Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[korun]

@Syco21

 

do you really think your country can became a new Warzone, because of ethnic problems

http://en.wikipedia....s_Angeles_riots

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1059140

 

No! i'm talking about the kind of ethnic problems which was in Serbia, Tchetchenia, somalia, it was civil war, people who killed others to take over the place, since hundred years, i'm not talking about white redneck ghost shooting black people in Alabama! even it was a tragedy, it's really not the same.

Wonder what'll happen when George Zimmerman is ultimately found not guilty by reason of justified homicide. :unsure:

what'll happen? people must get him, put him in a cave somewhere and forget is alive , this is your problem, i mean the US^^, you have people who, i'll say, are(look) normal, but carry a gun, and because a 17 years old kid unarmed told him, he was going to smash him.......the guy pull his gun and shoot, do you think that is a normal behavior for a mature/responsible man???? the most disgusting are the "friendly" people who gave money to pay the lawyers....the man wasn't right and can't in anyway carry a gun, that's Colour and many on this post try to explain. so you need to be well trained, informed/educated before get one at least.

 

or a elected président can became a tyranic dictator?

http://www.examiner....atrina-gun-grab

 

http://occupykingsto...draising-event/

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1575009.html

 

http://www.salon.com..._trial_returns/

 

http://www.salon.com.../01/27/yemen_3/

 

http://venturebeat.c.../31/obama-fisa/

 

Should I continue?

 

should i explain the difference between a country where you can't say/do nothing against your government or président ?, take your family and go leave in such a country, spend a few years there and when you'll come back, you'll see that the US are the Kingdom of Freedom, you're right in the way you must be vigilent on what's going on, but i'm pretty damn sure that Obama isn't a kind of Ceaucescu,who was a tyranic dictator, be serious^^ even if it was a Republican président :P you still have the control even it's not the control that you want, you still have a kind of.

About this: http://www.salon.com.../01/27/yemen_3/ and precisly this, if the point was: what kind of president we have if he is ready to kill US citizen, i'll say :

 

1/don't be traumatized by Bush ;)

 

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said etc. . . .

 

2/ as it said, they are no more American citizen, same all over the world, so, they became enemy of the state, don't you agree??

 

you want more freedom? what a joke! you we don't even know what to do with it .that's why they"re is rules/law, because you we can't handle your freedom by yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

it wasn't plagiary, i really mean it and it's applicable to myself (edit) , btw a good movie, this line from Nicholson, humm..except the code red, explain one of (many) Us(and others) army's purpose and why sometimes, there is difficult decision to make

 

because of your culture/roots, your response is to give firearms with training to people, who, may be and i'm pretty sure, will feel better if there is more cops instead, you know, they are trained and payed for this kind of job, you can't have 0 risk at all, if there is a shooting you will have dead people even you where there.

I wont feel safe with more police, I'll feel more threatened.

 

http://www.8newsnow....handcuffed-teen

 

http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=8820624

 

http://www.examiner....t-dog-one-month

 

http://12160.info/vi...y-on-the-ground

 

http://www.chicagono...in-hazel-crest/

 

http://www.nypost.co...g2IyzvA1HP913XI

 

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UON2C3fK28w

 

http://www.ctpost.co...ake-3894199.php

 

http://www.infowars....lled-by-police/

 

http://www.sfgate.co...man-3965953.php

 

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

 

https://www.google.c...c.1.9kU_mNyECMo

 

:unsure:

 

you are not fair, i'm sure you must find more than a thousand news in one google clic where a cop had save people because he was trained for, then, if you don't, it's probably because the press isn't fair as well the most of the time,

Zimerman is a stupid guy with a gun, who, obviously, believe to be more stronger with a 9 mm and shoot a kid----» there is also two stupid Nbc"s reporter who had edited his 911 call to make him probably more racist than he was...but still remain if the kid was a drug dealer?, a masskiller? or a good boy at the wrong place?

 

See, for the last 20 years, as soon as the elections period begin, it's all about security, N.Sarkosy win is présidential crown with it, there were murderer, rapers, robbery every where in France, "woaw", every body says "we need more safety" president candidat answer, "you will have alll the safety you need with me", then you have 30 000 cops more in the streets and nothing happen at all, 6 month before, it was the most dangerous country to live in, then the press focus on something else.

you have to much informations in your country, so much that you can't get the real one.

 

I will thank you for all the informations you provide, in fact they give , in my point of vue, all the reasons needed for a good reform of your laws :)

 

In other words, i'm still french and obviously did'nt know(understand) well your country as i believed, Ginnifyzz is right about her's, i know mine too, but untill it became like your's, i'll leave the guns and the décision on, how and when to use it, to the person in charge.

@@

Edited January 5, 2013 by korun

[sukeban]

@naomis

 

I agree with you that the "moment" is gone in the public's mind, just as right-wing politicians and the gun lobby predicted/banked on. It was large enough so that the NRA had to "say something" (even if it was idiotic), but it is no longer salient for many voters, meaning that it is no longer salient for their elected representatives either. Since the American government only seems to operate on a "crisis-to-crisis" basis with no capacity for foresight (kind of like some cretinous amoeba only able to respond to pain) and we are already on to the new crisis (Debt Ceiling)--it is already yesterday's news. In all honesty, I donated to the relief fund, but I haven't thought about it much in the last week or so either.

 

Unfortunately, there will likely be another Sandy Hook-like incident sometime down the line. This being because nothing that contributed to Sandy Hook has actually been addressed, whether that be mental health, cheap/easy access to guns, the disintegration of "community," a recessed economy, violence-as-manhood in the media, etc.

 

@colourwheel

So...ummm...only the Republicans are a shower of the old mushroom fodder then? The period between now and the next Congressional elections is the proverbial long time in politics, which gives the Republicans time to pull their heads out of their...wherever they have shoved them, and the Democrats plenty of time to make total fools of themselves - since they advocate the kind of economic policies that have sent Europe bankrupt that should be quite easy for them to do.

 

Also since those good ole rednecks (who have more brains than you credit them for)in the South will continue to vote mostly Republican, since to do otherwise would be like a turkey voting for Christmas, or indeed an English country yokel like me voting for the Labour Party (our Labour party/your Democrats are perceived as being inherently hostile to yokels/rednecks, and never more so than on outdoor pursuits issues such as hunting and shooting), you are likely wrong in assuming that there will be any great change in the makeup of Congress.

 

Republicans are Pwnd-by-Scope in terms of being a national governing party anytime soon. Their base is dying off without any hope on the horizon of replacement. Political science has this decline at about .35%/year in terms of General Election support in a "base vs. base" election like in 2004 and 2012. This comes in contrast to the growing base of the Democrats, which will add several million new voters by the time 2016 rolls around. This year was likely the tipping point in terms of Republicans (on their current platform) being competitive in a General Election. They already netted nearly 60% of the ethnic white vote, and they will need to net ever-increasing majorities of this vote until whites cease to be the majority ethnicity, estimated to be around 2040. That, simply put, will NOT happen, as there still plenty of self-described white liberals whose percentage of that white vote Republicans (as currently constituted) will never crack (myself amongst them).

 

Republicans have more than their popular vote share (they lost) in the House vis-a-vis their seat total. This is because a) districts in many competitive states were gerrymandered by the 2010-won GOP state legislative majorities and signed into law by 2010-won GOP governors and b) because the Republican vote is more "efficiently distributed" than the Democratic vote. That is intuitive, with Republicans living across broad swaths of land (many districts) versus Democrats tending to cluster in large urban cores (single districts). But, to fall back on the "there's still a GOP House so America is still even divided" trope is not really true. Were we a parliamentary system with proportional representation, Democrats would control the House, Senate, and Presidency. And from 2013 to 2016, they will take over majority control of Governorships. By 2020, they will be free to gerrymander their own districts and marginalize the GOP... potentially forever.

Edited January 5, 2013 by sukeban

[HeyYou]

Much as I dislike the republican party..... (I am not real thrilled with the dems either.....) There NEEDS to be some competition for seats in Washington. If one party or the other is fully in control, there will be no checks and balances to speak of. Said party will be able to pass whatever legislation it cares to..... and that is NOT a good scene.

[Syco21]

Anyone advocating for the Feinstein ban to pass is advocating for massive loss of life in America. No matter how you feel about armed rebellion, there WILL be one and whether it succeeds or fails, there will be a ton of blood shed.

 

 

[colourwheel]

Anyone advocating for the Feinstein ban to pass is advocating for massive loss of life in America. No matter how you feel about armed rebellion, there WILL be one and whether it succeeds or fails, there will be a ton of blood shed.

 

No matter how you feel, concidering how divided the Republican party is right now, Feinstein's legislative ban on assault weapons and other legislative proposals for gun reform might become a reality soon reguardless if you think it will cause more blood shed or not. The only politicians that are not advocating for meaningful gun reform are the conservatives. The conservatives in power are dwindling away in public favor almost weekly...

 

Public Polling strongly suggest the current Congressional Republicans in office will be taken out of the majority next election cycle. When nancy pelosi becomes the majority leader in the House again it's almost certain she will bring all the purposals up for vote reguardless if they get a single Republican vote in favor or not.

 

The only hope people who want to own assault weapons again would have is if Republicans eventaully gain power again and try to repeal the laws.

Edited January 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will die if Feinstein's ILLEGAL bill makes it into law. and for what? a kneejerk reaction to a none existent problem.

 

 

[naomis8329]

I hate to disagree with you, but whilst innocent men, women and children die at the hands of psychopaths with the ability to get their hands on guns, then there is a problem.

 

Until people stop thinking of their Constitutional Rights and start thinking about their fellow man there is a problem.

 

The needs of the many, far outway the needs of the few and no-one, I repeat no-one NEEDS a gun to live their daily lives.

[colourwheel]

thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will die if Feinstein's ILLEGAL bill makes it into law. and for what? a kneejerk reaction to a none existent problem.

 

Evidence strongly suggest licenced gun ownership is gradually declining as years go by in the U.S.A. Although gun sales might be up and ownership is up the rate of ownership is slowing down, It just means existing licenced gun owners are just buying more guns. I fail to see how hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will die, Unless you are suggesting all gun owners will all of a sudden go out on a rampant shooting massacre just because law makers made assault weapons Illegal for the general public to own.

Edited January 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

@Naomi: your communist argument, though you may not realize it, is in direct suppoRt of less gun control. guns are used anywhere from 15 to 50 times more for self defense than they are for murder. needs of the many, indeed.

 

 

 

 

@Color wheel: there ate still over 100,000,000 gun owners in America. of only 1% rebel against the law, that's still more than 1,000,000. if they are the only ones that die, that's still more than 120 years worth of gun murders. But hey, let's not let a trial matter such as the lives ofgun owners get in the way of a good knee jerk.

 

 

[naomis8329]

I'm not a communist and I look out for my fellow man. I'm an idealist a pragmatist and hopefully one who will live to see the day when there will be no more Sandy Hooks or Dunblaines.