ ... ted_States

Gun shows have become a favourite place for criminals to obtain their murder weapons of choice.

[Warren Dew]

Maybe he also had two assault rifles?

Except that "assault rifles" are illegal in Connecticut, and the claim is that all the firearms were legally registered to his mother.

[aspire1670]

On assassinations and guns.

Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.

A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.

So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.

Still deny that guns are a problem?

Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns. You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.

Yes, let's reflect on that. These are highly trained professionals, always on alert when on duty, and are tasked with protecting one single person whose carefully planned out movements they know in advance. And even they get it wrong. How do we expect Joe or Jane Q. Public to perform? And when the Secret Service have saved someone's life, it's rarely, rarely by using their own gun. Several times it has been by putting themselves bodily between the assassin's bullet and the President (or whoever they're protecting). Honorable and incredibly brave, but one doesn't need a gun to do that.

Yeah? So what? The issue is not how well Joe or Jane performs, that's a matter for them to determine through practice or lack thereof. The issue is that they have a right to make that choice for themselves. Contrariwise neither you nor anyone else, including the government, has the right (or authority) to disarm anyone, thus leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals, as a matter of public policy.

Individuals may forfeit their right to armed self-defense through bad conduct, but that right may not be infringed unless and until they do so. Until then their individual right to be armed for effective self-defense trumps all your or anyone else's concerns about gun violence in society.

LOLWUT

Shorter Seth "any gun owner is allowed one free shot at another human before they lose their right to armed self defence."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Today the NRA showed that they are pure, fucking, evil again.

[Tyrannical]

If this were the more enlightened 1950's, Lanza would have been lobotomized years ago and in a mental institution.

[aspire1670]

If this were the more enlightened 1950's, Lanza would have been lobotomized years ago and in a mental institution.

Be careful what you wish for.

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Today the NRA showed that they are pure, fucking, evil.

Uh huh. The NRA presents the ONLY plan that has any chance whatsoever of preventing copycat attacks in the next few days, weeks or month and THEY are evil?

Don't be an asshat.

Even if we all agree that better mental health services and gun bans are appropriate, it will take DECADES before any such plan has the slightest effect on preventing school attacks.

Crazy people are everywhere, and even if we could just round them up and lock them away, it would still take DECADES to do so.

Guns are everywhere, and even if you outright banned every firearm in the country it would take DECADES to go and try to find and collect them all.

Absolutely the ONLY way to even have a chance at preventing such attacks in the short term is to place armed guards in every school in America, just like they do in Israel. Nothing else will have any hope of actually preventing an attack by a deranged gunman.

From there, mandatory hardening of schools to keep killers from breaking out windows to gain access by the simple expedient of making every school's entryway bullet-proof and a remotely lockable "man trap", followed by hardening of classroom doors with ballistic armor and adequate locking mechanisms (throw-bolts, top-and-bottom rods actuated by a level, etc.), followed by automati lockdown systems that will close and lock every classroom door with the push of a button from the office (with due consideration for fire escape routes), hardening of classroom walls for ballistic protection and then installation of compartmentalization barriers in hallways that can partition off the school to keep a gunman from circulating around the building.

All that takes time and money, but the very FIRST thing to do is to put armed guards (be they police officers or trained, certified civilians) in every school and available for every minute the children are at school.

I really don't see how or why you or anyone else would object to this most obvious and sensible suggestion. It must just be that you have an unreasoning, insane hatred for the NRA and can't get past it to see how reasonable and necessary their suggestion is.

This demonization of the NRA is typical Marxist Progressive disinformation and ideological propaganda. It demonstrates amply that Obama and the rest of the gun-banners don't give a fuck about schoolchildren or protecting them, they just want to use the murders to advance their universal disarmament agenda. In fact, it also explains why Obama quietly let tens of millions of dollars a year of federal funding for improving school security expire without any comment at all.

The gun-banners have been waiting for just such an inevitable massacre so that they can rub their hands together in glee at what they perceive as a golden opportunity to ban guns. They WANT more children massacred, because that's how they will get what they want, and they consider those kids to be acceptable collateral damage in their war on guns, and to them the children are martyrs to the cause of disarming the citizenry.

THAT is fucking evil.

[Jason]

In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear. I try to state things as simply and unambiguously as I can because I find that that's the best way to convince my readers that when Chief Wayne LaPierre is challenged, he either denies everything or claims that his words were taken out of context and that his castigators are plotting against him. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Chief LaPierre himself.

Chief LaPierre's recommendations raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, "Why does Chief LaPierre insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger?" It's questions like that that get people thinking about how Chief LaPierre's bunco games have merged with absolutism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. And both take advantage of human fallibility to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard.

For the nonce, Chief LaPierre is content to force us to bow down low before high-handed cult leaders. But eventually, he will waste taxpayers' money. I am aggrieved by his use of revisionism to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that no one likes being attacked by odious, contumelious potlickers. Even worse, Chief LaPierre exploits our fear of those attacks—which he claims will evolve as soon as our backs are turned into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks—as a pretext to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Chief LaPierre and his splenetic emissaries. Of course, he has come up with proven methods to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. All you have to do is let your guard down. Although Chief Wayne LaPierre uses his victim status as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis, and persuade us that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not he approves, we will continue to be heard.

[Jason]

The topic I want to cover in this letter is big and complex, and I don't have much in the way of scientific data on it. Nor do I have a lot of hard statistics, just a number of general observations and a good bit of specific anecdotal material. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on NRA's initiatives. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, I see how important NRA's scabrous press releases are to its emissaries and I laugh. I laugh because when I hear it say that it's okay if its calumnies initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend, I have to wonder about it. Is it thoroughly bleeding-heart? Is it simply being refractory? Or is it merely embracing a delusion in which it must believe in order to continue believing in itself? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which NRA has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that NRA will stop at nothing to break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international paternalism. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, if NRA thinks its sophistries represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.

If you think you can escape from NRA's anal-retentive, heartless ventures, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, it recently claimed that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from it a hundred times before. Pesky twerps serve as the priests in NRA's cult of crass hedonism. These "priests" spend their days basking in NRA's reflected glory, pausing only when NRA instructs them to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. What could be more incompetent? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that the suggestion that it is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, NRA's myrmidons like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that it's indeed a tragedy that NRA's goal in life is apparently to funnel significant amounts of money to the most petulant jackanapes you'll ever see. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that NRA obviously believes that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of ugly stereotypes. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that whenever its brethren say that its mistakes are always someone else's fault, their noses grow by a few centimeters. But upon further investigation one will find that any day now, NRA will turn its back on those who need it the most. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

We need to tend to the casualties of NRA's war on sanity. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. One of the putrid, crotchety buffoons in NRA's employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that NRA would never even consider exploiting other cultures for self-entertainment. Contrary to what that emollient hagiography asserts, if NRA's buddies had even an ounce of integrity they would unveil the semiotic patterns that NRA utilizes to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility.

Ask yourself: Whatever happened to good sportsmanship? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did because we both know that NRA likes to imply that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly. This is what its pronouncements amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of choleric drivel devised by its apostles and mindlessly multiplied by the worst kinds of effete, evil authoritarians there are. For your edification, I should definitely point out that every time NRA spouts some nonsense about how the peak of fashion is to galvanize a nutty hysteria, a large-scale version of the macabre mentality that can offer hatred with an intellectual gloss , the effect is that its serfs become even more loyal to it. Sociologists call the phenomenon of increased devotion to a distasteful theory, at the very hour of its destruction by external evidence, "cognitive dissonance". I, hardheaded cynic that I am, call it proof that if NRA had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that I do not have the time in one sitting to go into the long answer as to why it is indubitably possessed by the devil. But the short answer is that its writings are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that its junta consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of creating a new cottage industry around its viperine form of Machiavellianism and they promote the mistaken idea that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones.

One could imagine that some good might come from letting NRA needle and wheedle the most subversive segregationists I've ever seen into its posse. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is NRA. NRA pretends to have the solution for everything. In reality, it creates more problems for the rest of us to solve. Consider, for example, how we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by NRA and its pals or we cast a ray of light on NRA's stingy, namby-pamby malisons. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that NRA will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "combative" or "costive". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise.

If NRA manages to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot, civilization will crumble almost immediately. Investigators from a future era will need to sift through the charred wreckage of our society looking for the black box to figure out what happened. Maybe they'll even discover that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that NRA's flunkies take for granted. I don't know when triumphalism became chic, but there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If NRA finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that NRA should doubtlessly heed Cicero's advice, "Appetitus rationi pareat." (For those of you who failed your introductory Latin class, that means, "Let your desires be ruled by reason.")

NRA has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment—all by trumping up a phony emergency. Let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward towards increased ability to siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries: moralistic, scurrilous rabiators; intolerant, smarmy boeotians; academicism; NRA's satraps; NRA. My point is that NRA is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how NRA is the greatest purveyor of Maoism in the world today. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that NRA has stated that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. That's just pure simplism. Well, in NRA's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that if we are powerless to sound the bugle of liberty, it is because we have allowed NRA to put malign thoughts in our children's minds.

This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. NRA believes that Chekism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

NRA's satellites have tried repeatedly to assure me that NRA will eventually tire of its plan to shackle us with the chains of snobbism and will then step aside and let us put the kibosh on its vituperations. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". While I don't know NRA's secret plans, I do know that NRA has one-upped George Washington in that it cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, it's too antihumanist to distinguish between the two. If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to cause one-sided proposed social programs to be entered into historical fact, they would indisputably report that on several occasions I have heard NRA state that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that NRA's behavior might be different if it were told that we must do away with the misconception that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Of course, as far as NRA is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Its malapert, jackbooted obloquies, naturally, do not.

Let's be honest here: I myself have frequently criticized NRA's unspoken plan to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its prank phone calls. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of diabolism, stoicism, child molestation, and halitosis. NRA hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that NRA presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors disruptive, laughable smear merchants. And here we have the ultimate irony because it says that it's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. The simple, regrettable truth is that you should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with NRA. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I decidedly hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we reach the broadest possible audience with the message that all NRA cares about is money. The first casualty of NRA's op-ed pieces is justice. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

[Blind groper]

The NRA proposal might or might not be considered pure evil, but there is no doubt it is stupid.
The armed guard idea would cost over $ 7 billion per year, and has already been tried in various places and failed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... ds-schools

I quote :

"The Violence Policy Centre said that Columbine High School in Colorado had armed law enforcement agents on call when two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting spree in 1999. The agents were unable to prevent the deaths of 12 students and one teacher. They were "outgunned by the assault weapons wielded by the two teens", the VPC said.

Similarly, Virginia Tech had armed police on campus who were unable to prevent the deaths of 32 people in a mass shooting in 2007.

The NRA plan "has already been tried and it didn't work", said the VPC's executive director, Josh Sugarmann.

Even John Lott Jr, the author of More Guns Less Crime and a Fox News columnist, was dismissive:"