She is reported to have been struggling to hold herself together and had been stockpiling food, water and guns in the large home she shared with her 20-year-old son in Connecticut.
Mrs Lanza, 52, was a ‘prepper’ – so called because they are preparing for a breakdown in civilised society – who apparently became obsessed with guns and taught Adam and his older brother, Ryan, how to shoot....
Lanza’s aunt Marsha said Nancy was ‘self reliant’ and that they talked a lot about how she was preparing for the economic meltdown....
As for her son, he was described yesterday as a ‘ghost’ – an autistic genius, according to former school fellows, but also a ‘deeply disturbed’ young man who was so withdrawn that even many of his closest relatives hadn’t set eyes on him for years.
December 16, 2012
"The mother of the loner who massacred 26 pupils and staff at a US primary school may have played a major part in his catastrophic mental breakdown..."
"Friends and family portrayed Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy as a paranoid ‘survivalist’ who believed the world was on the verge of violent, economic collapse."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
303 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 303 of 303Yes. The Brady people and the Center for Handgun Violence.
Anything else?
With regard to the Brady organization I think you are spreading disinformation and FUD.
came in to the confirmation the killer was dead was just over twenty minutes.
Twenty minutes is forever.
Thought for all the anti-gun people here ...
“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” - John Lott
The simple fact that disarming people you can trust with guns allows the crazies free reign at the locations they choose to attack. Maybe the solution is not to disarm sane people. But to arm them.
A good article on this ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund
I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, do you?
I'm not advocating that nor are you, but I was making a point that a lot of death comes at the hands of stolen or illegally-obtained guns, which additional gun regulations may not truly address.
Can you identify these people. There were a lot of posts and a lot of comments over the weekend. Were they folks you have seen comment here regularly? This is a callous statement that seems to fit your preconceived notions of gun rights advocates rather than something someone would say in response to this horrible tragedy.
Some are right in this thread:
Probably a total aside, but if she actually trained her kid in how to use the guns, it explains something that bugged me, which was how damned efficient he was. In most mass shootings you get a lot of dead people, but also a lot of wounded who survive.
Not this time.
12/16/12 10:39 PM
Mark - it means his mom taught him how to go for a clean head shot which makes me even more horrified.
12/16/12 10:41 PM
I'm not sure the answer to that but I did see a timeline saying that from the point the first call came in to the confirmation the killer was dead was just over twenty minutes. So it happened pretty fast if that's true.
Pretty fast?? 20 mins is an eternity in a situation like this given the small confines of an elementary school.
I'm not saying that the police didn't respond quickly and effectively either. It's just that given the situation, no reponse from an outside police force would be quick enough to stop this.
The Brady people and the Center for Handgun Violence.
Rusty is full of shit. And a dumbfuck too.
@phx "And there's the difference: twenty-two wounded children vs. twenty dead children."
What about 18 dead children? ... From Times Online May 12, 2010
Jonathan Landreth and Sophie Yu in Beijing A knife-wielding man stabbed seven children and a teacher to death at a kindergarten in China earlier today, the latest in a string of attacks on the country’s youngest pupils.
The man wounded 20 others before killing himself. It was the fifth violent assault on schoolchildren in China in less than two months.
The attack occurred about 8am (local time) as the school day was about to start at a Nanzheng County school in northwest China’s Shaanxi province.
The killings took place despite a recent boost in security at school grounds ordered by the local government in keeping with national directives following the recent spate of attacks.
Calls to the kindergarten went unanswered, but one doctor from the Hanzhong Hospital No. 3201, described the scene. “Doctors just rushed back to fetch some tools and I saw they had tears in their eyes,” said the doctor, who gave only her surname, Dong. “The children are seriously injured. It’s very tragic. I don’t know how many are sent to our hospital. At first I heard seven or eight. A lot of parents are in the hospital and I must go to comfort them now,” she said.
Today’s incident follows an attack on April 28 when a man in his 40s stabbed 17 children and a teacher in a primary school in Leizhou, in South China’s Guangdong province.
It occurred the same day that Zhang Minsheng, a 42-year-old doctor, was executed in neighbouring Fujian province for the murders of eight children as they waited in line for classes to start at their elementary school on March 23. Five were seriously hurt in the attack, which shocked China.
Zhang said at his trial last month that he killed the children because he was upset after being jilted by a woman and treated badly by her wealthy family.
The Leizhou attack in April was the second in as many years. In February 2008, a former student of the Leizhou No 2 Middle School broke into a classroom, stabbed to death a boy and a girl and injured five people. He then stabbed himself and jumped from the fifth floor of the school, committing suicide.
This quote from Obama's speach in Newtown neatly captures, I think, the mindlessness of the approach advocated by some here:
"We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this."
The reality is that crimes of this sort are extremely, extremely rare. I read somewhere this morning that only about 200 Americans annually are victims of killings involving more than two victims. As sad as the Newtown event is, it is very hard to make the case that this is a significant problem.
Mark - it means his mom taught him how to go for a clean head shot which makes me even more horrified.
12/16/12 10:41 PM
phx, this is hardly the same thing that Inga was claiming.
That being said, it is still a stupid, uninformed statement by Alex.
Since Rusty thinks that the "Brady people" want to confiscate all guns nationwide, it's worth reviewing their mission statement, which includes this:
"The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."
In other words, as I stated before, Rusty is full of shit.
@jberg3 You're right. I agree.
The Chinese have had problems with men slashing up their school kids.
And women on trains.
Maybe five incidents since 2010. Take the guns away, and you get slashers.
Fewer people die.
Crazies still out there walking around looking to inflict bodily harm on mankind.
The reality is that crimes of this sort are extremely, extremely rare.
No. Perhaps rare in other parts of the world, but not in the United States. As most of us would agree, these incidents have become all too frequent.
In most mass shootings you get a lot of dead people, but also a lot of wounded who survive.
Most mass shooters don't attack a horde of six-year olds. Sounds horrible, but true.
Jake,
So 200 annually in a country of over 300 million is not extremely rare? You are being foolish.
How about this one, lefties. What if we gave everyone 90 days to turn in all of their handguns and assault rifles. Thereafter anyone caught with a handgun or an assault rifle gets 10 years in the slammer without parole. No excuses. Gee I was on the way to turn it in. Gee it was my cousin;s gun. Gee I didn't know it was in the trunk. Gee the cop planted it on me. Sorry. 10 years. Knowing who won't turn in their guns, dear lefties, would you support this? You are willing to drop the First Amendment at the drop of a hat but are you willing to go all hard line to the degree I suggest? And if not how far would you go?
@Jake: "No. Perhaps rare in other parts of the world, but not in the United States. As most of us would agree, these incidents have become all too frequent."
You are wrong.
From "The Facts about Mass Shootings" by John Fund.
"In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century."
What you are intellectually experiencing is not an increase of the events. But an increase in media coverage. And incidents here are far fewer and less deadly then the ones around the world. The simplest example to compare would be the world wide mass murders by Islamic terrorists.
Have we had anything like the Beslan massacre?
As most of us would agree, these incidents have become all too frequent.
My understanding is that 2012 has been the worst year in terms of incidences involving a mass shooter who kills 4 or more, as well as number of killed from such shooters.
It is unnerving to think it's getting worse. And don't make the mistake of only comparing numbers as some do who say "Well there's thousands of murders over time and only a couple hundred dead from mass shooters."
This guy may have killed "only" 20 or so, but the effect on families, friends, and the community at large is still devastating.
Hearing about incidents of domestic violence or drug murders or robberies gone wrong is one thing. But these events probably hit thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in bad ways.
Someone on another thread had the best idea of all. Not gun control but nut control.
Wretchard has a really interesting post about how he grew up in the Philippines. All schools had armed guards.
So 200 annually in a country of over 300 million is not extremely rare? You are being foolish.
If something happens annually, it is not rare. And according to FBI statistics, cases of mass murder (at least 4 people killed in a public place) are occurring at an average rate of twice a year. That means they aren't rare events.
And incidents here are far fewer and less deadly then the ones around the world.
Bullshit.
phx,
Formulating public policy based on sentimentalism is a very bad idea.
Public place like gas stations?
The simplest example to compare would be the world wide mass murders by Islamic terrorists.
Yes! Let's use terrorism to set the standard of acceptable behavior in civilized society. If we're doing better than some terrorists, then everything must be just swell here!
Jake - your responses are laughably silly. That's it for me.
@Jake "... occurring at an average rate of twice a year. That means they aren't rare events."
Your statement makes no sense as it stands.
Would you sneezing twice a year make it rare or not?
Would you getting sick twice a year make it rare or not?
Would a murder in your house twice a year make it rare or not?
Would you kissing a puppy twice a year make it rare or not?
Would an asteroid hitting your car while driving twice a year make it rare or not?
Would you eating twice a year make it rare or not?
No. Perhaps rare in other parts of the world, but not in the United States. As most of us would agree, these incidents have become all too frequent.
Outside of Virginia Tech and Newtown, the deadliest of these events have happened outside the U.S.
Jake's right, it really did make a difference.
Freed blacks during Reconstruction, the Germans & the Cubans can all testify to the difference it made.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
It depends somewhat on how you define "mass murder." The statistics I've seen list 23 cases of mass murder in the 1990s and 20 cases of mass murder in the following decade. Since there have been a further 13 cases of mass murder in the current decade, there's no evidence of decline.
In what context?
Were they robberies?
Drug deals gone wrong?
All mentally ill?
Also from the Fund article, which I didn't know:
"He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons"
That's it for me.
Oh good! Your dumbfuckery was getting tiresome.
By the way, "rare" means infrequent. If a once-in-a-hundred-year snow storm kills 10,000 people in the desert, the fact that a lot of people died doesn't make the event common. And arguing that it does just makes you look like a clown.
So Jake, mass murders may go from extremely, extremely rate in th 90's to extremely, extremely, extremly rate in the 00's and bounce up to extremely, extremly rare in the 10's. Certainly a case for a revoultionary overhaul of our nation's gun laws is in order.
Outside of Virginia Tech and Newtown, the deadliest of these events have happened outside the U.S.
Ok, again, "deadly" isn't a measure of frequency. And all of you have to stop treating the "rest of the world" as another country. Compare the frequency of mass murder in the US to that of Canada, Britain, Germany, France, etc... Get back to me when you have a sensible observation to make.
So Jake, mass murders may go from extremely, extremely rate in th 90's to extremely, extremely, extremly rate in the 00's and bounce up to extremely, extremly rare in the 10's. Certainly a case for a revoultionary overhaul of our nation's gun laws is in order.
Alright, so you're innumerate too. That's not a surprise. Nor is it a surprise that you continue to post gibberish after claiming to be finished here.
@Jake "Yes! Let's use terrorism to set the standard of acceptable behavior in civilized society. If we're doing better than some terrorists, then everything must be just swell here!"
Are you reading while standing on your head? You flipped the point.
Israel has to make decisions on school protection based upon the simple fact that there are men and women running around wanting to murder their kids in large numbers. Guess what, there are people here as well running around planning on ways to kill us in large numbers as well.
So what is the difference between Muslim Brotherhood and Adam Lanza?
Their internal dialog of justification may be different, but to the sane people on the outside they are planning to harm ... who cares about that. Isn't stopping them more important?
And we have done a better job of stopping mass murders here then most places in the world. But, we could do a better job. And a hard look at arming a percentage teachers and administrators would be a start.
So what is the difference between Muslim Brotherhood and Adam Lanza?
Oh man, please make the drooling stop!
@EMD "Also from the Fund article, which I didn't know ..." [snipped the part about the Aurora murderer targeting the unarmed]
The sad part is why so few of us knew that. Anything that doesn't fit the preconceived notions of the left is never fit to print.
@Jake: "Oh man, please make the drooling stop!"
Well, if you can't get your drooling under control you can always get a bib.
Or a nappy.
So what is the difference between Muslim Brotherhood and Adam Lanza?
Oh man, please make the drooling stop!
What's the difference between a suicide bomber and a mass shooter?
Israel has to make decisions on school protection based upon the simple fact that there are men and women running around wanting to murder their kids in large numbers.
Honestly, this is one of the most astonishingly dumb arguments I've ever seen at Althouse. Comparing incidents of mass murder in the USA to acts of terrorism in the Middle East is really quite idiotic. Truly idiotic.
It is true that countries "at war" arm themselves against the enemy. On the other hand, when the perpetrators are part of the population, adding more weapons to the population is not an obvious solution to the problem of gun violence.
American citizens are already incredibly well-armed compared to citizens in other western nations which, by the way, have lower rates of mass murder.
You need to apply some logic here.
We know that one of the unintended consequences of the 2nd amendment is mass murder. We do not know what the unintended consequences are of severely abridging the bill of rights.....The constitutional ban on illegal search and seizures and giving self incriminating evidence sometimes leads to the guilty going free, and they then go on to commit other crimes. We have determined that we are willing to pay this price in order to insure against government overreaching.....There are definitely benefits to widespread gun ownership. There's a good chance that it does help to inhibit crime, but, moreover, it fosters a sense of self reliance among the citizenry. But I wish the gun lovers would acknowledge that gun ownership also exponentially increases the ability of psychopaths to do harm....I really don't see the point to these 30 clip magazines. You don't need them to hunt deer or fight off a home invader. They're only real use is the mass murder of unarmed children.
What's the difference between a suicide bomber and a mass shooter?
Why do all the slow children show up at Althouse?
I dunno, how'd you get here?
PS Do you ever check out any of the moronic things you say or do you just assume that, because it's Lefty writ, it must be right.
--They're only real use is the mass murder of unarmed children.---
Usually on government property.
Formulating public policy based on sentimentalism is a very bad idea.
I agree that would be a bad idea. That just watching this shit on tv is enough to give a lot of people PTSD is not "sentimentalism" however.
I really don't see the point to these 30 clip magazines. You don't need them to hunt deer or fight off a home invader. They're only real use is the mass murder of unarmed children.
Survivalists think they're going to be handy after the SHTF scenarios are reified. They're going to use them against the UN troops that take over our nation.
You're absolutely right Jake. I'm full of shit.
"National Coalition to Ban Handguns"
A coalition of organizations of which the two I mentioned are, or were members.
Why do all the slow children show up at Althouse?
Are their goals not basically the same?
They're only real use is the mass murder of unarmed children.
Everything you stated I can whole heartedly agree with, but why add this little bit of hyperbole? It cheapens the argument you are making.
I believe the large clip magazines is a good level of gun control legislation. It is hard for a good faith gun rights advocate to argue in favor of such clips.
However, I do understand that one can fashion these larger clips quite easily on their own. So in the case of the deranged, but intelligent perpetrator it would probably be easy to do by themselves. But that is no reason to say that they should be readily available. I'm not saying that is the answer, but it is something I (as a gun rights person myself) could get behind.
From Brady Campaign's website:
"As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."[13]
In 1976[inconsistent] then chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields stated
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.[14]
That's what I like about you Jake.
You never let your mediocre intellect get in the way of your enthusiasm.
@Jake
Logic begins with axioms and undefined terms. You know, the things we must assume to be true.
Your problem is that you are accepting things as true that are just your opinion. And your opinion can be easily shown to be wrong.
Mass murders like Beslan ( 300 to 500 dead 2004), Utøya (77 dead 2011), and Nanzheng (9 dead 2010) where the weapons were bombs, guns, and knives are examples. Violence is statistically more common around the world compared to here.
YOU may say that we are more violent and dangerous .. but (for example) try living in a third world country for awhile. First world people really know nothing of violence. And that includes mass murders. And rape. And slavery. And ...
Anyway, speaking of America how can you protect people against the crazies?
Crazies like Adam and Atta?
Back to the Islamic Crazy (Atta) vs. Crazy Crazy (Adam) question. The real difference between them is mental justification. Their actions (kill lots of people to satisfy that internal impulse) have similar planning and action.
And stopping them comes in two forms. Pre-attack (catch them planning) and during the attack (shoot them).
What I am hearing from you is that limiting guns will stop them. It will not. It hasn't in China, England, Germany, etc. And there is evidence (see the Aurora shooting) that limiting guns ENCOURAGES them and increases those killed.
What I want to see is a real discussion. Not meaningless words about limiting their weapon choice.
A discussion talking about how to catch them planning. AND how to stop them during the attack as quickly as possible.
I think the left would agree that the war on drugs has failed. People want to use drugs and ignore the laws....The war on guns will also fail and for the same reason People want to own guns....The left will never, ever eradicate guns. They will, however, succeed in demonizing those who wish to own guns as accomplices to mass murderers.
Please consider the source. The UK Daily Mail ??
Please consider the source. The UK Daily Mail ??
Bingo.
phx said...
Survivalists think they're going to be handy after the SHTF scenarios are reified. They're going to use them against the UN troops that take over our nation.
There's phx spreading his FUD. Scary survivalists! Weirdness! Shun them!
Once Jake showed up that was the end of the thread.
There's phx spreading his FUD. Scary survivalists! Weirdness! Shun them!
What do you mean FUD? Don't a lot of survivalists believe the UN is laying groundwork for a takeover of the USA? Or that at the least some form of combat will break out between citizens and our own government? That's not misinformation, is it?
And don't a lot of people want the large-volume magazines specifically so the weapons will be more effective in a combat situation? Am I mistaken?
Did I say "scary" "weirdness" or "shun them"?
phx - were the previous shooters from survivalist families? Stop spreading FUD.
Everybody else is sick. Everybody else fails to love someone well enough. Everyone else misses all the signs. Everyone else does something terribly irresponsible in hindsight. Everyone else must have been driven by hatred of someone.
Everyone else but me. I'm good.
somebody: Other than confiscating all guns nationwide
phx: I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, do you?
Rusty: Yes. The Brady people and the Center for Handgun Violence.
Hey, don't forget Dianne Feinstein. Though y'all can be excused if you haven't heard of her, she's nobody important...
Jake,
"It sure has made a difference in other countries..."
And you have longitudinal studies you can cite to back this up?
Actually, of course that's just a rhetorical question--of course you don't.
phx said...
There's phx spreading his FUD. Scary survivalists! Weirdness! Shun them!
What do you mean FUD? Don't a lot of survivalists believe the UN is laying groundwork for a takeover of the USA? Or that at the least some form of combat will break out between citizens and our own government? That's not misinformation, is it?
So to summarize:
1. There are enough people who think UN troops are going to take over America it's reasonable to discuss the societal impact.
2. There is no one who believes in banning guns and anyone suggesting it is a conspiracy nut.
Those flexible standards sure are convenient.
1. There are enough people who think UN troops are going to take over America it's reasonable to discuss the societal impact.
2. There is no one who believes in banning guns and anyone suggesting it is a conspiracy nut.
1. Absolutely.
2. Where the fuck did you get that?
Fuck the media. They've already invaded the privacy of the innocent brother, now they're hosing down the dead mom. She's a bitter clinger, a dead bitter clinger, so who cares? Faux intellectuals playing armchair psychologist, running a 24 hour nonstop boohoo festival and implicitly letting this little punk off the hook. Great plan! No possible risk that other disturbed little punks will take note of the post-mortem blaze of excuse-making glory.
And fuck the gun grabbers. Cold-hearted pportunistic unthinking assholes. I saw Lieberman on the tube this A.M. openly encouraging people to get mad/sad, not let these emotions fade away the better to influence additional/supplemental gun grabbing. CT, a blue state, already has stringent gun regulation, and yet this happened. Blue states and blue cities with stringent gun regs have higher gun crime statistics. Europe, with gun bans, still has mass killings. With guns. (In case anyone else has friends in Europe posting bullshit on Facebook about violent Americans with their redneck love of guns.)
Can't improve on this:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c7c578f94365a99fb2dd164c1&id=26182ce9cc&e=[UNIQID]
Gun grabbing and the 24 hour tv spin are dishonest and lazy approaches that do nothing to address the problem and may even encourage the problem to continue.
Widmerpool - The reality is that crimes of this sort are extremely, extremely rare. I read somewhere this morning that only about 200 Americans annually are victims of killings involving more than two victims. As sad as the Newtown event is, it is very hard to make the case that this is a significant problem.
Yes, but people don't think rationally in an ever-more dsyfunctional democracy. More and more stuff is wanted, but no one wants taxes raised.
For free Big Pharma drugs, I's done entitled to!! Obamaphones, or 7 trillion spent in 11 years on the Heroes of the Military and Homeland Security and their Hero Contractors for "keeping us all perfectly safe" so at least 2900 of the 2.3 million Americans that die each year are not dead by "Terrahist Evildoers".
When people point out we spend trillions of unfunded shit never subjected to a cost-benefit analysis just "What the People demand of the Heroes of Government" - they get their heads bit off.
And will until the day taxes go up on all in one way or another - and we are forced to recognize our spending follies.
Massacres are like terrorist attacks - pols pander that we can achieve zero incidents with the right laws, the right amount of spending on various pork barrel shit that doesn't raise taxes, and more Heroes in uniforms hired. And anyone that says we have to accept some sort of low limit rather than 0 and spend our money or charge the State, City, or National IOU accounts for more vital needs like infrastructure, supporting re-establishing industries in the US, more R&D, medical care cost savings - gets their head bit off.
phx said...
1. There are enough people who think UN troops are going to take over America it's reasonable to discuss the societal impact.
2. There is no one who believes in banning guns and anyone suggesting it is a conspiracy nut.
1. Absolutely.
2. Where the fuck did you get that?
You should get out of the leftwing media bubble, it has effected your ability to understand the world around you.
You should get out of the leftwing media bubble, it has effected your ability to understand the world around you.
You can easily say stuff like that but making an actual argument is more demanding, Marshal.
jrberg3 said...
They're only real use is the mass murder of unarmed children.
Everything you stated I can whole heartedly agree with, but why add this little bit of hyperbole? It cheapens the argument you are making.
I believe the large clip magazines is a good level of gun control legislation. It is hard for a good faith gun rights advocate to argue in favor of such clips.
However, I do understand that one can fashion these larger clips quite easily on their own. So in the case of the deranged, but intelligent perpetrator it would probably be easy to do by themselves. But that is no reason to say that they should be readily available. I'm not saying that is the answer, but it is something I (as a gun rights person myself) could get behind.
=====================
It is probably something the NRA and gun owners can compromise on - trading it for something that really sets the teeth of liberals and progressive jews leading the anti-gun movement (Feinstein, Lieberman, media moguls, Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg). Like arming teachers that want to be armed and can meet certain standards of eligibility and proficiency in firearms use.
And libertarians will have to bite the bullet and admit that society has a compelling interest in blocking dangerous crazy people from guns - and it ISN'T "just up to the deranged individual and their doctor/psychologist to work that matter out in full HIPAA privacy."
phx said...
You can easily say stuff like that but making an actual argument is more demanding, Marshal.
My meaning is pretty obvious. You act as if the fringe somehow infects the mainstream when it comes to the right. In this case there are dozens of nuts who believe UN troops are coming to take over America, but you conclude you're not creating FUD by overhyping them.
On the other hand banning firearms is a mainstream idea on the left and has been implmented in countries whose laws the left routinely tries to transplant here, yet you conclude anyone poining out this danger is spreading FUD.
Your idea of what constitutes FUD is completely dependent on whether you agree with the goal.
My meaning is pretty obvious.
Your meaning may be obvious but your logic is, as usual, fuzzy as hell.
You said I believed there was no one wanting to ban all guns. Not true.
You said I believed anyone who said some people wanted to ban all weapons was a conspiracy theorist. Not true.
When I asked you to show me where you got that you said only that I should get out of some bubble or other that it interfered with MY understanding.
Now your talking about conclusions that you say I reached, that I haven't reached at all.
Nowhere have I said we should ban weapons. I said I think it's a good time to debate banning some modern weaponry, in particular large-volume magazines.
Arguing with you this way, where you ignore what I say in favor of what you apparently want me to say, is extremely tiresome, Marshal. I'm going to have to restrict you to three comebacks from now on.
Now my brother Marshal can have the last word on this, because frankly I can't be bogged down in bullshit all afternoon. Up your skills and I'll argue all day with you. (Hint: that means actually reading what I post).
phx: I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I know people who want to get rid of all civilian guns.
Then there are commenters here like Jake Diamond who point to other countries, presumably Japan and England, where gun ownership is difficult to impossible.
phx: I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I know people who want to get rid of all civilian guns.
I'm sure some do creely but not that's not the mainstream anti-gun argument in the country from what I can tell.
I haven't decided what additional controls on weapons I want to see, I'm only saying it's time to have a big debate about it, in which I would mostly listen.
I don't think the laws in effect in Japan or Britain are going to fly here, but that doesn't mean we can't make some changes. In particular the big magazines need to to be justified if we're going to continue to allow them IMO.
I'm in favor of a big discussion though. I'd like to hear where it goes.
"No. Perhaps rare in other parts of the world, but not in the United States."
Hello, Norway?
Ah, as see phx is back to lying. I didn't say he wanted to ban all guns, I said he denied anyone did.
phx said...
[someone wrote] Other than confiscating all guns nationwide
[phx reply]I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, do you?
12/17/12 9:05 AM
So this was an interesting post. phx lied both his own statement and about mine. But as usual phx believes standards don't apply to him.
"No. Perhaps rare in other parts of the world, but not in the United States."
Hello, Germany?
(Several mass school shootings.)
I'm sure some do creely but not that's not the mainstream anti-gun argument in the country from what I can tell.
However, my impression, perhaps incorrect, is that it is the mainstream anti-gun sentiment.
Furthermore, like many conservatives, I don't really believe that liberals have any intention of stopping at their current argument du jour. For liberals everything is just a temporary stepping stone on the way to their progressive utopia.
For example, Obama's famous quote on single-payer healthcare:
I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
Of course, Obama reassured the nation once he was president and pushing Obamacare that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." But nobody with any sense believed that and we see already that it isn't true. My best friend is losing health care plan next year.
Everything liberals want starts small and gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
(BBC) Speaking of Britain and child massacres...
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place
David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession."
(looks like my cut and paste grabbed the call-out box, too, so the middle bit is fragmented.)
I'm in favor of a big discussion though. I'd like to hear where it goes.
When liberals speak of conversation and discussion, conservatives know that means lecturing and browbeating the rest of us until liberals get what they want.
How about a big discussion about abortion? Any liberals up for revisiting Roe v. Wade?
Ah, as see phx is back to lying. I didn't say he wanted to ban all guns, I said he denied anyone did.
Okay this is the last time I answering your chucklehead comments, because now you're calling me a liar for saying stuff I never said.
I never said that you said I wanted to ban all guns. REPEAT I never said that. Period.
Now learn how to fucking read before getting involved with arguments, stupid.
When liberals speak of conversation and discussion, conservatives know that means lecturing and browbeating the rest of us until liberals get what they want.
Yeah, well, don't pin that on me. I expect to be judged by what I do and say, now what "liberals" do and say.
However, my impression, perhaps incorrect, is that it is the mainstream anti-gun sentiment.
At the very least I thought almost everone was in favor of allowing guns, licensed or not, in the home.
Maybe he wished he had never been born and shot his mother because he blamed her for that and then maybe in his twisted mind he killed the children to save them from the miserable life that he had endured. No one will ever know. The difficulty with this is that this is a cluster of deaths so attention is directed towards it. According to the National Child Abuse hotline, 5 children die each day from child abuse and 80% of these children are 4 or younger. That's over children per year. And according to the National Child Abuse hotline, 1/3 to 2/3rds of those cases involve substance abuse. Washington and Colorado just expanded the list of substances that parents can legally abuse. Where is the cry to ban or limit access to alcohol and marijuana? In comparison, according to the CDC, 1337people between the ages of 0-17 died from firearms in 2010.
@ Marshal sorry for calling you stupid. But stop calling me a fucking liar. I NEVER deliberately lie about stuff, not to win an argument, not for any reason. I believe whatever I say, and if I'm wrong I take it back.
Stop trying to win points or defeat liberals with your superior wisdom. Just make good faith arguments or don't bother with me.
And sometimes I'm wrong. If I'm wrong just say so, don't call me a liar.
Fuck, I've been on this site, what three years? I don't think I've ever called someone a liar.
Funny how easy it is for some people to call others liars.
PHX!
Damn, you'll be sorry you just apologized to ol' Marshal. Here I was clapping and nodding my head. ;)
That's how Marshal debates, he sets up a straw man in YOUR behalf, despite you pointing out to him you never said that, then he continues to argue against the straw man HE set up for you.
At the very least I thought almost everone was in favor of allowing guns, licensed or not, in the home.
That's not my impression. People who are vocal about gun control don't like guns and don't want ordinary people to have them. They'll try to show they are reasonable by allowing licensed hunting rifles but that's about it.
For instance, in polls 27-38% of Americans support a ban on all sales of handguns, except to law enforcement officers.
So, no -- almost everyone is not in favor of allowing guns in the home. Far from it.
phx said...
You said I believed there was no one wanting to ban all guns. Not true.
and phx said...[in response to someone saying some people wanted to ban guns outright]
I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, do you?
12/17/12 9:05 AM
So what's the truth? Did you forget what you wrote? Were you hiding behind the fact that you don't personally know anyone as if that were meaningful? If I claimed not to personally know anyone who believes UN troops are coming to take over does would you agree your concern over those people was negated?
Inga said...
PHX!
Damn, you'll be sorry you just apologized to ol' Marshal. Here I was clapping and nodding my head. ;)
That's how Marshal debates, he sets up a straw man in YOUR behalf, despite you pointing out to him you never said that, then he continues to argue against the straw man HE set up for you.
Apparently the nutty left think's it's "unfair" to remember the stupid shit they've written. Is that Handmaid Tale theory ready for publication yet?
Not yet Marshal, but I'm sure you're waiting with bated breath.
See what I mean Phx? LOL!
Nowhere have I said we should ban weapons. I said I think it's a good time to debate banning some modern weaponry, in particular large-volume magazines.
I don't think it would work, but what do you propose?
Inga said...
See what I mean Phx? LOL!
It figures Inga doesn't know the difference between criticizing someone for what they did say versus what they didn't.
See what I mean Phx? LOL!
Got it Inga. He's as stupid as a bag of shite. Putting him with Jay and a couple of others who I don't address anymore.
phx said...
See what I mean Phx? LOL!
Got it Inga. He's as stupid as a bag of shite. Putting him with Jay and a couple of others who I don't address anymore.
Using insults to hide your contradiction. Original.
phx: FWIW I understood your comments as Marshal did, and I was confused by your denial.
Since misstatements and misunderstandings occur all too easily, and I try to avoid escalating the heat of a discussion, I'm careful about using the L-word, but there you have it.
phx said...
To me it says something about character to be that quick to call someone a liar.
Let's talk about character. When someone's first reaction when half the country feels we're making a mistake is to insult them in as personal a way as he can manage, is that a sign of character? Like all your standards the expectation of class is not reciprocal.
I cut people slack all the time as they try to explain what they mean. I don't play "gotcha" with anyone.
Your standard play is snide insults while pretending not to understand anyone else's point. Gotcha is your game.
phx said...
Yes. The Brady people and the Center for Handgun Violence.
Anything else?
With regard to the Brady organization I think you are spreading disinformation and FUD.
See my response to Jake.
What does FUD mean?
Post a Comment