Dusty Chalk

Sorry, gotta disagree with that last statement, but when someone is obviously going postal, I have no problem with someone stopping them. I'm not saying that about any other situation, but if someone at that school was armed, it might have been shorter. Paraphrasing Obama in something he said just tonight, if we can save the life of one child, aren't we obliged to at least investigate that possibility? 20 is a lot of children, anything cutting that shooting spree short would have been a good thing. He did piss me off when he said that "year after year after year" comment, trying to make it sound like an annual event. Fear-mongering. Ric, I don't think both sides are being silent, unless I missed something -- I've seen all four (over-simplifying, but I will make my point) stances: pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-gun-but-something-must-be-done, anti-gun-but-not-full-out-gun-control. Regarding open or concealed carry, I realize a lot of you are against this -- I am certainly against the concept of obliging anyone unwilling to be armed -- but it is not as horrible a world as many of you have painted. I realize http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?ctid=1000157&cnid=1003264'>this is largely pro-gun propaganda, but it's still worth knowing, in short, that there have been several mass shootings stopped by open or concealed carry. I went looking for this because my friend from Utah mentioned the story in Utah, where the shooter was stopped after 3 or 4 killings, by someone carrying (the point being that a lot of people carry in Utah). 3 or 4 is a lot less than 20. So by Obama's own reasoning, should we not seriously consider this? And please don't feel obliged to stay out of the discussion, you are indeed eloquent and intelligent. Even if I do quote Ben Franklin. In a previous version of that post, I specifically mentioned that I do think some preventative law should be okay (age of consent, child pornography, license to drive, drinking age, smoking age, etc.), but I must have deleted it. Back to my stance -- I am fighting the concept of any action regarding gun control laws now because I think it is badly timed, and should be well thought out intellectually rather than emotionally "react". I actually don't have any problem with gun regulation (background checks, registration, etc.), so am not as hard-nosed as I sound. I also do think regulation should be stricter or less strict based on what the weapon is capable of. But I disagree with any concept that makes it impossible to own a gun. That's just a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

Could be. Would explain a few other things as well.

That's actually a good point -- laptops actually make decent desktops, once you move things to proper ergonomics -- at my previous job, that meant an external keyboard, mouse (trackball in my case, but everyone else used a mouse), and screen, and all was well.

The problem is, you'll never know if it was this, or if they just chickened out. I think -- based entirely on your reiteration of events -- that it was more the latter. You mentioned yourself that you think maybe they felt safer with an out-of-towner, and maybe once they started thinking you weren't, that was enough. Me: slept, just got up. I could not get to sleep last night. WTF?

Yeah, just get a Mac Mini later, with a "real" screen. I remember when people used to laugh at my 15" screen and say that there was no point in having 1080 resolution on something so small.

'Resistance is futile'?

I'm alright with discussing this further. And I apologize for not addressing your specific concern earlier -- you did mention it before -- blame it on my inferior reading comprehension and trying to get through this thread too quickly when reading it in bursts. I'm now going to go watch Hachi and plan on crying my eyes out.

No, you're right, I don't fully understand anyone's values, as I doubt very much they are as black-&-white as I am seeing them right now (not just you, but many who have posted in this thread seem to be very pro-gun-contol). So I think you're right in that I'm seeing things in an overly monochromatic eye -- but not just you, so again, please don't take it personally. And yeah, I can see now how that would be seen that way, but whoever said "one" was probably closest to what I meant -- I sicken at the thought of having any one person's values imposed over other people -- not just yours, but mine, Obama's, Dan's, Romney's...anyone's. Do you see how one little misspeak can convey such an entirely different meaning? I honestly did not mean that directed at your one thoughts on the subject. And it was this statement that seemed to cross that line from sharing one's personal feelings to imposing it on others -- you're right, the words "allowed to" weren't in there: "I DON'T EVER WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT!" -- and again, I misread -- I read "ability" as "legally allowed to" whereas I see now that ... alright, no, I don't have any idea why you stuck that in there, so I'll just shut up and let you explain. There was a tragedy, yes. Do you feel helpless for it having happened under our current legal structure? Yes. Do we have to change it just because of your feelings? I'm not even going to mince words -- no. Notice I'm not saying we shouldn't change it, just that we don't have to. Whatever we do, doesn't have to be like the fiscal cliff -- there is no deadline, whatever we do should be well thought out with all of its ramifications, not passed because of the current emotional state of the populace. And to give you a little more context -- that concept of "trying" a law for a couple years like prohibition scares the shit out of me -- I don't think politicians should "temporarily" be given that kind of power, because I know they would fight tooth and nail to relinquish it, just as I would fight tooth and nail to relinquish my rights. It's the camel's nose under the tent flap. Why should I have to sell my guns because the government says so? Why should I have to go through the trouble of selling them then and buying them back now? What if I needed them during that difficult period in between? Tell that to the victims of all the drive-by shootings during prohibition era.

Dude, sometimes your concept of sequencing is just masterful.

Ric -- I am 100% in agreement with you -- I used to be the kind of guy that thought that law enforcement should only be allowed after the perpetration of a crime, I.E. caught red-handed, but have since come around on a few safe issues -- meth use, anything involving an underage, etc. But for the most part, I do not believe in preventative medicine, for the reasons I stated previously. As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Steve, my man, I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings, but you added those two words "allowed to" which to me changes everything -- it changes the discussion from you (personal) to everyone (legal). Yes, the gay marriage thing was meant to present to you other people imposing their beliefs on you, hence trying to make you understand how that is a bad thing. Anyone who follows me on Facebook knows that there are three things which interest me the most -- rescuing animals, music, and gay rights. I am very sorry that this was not more clear from before you read it. Oh, and beer. And funny things. And my friends and family, which I consider you to be a part of. I stand by something I told to someone recently in private -- I consider my best friends the ones that can call me out on my shit, and ones that I can call out on shit (in this case, a statement) -- I.E. argue with -- and we can go out and have a beer the next day. I consider you to be one of those people (even though you don't drink, mostly). I want my friends to be able to tell me I have broccoli in my teeth, and I will tell my friends when they have broccoli in their teeth. Because no-one wants broccoli in their teeth. And that goes for the rest of you, too -- even though it feels I disagree with most of you, I don't want you to take it personally just because I argue with you. I'm just argumentative like that. Now get off of my lawn. (pumps shotgun)

Happy Birthday, guys! (sticks two party favours correctly in mouth, one on each side -- stereo party favour noise!)

That's funny, I got Nate, too. Hmmm... EDIT: And that's okay -- he gives two gifts, he gets two gifts...I'm just worried that someone got missed, or was it just an odd number of entries?

Whoa, whoa, you don't want the ability to do that, or you don't want to do that, or you don't want others to have the ability to do that (because presumably if you don't have the ability to do that, others would be prevented as well). Quite frankly, some people who are much more sensitive than you are could be affected even worse -- I think they would need the ability not to be exposed to this tragedy. I will not be sharing this tragedy with my mother -- she has the ability to "over-suffer" such things, and in her weakened health, it will not be good for her. So yes, I want exactly that ability for her. So although I applaud your desire for a better life, I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people -- that's what America is about, to me -- to protect each other from each other, not just acts of violence, but imposing each others' belief systems as well (see "gay marriage", for example). And to answer your original question -- although you phrase it meanly, the short answer is yes, as far as the law is concerned, I don't feel there's any change in the law that will fix this -- you have to realize just how rare something like this occurs, and just how unlikely it is to happen in the place it happened. I do agree with gun registration, however -- there definitely should be a system prevent people with known mental health issues from having access. But that still won't prevent the ones who aren't known to have mental health issues...yet. I'm not sure that's possible with the current state of the art. The issue I'm worried about when we get into that slippery slope of "preventative" law is punishing someone who would never have broken the law. And yes, it is a punishment to take a law-abiding citizen's guns away from him against his will. I'm not saying I'm against preventative law, obviously (license to drive, drinking and smoking ages, etc.), I'm just saying we need to tread carefully.

Well the pro gun control advocates seem to be able to predict the future (that gun control will work), so why not? Of course any sweeping statements I make should be preceded "I think", of course.

No, one can twist graphs around to any purpose. As Dan pointed out rather humorously, the trends can be made to show to follow some other trend just as easily -- it's a bit too easy to manipulate data to show what it is you want to show. Your definitions of "bad things" and "costs" are a bit too sweeping for me.

Had this earlier Sent frum mah phone-blet using Tapatalk.

I'm reading Chasm City, and the main character has a condition (induced night vision) that leads to glowing eyes. I giggle and think of the cat/lasers meme every time they mention it, and at this pic, too.

No they do not have the right to feel safe -- do you feel safe? Ah, but you're an adult with experience and know better, that makes it okay? A little background: I was raised with -- what's the expression? -- an over-protective mother. She told me not to go near the window without a shirt on because I could tempt someone to rape me. I hadn't even figured out what sleeping together meant yet. Seriously. Thanks mom. Ignorance is ... out the window. EDIT #1: My point being -- I didn't feel any safer. On the contrary, I felt less safe, because my mom felt that situational awareness would make me safer. I should also point out that "feeling safer" and 'being safer" are two different things. Do I have another solution? Yes -- live. Be normal. Be exemplary. Shun the fear-mongers. Be able to take care of yourself with the small fraction of bullies who are bigger/more violent/more successful at being bullies than you, with whom diplomatic solutions don't work. Use sunscreen. 99.9% of the time, everything will be alright. It's a chance you have to take. The alternative is to be raised home-schooled by hippies, as fucked up as the children in Dogtooth. Good luck with that. Over-protective doesn't work -- not just because of the psychological ramifications, but because it does not prevent anything -- do you know what? My chances of getting raped changed from almost nothing to that same quantum of almost nothing. Same goes for the over-protected -- your chances of being a victim of violence are exactly the same -- and I don't mean number, I mean conceptually -- small, trivial, non-probable, but possible. You can live in fear, or you can get over it. EDIT #2 -- I agree with everything grawk said, not because he's grawk, but because he's right.

Huzzah.

It's got nothing to do with hobbyism, it's got to do with self-defense. I realize most of us don't consider home invasion on that scale as worthy of consideration outside of the movies, but if I were that rich, I would want my bodyguards to have that kind of caliber weapons. At home, not in a gun club. I think Expanding Man's statistics say more about the mental health of his country than it does about gun control. Sorry, Al, but I gotta disagree completely. My argument is not that I'm throwing up my hands on the efficacy of gun control, but that it will only affect the law-abiding citizens, which tilts things into the "makes things worse" direction. If a homicidal and potentially suicidal nut job wants access, he will get it. And I'm not saying having bigger guns will make the nut job stop, I'm saying it won't make any difference -- the real solution is knowledge -- educate the masses on mental health, and continued efforts by undercover police to find the terrorists before they attack. That sort of thing. There have been many success stories of FBI agents stopping murder sprees before they happen -- that is the solution. More like this.

There are others who disagree whole-heartedly with gun control, please let's not make this personal and call anyone out on anything.

I don't know what all those are -- what is that sphere in the upper left? Also, what is that blue and yellow thing next to Da Terminator? Also -- do you know what is cool about that pic? It's mostly black and white. I've wanted to do that -- not with photoshop, mind you, but with a judicious choice of props -- all of which were in black, white, or various shades of grey.

No, put it here. I'd be more than happy to see a gun control/pro gun argument thread deteriorate into a condolences thread instead of the other way around for a change.

According to at least one bystander, it was supposed to be a particularly safe area. If you need to go to that sort of extreme in the safe areas, you're basically suggesting that we need to do this everywhere. We do not need to do this everywhere. It's a statistical thing -- you take a chance leaving your home, going to school, going to work, heck, you take a chance breathing. Heck, you take a chance living as a hermit in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. Nothing is safe, and we can't protect against every possible contingency. It's just not financially feasible. One thing we can do is educate. It would have been nice if there was a plan, and if the teachers knew what to do besides lock their doors and cower, although I'm not sure what else they could have done. In terms of snapping, this will always happen. I heard a psychologist on the radio discuss how the best thing we can do for nutjobs like this is to ignore them, because they do it for the attention. But in a free society with such an aggressive journalist force, that will never happen. I'm not talking sensationalization -- this sort of story is self-sensationalizing. Reporting this story in the most understated matter will still have a sensationalizing effect. It's unavoidable. So the best thing we can do is tut-tut over the losses, start with the man in the mirror and try to lead a normal healthy life both physically and mentally, do your best not to be that guy, and move on, because otherwise the terrorists win.

Blue Stahli DJing 2am Drive to Nowhere, Vols. 1 & 2