[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

They're not my bullet points, they're in the wiki article I quoted. Apparently someone else thinks they do indeed add something to the argument or they wouldn't be there. Are you asking me whether I agree with the premise that books like Rage or violent video games can inspire a killer? Yes I most certainly do. Words and violent imagery have far more power than society realizes.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it

I think i'll pass. I've been listening to the anti-RKBA arguments for almost a half a century now and in all that time their message has not changed one bit. "Guns are bad and you don't need them". (insert shrug smiley) Certainly a novelist is not going to come out with some new earth shaking argument that's going to change my mind.

Our constitution says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. You can't claim that you are not infringing upon something and then turn around and restrict or ban it. The courts may let them get away with it but that doesn't mean that's not exactly what they're doing.

And while i'm at it, our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".

Adherents to that argument should realize that if the Bill of Rights, created to be an inviolate injunction against government oppression of those rights in particular, can be ignored just because someone thinks we don't "need" them then they risk having that standard applied to the rest of our rights as well. We don't "need" to play violent video games or watch violent movies, or read books like Steven Kings Rage or maybe read about things that embarrass the ruling party. We also don't "need" the right to privacy if we have nothing to hide and the right against self incrimination if we're not guilty of something. We don't even "need" the right to free religion if God doesn't really exist.

See the problem with applying "need" to human rights?

The people organizing the anti-gun efforts in my country have been preparing for this attack on the 2nd Amendment long before the world heard of Adam Lanza. Indeed they were already calling for an AW ban when we all thought he used pistols.

They have been ramping up for this push for over a year (publicly) with almost daily op ed pieces and special news reports on why gun control was no longer on the table for either party and how it's been X years since the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire. I don't know how many you see over there but here they were quite regular increasing in frequency all through the summer and fall election season.

I firmly believe we'd be having this "debate" even if Lanza and that other nut hadn't committed their crimes. The Democrats reelection virtually guaranteed it. They know that once their economic chickens come home to roost they'll be a dirty word in most voters minds next election (unless the Republicans continue to step on their male appendages) so they need to strike while the iron is hottest.

What irritates me is they even freely admit that these new laws would not have stopped Lanza nor would it stop another Lanza in the future. What they aren't saying is that it will advance the bar for future "national discussions" on how far we're going to let them get away with crapping on the constitution next time one of these nuts they won't try and stop goes on another rampage.

While they are making this admittedly false argument they also dismiss and ridicule the idea of putting armed policemen in our schools or improving physical security with some stronger doors and locks which arguably would have stopped Lanza.

Oh that costs money they say but how much do you think they'll spend forcing an assault weapons and magazine ban compliance against several million people who don't think they have a right to do it? I'll bet it'll be a lot more expensive than the cost of some stouter doors and a cop on site. We have them in half the schools in the nation already, it's not like it's every school we're talking about but that according to the president is a non starter in this national "discussion" on public safety as is any real mental health care reform.