An armed society is a polite society

[beandip]

Once you can wrap your head around the simple idea that Lanza killed people and the gun was just the "tool" then you can begin to have an honest, legitimate discussion as to what the possible solution to this problem might be.

Until then, go here...

www.dailykos.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
or www.rededit.com

....and continue the circle jerk. A bigger spoon makes me more fat than a smaller spoon.

[GroobySteven]

Once you can wrap your head around the simple idea that Lanza killed people and the gun was just the "tool" then you can begin to have an honest, legitimate discussion as to what the possible solution to this problem might be.

Until then, go here...

www.dailykos.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
or www.rededit.com

....and continue the circle jerk. A bigger spoon makes me more fat than a smaller spoon.

Wrap your head around this one, Beandipshit. This isn't a board for your politics and vileness. I'm using my rights. Get the fuck out of here.

[Stavros]

Once you can wrap your head around the simple idea that Lanza killed people and the gun was just the "tool" then you can begin to have an honest, legitimate discussion as to what the possible solution to this problem might be.

....and continue the circle jerk. A bigger spoon makes me more fat than a smaller spoon.

If Lanza was indeed affected by medication, paranoia, or something psychological, but had no 'tools' other than his bare hands, would he even have gone to the school? Hypothetically, he could have strangled his mother to death if that was his first mission, but how would he have killed children and teachers with only his bare hands?

To assume that the guns were 'merely tools' when intimidation and destruction is what they were made for, and used for; it was those guns that enabled the disturbed individual to kill -much as the virtual killing in an online or video game, but to accept this is to move into the territory you conistently avoid precisely because you are more interested in your definition of the relationship between guns and freedom than any rival argument, which you dismiss rather than discuss.

For example, if there is consistent evidence that people who go berserk with guns are also undergoing medical treatment, then they ought not to have access to weapons; in this particular case, the mother's arsenal should have been taken away -indeed, she herself ought to have removed them from the house or from her son's grasp. We don't know enough about their relationship to comment further, but there are alternatives, in addition to which is the justification, if it exists, for a US citizen to own an assault weapon most commonly used in a theatre of war.

It is not chop sticks or spoons that make you fat, it is what you eat, how often you eat it, in what volume, and so on. I would have thought that was obvious. And you can eat Burgers, fries and chocolate with your bare hands...

[beandip]

Jeez, it's perfectly OK for Oblabla, Hitlery Clintoon and Eric Hold-up to run "assault weapons" across the border to Messico where dozens of Messicans were murdered with our taxpayer bought gunz. Oh, and actually I believe now the count is 3 US LEO's killed by Oblabla's gun running.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...-queen-killed/


Crickets...... I hear crickets...

Such hypocrites here.

See ya....wouldn't want to be ya. Remember, it's 2012 and we voted out the hate!

Bu-Bye!

[trish]

Once you can wrap your head around the simple idea that Lanza killed people and the gun was just the "tool" then you can begin to have an honest, legitimate discussion as to what the possible solution to this problem might be.

Not so hard to wrap one's head around that one. The semiautomatic was the tool. A very efficient tool. Designed explicitly for the purpose of killing people. It's a tool that should be controlled. Not everyone is allowed to drive an eighteen wheeler, and very few schools allow you to drive one through the halls. Call me daft, but probably not everyone should be allowed to buy a semiautomatic weapon, and businesses and institutions should be allowed to ban them from the their hallways. If it's not required for your profession, dangerous tools (like guns, dynamite, grenades, missiles etc.) should be regulated and strictly controlled.

[trish]

I'm quite willing to think of a firearm as a tool. It seems to me that it's the gun enthusiasts who ascribe to firearms a more a mystical, symbolic iconography. To them, guns are worshipful icons of American Freedom. The merest restriction on their use and acquisition is seen as an intolerable abrogation of freedom. But they're just tools. Nothing more. Some of them designed for shooting game. Some of them designed for target and sport shooting. Some of them designed to kill people, multiply, quickly and easily. All guns are dangerous, and should be regulated in ways commensurate with the danger they present. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are probably the most dangerous of firearms and should be highly regulated.

I've been thinking that firing mechanisms could be designed with a built in chip. Remove the chip and the gun won't fire. If the gun is in range of a certain radio signal, the signal prevents the gun from being fired. Schools, Churches, businesses etc. could broadcast the "disarm-signal" throughout their premises. All firearms could eventually (that's a long time) be replaced with ones that have this technology.

[trish]

Currently in the U.S., guns pose no liability risks. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer for a malfunction that injured or killed someone. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer if his product was used in a murder. You cannot sue someone for selling a gun to a murderer. The cost of your health insurance doesn't reflect whether you own or your neighbor owns an assault weapon. It's about time manufacturers and enthusiast take responsibility for their product. We should hold owners responsible when their weapons (stolen, loaned or borrowed) are used to take a life (accidentally or deliberately).

[Odelay]

I'm quite willing to think of a firearm as a tool. It seems to me that it's the gun enthusiasts who ascribe to firearms a more a mystical, symbolic iconography. To them, guns are worshipful icons -

Let me stop your right there, Trish. You're not quite hitting the mark on what firearms are to them. For guys, it's an extension of their penis. For girls, it's the penis they've never had.

Beandip and other delicate flowers will probably emerge to tell us this is liberal claptrap, but this is not something liberals dreamed up, it's how they see themselves and their weapons and how they identify it in print and picture. This pic is from a gun manufacturer and spread around proudly from right wing site to right wing site...



Kinda reminds me how offended the tea partiers are today when you refer to them as teabaggers. Hey, liberals didn't dream up that term. They referred to themselves as teabaggers and wanted others to call them teabaggers.

[trish]

I stand, crossed-legged, and corrected at the thought of Big Govm't taking away my penis. Thanks Odelay.

[Ben]

Conservative writer David Frum...

Every Day is the Day to Talk About Gun Control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-control.html