Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Sidwell Friends is private school where it costs $32,000 to attend. About 1100 students attend the school. Something tells me they can afford 11 armed guards.

So armed guards in a school is a good thing?

No, don't think so.

So why would Barack Obama, a.k.a. the Smartest Man in the World, (along with the elite of Washington, presumably the next smartest people in the world, in no particular descending order), send his own children into a facility where he knows that there are at least 11 weapons?

Probably because Barack Obama, a.k.a. the Smartest Man in the World, knows that his children would be an inviting target for terrorists or some gun nut that has ODS.

Quote :

Do you believe that the lives of Barack Obama's children hold more value than the children of others?

No, but I do believe that Barack Obama's children are at greater risk than the children of others.

Oh no, Wayne LaPierre and the pimps for the billion dollar gun industry at the NRA will not like this.

Quote :

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

happy jack wrote:

Events prove that, apparently, they are not.

No, they do not. The odds of getting a royal flush do not change upon getting one.

jack, are you aware that McChrystal voted for "Vice-President Bite Me"?

Here you go, fellow posters.
This will give you something to whine about before it even hits the market!!!!
Ban it now.
As Barney says, "Nip it. Nip it in the bud."


http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/futuristic-rifle-turns-novice-sharpshooter-1B7916613?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Wilson Rothman, NBC News

Futuristic rifle turns novice into sharpshooter

It all goes back to "Top Gun." In the heads-up display on Maverick's Tomcat, you can see a computer compensate for human aim with precision laser guidance and careful calculations. How long before that technology made its way to to a conventional hunting rifle? It's here now, with a price tag of $17,000 to $21,000.
We came to Las Vegas the first week of January, the way we always do, for the Consumer Electronics Show. The vast trade show features over 3,300 exhibitors, and covers 1.9 million square feet. But there are no shooting ranges at CES. To check out TrackingPoint, we had to drive out to the hills outside of town.

As someone who not only isn't a marksman but pretty much avoids guns altogether, I approached the TrackingPoint rifle a bit gingerly. However, when the company's president, Jason Schauble, walked me through it, I realized that as long as I paid attention (and observed the basic safety rules of firearms), I would be able to hit that target without trouble. Not 15 minutes later, I did — at a distance of nearly seven football fields.
How does it work? A laser rangefinder identifies the target, and tells the gun where to aim to hit it, given conditions such as humidity, wind, and the typical ballistic drop you'd expect from a bullet shot from a gun at such a distance.
You pick your target by dropping a pin on it using the camcorder-like zoom lens. When you want to shoot that target, you line up crosshairs inside the scope with the pin you dropped. The weirdest thing is, when you squeeze the trigger, it doesn't fire. You have to squeeze the trigger and line up the crosshairs with your mark. When you do, the gun goes boom, and the target takes a bullet.
No matter where you are on the gun debate, the technology used is an impressive system. The rifle will be available soon from TrackingPoint. Watch the video above for the whole story.

So jack, did you notice that the TrackingPoint rifles in the video are bolt action and not semi-auto rifles?

Not exactly the optimum weapon for killing a classroom full of 6 year olds, now is it?

happy jack wrote:

Can you think of one teeny, tiny difference between Sidwell Friends School, a high-profile, target-rich environment, and most other schools?
One little thing that makes the children of that school considerably safer than the children of most other schools?

Choose the answer that best finishes this sentence:

The students at Sidwell Friends School are less likely to be massacred than are children at most other schools because the Sidwell Friends students are protected by:

A.) Crossing guards
B.) Point guards
C.) Armed guards
D.) Right Guard

Try and fix it however you wish, but your point was mathematically wrong. The probability of past events do not become 100% upon their occurrence.

I really do not understand why conservatives like happy are completely incapable of having an honest discussion about this.

Quote :

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

. . .

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.

And also this:

Quote :

The per capita mortality from handguns in the USA is 4.6 times that of its closest contender, Israel; 23 times that of Canada, and 265 times that of Great Britain. Are Americans 23 times as homicidal by nature as Canadians, or 265 times as homicidal as Brits?

If "guns don’t kill people, people kill people" then the only answer is a resounding yes. If the easy access to quick and effective killing machines have nothing to do with it, I do not see any other explanation for the disparity. But I cannot figure out how the hell that is supposed to be an argument against gun control.

And if its all about the people, why so little concern how they end up in the hands of the criminals who use them? This makes sense:

Quote :

There is no good reason that every time a gun is used in a crime, that we shouldn't be able to track that weapon back to it’s original purchaser. It wouldn't even require some scary national gun registry that would have every gun nut crying 1984. It’s simple. Manufacturers sell a given firearm to a distributor or dealer. They know which weapons go to which dealer by a serial number which should be on multiple parts of each weapon, internally, (there also needs to be significant improvement in technology to prevent easy defacement of serial numbers, or other mechanisms of unique gun identification – this is possible with multiple existing technologies). One could even conceive of a system in which accessing an interior serial number results in permanent damage to the weapon rendering it useless if so disassembled. Whenever a gun is then used in a crime by someone who has no legal right to own or carry such a weapon (felons, minors, etc.), the police should send the serial number to the manufacturer, who identifies the dealer. The dealer will then have a record of the sale, and who the entry point into the criminal market is.

If a given dealer has a large proportion of weapons they sell entering the criminal market, they should undergo additional scrutiny, or possibly even lose their license. And this should be international. If Mexican drug cartels are found with weapons supplied by american distributors (which they are), those distributors should lose their ability to sell weapons. We have to stop acting as if we aren't also enabling crime in other countries by the careless dumping of military hardware into other countries as well.

Like I said previously, weapons don't end up in a criminal's hand by magic; they come from legal owners and dealers through theft or sale. If it's all about the person, gun owners should have absolutely no problem with rallying behind this, since their guns are not the problem.

Quote :

Ranting CEO threatens to 'start killing people' if President Obama uses executive powers to introduce tighter gun controls
By Daily Mail Reporter

January 11 2013 |
The CEO of a company that teaches people how to use guns has posted a ranting video online in which he claims he will 'start killing people' if President Obama uses his executive powers to introduce tighter gun controls.

James Yeager runs Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills. In a video posted on YouTube and Facebook, Yeager describes President Obama as a ‘dictator’ and claims that tighter gun control measures will result in ‘civil war.’

The video is Yeager’s angry response to Vice President Joe Biden's comment on Wednesday that President Obama might use executive action if Congress takes no action on gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260806/James-Yeager-threatens-start-killing-people-Obama-introduces-tighter-gun-controls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

happy jack wrote:

I believe most of these procedures are already in place...

Are they? Was the dealer required to do so? Regardless, there are significant barriers in place preventing law enforcement from using such data to stop the flow of weapons in to the hands of criminals. He explains further in the comments:

Quote :

I don’t think that the majority of law-abiding owners would willingly sell into the black market, it’s likely a subset of dealers that are responsible for the black market. Interestingly, our congress has specifically forbidden the ATF from aggregating data on which dealers are responsible for the black market purchases, and while this data was initially public, they eliminated public access to prevent people from collecting data to determine where the source of the problem is. We essentially have members of congress protecting a criminal enterprise because it benefits this industry. And their names are Inhofe and the now retired Todd Tiahrt, who made it impossible to research and study where the problem dealers are. You can read about the Tiahrt amendments here, they’ve been revised to be a bit better in 2010, but still work needs to be done to allow law enforcement to truly be able to make criminal dealers responsible for illegal gun sales. These restrictions need to be completely eliminated so that law enforcement has no restrictions on its ability to tie guns in crimes to sales from “legitimate” dealers. This is how we fight shooters like the Webster shooter.

And another adds:

Quote :

The problem here is several fold. 1) While not every part is marked, they do already have serials. 2) The original “end point” sale does have a record, as does the manufacturer. *BUT*, 3) these are stored in multiple different ways, including old filing cabinets, the ATF has been denied, nearly every congressional session, the right to standardize this information in their own database, and companies, even manufacturers, never mind stores, go out of business. This means that, if you are lucky, the gun is registered, the company it was purchased from is still in business, and the data is accessible, because the point of sale is cooperating with police. The existence of the information becomes completely meaningless when a) the store no longer exists, b) the information was never put into a state DB, so the call has to be fielded up to the federal level, c) the gun was sold/traded without going through a store, and/or d) it wasn’t registered. And.. the same lobby has done everything it can to make sure that the sale of a gun, by a private citizen, to another, isn’t illegal, even if no registration takes place, as long as its done in some manner that bypasses a store. If you tried that with, say, a car… you would have a much more serious problem on your hands, for some stupid reason.

Like I said previously, weapons don't end up in a criminal's hand by magic; they come from legal owners and dealers through theft or sale. Stemming the flow should be a primary concern to everyone, responsible gun owners included.

Has everyone seen this?

Meet the Sandy Hook truthers

Quote :

Yes, there really are Newtown truthers.

But in the crazy world of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, this one may be the worst yet. (Maybe you’ve already heard some of the others, like the one about fantasy ties between the gunman’s family and the LIBOR banking scandal and a related theory about the Aurora shooting and the “Dark Knight Rises.”) Most of the theories are really pieces of a larger meta-theory: that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, perhaps by the Obama administration, designed to stir demand for gun control.

In the latest angle, theorists think they have found “absolute proof” of a conspiracy to defraud the American people. “You reported in December that this little girl had been killed,” a reader emailed Salon in response to a story. “She has been found, and photographed with President Obama.”

The girl in question is Emilie Parker, a 6-year-old who was shot multiple times and killed at Sandy Hook. But for conspiracy theorists, the tears her family shed at her funeral, the moving eulogy from Utah’s governor, and the entire shooting spree are fake. Welcome to the world where Sandy Hook didn’t really happen.

You have to follow the links to get the "full effect." Just one example...







http://www.henrymakow.com/is-this-deceased-emilie-parker.html

Quote :

The girl with Obama is wearing the same outfit Emilie wore in a family picture seen here.
Note also, she is wearing red, black and silver, the colors of satanism.

The trouble is- the girl with Obama has her hair parted the same way as Emilie, not her sister who has pigtails. Her hair is also longer than her sister's.



Obama and the children seem pretty cheerful considering Emilie was supposedly brutally murdered days before. Look at Robbie Parker's right hand - hisfingers look like talons; it looks unnatural. Also, as others have noted, the baby is sucking two fingers making a sign of Baphomet. Fingers seem skewed. Younger sister seems to be making a handsign too.

I gotta confess, I didn't know who the hell "Baphomet" was, so I looked it up...

http://www.illuminati-news.com/baphomet.htm

The Illuminati! Of course. And these children are all in on it!

If this wasn't so damned sad, it would actually be funny.

happy jack wrote:

Punish those who sell weapons illegally.
Punish those who steal weapons.

So no prevention? Just punishment... after it happens.