Kalamazoo, Michigan: Six shot dead in 'random' attacks

[LtDave32]

*Mod Note*

Anyone else who cannot respond to posts here without telling other forum members to "GFYS" can earn a small vacation themselves. It's easier than receiving faxes of offers for trips to Cancun.

Keep it civil, people.

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

Glws?

 

[LtDave32]

Glws?

You're feelin' the oats today, aren't 'cha?

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

little bit yeah

snow's melted and it's warming up, the aches of winter are diminishing, etc.

good time of year

 

[Roberteaux]

Rob, I just re-read all of my posts in this thread to try and figure out why you seem to think I'm attacking you...

Perhaps you should have re-read my posts instead of your own. I explained more than once what I found objectionable about your stance.

But for you, here it is-- all over again:

I posted to suggest that this group you said you mean to support was not exactly a group that I found to be incredibly objective. I was not rude or impolite as I spoke to you, and the only trace of snarkiness I had to offer was to ask if they ever posted anything to support the 2nd Amendment, then speculated that they did not.

So then you quoted me, and here's part of your response:

This is exactly what freaks me out. A bunch of mothers whose children were murdered get together to talk about changing the system, and just because I'm willing to listen to them, I'm painted as a "gun grabber".

Now, try to dial into this:

1. the word "exactly" indicated that my statement "freaks you out", with the second phrase indicating a sense of outrage by connotation. You had been mistreated, you were saying, and it was evil ol' Roberteaux who done put the whammy on you.

This is why I told you to can the histrionics-- wasn't nothin' freaking you out anyway, and you're not some victim at all.

Your gambit was as follows: by being a "victim" you think you have a way to invalidate those who are philosophically opposed to you. The imputation is generally that you would be a misunderstood altruist and voice of reason, while those who opposed your philosophies are ignorant brutes.

2. You then went on to imply that my response to you was tantamount to having called you a "gun grabber", whereas I never said any such thing. For putting words into my mouth like that, you forced a response, as I am not about to have you attempting to misrepresent me, ever.

And that's about as simple as I can make it. I said one hell of a lot more than just that to you, but I'm not about to recreate it since I'm sure you simply "wouldn't understand" once again.

As far as I can tell, I never did either of those things, but I'm sincerely trying to see how someone might get that impression. I don't see it.

Meh.

I think you have me confused for someone else.

Oh, trust me: I know who you are. Though I don't generally speak to you, in fact I've been reading you all along.

As for what I consider "reasonable" legislation:

I support background checks for all firearms sales. ALL of 'em. Public and private.

I also think that you should be required to show a hunting licence to purchase a hunting rifle, and a handgun permit to buy a handgun.

Licence? You must be British.

First, what is a "hunting rifle", exactly? And what if one likes to shoot "hunting rifles", but doesn't actually hunt? There are millions of such firearms owners, you know. I am one of them. Is it that you don't think there is any legitimate reason to own a firearm other than to hunt?

And do you think that criminals who are not yet of record would not purchase a "hunting licence" along the way just to get their hands on a firearm?

As for background checks: while I am no opponent of background checks conducted to a reasonable point, I can see various problems rising with the implementation of the private sales checks. A much bigger problem, however, is that we've now experienced terrorist attacks in the USA where the shooters actually procured their firearms legally, even after being subjected to a background check. What you propose really only inconveniences those who are not hell bent to commit violent crimes.

Another problem: the guys who are most typically using firearms in an unlawful manner generally just got them from other guys who either stole them or bought them from somebody else who ripped 'em off. Right now, this is what's in the papers in New Orleans:

The New Orleans Gun Pipeline: Stolen weapons fuel street violence | NOLA.com

So I'm not so sure about costing people extra money with hunting licenses they don't use. I think that the inconvenience of a background check for private sales could be dealt with easily enough, but I'm not certain what difference that would really make when it comes to the violent crime picture.

I tend to suspect that it wouldn't have much effect at all, really.

The liability insurance thing is just another way to drive costs up. But I do not see where it should be that people who cannot afford all these extra costs you are thinking of should be deprived of the right to have a firearm. In fact, that sounds rather elitist to my way of thinking.

Your statement...

Utilizing a free market mechanism to mitigate the destructive potential of firearms feels so damned American.

...actually seems more like corporate logic than anything having to do with the freedom of our citizens to own firearms. You really are an elitist, aren't you? Got that white knight going and all this.

The fact that you just continue to ignore the reality that innocent lives are saved by firearms, and that it isn't at all uncommon for this to take place, also says a bit about you. I find it interesting, to think that some refuse to consider some of the would-be crime victims who were able to defend themselves with firearms, many of whom have been single women, sometimes with children, and elderly residents of our country.

But they don't matter at all, do they?

Hah! And then you go on to complain that everyone else is so polarized?

As for a bunch of local deputies racking their shotguns outside someone's door to serve a warrant... Nice imagery.

Oh, you're too easy!

Look: you are the one who invoked the imagery before I did, in another thread, with your absurd comment regarding certain tendencies involving shotguns. Go scold yourself instead, and incidentally: if you can talk about a matter, then so can I. You don't have special privileges here.

And in reality, I have indeed been involved in such activities as I indicated-- shotgun and all-- and therefore I feature an abundance of experience in an area that you simply haven't dealt with. Despite your implied invalidation of me as some dumbass local yokel, in reality I've noticed that bullets can kill anybody they touch. Doesn't matter if it's a president down to a street sweeper. So it doesn't matter if I was local or with the feds or military, or what. I sure as hell have done a lot more in my life to deal with violent crime than you ever have, even if I worked in Mayberry.

Honestly, your attitude shines through in every post. I can't believe that you think it's transparent. For instance, here's what you had to say about legitimate citizens defending themselves with firearms:

Do you really expect a group of mother's whose children were murdered by an unsecured weapon to post stories about how good guys with guns saved the day?

I expect objectivity out of everyone, and if they're not objective I tend to not trust them. And you continue to ignore that there are parents of slain victims who support the 2nd Amendment. In fact, you've done that all along-- ignoring everybody who doesn't agree with your perspective.

By speaking of "good guys with guns" saving the day, you attempted to invalidate those citizens who have defended themselves with firearms by invoking a certain type of imagery. But your attempt amounts to nothing.

To defend one's life is not a question of being a "good guy" like in some hackneyed cowboy or cop movie. It is a question of not being killed, injured, robbed, terrorized, and so forth.

And it happens in real life, a lot.

--R

 

[PraXis]

Remember all the new slaughters after Texas just legalized open carry?

 

[Roberteaux]

One more stinking law isn't going to make anyone any safer. I can't understand why a very substantive part of the population cannot get that. Criminals don't stop to think that buying or stealing a gun is illegal, and that they aren't supposed to own one. Ridiculous.

I gave you a "like" for this post, because I agree with what you're saying in its general substance.

But, in reality laws can indeed make a difference. It's just not the case that such laws will be those concerning registration, background checks, and all that.

In my state, we have a very strong set of laws against firearms violence. It's called the 10-20-Life law, and what we do here is to provide mandatory minimum sentencing for firearms crimes of all types.

We watched our crime rate of firearms crimes go down by almost fifty percent in just a few years after enacting those laws. The reason is that the guys who tend to use firearms to commit crimes with are usually recidivists to begin with, and that just a few such individuals can represent a seeming crime wave in and of themselves.

So, we smack them down hard at sentencing time, and because we keep them on ice for a very long time, the crime rate goes down.

Of course, this hasn't eliminated violent crime. We've still got it, and we'll probably always have it. But at least it's not like in Chicago, where a virtual revolving door seems to exist and the same guys seem to go back out there and do all the same stuff until they're finally busted once and for all. A lot of people suffer before that happens, though, as our criminal justice system still depends on truth beyond any reasonable doubt as its evidential standard.

There are other facets of the system, including fiscal concerns, that affect the question of crime curtailment, but to get into all that would call for another really long post. Maybe I'll parcel it out somehow, but this topic entails a far greater number of factors than just the social question with regard to curtailment of violent crime.

But it seems that mandatory minimum sentencing involving heavy timeouts for offenders puts a much bigger dent in violent crime than most of the other measures under consideration.

--R

 

[Roberteaux]

Today the militia is called the National Guard. That's my opinion. I believe that firearms are required for national defense purposes, which is why in the 2A, the word "militia" occurs before the words "right" and "arms"...

You can argue these definitions all night, but what you are construing as being the intent of the framers of the US Constitution is wrong.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
-- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
--Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
--Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

It helps to actually read the private papers and correspondence of the founding fathers, if one really wishes to know where they were coming from.

--R

 

[JayFreddy]

You can argue these definitions all night, but what you are construing as being the intent of the framers of the US Constitution is wrong.

Fair enough. I think you're wrong. The constitution was not intended as an inflexible document, it was intended to grow over time. That's my opinion. There are a lot of other people who share my opinion, and there are many who share yours. That's why we vote.

When the constitution was written, the definition of a "free man" was a property owning white male. Only " free men" were allowed to vote. No women, no blacks, no Asians, no Hispanics, and no one who didn't own property. Times have changed, that's for sure.

FWIW, Another horror show in the news tonight. This time three cops were shot, one fatally. And it was NOT in a "gun free zone".

Rookie police officer killed on first day, two others shot in Virginia | Reuters

 

[Roberteaux]

Knife-Wielding Thug Invades Home of Neighborhood ‘Defender’ and Learns the Hard Way How Fitting That Description Is | Video | TheBlaze.com

Tampa clerk fires back, killing gunman; police searching for 2nd suspect | WFLA.com

Homeowner shoots, kills attempted burglary suspect in Ontario, police say | abc7.com

Valet with gun stopped attack on GM worker

Police: Man shot, killed by woman inside El Mirage home; children were inside home during shooting - ABC15 Arizona


I could post 64 more of these stories and they're all current as of about January. But rather than gunk up the board further, I'll just post a good source to find such stories as these.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

My point for presenting this is to again point out those who are almost never mentioned, but who are as legitimate a group of citizens as any other: citizens who defended themselves lawfully by means of firearms. Not taking them into account is basically to present an thesis that isn't fully valid, unless one wishes to discount the value of their lives as individuals. And that's why those who wish to debate anti the 2nd Amendment hate to talk about them, and refuse to acknowledge that such persons do in fact exist, and they're by no means scarce.

***************​

I already posted this link, but here it is again. It is a USDOJ report on firearms violence from the years of 2003-2011:

If the US Department of Justice is to be believed, there have been many thousands of incidents in which legitimate citizens used firearms to defend themselves with effectively, and in a lawful manner.

Never did see anybody do a news story on that report, except maybe the NRA.

And while I'm at it: the NRA has proposed various stratagems to bring firearms crime rates down even further. The fact that we're at a forty year low, despite the fact that weapons are more commonly in circulation than ever, does not tend to indicate that "nothing is being done" about any of it, or that a major increase in firearms ownership is automatically going to increase the rate of firearms violence in the US.

After Sandy Hook, the NRA waited a decent amount of time before commenting on the tragedy, as is their policy. Unlike other media outlets, which seek to sensationalize such stories beyond the point of merely informing the public, the NRA does not like to exploit human tragedies.

Their proposal was simply to increase the presence of security, including armed security, at schools. And IIRC, the hue and cry was tremendous as those who dislike the National Rifle Association shrilly decried those implementations.

Of course, once all that died down, Sandy Hook introduced armed security into the school, doing just what that naughty NRA suggested they do.

In the county I live in, we've had armed security in the form of law enforcement officers who work in a unit with the specific mission of protecting the schools since about the 1990's, and nobody batted an eye when they came in with the program. Frankly, we were confused as to why everybody else was hollering about the idea so negatively after Sandy Hook. If you have an armed attacker and nobody else is armed, who could expect anything but a slaughter?

I can provide links to the really noisy outrage, if anybody really wants to see the stories themselves. But sho' 'nuff, they've got armed guards at Sandy Hook these days. Why they don't actually have cops in there the way we do is probably due either fiscal considerations or perhaps another set of considerations of a different sort.

--R

 

[JayFreddy]

Their proposal was simply to increase the presence of security, including armed security, at schools. And IIRC, the hue and cry was tremendous as those who dislike the National Rifle Association shrilly decried those implementations.

From the teachers I've spoken with, including one who is from Sandy Hook, bringing firearms into a first grade classroom, even for defensive purposes, isn't what they consider a very good idea.

At least it's a suggestion.

How could that tragedy have been prevented? I honestly don't know. I still think it's worth talking about... But probably not here.

BTW, http://www.wired.com/2014/11/new-sandy-hook-elementary-school-invisible-security/

 

[45WinMag]

When you are presented with concrete evidence of the founders' intent in the framing of the Constitution, in the form of their own writings which explain in detail their opinions and even clearly define terms which are frequently (and often intentionally) misconstrued, simply declare that the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean ("living document") and not what the words actually mean (or what the people who created it say that it means). If that doesn't work, assail the document's moral authority by crying racism/sexism.

 

[Deus Vult]

Muh feelz

 

[PraXis]

From the teachers I've spoken with, including one who is from Sandy Hook, bringing firearms into a first grade classroom, even for defensive purposes, isn't what they consider a very good idea.

At least it's a suggestion.

How could that tragedy have been prevented? I honestly don't know. I still think it's worth talking about... But probably not here.

BTW, The New Sandy Hook Elementary School Is All About Invisible Security | WIRED

You don't have to arm teachers. Nothing is going to guarantee your safety, but even the occasional police presence at a gun free zone (e.g. cops sitting in their car eating lunch in the school parking lot randomly) will make a psycho choose an easier target.

 

[Roberteaux]

Fair enough. I think you're wrong. The constitution was not intended as an inflexible document, it was intended to grow over time. That's my opinion. There are a lot of other people who share my opinion, and there are many who share yours. That's why we vote.

I don't even know what your opinion really is, mainly because you've been seemingly dissimulative all along. All I've really seen so far is that you like to post a lot of negatively charged news stories of tragedies, and that your generalized sentiments tend to run towards the idea of curtailment of firearms ownership. You pay lip service to the idea of self defense-- got you a shotgun and all-- but nonetheless I think that your ideas are more prone towards restriction than anything else.

And your vote is not really going to save you from the sort of social instability we may experience in the future, should it come to pass that something a bit overzealous is passed, law-wise. We've already got all kinds of extremists in our society on top of the run of the mill rapists, robbers, and murderers, and these extremists are actually motivated enough to be doing really stupid **** with guns already. Don't say it can't happen again, because it has been happening all along.

As for the Constitution: the flexibility of the document has been what accounted for changes to make society more libertine-- not to make it more restrictive. I would submit that further incursions into the area of civil rights of this sort might prove to be counterproductive, and that the result of too much tinkering would create yet more social instability.

The Bill of Rights is up front because the founding fathers felt that they should explicitly enumerate those civil rights which they felt would be most important to preserve. I can't seem to find the quotes, but more than one of them fretted that civil rights might be eroded by the complacence of the citizens themselves, hence the preeminent position of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. I already posted quotes wherein our greater statesmen to told us that we should be vigilant about our civil rights. And so some of us are. This is a responsible approach to the government as a citizen.

Meanwhile, the rate of firearms crime has gone down for several years in a row. Why do you suppose that restrictions that probably will not affect the violent crime stats significantly are in order, when the types of crimes you seem to want to post stories about are actually down per capita and are largely unpredictable to begin with? Who are you protecting here?

When the constitution was written, the definition of a "free man" was a property owning white male. Only " free men" were allowed to vote. No women, no blacks, no Asians, no Hispanics, and no one who didn't own property. Times have changed, that's for sure.

Yes, times are more in keeping with egalitarianism than ever. As I said, the document has never been noted for restricting the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. However, there are now those who wish to completely repeal the 2nd Amendment-- including highly placed government officials and elected representatives-- and they are not exactly being greeted with enthusiasm... and that's to the tune of millions of other people. I don't think that continuing to monkey around with the rights of US citizens is going to be an experiment that will turn out all that well.

I understand that you are not saying that you are such a person as who wishes to go so far with such a curtailment as a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment. You had your thing about hiding with a shotgun back there somewhere, I saw.

But honestly, I'm not really sure where you're coming from because many of your posts smack of disingenuousness. And mainly, your actions tend to indicate a person who wishes to demonstrate against the 2nd Amendment, rather than to address the subject of firearms violence objectively.

FWIW, Another horror show in the news tonight. This time three cops were shot, one fatally. And it was NOT in a "gun free zone".

Rookie police officer killed on first day, two others shot in Virginia | Reuters

Yes, thank you. I'm sure that we wouldn't have noticed that without you.

--R

 

[twst1up]

It's all why I Don't

 

[JayFreddy]

Prep much Rob? Sounds like you're well prepared for the apocalypse. Good luck with that.

You keep referencing comments or posts I've made in other threads. I wish you had called me on them at the time, because I have a hard time following all of these alleged affronts to your sensibilities.

It's painfully obvious that we disagree on many levels. I'm not here to make enemies, but I'm not going to suck up to you either.

You definitely have a talent for words, and far more free time than I do.

 

[JayFreddy]

I'll point something else out.

Let's say "round up all the guns".

Okay, guns gone. Environment sterilized. Mission accomplished.

Classic straw-man.

I've never advocated banning guns, although several people in this thread seem to "suspect" that's my hidden agenda.

If you're not listening to what I actually say, there's no reason for me to say anything.

I'm disappointed how this thread turned out, but I can truthfully say I learned a few things...

 

[Mark V Guitars]

I gave you a "like" for this post, because I agree with what you're saying in its general substance.

But, in reality laws can indeed make a difference. It's just not the case that such laws will be those concerning registration, background checks, and all that.

In my state, we have a very strong set of laws against firearms violence. It's called the 10-20-Life law, and what we do here is to provide mandatory minimum sentencing for firearms crimes of all types.

We watched our crime rate of firearms crimes go down by almost fifty percent in just a few years after enacting those laws. The reason is that the guys who tend to use firearms to commit crimes with are usually recidivists to begin with, and that just a few such individuals can represent a seeming crime wave in and of themselves.

So, we smack them down hard at sentencing time, and because we keep them on ice for a very long time, the crime rate goes down.

Of course, this hasn't eliminated violent crime. We've still got it, and we'll probably always have it. But at least it's not like in Chicago, where a virtual revolving door seems to exist and the same guys seem to go back out there and do all the same stuff until they're finally busted once and for all. A lot of people suffer before that happens, though, as our criminal justice system still depends on truth beyond any reasonable doubt as its evidential standard.

There are other facets of the system, including fiscal concerns, that affect the question of crime curtailment, but to get into all that would call for another really long post. Maybe I'll parcel it out somehow, but this topic entails a far greater number of factors than just the social question with regard to curtailment of violent crime.

But it seems that mandatory minimum sentencing involving heavy timeouts for offenders puts a much bigger dent in violent crime than most of the other measures under consideration.

--R

Damn. I didn't expect to get a post like with conditions attached.

But to clarify...I was not referring to laws against crimes. I was referring more to additional laws enacted simply to make it more difficult to purchase and own guns and ammo. I also agree with a point you made about the proposed gun owner insurance simply being elitist in nature, essentially preventing those with limited means from being able to afford a simple self defense handgun.

I'm pissed at the whole elitist, snobbish mentality we see in elected officials who pack heat themselves, or hire armed bodyguards at taxpayer expense.

We are now seeing what I believe to be the end of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, with suggestions and proposals again, by elected officials, who want to make it legal and easier to alter the meaning of this historical document, to "update it to be in line with today's societal landscape," as I recall one idiot put it.

I'm out. Night.

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

We are now seeing what I believe to be the end of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, with suggestions and proposals again, by elected officials, who want to make it legal and easier to alter the meaning of this historical document, to "update it to be in line with today's societal landscape," as I recall one idiot put it.

that'd be a good way to start another Civil War.

Prep much Rob? Sounds like you're well prepared for the apocalypse. Good luck with that.

I don't understand this comment or it's inclusion in the discussion.

Is there something wrong with being prepared? Having some food in storage?

Or are you implying that people who prep are nut-jobs/crazy gun people?


I just don't understand what some people want.

There's already laws on the books, there's already background checks, gun violence is at a 30-40 year all time low...

what do people want?

More gun laws wont stop crime or spree shootings,.. those are society problems and not gun problems.


Cars kill more people than guns. I'd rather see tougher laws on drinking and driving and texting and driving. Since those kill people daily tough laws there would immediately start saving lives.

People shouldn't get 7 DUI's. That's ridiculous. You should be in jail after like 2.



as for the 1st Grade Teacher at Sandy Hook who's freaked out that there's a Cop with a gun in her classroom,...she's an idiot and she needs to grow up. If there'd been an armed Cop there in the first place maybe the tragedy wouldn't happen.

People need to stop acting and thinking like children. And she's a good example of that.