Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest guncontrol laws in the US

Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-is-different/

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

On Dec 17, 2:22*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-...

*"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Why not kill the gun holders ?


"PJ O'D" a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
...
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-is-different/

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

On Dec 17, 8:20*am, "simon calder"
wrote:

There were more than 8 million new guns either imported or
manufactured in the U.S. in 2010 – http://abcn.ws/WcwjZk
..
For the Record… There Is No Rise in Mass Killings in US
(Reuters)

r......oh, and feel sick in your stomach that you merkins actually are
a violent, war mongering race of people.....

Most of us can still trace our violent ways back to our European
ancestors , Calder.

Look at your beautiful castles over there with their torture chambers
and all of that stuff.



See the torture museum in San Girmignano , Calder. I didn't go in but
they had pictures of the stuff inside outside trying to entice you
Your-A-Peons to go inside and enjoy it for a fee.

I saw another one looking pretty gruesome from the outside in
Rothenburg OT, Calder

I did see a sample of more recent Your-A-Peon benevolence and
compassion on one of my visits to Munchen on a side trip to Dachau.
Neat sign at the entrance to the Conzentrationenlager there says
"Arbeit Macht Frei", Calder.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Dec 17, 2:22*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-...

*"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals
are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts
each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children
murdered in Newtown. But liberals do have this belief that "our" children
are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children.

We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we
should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has
presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive.
And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear...
expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility
for our nation.

However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to
murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. Better we should change
the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result
in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically
reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game.

Guess what? I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream
for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that
criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this
particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything
about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify
killing should be taken away from them.

So what should concern us more? Taking away weapons of self-defense from
the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children
from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games
that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away.

Planet Visitor II

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:17:33 +0100, "Runge 667" wrote:

Why not kill the gun holders ?

More of your simplistic bull****, about a very real and grave argument. I can
put up with your bull**** in general, and even get a laugh at it at times...
but not now.

Your question would depend upon what the gun holder intends to do with the
firearm. Would you suggest killing a police officer who has just confronted a
robber aiming a gun at him? See --
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...of-2-cops?lite

Further, your argument implies that the more lives possibly lost to those
holding guns the more need there is to kill them, which seems to suggest
the assassination of just about every world leader, all whom have their
fingers on the trigger of the most destructive of all guns. Do you really
think that would SOLVE anything? Do you really think taking away weapons
of self-defense from the innocent would deter the criminal from using the
ones he already possesses?


Planet Visitor II


"PJ O'D" a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
...
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-is-different/

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

On Dec 17, 10:37*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-....

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals
are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts
each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children
murdered in Newtown. *But liberals do have this belief that "our" children
are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children.

We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we
should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has
presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive.
And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear...
expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility
for our nation.

However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to
murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. *Better we should change
the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result
in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically
reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game.

Guess what? *I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream
for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that
criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this
particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything
about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify
killing should be taken away from them.

So what should concern us more? *Taking away weapons of self-defense from
the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children
from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games
that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away.

Planet Visitor II

I see stuff in your post about psychology. I see stuff in your post
about my hysteria. I see stuff in your post about keeping the
importance of our children's life in perspective. I see stuff in your
post about education. I see stuff in your post about children's toys.
I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic.

What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic
chance of solving the problem.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:37*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-...

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals
are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts
each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children
murdered in Newtown. *But liberals do have this belief that "our" children
are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children.

We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we
should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has
presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive.
And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear...
expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility
for our nation.

However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to
murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. *Better we should change
the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result
in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically
reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game.

Guess what? *I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream
for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that
criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this
particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything
about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify
killing should be taken away from them.

So what should concern us more? *Taking away weapons of self-defense from
the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children
from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games
that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away.

Planet Visitor II

I see stuff in your post about psychology.

It was intended.

I see stuff in your post about my hysteria.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about keeping the importance of our children's life in
perspective.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about education.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about children's toys.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic.

Ibid.

What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic
chance of solving the problem.

That's because you closed your eyes when it was mentioned.

While you may have ignored it, nor is the idea of disarming our innocent people
any realistic solution to the problem. But it would be beneficial if we started
teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game.
Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent
children. See --
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8421066.html

The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game
addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the
rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem.

Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence
is dangerous to our youth. Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously
illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence
with video games such as --

10 -- Original Carmageddon
9 -- Soldier of Fortune
8 -- God of War II
7 -- Gears of War II
6 -- Mortal Kombat!
5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players
simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual
maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count)
4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on
a lamppost. Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder)
3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts
of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain
impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass)
2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming,
including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. Total death, blood and mayhem)
1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate
in the plot behind the story. Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun,
teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets,
which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers).
***
Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video
games that glorify killing. But you insist they are not a problem.


***
http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...o-games_1.html

Planet Visitor II

On Dec 17, 9:18*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:37 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-...

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S..
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals
are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts
each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children
murdered in Newtown. But liberals do have this belief that "our" children
are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children.

We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we
should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has
presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive.
And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear...
expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility
for our nation.

However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to
murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. Better we should change
the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result
in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically
reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game.

Guess what? I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream
for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that
criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this
particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything
about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify
killing should be taken away from them.

So what should concern us more? Taking away weapons of self-defense from
the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children
from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games
that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away.

Planet Visitor II

I see stuff in your post about psychology.

It was intended.

I see stuff in your post about my hysteria.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about keeping the importance of our children's life in
perspective.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about education.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about children's toys.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic.

Ibid.

What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic
chance of solving the problem.

That's because you closed your eyes when it was mentioned.

While you may have ignored it, nor is the idea of disarming our innocent people
any realistic solution to the problem.

None of your suggestions concerning education and video games, etc.,
are going to work and you know that. Or you certainly should. Really
they're just excuses for not doing anything to solve the problem.

Personally, though, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I also don't
believe that outlawing things like military-type assault weapons, or
hand grenades, or bazookas, or land mines, or shoulder-fired missiles,
or battle tanks, for instance, is an unwarranted restriction on
anybody's freedom.

Actually, my preference for solving the problem is to use our current
free-enterprise system and our traditional belief in the importance of
personal responsibility to solve the problem. First, I believe that
all we need to do to solve most of the problem is to require everyone
to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to buy a gun. They
could simply add it on to their homeowners or renters insurance policy
just as people typically add their dog to their insurance coverage,
for instance. Second, I would make allowing someone else to use your
gun(s) in the commission of a crime a serious felony that included a
long jail sentence.

The problem, however, is that rightwingers would never go along with
it because the truth is that they don't really believe in free
enterprise or personal responsibility all the much, and they're really
not all that interested in solving the problem.









But it would be beneficial if we started
teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game.
Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent
children. *See --http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adam-lanza-a-head-fu...

The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game
addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the
rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem.

Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence
is dangerous to our youth. *Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously
illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence
with video games such as --

10 -- Original Carmageddon
9 -- Soldier of Fortune
8 -- God of War II
7 -- Gears of War II
6 -- Mortal Kombat!
5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players
simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual
maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count)
4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on
a lamppost. *Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder)
3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts
of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain
impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass)
2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming,
including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. *Total death, blood and mayhem)
1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate
in the plot behind the story. *Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun,
teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets,
which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers).
***
Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video
games that glorify killing. *But you insist they are not a problem.

***http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...ent-video-game....

Planet Visitor II

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:21:09 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:18*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:37 am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun
control laws in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-...

"..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.
Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was
20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that
makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a
minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a
two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit
before either purchasing or carrying them.

But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns.
Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims?
Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for
him to possess a firearm....."

You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony,
though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why
all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible.

Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals
are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts
each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children
murdered in Newtown. But liberals do have this belief that "our" children
are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children.

We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we
should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has
presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive.
And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear...
expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility
for our nation.

However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to
murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. Better we should change
the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result
in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically
reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game.

Guess what? I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream
for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that
criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this
particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything
about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify
killing should be taken away from them.

So what should concern us more? Taking away weapons of self-defense from
the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children
from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games
that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away.

Planet Visitor II

I see stuff in your post about psychology.

It was intended.

I see stuff in your post about my hysteria.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about keeping the importance of our children's life in
perspective.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about education.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about children's toys.

Ibid.

I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic.

Ibid.

What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic
chance of solving the problem.

That's because you closed your eyes when it was mentioned.

While you may have ignored it, nor is the idea of disarming our innocent people
any realistic solution to the problem.

None of your suggestions concerning education and video games, etc.,
are going to work and you know that. Or you certainly should. Really
they're just excuses for not doing anything to solve the problem.

Personally, though, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I also don't
believe that outlawing things like military-type assault weapons, or
hand grenades, or bazookas, or land mines, or shoulder-fired missiles,
or battle tanks, for instance, is an unwarranted restriction on
anybody's freedom.

Actually, my preference for solving the problem is to use our current
free-enterprise system and our traditional belief in the importance of
personal responsibility to solve the problem. First, I believe that
all we need to do to solve most of the problem is to require everyone
to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to buy a gun. They
could simply add it on to their homeowners or renters insurance policy
just as people typically add their dog to their insurance coverage,
for instance. Second, I would make allowing someone else to use your
gun(s) in the commission of a crime a serious felony that included a
long jail sentence.

The problem, however, is that rightwingers would never go along with
it because the truth is that they don't really believe in free
enterprise or personal responsibility all the much, and they're really
not all that interested in solving the problem.


Right-wing... left-wing... as if there are no left-wing fruitcakes. Do we need changes
in the way we both honor the constitution and honor our personal responsibility in
the issue of firearms? Of course we do! But in doing so we should not trample on
the rights of citizens, in some herd mentality stampede. We ALWAYS make
mistakes when we knee-jerk in hoping to solve deeply divisive and highly
charged emotional issues, and end up taking away people's rights because of
fear. Remember McCarthy and his _communist behind every tree_ Senate
hearings?? How many lives did he ruin and even have responsibility for killing
in those hearings? Let's not use McCarthyism in believing that will solve the
problem of gun control vs. the rights of citizens.


Planet Visitor II


But it would be beneficial if we started
teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game.
Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent
children. *See --http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adam-lanza-a-head-fu...

The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game
addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the
rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem.

Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence
is dangerous to our youth. *Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously
illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence
with video games such as --

10 -- Original Carmageddon
9 -- Soldier of Fortune
8 -- God of War II
7 -- Gears of War II
6 -- Mortal Kombat!
5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players
simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual
maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count)
4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on
a lamppost. *Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder)
3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts
of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain
impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass)
2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming,
including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. *Total death, blood and mayhem)
1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate
in the plot behind the story. *Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun,
teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets,
which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers).
***
Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video
games that glorify killing. *But you insist they are not a problem.

***http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...ent-video-game...

Planet Visitor II