Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"

[Jim K]

What makes anyone think that the anti-gun forces have not implemented plans to create massacres?

In almost every case, from Stockton to the L.I.R.R. shootings, the killer was disturbed, but also poor. He had no money until he "found" enough to travel to a "lax gun law" state, put up in motels, and buy expensive guns and ammunition. Then he took his gun, and with "a slight smile on his face" killed a lot of people. (Note there is always "a dazed expression with a slight smile", a sign of chemical brainwashing.)

If anyone were able to track the money those people suddenly had available, I wonder where it would lead.

And does anyone wonder how the Washington area "Beltway snipers" turned up so conveniently when a push was needed to get an anti-gun candidate into the Maryland governorship, and just after Michael D. Barnes, then-head of the Brady Campaign said he would "do anything, anything" to keep the Republican candidate from being elected. He was never asked just how far "anything" went.

We tend to think that our opposition, even though wrong and fanatical at times, is basically honest and willing to fight cleanly in the political arena. Most probably are, but what if some are not? What if some are so fanatical and dedicated that they will "prove the need" for a gun ban at any cost and by any means?

Jim

 

[Caimlas]

I'm going to come off as a nut, but... the man is right. Nothing is going to happen about guns in our society, specifically in schools, until there are more shootings. It's a simple cause-effect, action-reaction scenario: people won't start giving a damn until they're personally threatened.

Unfortunately for this guy's fragile worldview, I'm thinking the response will be for more guns, particularly in schools, not less. Pitty.

 

[Caimlas]

There is one big benefit to having certain state with insane gun laws (provided you don't live there). Where do you think terrorist are most likely to strike???

This has no basis in reality. Terrorists (I think you mean divout Muslims?) don't reason in their targets; their targets are all dogmatic and symbolic. They won't care one way or another if the local residents have guns, largely because most of their attacks dont' involve firearms (preferring bombs), and because even if they did need firearms for the plan, the could do sufficient terroristic damage before anyone was able to respond (not everyone CCW, has a truck gun, etc. afterall).

Now, I could see them avoiding somewhere like Tempe, AZ, or Dallas, TX - if their plan required them to be at street level and observeable during their actual attack. Elsewise, I doubt it'd matter.

See: recent SLC mall shooting

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

I have no doubt that there are sinister goings-on. Conspiracies if you will.
Heck, I speak of them on this very board.
Track the money indeed.

All I'm saying is that the goof in the OP's article sounds, well, like a goof, not a malicious bastige.

It would be no surprise to me at all if some anti-gun group sponsored some nut job killers.

 

[Jeff]

John KSa said:

Perhaps if your cause is advanced by the massacre of children you should get another one...

There is a lot of wisdom in this statement, and it needs to be repeated.

Jones' desperate proclamation is not the same as saying, "It will take a fully loaded airliner with 300 people on board to crash into a shopping mall on December 18th to get the FAA to improve transportation safety."

Why? Because there are direct correlations between airline safety violations--poor maintenance procedures, overtired or drunken pilots, improperly trained air traffic controllers, poor decision-making in bad weather, etc.-- and airline accidents. Improving all the above conditions statistically improves airline safety.

But there is NO direct correlation between gun ownership and mass murder. In fact, many studies have indicated lawful carry has reduced violent crime in many areas of the country; and that NO assualt weapons ban could prevent massacres.

People like Jones are indeed desperate to see their cause advanced, plain and simple. So desperate, they will make public statements like this.

 

[default]

Jones' desperate proclamation is not the same as saying, "It will take a fully loaded airliner with 300 people on board to crash into a shopping mall on December 18th to get the FAA to improve transportation safety."

On the contrary. It is exactly the same. That gun control laws don't prevent school massacres and good maintenance does prevent airplane crashes is neither here nor there. It's simply lamenting the fact that people do not get motivated until they face a crisis or disaster. Whether or not their response is appropriate or correct is irrelevant.

 

[Jeff]

default,

I disagree with your assessment. John KSa made a salient remark that I think can be dissected to a great degree.

Your point of people only taking action following a disaster bears no relationship with acknowledging an immoral agenda or the melodrama propping it up.

Cause and effect, and the lack thereof, is exactly why the claim by Jones is melodramatic, absurd, and immoral. Gun control are all those things.

 

[chemist308]

Re-posted from another forum, originally from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: note the "I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.

That's the sort of talk that needs to be made public, so all can see the radical thought processes of anti-gunners. If folks truly understood their agendas and how far they're willing to go, less would support them.

I've always believed teachers should have the right to CCW on premises. That could have stopped Columbine and a dozen other school shootings, while no ammount of gun control or banning will ever prevent gang members and other criminal minds from stealing guns or buying guns out of car trunks and vans.

 

[ptmmatssc]

"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.

"I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.

I've read some other posts that say this guy isn't hoping for another massacre just more or less stating a fact . But , if he wants "progress" and the only way to get it is through another massacre , then doesn't he want it ? Would it not just be collateral damage to him ? A means to an end? To me the difference between what I want ( RTKBA, concealed carry, etc ) and anti gunners (obvious) is I don't need deaths to promote my cause . Heck , the less deaths the better . It would prove that people being armed is PREVENTING these tragedies. I don't know of any pro gun people that would want any bloodshed to prove their point .

People can argue what this guy meant , but read it like you would the 2ND and it's plain to see he is just waiting(hoping?) for another massacre to happen to push his "progress"(agenda) .

 

[default]

Your point of people only taking action following a disaster bears no relationship with acknowledging an immoral agenda or the melodrama propping it up.

Jeff - with all due respect, what does the morality of the agenda have to do with it? It's a common complaint, in all human endeavors, that things only get done when a crisis looms. Why should antis be any different than anyone else in this respect? You have yet to demonstrate how what the man in question said differs in any significant respect from any other "it's going to take terrible event X to get people to wake up to the importance of enacting legislation Y" statement. It certainly isn't relevant that his position on gun control happens to be wrong.

If you really want to be the guy trying to win over a potential ally by claiming that gun control advocates actually wish for and delight in horrible massacres, as opposed to emphasizing the far more sensible and supportable position that ill-conceived and unconstitutional gun control laws inadvertently make such massacres more likely, as an unintended consequence, go right ahead. Good luck with that.

Anyhow, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. No doubt we're in general agreement on the background issues here. Thanks for the considerate discussion.

 

[Jeff]

default,

I'm obviously not as concerned with the rhetorical foundation of the statement as you are. I'm concerned with the moral force of the statement. Philosophical arguments, such as mine, target the reasoning and logic. Jones' ridiculous statement is purely emotional; how it can be similar to other statements because of human nature in general is neither here nor there.

 

[default]

Fair enough - I think I understand what you're getting at. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[cwmcgu2]

Thought I would bring this back up to the top for yall.

 

[Chui]

PUN INTENDED

"I don't want to take people's guns away, but there are types of guns people shouldn't have and certain people who shouldn't have guns," he said."

Well, I agree. We shouldn't have Lorcins, Ravens, Jennings, High Points and maybe Kel-Tecs.

And some non-thinkers - hell, most non-thinkers actually - don't need weapons. Same with the criminally minded. And who fits this category of social misfits? Liberals and Politicians.

 

[Plink]

California regulated the hell out of guns

Yeah, and we all know how effective that was at reducing violence. Same with D.C. They have had the most restrictive gun laws of all, for a very long time, yet had the highest violence rate.

I don't understand why they don't see that. The truth is staring them right in the face. The statistics prove that their kneejerk reaction in blaming crime on an innanimate object is nothing but feel good politics with no positive outcome.

 

[cwmcgu2]

This is the email of the man who commented on the need for more school massacres:
[email protected]

Do with it as you wish.

 

[Chui]

Au Contraire, Mon Frere

"I don't understand why they don't see that. The truth is staring them right in the face. The statistics prove that their kneejerk reaction in blaming crime on an innanimate object is nothing but feel good politics with no positive outcome."

Come now. Surely you understand the goal: TOTAL DISARMAMENT OF THE CIVILIAN POPULACE.

You can read the Freedom from War document. I believe it's Security Memorandum 7277.

You've heard and read the "alarmists" and "conspiracy theorists" telling you about total disarmament of the public with dire consequences for that public once the weapons are effectively removed.

It's time for us to wake up and grow up. It's later than you think...

What else must happen before we shake ourselves from our slumber?

 

[.cheese.]

Don't know if it was mentioned yet, but we obviously had it happen today.

Instead of the media going anti-crazy... I've been surprised at how some are finally starting to get that taking away protection only increases risk... and that those poor kids at VT were sitting ducks (may they RIP )

All the talk on the TV and radio for a few hours has been about CWP programs and how we need more protection... not less.

 

[LAK]

I am with Jim Keenan on this too. Nearly all these shooters, including Hamilton and Ryan in the U.K., seem to have been cultivated and handled. This is underscored by the efforts of key parties and agencies to conceal, obscure, or hamper efforts to uncover and fully investigate, the relevent evidence and or witnesses pertaining to alleged facts and circumstances, actions and inactions.

This one exhibits an often common denominater; first it is reported there are two shooters, then it changes to one only - who inevitably "kills himself".

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Zero_DgZ]

Question the intents and scruples of people who capitalize on tragedy for political gain.