Connecticut massacre

[Topper]

Democrats realize assault weapons ban is futile and drop it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21849814

Thanks kiddies.

[Arachnid]

Democrats realize assault weapons ban is futile and drop it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21849814

Thanks kiddies.

Thank gawd, i was worried Darwin was wrong and there wouldn't be any means for the idiots to kill each other off...

Spidey! Spidey!? Why is Topper dead? You live by the sword son....

[Arachnid]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b3 ... rel=player

Yeeee Haaaaaaa!

[Topper]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/lead-sponsor-of-federal-high-capacity-ban-was-unaware-magazines-could-be-reloaded-video/

Go Diana Go

[Per]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.



Very old pic though.

[Per]

Also related:




They should have had a kid holding a kinder egg too, imho.

[Topper]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.

Then you may be interested in their 1st Amendment comparison to the 2nd Amendment anti gun lobby.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/mass-shootings-and-public-policy

Perhaps the best way to prevent mass shootings is censorship. For example, it could be made illegal to publish any information at all about mass shooters. No names. No pictures. No probing stories about their fraught home lives. Nothing. Maybe it wouldn't work, and mass killers would nevertheless go on to achieve through their evil work the glory of infamy. Then again, maybe it would work. Shouldn't we be willing to at least consider a small abridgement of the first amendment, if doing so would save even one child from a horrific death?

The fact is, most of us would rather lose an abstract kid or two than resort to this sort of censorship. We don't like to admit that, so we tend to deny that it would work. But nobody actually knows it wouldn't work.

Less extreme forms of censorship might also help. There is some research that suggests that, on the whole, violent movies and video-games have no effect on levels of violent crime. Shoot-em-up games may even provide a peaceful outlet for some violent urges! Sure. But these general results tell us nothing at all about the forces in play in particular mass shootings.

James Holmes murdered 12 people last year in a Colorado movie theater that was playing a "Batman" film. His hair was died bright red in homage to the Joker, Batman's mass-murdering enemy. He was inspired by the Joker's terrorising carnage to commit a similar act of his own. To insist that extremely violent American entertainments had nothing to do with this is willfully obtuse. Similarly, Adam Lanza spent a huge portion of his waking hours locked in a blacked-out room playing grisly first-person shooter games. There's even some evidence that Lanza approached his attack on Sandy Hook elementary school as though it were a live-action version of one of these games. At his home police reportedly found an enormous spreadsheet documenting the details of previous mass killings. As an anonymous law-enforcement source told Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News:

“They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

I don't know if this is true, but I do know that it's plausible. Suppose it were illegal to sell and buy violent video-games in America. Would Adam Lanza have fixated on something else? Maybe. Would that have saved the 20 children he shot to death. Maybe. Would it have been worth it? Maybe.

[Arachnid]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.

Then you may be interested in their 1st Amendment comparison to the 2nd Amendment anti gun lobby.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/mass-shootings-and-public-policy

Perhaps the best way to prevent mass shootings is censorship. For example, it could be made illegal to publish any information at all about mass shooters. No names. No pictures. No probing stories about their fraught home lives. Nothing. Maybe it wouldn't work, and mass killers would nevertheless go on to achieve through their evil work the glory of infamy. Then again, maybe it would work. Shouldn't we be willing to at least consider a small abridgement of the first amendment, if doing so would save even one child from a horrific death?

The fact is, most of us would rather lose an abstract kid or two than resort to this sort of censorship. We don't like to admit that, so we tend to deny that it would work. But nobody actually knows it wouldn't work.

Less extreme forms of censorship might also help. There is some research that suggests that, on the whole, violent movies and video-games have no effect on levels of violent crime. Shoot-em-up games may even provide a peaceful outlet for some violent urges! Sure. But these general results tell us nothing at all about the forces in play in particular mass shootings.

James Holmes murdered 12 people last year in a Colorado movie theater that was playing a "Batman" film. His hair was died bright red in homage to the Joker, Batman's mass-murdering enemy. He was inspired by the Joker's terrorising carnage to commit a similar act of his own. To insist that extremely violent American entertainments had nothing to do with this is willfully obtuse. Similarly, Adam Lanza spent a huge portion of his waking hours locked in a blacked-out room playing grisly first-person shooter games. There's even some evidence that Lanza approached his attack on Sandy Hook elementary school as though it were a live-action version of one of these games. At his home police reportedly found an enormous spreadsheet documenting the details of previous mass killings. As an anonymous law-enforcement source told Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News:

“They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

I don't know if this is true, but I do know that it's plausible. Suppose it were illegal to sell and buy violent video-games in America. Would Adam Lanza have fixated on something else? Maybe. Would that have saved the 20 children he shot to death. Maybe. Would it have been worth it? Maybe.

Well that brings up the question, does Batman need the Joker or does the Joker need Batman?

We eliminate violent gun video games (and street racing) and assault weapons because we don't need them.

Seems pretty simple to me, mind, I'm simple (not gay, though)

[Arachnid]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.



Very old pic though.

Did you kill any Pinkos?

[ukcanuck]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.



Very old pic though.

Did you kill any Pinkos?

Lol can you tell by the leather strapping and canvas snow gear??

[Per]

The co-sponsor of the ban on high capacity magazines doesn't even know what a magazine is.

Well, I certainly do. The Economist and Time are two of my favourites.

Oh, wait.... The other type? Yeah, sure. That too.



Very old pic though.

Did you kill any Pinkos?

Nah, our last war ended in 1814, and I'm not quite that old. Just did 15 months of military service with the Royal Swedish Artillery right after high school, and that's when this photo was taken. Had the Russians invaded from Murmansk through Finland, I'd been right up at the front though, as a forward fire observer for an armoured regiment. Left the service with the rank of 2nd lieutenant.

Brings an old story to mind though.... Back in the Reagan days, apparently some American foreign office guy was telling some Finnish diplomat the Finns were too soft on the Russians. The Finn gave him an icy stare and said "president Koivisto has personally killed seven Russians. How many Russians did your president kill?"

[Topper]

Per, is that an M/45?

[Per]

Per, is that an M/45?

Yup. That was the standard issue weapon back when I made military service.
Surprised you recognise it, but then, I guess some US special forces used it in Nam.
That where you know it from, or do you have Swedish guns as a special interest?

[Topper]

I was intrigued by the appearance and searched it, but could only find pictures of something similar. From what I read, it was/is a very good piece of hardware.US Navy Seal preference for Asia during the 60's because of it's performance fresh out of the water however Sweden banned sales to the US in protest of the Vietnam War (something I didn't know before) so the US had S&W build a copy.

Also read a mention that most of the US destined guns had no serial numbers, suggesting to me, they were probably in Cambodia and Laos rather than Vietnam.

[Per]

Here's another Swedish bestseller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gusta ... less_rifle

Allows one man to take out a tank or a helicopter with a single shot (albeit there should preferrably be two men, so that one can reload and one aim and shoot, also means one can carry the rifle on his back and the other can carry the grenades).

Supposedly used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, but hey, it's used everywhere by everyone, so no big surprise.