User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7566 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If mass murder is truly one's goal, a gun is relatively inefficient. Driving your car through a red light in NYC can take out 25 people easy. Driving your car or a truck through Times Square can take out 100. Flying a plane into a building can take out 3,000.
Bombs (Bath Township, 1927), gas attacks...
The gun control argument, whatever its merits, doesn't apply best to a crazed maniac intent on murdering 30 schoolkids. He could have driven his car through the classroom window and caused serious mayhem.
Short answer; not really.
Longer answer, it depends on what you mean by "better". Many of the designs sold by the top gunmakers over the past 20-30 years are better engineered and constructed than older guns, especially with respect to safety, reliability and preventing accidental discharges, but they are not really any more lethal. Some of the most devastating guns and cartridges that are commonly used and manufactured today were designed by John Browning who died in 1926
I'm not sure if it is or not.
But, as far as this particular incident, someone who was willing to kill so many young children, tells me this was more of a mental health problem, as opposed to a gun control problem. (From the comments above it does seem the children were targeted because of a relationship with a teacher there. Still, to me, there seems to be something different about pulling the trigger on a 6 year old as opposed to a HS or university student. Of course I'm trying to put myself inside of a mind that's, well... yeah)
Then how come people don't do that, and instead buy guns and start shooting folks?
Maybe guns overall are harder to get, but guns that make it easier to kill a lot of people, plus body armor, is easier to get. A lot of shotguns and rifles aren't that useful in these mass murder situations.
I am not discounting that society might be causing these situations somehow, but the specific equipment might be easier to get.
And lynchings don't happen today. And a lot of other horrible stuff that was common back then doesn't happen now.
I thought this had been asked and answered, in that abortion eliminated the cohort of unwanted children who would have reached the age of being able to commit violent crimes (say, 15 years after Roe v Wade), and as the abortion rate peaked then plateaud, the rate of violent crime also plateaud.
No prob.
They do do it sometimes (bombs, planes), but what does it matter whether people use X mechanism to do something that's easy to do or Y mechanism?
If a person is willing to murder 20 or so children, he's probably capable of obtaining a firearm illegally; or legally if he has no prior criminal record.
Gun control seems more relevant when discussing more "mundane" shootings and crimes, rather than mass murder. If you're intent on mass murder, gun control isn't going to stop you. It probably won't even slow you down.
thanks for remembering peshtigo. it is certainly remembered by folks in wisconsin.
It's hard to imagine gun control short of that exercised in England around the 60s and 70s would have an effect on these shootings. If anything is likely to help, it would be better care and treatment of people who show early on whatever the signs are of being prone to doing this kind of thing. At the same time, should you gear the mental health profession towards dealing with this to the neglect of other things? Can you, should you turn part of the profession at large into a giant screening program against mass murder?
I hear from conversations with mental health people that the practice's emphasis on active intervention can make people reluctant to talk about certain subjects.
Funny, no black people have been impaled with an American flag here in Boston since (very roughly) 30 years ago.
To which the only reasonable answer is more of us have to pack!
Evidently (I may originally have learned this from a BBTF thread, and later verified it independently), Charles Whitman was pinned down on the UT Tower in part by good ol' Austin boys who broke out their rifles and aided police. That would not be SOP in shooting incidents 45 years later, to say the least, though.
The one thing I know for sure (agreeing with Carter's sarcasm here) is that the average handgun-toting citizen in a school/campus/theatre shooting incident is going to kill people inadvertently, and/or get shot by a cop. People just have no idea about these situations, unless they're veteran infantrymen. Heck, I have no idea about them; I've just read a lot about them and am applying a keen grasp of Murphy's Law.
It probably would deter the typical convenience-store robber if a big sign in the window said I HAVE A BIG GUN AND WILL SHOOT YOU WITH IT IF YOU ACT UP, though that might also drive away paying customers. The same sign will have no effect on a mass shooter. If anything he may see it as a challenge.
Coworker said that most of the adult shooters in his lifetime (mid 30s) were at least on anti-depressants. Have no idea how true that is or how much being on Prozac equates to overall poor mental health, poor health to the point of picking up a weapon and taking some people along with you.
I'm pretty sure the Appalachian Law School shooting in 2001 or '02? was stopped soon after it begun by guys who retrieved their own firearms and ultimately subdued the suspect. I'm almost certain they didn't shoot him though.
checks:
App Law school shooting
3 were killed, 3 wounded, suspect was taken down in some fashion physically before the other guns were present, or the guy was subdued physically after the suspect saw the 'other guns' choose your version
Well, there might be but pointing to things that happened before around 1978 wouldn't be examples. We progressed socially and culturally from lynching times to 1978.
Thanks.
The three guys that subdued the suspect were a police officer (who apparently had body armor in his car), a sheriff's deputy, and a former Marine and police officer. (The former Marine and police officer was not armed.)
Reading the article, it sounds like the guys were off duty law enforcement officers, so they were actually trained to handle the situation, not just random citizens.
I really don't think gun control will help too much in these types of situations (short of a complete ban, which is politically impossible in the USA and unnecessary to prevent these things in most of the world), but the idea that normal citizens should be carrying guns all the time so they can take down bad guys in wild west style gun fights is completely crazy and these delusional gun fantasies play into the warped culture many Americans have with firearms.
Originally posted in this thread in response to another uttering of Bernanke lover tshipman.
I don't know much about guns, but is a semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster a "common civilian weapon", legal all around the world
Cop aptitude with firearms varies wildly. Most PDs have relatively easy firearm qualification standards; it's basically show up at a range once a year or so and demonstrate the ability to hit the broad side of a barn. Some officers have zero interest in shooting and do no more than that bare minimum; others are absolute gun nuts who shoot constantly. Most probably fall somewhere in the middle. But you certainly shouldn't assume that any given cop is adept in the safe handling or skillful use of firearms.
This actually makes sense when you think about it. Most cops never discharge their firearm in the course of duty over their career; it's not a particularly efficient use of their training time to have them focus on mastering something most of them will never need.
I know a man who lost his wife of 20 years around age 40. 20 years later he still misses her terribly, but has a life. He rarely talks about it because the almost universal opinion is that he should have been past this years and years ago. I just think maybe he loved her more than most people love, and why should he have another woman if he doesn't want one? It's not like he's a shut in. Anyway, that's not relevant to the topic, but from your post and what I've heard it sounds like depression might be the most common symptom displayed in advance of these incidents.
Was that the case of the knife wielding pedestrian in midtown who a pack of cops followed for a couple of blocks before bringing down with the proverbial hail of bullets?
If there was ever a case for shooting a guy in the leg first, one like this where the cops had overwhelming force seems to be an example.
this is why my 'home protection' firearm of choice is a simple 12 gauge pump, with double .00 buck shot. Even my wife can't miss with that. Ridiculously low concern of home invasion in my zip code is noted.
for concealed carry a shotgun doesn't work, but do completely agree, shooting a handgun accurately takes real practice. Throw in nerves, moving targets and it's not easy for a novice. The best odds for a citizen take down of a mass shooter is likely via ambush.
this refers to the round/cartridge being used. It is near the top of the list (I'm guessing but would be stunned to be wrong) in most commonly used rifle cartridges as it is versitile in terms of the different types of rifles that may be used to fire the round.
The 'Bushmaster' is simply the brand of the product the suspect used to fire the .223 rounds. It's a type of rifle which is quite common.
And the country develops people like Bernie Madoff, an establishment product, who brazenly rips off the money of schools, museums, Jewish remembrance organizations, by the tens of millions.
And a CEO/executive class that regularly cooks the books of major public corporations.
Yeah, that's not decline. /sarc
David Frum
Yup. It's here.
So..being sensitive and civil in the light of a tragedy is bad.
And...being insensitive in the light of a tragedy (see how NRA is portrayed in Bowling for Columbine) is bad.
Was the "similar to" Mike Huckabee?
(Spike can have the rest of my Coke.)
But wouldn't God have been there to protect the innocent 5-year-olds? Isn't He everywhere?
If not, then what the #### good is He?
You don't say the Ten Commandments here anymore, therefore I'm leaving? That's how God thinks?
That's ####### absurd, you ####### halfwitted backwoods fool.
Why, no. He doesn't go where He's not wanted. He's a gentleman.
Try to keep up.
This kind of smug I-told-you-so Christianism brings out the hate in me.
Also, we can't talk about gun control, but we should talk about religion in schools? #### all that.
I had the same reaction after the tsunamis. I believe in tolerance, but don't ever say something like "God never closes a door without opening a window!" unless you really want an earful.
First, you have statements, in the wake of loss and suffering, that some mysterious justice may be served in ways we can't understand. These are, at best, insensitive and unconvincing.
Second, you have statements, in he wake of loss and suffering, that this suffering is a direct result of God's justice, that this horrific loss in fact clearly reflects a righteous God's will, an act of punishment for our public policy regime. That is, I mean, there are not ####### words.
If there were, they wouldn't make it past the nanny anyway.
It'll get better -- they're only a few hours away (if that) from blaming gays and the rise of gay marriage.
Thanks. But I guess I was thinking more in terms of accuracy and ease of use when I said better. Rapid fire in particular.
I am performing at a Toys For Tots benefit and know there are going to be some absolutely teeth gritting moments i am going to have to endure. Not to mention a discussion with my 7 year old this afternoon that was as heartbreaking as anything I have ever had to do. It's left me a bit raw.
Yes, but all this is followed up by the sophomoric, "There either isn't a God, or he's a horrible mean bastard."
That's funny, because whenever they show the poor people who rely on a less efficient insurance, my first thought is "How can you be so mean to just stand there and say,'Shouldn't have left us.'"
You'll note that the vast majority of times that someone says something ####### stupid like Fischer and Huckabee above, it's ain't a Jew.
EDIT: There is, in fact, an amazing, complex and well-developed debate about God's justice and the problem of evil, with multiple different positions clearly articulated within the Hebrew Scriptures. You see something along the lines of the more problematic punishment/reward system articulated in Proverbs, you see a more complex, uncertain, historical articulation of God's justice in the books of Kings/Judges, you see a rejection of the entire problematic of justice in Ecclesiastes/Qohelet, you see a profound narrative rejection of all easy answers to the question of God's justice in Job, but combined with nonetheless an exhortation to live justly in the world. Really amazing stuff that should not be called just "fire'n'brimstone".
Interesting note that TPM published --
Is it reasonable to say that rather than gun control -- the focus ought to be on limiting the some of the specific attributes that make these mass killings more possible?
This sounds logical enough to me -- I'm no gun expert, but doesn't that sound right?
Why should I, joe citizen, need something with a drum/extended clip?
Even if you think it's necessary to prepare for coming UN/Obama oppression... is an extended clip semi-automatic really going be all that different? I mean - in such a world, I would pretty much imagine it's gonna be airstrikes, tanks, and such that do the oppressing.
Duly noted and I agree with your assessments of douche-nozzles like Huckabee and Fischer.
Just to add on to more of the bad news.
What part of the "God loves each and every one of us unconditionally" drivel that you guys teach don't you understand you hate filled worthless piece of human garbage?
Fox News starts blaming the newfangled Video Games.
He's just making stipulations that assum its pretty hopeless when your primary metric of intellect is so flawed. e the conclusion. Some ouf his stipulations might be right,
I tend to think of it as,
"God never closes a door to keep a shooter out without opening a window for him to climb in through."
Not being a fan of that Chosen People stuff, or whatever other form of superiority is implied by the above, I figure it's in the numbers, baby. Put as many Jews as there are Christians on the planet and you'll hear an equal amount of unbelievably stupid stuff.
Limit it.
As for defending against FEMA coming to our doors, a larger clip isn't going to cut it, but a larger clip isn't relevant. It's being armed to the point of be able to deter a hypothetically rapacious but still democratic government; not being able to triumph over it through arms. I do think in a lot of our more civilized nations, it isn't the prospect of the citizenry bombing the capital in their F-22s that keeps the armed forces in easy check, it's that the citizenry can dig in and cause a fair amount of bloodshed before being bombed to bits.
But I had to quote it again, because it is completely awesome. But wait ...
Is even dumber (which I doubted was possible). Because disease is a great metaphor for mental illness. First of all mental illness is a disease you idiot. Second of all disease can't be prevented? What!?
Small Pox? Let's start with that, all that time and effort to fight against small pox was completely a waste of effort, right Ray? Flu shots, washing hands, sterilizing medical instruments, vaccinations NONE OF THAT PREVENTS DISEASE?
Are you a complete mouth breathing moron? Of course disease can be prevented, like Small Pox for example. Polio as common as it was? Weird how as society spent resources and technology improved we prevented MILLIONS OF CASES OF DISEASE. But Ray thinks nothing can be done about "crazy" (again, which is in fact a disease - look it up) so heck let's give up.
I rarely engage in personal attacks, but Ray I really hope the two statements about are in fact performance art, because anyone who says what you did above is in fact an idiot without compare and I am surprised you manage to dress yourself in the morning.
Nothing in Ray's comments suggested that vaccinations don't prevent disease. The point was that there aren't vaccines for all diseases and problems.
Unless there's a new vaccine against becoming mentally deranged, it's simply not possible to inoculate society against deranged people committing acts like the one that was committed today — unless, of course, liberals agree that we should be a lot less liberal when it comes to the rights (or "rights") of deranged people.
He claimed it could not even be effectively guarded against. Just like disease can't be guarded against. Like all the diseases that can't be guarded against like small pox and polio and the flu and so on. It is the dumbest analogy ever.
He connected something that public health efforts has had a huge impact on (disease - and yes mental illness is still a disease) and then claimed nothing could be done about it (completely against the analogy he introduced).
How do you know this? Are you omniscient? What Ray and you are saying is that you cannot conceive of a way, so why bother?
You know this "for sure"? In my experience, people with CCW permits tend to take firearms more seriously than the average cop. Beyond that, the "get shot by a cop" part erroneously presumes that cops typically arrive within seconds. If that was true, there wouldn't be mass shootings in the first place.
If the last part was true, how come these mass shooters almost always pick "gun-free" zones like schools — where they know they're highly unlikely to face resistance — rather than take up the "challenge" of assaulting a police precinct, military installation, etc.?
Well, as much as you know for sure that it is impossible to "inoculate society against deranged people"
LOL. Short of the Minority Report scenario being brought to market in a foolproof manner, it's all but impossible to prevent deranged people who are hellbent on killing people.
***
Yes, I do know this for sure, as does anyone who has studied human history for more than five seconds.
Then you're missing the entire point of the internet.
And because it is impossible to completely eradicate it let's not do anything. "Hey there will always be some disease so why bother even trying to fight against malaria." (To use Ray's wonderful analogy).
Great plan Joe.
I'm for limiting magazine size, it's not going to stop these guys, but it can limit the damage they do at least a little bit. They aren't really needed hunting, sport shooting or even home defense, really their only purpose is kill a lot of people.
I really dislike the use of this term in the discussion of both this and the Colorado shooting. .223 semi-automatics are neither high powered (they actually a relatively low powered) or assault rifles (select-fire, generally fully automatic or burst fire). These guns are modestly powered hunting and sport shooting rifles, which are still really dangerous, but not nearly as scary sounding. An fully automatic AK-47 is a high powered assault rifle.
Obviously it's not video games as whole, people in Korea, Japan and Europe play of games too. Compared to other countries though, people like shooter games way more here than elsewhere. I don't think this game causes the violence though, but it is part of the larger culture that glorifies and normalizes the idea gun violence, and the types of people that do these shooting are often drawn to those types of games.
I find this attitude from someone living in the 21st century astounding. In 1900, the idea of powered heavier than air flight was just as impossible. In 1950, the CEO of IBM figured the world of the future would need 5 computers. In 1986, Jonathon Frakes and LeVar Burton using touch screen computer terminals and portable pads that communicated with them was science fiction.
I know we can't inoculate society against deranged people now, but to say that because we can't, we shouldn't bother trying? That's ridiculous.
Yes, I know, and they take courses like "Shoot/Don't-Shoot" that supposedly train them for impromptu combat in crowded areas. Seriousness about your gun does not matter a lot once the shooting starts.
how come these mass shooters almost always pick "gun-free" zones like schools
Because they are sick ####s who like to kill a lot of people, and there are lots of people around schools.
EDIT: I should have added that I don't think gun control helps much with school shootings (as I've said often enough upthread). I just draw the line at thinking that a bunch of armed teachers or parents or whoever is going to help such situations. It's my strong opinion that they'd make it worse.
Conservatives are not anti-science, just anti-progress.
Indeed. One thing I wrestle mightily to get across to my World Lit classes is the complexity of the philosophy and the teaching stories in the Hebrew Bible. My favorite such story is the rape of Dinah: "Ye have troubled me to make me stink among the inhabitants of the land," says Jacob. "Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?" say Simeon and Levi. The wonderful thing is that there is no good answer. Every time you read the story, you have to reflect on the values and emotions that get balanced between those two statements. And it's not even a story about God or faith or religious practices; it's terribly focused on ethics in this world.
The trouble I usually have is in getting students, who have a vague sense that the Bible must be all about how nice it is to have faith in God, to see that the Old Testament in particular is very often more about questions than easy answers. In their writing about the Book of Job last week, I still had students tell me that the "moral of the story is" trust in God and he will give you back your asses and your handmaidens tenfold, or whatever. Right right right, I think, but will you please read the actual content of the middle of the book?
OK, what are your ideas? You're not seriously claiming that adding one more gun law to the thousands that are already on the books would have prevented this, are you?
***
Ah, so you don't actually have any ideas on how to inoculate modern society from deranged people; you just pedantically objected to my use of the word "impossible" because the sci-fi Minority Report scenario might become possible at some point in the future. OK.
So the same liberals who hate drones and "stop and frisk" believe "progress" would involve the government not only having the ability to monitor all citizens 24/7/365, but the ability to monitor all citizens' thoughts 24/7/365. That's funny.
From what I've read of this story - there was an armed teacher. The shooter's mother. And the massacre was carried out with her weapons.
Of course, we don't know why she owned those weapons, and we won't know, since she's dead. Did she own them for protection? If so who was she protecting herself against? (1) Strangers? (2) Her ex-husband? (3) Her son?
No, they're pretty obviously anti-science.
I'd be astonished if there weren't a major correlation between assault rifle ownership and a deeply paranoid and hostile view about the many social and demographic changes that have taken place here over the past 50 years. The fact that both this year and in 2008 gun sales shot up significantly in the wake of the election certainly doesn't do much to dispel this notion.
Do you ever stop, like, making crap up?
Start with treating gun violence like a health issue. Act like it is something that can be limited with the proper application of data and the scientific method and not like a political game that is played between two teams. Continue by treating mental health like the disease it is, one which causes a huge number of deaths each year through suicide and violence.
Money needs to be spent. It needs to be understood that this is going to be a long fight (like the worldwide fight against malaria), you don't up and quit with every reversal. The current problems are decades (more really) in the making, it is going to take a long time to fix the problem.
Some nations have dramatically lower rates of such deaths. Other nations have high rates. Rather than hurling numbers and playing political games while people die I would suggest the nation actually tries to address the issue with the data at hand.
you noted the current pathetic patchwork quilt of laws is better than nothing, but is a far cry from solving the problem, so no "adding one more law" is not going to solve the problem (though some laws might help).
You crazy kids, they're both.
If this is true (which we never seem to know with this story so far), this is another classic case of where the guns you own to protect yourself are much more likely to be used against you or your family.
One type of gun control that is common in other countries, is more strict rules for storage and transport. If this was the case of someone taking his parent's gun, perhaps more secure storage could prevented or limited the damage. The Oregon mall shooting was also with a stolen gun and there was a recent news story about a child who accidentally shot himself in his car seat after his dad left a gun laying around the back seat of the car.
These types of rules would work within the context of the second amendment, not infringe on owning sport, hunting or personal defense weapons and even if they don't prevent rampage style attacks would at least lead to less accidental shootings and crimes with stolen guns.
Do you ever make a clear point? If not the ability to closely monitor people's mental health, what type of "progress" were you talking about when you said, "Conservatives are not anti-science, just anti-progress"?
***
This sounds like an acknowledgment that mental illness and the breakdown of the family are bigger problems than the Second Amendment. I approve.
I didn't see that one coming. (Ha ha.)
If we're going with data-driven solutions, it sounds like you want a heavier police presence in inner cities and more aggressive detainment of the seriously mentally ill. I'm sold, but I'm not sure your fellow lefties will be as enthusiastic.
You want to do something?
1. Bring the troops home, all of them from Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Cut our bases in half.
3. Reduce the military budget from five times second place to second place.
4. Stop the war on drugs.
5. Close Gitmo and release everyone who doesn't have enough evidence to stand trial, house the rest in Leavenworth.
6. Establish normal relations with Cuba.
7. Cut foreign aid by a huge amount.
8. Provide reasonable healthcare, not blowjob/tax healthcare.
9. Stop imprisoning more people than any other country.
10. Make more restrictive gun laws.
11. Stop the war on terror
12. ala Warren Beatty in 'Heaven Can Wait': "Let's be the good guys! Let the other countries make mistakes!"
There I fixed the country and got myself assasinated before my inaguration.
Understanding of the brain, the science of mental illness, the lack of stigmatization of schizophrenia, medicine, data of violent outbursts, etc. Try and ignore the black helicopters over your house and you might grasp what else besides citing a dystopian film might be involved, science-wise.
This sounds like an acknowledgment that mental illness and the breakdown of the family are bigger problems than the Second Amendment. I approve.
You're hopeless. "Breakdown of the family" was where in what you quoted? Making. Crap. Up.
I understand the arguments, even if I'm mostly agnostic towards a position on the matter.
In this particular case, didn't the shooter use 3 different firearms? I admit I stopped following the details early on because as mrams said, there was just a #### ton of speculating, but I could have swore that I heard he used a .223 cal rifle and 2 handguns. Limiting the mag size sounds great, but if someone has multiple firearms, in particular a rifle and a side arm, I just wonder how much damage is it going to limit? Plus the standard mag size on a standard 9mm glock is 15 rounds, and it's fairly easy and quick to swap mags. I'm talking 1-2 sec for a glock and it's ready to fire again.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main