quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So you are abandoning your knee jerk "the gun made him do it"

I'm afraid it's impossible for me to abandon a position I have never held or advocated.

Where did this fictitious claim come from Bama? I have never said anything remotely like that bit of confected nonsense.

You invent positions and statements and attribute them to me all the time. It's banal, stupid and childish. Please desist.

Clearly, you have a comprehension problem. Please take on board the advice I kindly offered to you here to help resolve your comprehension issues

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.
How do you tell the difference?

The real problem here isn't guns, or if bombs would be more lethal or what constitutes terrorism. It is racism and mental health and total disregard for the law. Many times emotional instability is hard to detect, particularly by family that wants to not see it. In this case the uncle tried to straighten him out so he saw it. The kid selling mind altering drugs shows disregard for the law and increases the indications of mental problems. The fathers willingness to lie on the background check (a felony) shows that not just the kid but the family had no regard for the law, or for anything but what they wanted. Add a fixation with race and boom!
People need to be aware of signs of mental problems without being paranoid.
When this sort of thing happens, hopefully before a murder, we need to "teach" respect for the law, either by the family or the law.
And most of all we need to address racism. Problem here is that we are only supposed to talk about it as a one way street. To make progress we have to acknowledge black racism as well as white. If we don't do this we not only will not do anything about black racism but the denial of it's existence feeds and excuses white racism. Don't anyone pretend that I'm excusing white racists I am just addressing the facts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Yep. Repeatedly blaming everything on the 'other side' usually denotes an inability to accept personal responsibility. It's part of the problem never part of the solution.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.
How do you tell the difference?

Perhaps by having an honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future. An intention by all sides to listen and hear others would be enormously beneficial, as would honest declarations of interest by those with interests in the outcome.
To me, that seems a far more productive strategy that an automatic retreat to pre-existing dogmatic positions which is what happens at the moment.

How do we know we're having an "honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future[, where the] intention by all sides [is] to listen and hear others[?]"

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.
How do you tell the difference?

Perhaps by having an honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future. An intention by all sides to listen and hear others would be enormously beneficial, as would honest declarations of interest by those with interests in the outcome.
To me, that seems a far more productive strategy that an automatic retreat to pre-existing dogmatic positions which is what happens at the moment.

Yep, and everyone involved will claim to be taking part honestly. We know many politicians will use anything to their advantage, even if it doesn't address the underlying situation.

To restate for you:

How do we know we're having an "honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future[, where the] intention by all sides [is] to listen and hear others[?]"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If you feel a solution is possible, please outline it. If you feel a solution is not possible at the moment, what needs to change in order to arrive at and implement a solution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LipstickLeuger

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: LipstickLeuger

The polarization that happen on threads here is a much smaller scale of what is happening in America where these crimes are being commited. So much anger at someone else. I just don't comprehend it. Because they are: 'insert hated person or people'
White
Black
Gay
Straight
Left Winged Liberal
Right Winged Conservative
Democrat
Republican
Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, Jewish etc and so on via religions
Short
Tall
Fat
Thin

You get the drift. If people here can't even discuss an issue without annoying each other, what makes us believe that others who do not agree with any other group will? Now add in radical beliefs that your group or people are superior to others, a mental health issue, and some guns and it's a hate crime in the making.

We are doomed as a society........

I absolutely agree with you. But may I add a couple of points. It's not the conservative side that has made up rules of what you may or may not say in public. It's not the conservative side that invents "triggers" that must not be broached and never discussed. It's not the conservative side that makes these things so that they can control people and speech. What we are doing here is after years of being stifled in public saying we'll not put up with that sort of BS anymore. The only way the divide can be resolved is discussion which PC speaking won't allow. So, I see that there will be a transition period where we take back our voice and stop allowing the only discussion to be voiced to be controlled by the liberal side.

I don't honestly don't think you can put all the blame on one faction or another that easily. They all have their ups and downs and make rules that are bad. So again, we can't agree on anything, but if people would just step up and say they screw up and choose to see we are actually all the same, things would change. I know, call me a dreamer...........

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.

How do you tell the difference?

Perhaps by having an honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future. An intention by all sides to listen and hear others would be enormously beneficial, as would honest declarations of interest by those with interests in the outcome.

To me, that seems a far more productive strategy that an automatic retreat to pre-existing dogmatic positions which is what happens at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So you are abandoning your knee jerk "the gun made him do it"

I'm afraid it's impossible for me to abandon a position I have never held or advocated.

Where did this fictitious claim come from Bama? I have never said anything remotely like that bit of confected nonsense.

You invent positions and statements and attribute them to me all the time. It's banal, stupid and childish. Please desist.

Clearly, you have a comprehension problem. Please take on board the advice I kindly offered to you here to help resolve your comprehension issues

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.
How do you tell the difference?

The real problem here isn't guns, or if bombs would be more lethal or what constitutes terrorism. It is racism and mental health and total disregard for the law. Many times emotional instability is hard to detect, particularly by family that wants to not see it. In this case the uncle tried to straighten him out so he saw it. The kid selling mind altering drugs shows disregard for the law and increases the indications of mental problems. The fathers willingness to lie on the background check (a felony) shows that not just the kid but the family had no regard for the law, or for anything but what they wanted. Add a fixation with race and boom!
People need to be aware of signs of mental problems without being paranoid.
When this sort of thing happens, hopefully before a murder, we need to "teach" respect for the law, either by the family or the law.
And most of all we need to address racism. Problem here is that we are only supposed to talk about it as a one way street. To make progress we have to acknowledge black racism as well as white. If we don't do this we not only will not do anything about black racism but the denial of it's existence feeds and excuses white racism. Don't anyone pretend that I'm excusing white racists I am just addressing the facts.

Yes, this attack was definitely about racism. I'd imagine he has some sort of mental health issue, but he could just be a racist ass hole, too.

Still, when events like this happen, and Congresspeople go apoplectic, how do we tell the genuine attempts at addressing at least part of the problem from the political capital maneuvers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy,

They are right to do it...how many children must die...how many innocents must die.... how many men women and children must be maimed before this gun nuts society regains it's sanity?

It will come you realize that don't you? If gun violence continues there will be a significant backlash and you may even loose the freedom to use the toys you own as you do today. It would be much better for responsible gun owners to head this off and help to draft truly effective gun control laws before this happens.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Wait for the spin Peon. As Eric Holder says, never waste a good crisis. But the answer to your question is, we've seen this sort of thing before and know how it will play out. Yes, that is what you on the left do.

Rahm Emanuel said that.

Hmm. I do see what I feel to be a suspicious tendency to forestall any effort towards useful change towards preventing such outrages in the future by means of a two-pronged 'attack': one, to lament - loudly and ostentatiously; two, to accuse those who call for changes of 'trying to make political capital out of a tragedy'.

Therein lies the problem. There are those that will use any means they feel they can to push through politically divisive legislation on the back of a tragedy, just as there are those who will accuse others of attempting to gain political capital out of a tragedy, in an effort to thwart prevention of future outrages.
How do you tell the difference?

Perhaps by having an honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future. An intention by all sides to listen and hear others would be enormously beneficial, as would honest declarations of interest by those with interests in the outcome.
To me, that seems a far more productive strategy that an automatic retreat to pre-existing dogmatic positions which is what happens at the moment.

Yep, and everyone involved will claim to be taking part honestly. We know many politicians will use anything to their advantage, even if it doesn't address the underlying situation.

To restate for you:

How do we know we're having an "honest conversation about the tragedy, the various factors that contributed to it and open-minded assessments of the various options advanced to thwart similar tragedies occurring in the future[, where the] intention by all sides [is] to listen and hear others[?]"

OK then let me ask you a question: Is a solution to the problem of gun violence possible given the current political realities and the 2nd Amendment?

If you feel a solution is possible, please outline it. If you feel a solution is not possible at the moment, what needs to change in order to arrive at and implement a solution?

quote:

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kinds of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If you feel a solution is possible, please outline it. If you feel a solution is not possible at the moment, what needs to change in order to arrive at and implement a solution?

Arm yourselves, armed personnel or security workers in the schools and armed clergy in the churches, armed business owners and armed households. Freakin simple, an armed society is a polite society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yea like Iraq

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If you feel a solution is possible, please outline it. If you feel a solution is not possible at the moment, what needs to change in order to arrive at and implement a solution?

Arm yourselves, armed personnel or security workers in the schools and armed clergy in the churches, armed business owners and armed households. Freakin simple, an armed society is a polite society.

The USA with something in the order of 300 million guns in private hands is already an armed society. I don't know anyone who thinks it's a peaceful society.