In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You would be right if the hypothetical he used was what I would have done He is using an event of some unarmed person lifting of a cheap lap top and getting shot to death. That type of petty theft was not what I was talking about. I know he was trying to be helpful, and I am glad professional law enforcement folks have the time to post here.
Interesting find about a proposed Connecticut law to be more proactive with persons who evidence mental disorders being defeated by work by the ACLU. Their argument was these afflicted people have rights, but a right is something that can be practiced without infringing on another's rights.. Not sure if it had passed whether it could have factored in Lanza getting treatment, though Asperberger's Disease is really a form of autism.
We must find a way to stop the mentally impaired from procuring or having access to weapons. Every one of these horrific developments has a perpatrator with a mental deficiency of some sort. That has to be factored into whatever changes are coming in the law. But Mrs Lanza owned three guns legally, but did not have the forethought to secure them. Cho, the shooter on the VT campus, bought guns legally from a licensed dealer even though he was treated for a serious mental disease. That loop hole was closed. And like it or not, the schools need upgraded security, including staff trained to use deadly force.
So, so, so stupid.
If you're dumb enough to believe teachers should be carrying firearms in a classroom then you're too dumb to hold an elected office in this country.
Now if you want to talk about every school, even elementary schools, having a security officer with a firearm, that's at least a reasonable position.
Also, an important read about Asperger's:
more grill utensil control please!
Police are trying to determine a motive after a 22-year-old man allegedly killed his grandmother Sunday using a barbecue fork. Los Angeles Police Department Lt. Paul Vernon called the incident in Mission Hills The suspect, identified...
NYCTerp is now OCTerp
[terps99-caliber poster to terps99 on this thread]: You know how I know you're wrong about gun control? NYCTerp05 is on your side of the argument!
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by terps99 19 months ago
from The Wall Street Journal
The National Rifle Association, breaking days of silence, issued a statement saying it is "shocked, saddened and heartbroken" by the elementary-school shootings in Connecticut and is ready to offer "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The group said it will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
Oh, the iron...kind?
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
This post was edited by Tracer Bullet 19 months ago
OK, I am not going to get into a gun control debate, but gun proponents need to stop this idiotic argument. Obviously it is possible to kill someone with many different objects that normally would serve other purposes. Someone else in this thread cited baseball bats as the #1 weapon in murders. You can kill someone with any blunt object, really. It's also possible to kill someone with beat/choke someone to death with your bare hands. This is ALL true. It also doesn't mean jack shit in this argument.
Making this cornball strawman argument ignores two very basic facts: First, most firearms were designed to kill human beings, while the other potentially dangerous objects (cars, knives, power tools) were designed for other necessary purposes, obviously. Second, firearms are the most effective weapons for killing human beings that regular people have access to. If you can't tell the difference between a highly accurate projectile weapon that can be fired repeatedly versus a knife or a bat, I don't know what else I can do for you. We figured this out about 500 years ago.
what color women do cornball strawmen date?
Who cares about design? That 33,000 people get killed each year in car accidents makes cars more dangerous than guns. You can argue for anything to be legislated against because of danger, but ultimately if the net safety gain is negligible at the cost of infringing on rights and increasing the cost of goods, it does not make sense to enact.
Is that you Rob Parker?
Cars do kill sometimes. They also, you know, take us places quickly. Goods too. Make modern life possible. Stuff like that. Also, your 33K number doesn't really prove one is more dangerous as much as it proves that more people own cars and use them every day.
I hope you are not equating cars' value to society to that of guns. Jesus.
Anyway, I'm not calling for legislation. Just stop comparing guns with other objects that can be used to kill people and saying "See! They're the same!!"
In terms of human rights, I'd suggest guns have been far more valuable.
It no longer took years of training to be able to take out the fabulously wealthy landowner with a longbow or less with a crossbow or recurved. Now the least trained, most humble person could take out the best trained, wealthiest and most elite.
Not called "the great equalizer" for nothing.
Before them, it was "ride down the peasants hurrah!!1!1!!", and the peasants got to enjoy it. Given the disparity in punishment between the wealthy and poor in this country (if not the world), I am a little concerned that certain folks are all too ready to dispose of an important capability.
Thank you very much for posting that. I met a guy a little while back that I've been thinking about a lot these past few days. I was attempting to stumble into one of my regular bars when the doorman mentioned that there was a cover due to a couple bands performing. As I was waffling between staying and going somewhere else this random guy walks up and tells the bouncer I'm on his guest list. The place was basically empty and we went and sat at the bar and shot the shit for probably an hour, mostly just talking about punk bands. I could tell he was a little off but I was fairly drunk and compared to most the weirdos I always seem to find myself chatting with he didn't stand out much.
I don't remember if he told me he had Asperger's or if I looked it up later, but when he went up on stage there was no mistaking that there was a condition. There were probably only about 5 or 10 people there and my drunk ass clapping was probably only embarrassing him, but the whole deal affected me quite a bit. I can't imagine much better therapy existing for this particular kid than what he was doing. I've actually been out to see him since, but couldn't tell if he remembered me or not when I said hi.
The reason I've been troubled thinking about this guy isn't just because I met someone with the same condition as Lanza, but because of the context of his performances/image/whatever. Most people probably hadn't even heard of Asperger's until this past Friday, and this event will likely be the first thing many think of at the mention of that or even just Autism. It sickens me to think of people fearing or judging him due to the combination of his condition and the fact the he dresses like Glen Danzig, has violent imagery on his posters, and plays aggressive music with often disgusting themes. Basically I'm just trying to say I hope people slow their roll a little bit on the whole "violent video games and movies may push people with developmental disorders over the edge" stuff I've seen a lot of lately. As Goodman's superb link immediately hammers home, there are zero known ties between Asperger's and violent behavior. And just because most the school shooters wore black and listened to death metal doesn't mean wearing black and listening to death metal make a particular person, autistic or not, more likely to act violently.
Sorry for the rant, and it's ok to laugh at the video, a lot of it is funny.
If any posters here wonder why the AR15 is such a popular platform, or simply wish to educate themselves about the weapon before spouting off:
If you don't wish to read the link, people love the AR15 because it's modular, i.e. parts are readily available and can be swapped out cheaply and easily to make it appropriate for just about every use.
BTW, the author is an Obama supporter.
This post was edited by WTF 19 months ago
Wait, is this a legitimate argument?
Let me know when my gun can take me to work or serve some purpose besides killing humans or animals and I'll reconsider my stance on them.
Oh, a gun can do all of that and more. Need a ride? Carjack some chump in a BMW. Need some cash? Rob some chump in the suburbs. Want some sex? Rape a MILF in the suburbs.
For #%*('s sake, is it that hard to understand his underlying point?
Replace cars with food then. 20 years ago, I'm sure you would have found it pretty absurd if someone was arguing that cheeseburgers or large sodas should be banned.
The underlying point is lots of things hurt lots of people. OMG WE HAVE TO BAN EVERYTHING SLIPPERY SLOPE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Sorry if that isn't worth serious discussion. I'll put my snarky asshole hat back on now if that's ok.
No, the underlying point is to publicly discuss whether things that hurt people should be banned, even if that comes at a cost to personal freedom and liberty.
Saying "slippery slope" a bunch of times, posting in all caps, and being a snarky asshole does not change the fact that SOCIETY HAS INCREASINGLY SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO BAN AN INCREASING NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFTEN AT THE COST OF PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, and it's a worthy discussion to have as to whether that's a direction in which we want to continue.
To the extent it's a "slippery slope," we've already seen a descent down that slope. I quite literally remember having arguments regarding gun control when I was younger where people would say HEART DISEASE KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS!! OMG BAN CHEEZEBURGERS!!1!!! Guess what, communities are already banning what citizens can buy to eat and drink.
This post was edited by terps99 19 months ago
The point is, this country gets up in arms and rushes to address the issues with the best PR/advertising and not the ones most beneficial to society. Gun deaths isn't even top 15. Heart disease and cancer are 1 and 2 (not counting old age) and are very much preventable/controllable in many cases. Genetics play a part, but diet, exercise levels, exposure to various chemicals, hormones in food, prescription drugs in the drinking water, pollution, all factor in as well. There is very little concerted mass effort to educate the public, hold people accountable for behavior or rethink the progress of new chemicals, dyes, and hormones into products we use every day. We'd rather throw away millions as charitable donations and federally funded research to find "cures", aka pharmaceuticals or medical procedures than address the causes.
I would imagine that if a comprehensive study was conducted on gun violence in America, the conclusions drawn would be that the glorification of guns in entertainment (music, movies, television), bombardment of fear-based messages from news media in print and on television, and a change in brain composition or chemical imbalances brought on by reliance on prescription drugs and non-natural foods starting at an early age would all be major contributors. The trouble with those conclusions would be that fixing those issues is much more daunting, costly and ambiguous than saying "restrict, ban, limit guns!!".
Frankly, I would be accepting of a licensing and registration process for ownership of guns is similar in scope to CHL (including the 8 hour course), but meant for all guns (rifles, shotguns, etc). You would renew it every 5 years and pay a nominal fee. In theory this would be helpful, however one can make the parallel to driver's licenses and the quality of your average driver is rather subpar, even after completing driver's education. Additionally you'd have the redtape of a DMV-like entity, without efficiency, and a startup process for millions of gun owners to get registered. In the end, I don't think that the implementation of this sort of program would accomplish the intended goal effectively.
I personally think Congress should ban things that cause great violence after you watch them, like violent video games or Georgetown and UVA basketball.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports