DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:...Well, we haven't heard of any Rastafarian terrorists, yet, but still......

They be workin on it Mon but dese tings take time dontcha know...****cough****cough***

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Does it really make sense to grow bureaucracy every time something goes wrong (or in this case, someone screws up)?

It depends.

Is this an issue of poor enforcement, or lax laws?

[ Personally, I think it might be both. For example, at my current workplace, I received an "interim" security clearance before the full background investigation was done, but I think the interim clearance still required a lesser check. ]

I would think that's obvious. I said "every time". I think people are starting to become numb to it because it's such a regular occurrence. That's why I pose the question. The answer is "no it doesn't make sense to grow a bureaucracy every time something goes wrong", and yet that seems to be the answer most often in government. Perhaps because it's easier to make administrative changes or additions in hope, rather than roll your sleeves up and deal with a problem the hard way. I've encountered this recently at my workplace.

You know why bureaucracies form and tend to grow? Obvious. Because it makes it easier for people to pass the buck and not take personal responsibility.

Foil wrote:

woodchip wrote:I wonder Foil, seeing as how all the latest mass shooters including the Navel Shipyard shooter, were addicted to violent video games, would you also agree that background checks should be done before anyone could purchase such a game?

The game connection appears to be a symptom, not a cause, so no.

I disagree. Unless you want to accept the fact that the shootings themselves are merely symptomatic also and guns really had nothing to do with the killings. As I see it the games may in fact be a triggering mechanism that inculcates in a player with a already diseased mind, that killing people is acceptable and a means to achieve something. The fact that all the recent mass shooters played these types of games seems to be a recurring link. If, as the leftist want, more in the way of background checks for people buying firearms then I say the same should be applied for violent video games that use lifelike humans as targets. After all, in the end it is all about saving the children.

I think the game connection is merely this: a thirty something year old man, who has little social life and locks himself away playing video games has issues. This guy had serious issues, or so it seems. Yet, despite these known issues, 8 incidents in the service, a couple of violent incidents in the civilian world, Texas gave him a carry permit. Hmmmm. And, whether or not that permit relates to the weapon he used in this crime(seemingly a shotgun, and a handgun, from early reports) is irrelevent to my point.

Lets just say this…the games aren’t helping things any.

It wasn't just Texas giving him a permit, they had little if any data on his past.
The Navy had tons of data on him that was bad and gave him a security clearance within a week or two of treating him for hearing voices in his head.

And government wants more authority?

There should be a moratorium on additional authority in light of how completely inept they have excercized the authority they already have until they show a substantial improvement in the way they operate!

If authority was a gun they have been shooting us all in the feet and are asking for bigger guns as a solution!

good idea, Will, let's make the laws and regulations MORE LAX because of errors(largely due to underfunding, and Congressional DEFUNDING, when one actually studies the issue) within the current system. Sounds safe to me, what possibly could go wrong?

callmeslick wrote:good idea, Will, let's make the laws and regulations MORE LAX because of errors(largely due to underfunding, and Congressional DEFUNDING, when one actually studies the issue) within the current system. Sounds safe to me, what possibly could go wrong?

Slick, you must have had your knee jerk reaction so violent it came right up into your head and knocked you senseless because I didn't say anything about decreasing regulation or relaxing law....did I?

The government wants more of what it can't seem to manage properly. Why give them more. Look up the word "more" before your knee jerks again please.

Bush gave us NSA snooping...Obama greatly increased their freedom to invade our freeoms...Was more wise? I think not.

Some looney tunes takes time out from his psychosis, being treated by the government, to apply for a job with the same government, and they give him clearance to a facility that he immediately goes and shoots up, killing many people. He used a shotgun. Just like Joe Biden suggested was all any one needs to own legally. The lefties immediately jumped in front of cameras with the speed and self importance of Jesse Jackson to cry out that we need to get rid of these AR-15's...
He didn't use an AR-15. Is that the best the government can do?!? Misrepresent the problem and go the wrong direction?

Last night, in the new Murder Capital of the U.S., Chicago. 13 people shot. "...Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said it was a "miracle" no one was killed when someone opened fire with a high-powered rifle at a pick-up basketball game in the Back of the Yards, and he renewed his call for a ban on assault weapons.

"A military-grade weapon on the streets of Chicago is simply unacceptable," McCarthy told a news conference this morning, 12 hours after a 3-year-old boy and 12 other people were shot during at Cornell Square Park.

"It's a miracle there has been no fatality," he said. "Illegal guns. Illegal guns. Illegal guns drive violence."

He is making perfect sense right up until the end (in bold, emphasis mine) where he completely misstates the reality trying to cram it into the template of the anti-gun agenda.
Illegal guns, nor any kind of gun, "drives violence"!

I'm not suggesting reducing the regulation or relaxing the laws regarding those shooters but don't tell me the guns made him do it! Don't stir the people up and then set a straw man goal up that wont solve the problem but gives you posturing points in the political arena.
Is that the best the government can do?!?

They don't know how to handle the authority we gave them. Or worse, they don't care if they misuse it. They have contempt for us that shows in the blatant way they turn every moment into a political rhetorical device to serve which ever party they work for.
And that is the crux of the problem. These selfish ideologues work for their Party instead of the citizens.

callmeslick wrote:...have we now seen the first Buddist [sic] terror suspect?

Sure why not? Even though I studied Buddhism for several years and find some of the practices helpful it's just as rotten and useless as any other religion. All the hippies try to elevate Buddhism above the other religions (I am guilty of doing this too, because it is a bit complicated), but we can clearly see Buddhists engaging in genocide against Muslims in South Asia. Of course, it doesn't appear the shooting was done in the name of Buddha, so that is a big difference. Religious devotion can wreak havoc on the mentally ill or mentally challenged, making them tools for others or simply inflating them with a heavily distorted sense of good & evil.

When I look at this story I see the focus should be on rooting out hidden mental illness rather than gun control. Same deal with the kindergarten shooting, Columbine, all of them.


Hey Will, you are right about the "drives violence" part. He should have said "exacerbates violence" and/or "drives statistics on violence."

vision wrote: ..


Hey Will, you are right about the "drives violence" part. He should have said "exacerbates violence" and/or "drives statistics on violence."

I don't buy the exacerbates part. The stats, definitely easier to rack up kills with a gun over a knife but what drives and/or exacerbates is happening between peoples ears, not in the hardware choices they make or have available to them.
Russia is a prime example, they have just as much murder as we do but they do it much more often with clubs and bricks and knives etc. than we do.
Those crazies, and those thugs, would take all of one day to adjust their armament to deal with a magical disappearance of guns from the world. You wouldn't see much of a drop at all in their targeted victim body count, only in the bystander count, and even that probably not as much as you might think because thugs are part time, voluntarily crazy too.

yeah, everyone knows how frequent those random clubbings and stabbings of bystanders occur, right? Please, Will, rejoin reality. Are you suggesting that gangsters armed with, say, baseball bats and knives would be taking out 10 innocents to get to one target victim? Really?

callmeslick wrote:yeah, everyone knows how frequent those random clubbings and stabbings of bystanders occur, right? Please, Will, rejoin reality. Are you suggesting that gangsters armed with, say, baseball bats and knives would be taking out 10 innocents to get to one target victim? Really?

No slick, I am not saying that. What real world stats are using to come up with that line of BS? Or did you just completely pull it out of your ass like you usually do?

As I recall, most shooters we hear about hit there intended victim most of the time and sometimes hit a bystander. That ratio is a complete opposite of what you imply.
What I suggest is without guns, and everything else left as it is, you would quickly see the intended targets getting killed by other than guns at almost the same rate and where you might expect the innocent bystander count to go down to nothing you would see some victims still being killed or hit because the thugs are part time crazy. Ever stumble onto a crime in progress and have one of the punks look at you and ask 'What are you looking at?!?"....

in Chicago, this year, the stats I saw a while back indicated that over 80% of the shooting victims WERE NOT the indended targets. And, to use your scenario, such a reprisal attack('what are you looking at, etc') would be sort of difficult, unless you had perpetrators running up and down the streets, in plain view, risking immediate arrest(Chicago does have a large police force, in case you weren't aware), chasing secondary targets with their clubs and knives, as such targets would likely flee immediately. Face it, Will, you are NEVER going to be able to make a rational equation of knife and club violence with a random drive-by shooting aimed at a solitary target on a city street. And that sort of scenario IS THE PROBLEM, and yes, GUNS create that problem, by their mere availability.

so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

So all of a sudden they are all drive by shootings?!

Stop making stuff up. I'm talking about the real world.

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

I guess slick you never heard the term "★■◆● Knocking"

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

So all of a sudden they are all drive by shootings?!

Stop making stuff up. I'm talking about the real world.

drive bys, playground shootings, corner to corner gunfire, all pretty much the same. How does on do these types of mass violence with a knife or club?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

I guess slick you never heard the term "★■◆● Knocking"

no, I guess I haven't.....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

So all of a sudden they are all drive by shootings?!

Stop making stuff up. I'm talking about the real world.

drive bys, playground shootings, corner to corner gunfire, all pretty much the same. How does on do these types of mass violence with a knife or club?

I already gave you a real world example. A similar society where the difference is fewer guns. The murder rates are similar yet the tool used is different. Americans use guns more often and Russians use other weapons more often. The victims still die at the same rate.

And come on slick! 'How would a bunch of thugs walk across a street and club the 'offending' members of the other group?'
Oh my god you are right! The traffic lights and crosswalk paint would totally confuse them!

Get real for a change and quit dodging the facts.

As I said, there would be fewer onlookers hurt, no stray baseball bats coming through the bedroom windows hitting the sleeping occupant....other than that the living-with-thugs life would continue as usual.
Well, one other thing would change if guns magically disappeared, the Dems would have to find a new scapegoat to blame for the suffering their constituents create for themselves with their violent behavior.

The problem is the life altering choices the bad guys make not just their preferred hardware choice.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, Will, please describe for me how a drive-by clubbing works(or drive-by knifing), because I'm really unclear on the process involved.

I guess slick you never heard the term "★■◆● Knocking"

no, I guess I haven't.....

The lack of learning when one grows up privileged.