Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Some liberalwrite I can pretty much agree with: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
It's all in the comma.

That is a great article! Thanks for the link.

Like said before, I wish Team conservative would fight with the same energy for the rest of the Bill Of Rights than they do for the 2nd Amendment.

Boths sides have agendas, and it's all politics, with a lot of emotionalism and sensationalism added in.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I had a light breakfast. Drolls and Coffee.

I'd make a joke out of that if I were a bit quicker.

But that's just not how I droll.

Wah wah waaaaaahh

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

'Rage' is a school massacre guide in the same way like 'It' is a guide to become a killer clown...

Maybe but the author himself was concerned enough about it to withdraw the book from publication. Mainly due to the following incidents:

• Jeffrey Lyne Cox, a senior at San Gabriel High School in San Gabriel, California, took a semi-automatic rifle to school on April 26, 1988 and held a humanities class of about 60 students hostage for over 30 minutes before being tackled and disarmed by another student. A friend of Cox told the press that Cox had been inspired by the Kuwait Airways Flight 422 hijacking and by the novel Rage,[2] which Cox had read over and over again and with which he strongly identified.[3]

• Dustin L. Pierce, a senior at Jackson County High School in McKee, Kentucky, armed himself with a shotgun and two handguns and took a history classroom hostage in a nine-hour standoff with police on September 18, 1989 that ended without injury. Police found a copy of Rage among the possessions in Pierce's bedroom, leading to speculation that he had been inspired to carry out the plot of the novel.[4]

• Barry Loukaitis, a student at Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington, walked from his house to the school on February 2, 1996, and entered his algebra classroom during fifth period. He opened fire at students, killing two and wounding another. He then fatally shot his algebra teacher, Leona Caires, in the chest. As his classmates began to panic, Loukaitis reportedly said, "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?" — a line erroneously believed to be taken from Rage. (No such line appears in King’s story. The closest is when Charlie Decker quips, "This sure beats panty raids.") Hearing the gunshots, gym coach Jon Lane entered the classroom. Loukaitis was holding his classmates hostage and planned to use one hostage so he could safely exit the school. Lane volunteered as the hostage, and Loukaitis was keeping Lane at gunpoint with his rifle. Lane then grabbed the weapon from Loukaitis and wrestled him to the ground, then assisted the evacuation of students.[5]

• In December 1996 Michael Carneal shot three fellow students at a prayer meeting West Paduch. He had a copy of the book within the Richard Bachman omnibus in his locker. This was the incident that moved King to allow the book to go out of print.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%2..._King_novel%29

Words and thoughts have power. I don't know why people so often refuse to believe that.

[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.

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

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

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by MH

So what is assasult rifle- browning 0.5?
so called Civilian guns are exactly same with little iwork around.

What is a Browning 0.5? Never heard of this.I have heard of Browning .50 BMG a .50 caliber round used in the Browning M2 .50 caliber machinegun.

I have also heard of the Barrett M82/M107 a sniper rifle that fires .50 bmg rounds.The civilian versions are bolt actions.

[Stealhead]

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.

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

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

Leung Ying was one of the first in the US way back in 1928 he used a .25-30 lever-action rifle and hatchet. i say that we ban all Chinese people from the US in light of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leung_Ying

The first school killing spree perpetrator was Andrew Kehoe in 1926 he used bombs to kill 44.This this many choose to ignore becuase he did not use firearms to kill though it is the higest death killing spree at a school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

[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.

Anything to add, or just trolling again?

Yes Steve I shall add the obvious as you missed it.
It was a response to a nonsense statement which contained a pathetic attempt at an insult by August
So "" is entirely sufficient as a succinct response to the line it quoted.



The main problem with Augusts simplistic no restrictions at all arguement is of course that it means felons and nuts shall not be infringed in their access to guns, after all you cannot have restrictions if you cannot have restrictions

[ETR3(SS)]

There's a lot of hoopla about banning "assault weapons" from democrats and the anti-gun lobby. But you know what they are ominously quiet about? Repealing the Patriot Act and doing away with all of its violations of our rights. Think about that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes Steve I shall add the obvious as you missed it.
It was a response to a nonsense statement which contained a pathetic attempt at an insult by August
So "" is entirely sufficient as a succinct response to the line it quoted.

It was not an acceptable response. Maybe the comment is stupid to you. If that's the case you counter it with a better argument. You show why it's stupid. You don't just piss on people. That is trolling, pure and simple. You know this.

The main problem with Augusts simplistic no restrictions at all arguement is of course that it means felons and nuts shall not be infringed in their access to guns, after all you cannot have restrictions if you cannot have restrictions

In the case of Stephen King's statements it looks like August was spot on. That's exactly what he means.

It was not an acceptable response. Maybe the comment is stupid to you. If that's the case you counter it with a better argument. You show why it's stupid

Well I won't ask you again to try and find any serious effort ever to ban all guns anywhere.
We can cut straight to the bottom line.
Name any country at anytime in history that has attempted to ban all shotguns.
BTW was...Dey slowley wunt ta teek ur gunz away". is redneckspeak for "Provoke rational discussion" more acceptable?
It illustrates the nonsense just as well as the emoticon does.

In the case of Stephen King's statements it looks like August was spot on.

Really?
So a gunowner saying some restrictions on firearms are reasonable and that people who cannot accept that simple fact are cowering in fearful paranoia translates as "we are going to take all your guns"?
Doesn't that illustrate the fearful paranoia mentioned rather that trash Kings effort?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well I won't ask you again to try and find any serious effort ever to ban all guns anywhere.

Good.

We can cut straight to the bottom line.

Dodge, duck and weave all you want. The bottom line is this: You troll people, you get banned. Period.

BTW was...Dey slowley wunt ta teek ur gunz away". is redneckspeak for "Provoke rational discussion" more acceptable?
It illustrates the nonsense just as well as the emoticon does.

Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.

Really?
So a gunowner saying some restrictions on firearms are reasonable and that people who cannot accept that simple fact are cowering in fearful paranoia translates as "we are going to take all your guns"?
Doesn't that illustrate the fearful paranoia mentioned rather that trash Kings effort?

No, and it doesn't matter. You're diverting the discussion away from your bad behaviour, and it won't work. If you want to discuss, discuss, don't troll.

Are you clear on this yet?

[Cybermat47]

What's really ironic about all of his is that the pro-gun and anti-gun people all want the same thing: No more school shootings. They're all arguing about the way to stop that from happening.

Life is cruel.

Dodge, duck and weave all you want. The bottom line is this: You troll people, you get banned. Period.

Deal with what was written not with what you want to think was written.

Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.

So more words is not neccasarily good.
I "mock" what was written not the person and a picture paints a thosuand words
So which is better to write? "that is silly notion" is it not as good as "that is a really really silly notion that even at a stretch makes no sense"?

No, and it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. and the answer is arguably "yes".

You're diverting the discussion away from your bad behaviour, and it won't work. If you want to discuss, discuss, don't troll.

No, the discussion is exactly where it was, it is you who is trying to divert it because you don't think "" means what it means.

So come along Steve cut to the chase. Go to the bottom line or reverse it and go beyond the top line as far as you want.
If the basis of the arguement make no sense either at the top or at the bottom then the whole arguement makes no sense and is a moment.
Feel free to chose your own top line as far up the weapons chain as you like.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

... our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".

That's the cogent point. A right does not need justification.

Of course do we really have any rights?

If the government believes it has the authority to change it, then it is not a right but a government granted privilege.

If the Founding Dudes intended it as such, they were capable of entitling that addition piece of paper, the "Bill of Privileges" .

So when it is right for a right to not be a right?