A moment of your time to reflect on our National tradigy.
These were on "Face book" This morning and I thought you might wish to see them as they seem to sum up the tragedy better than any words I have heard. With thanks to the authors who at this time are anonymous, I present them for your consideration.
Tom Ford
NO. 1077
posted by Crestwood Independent at 07:20
68 Comments:
I cannot imagine the horror families are going through right now. It just boggles the mind. I really wish we made mental health services as easy to get as guns are.
11;43 AM Blogger: Mental health officials feel the same as you do. At one time those who suffered mental health problems were place in specific places where they could be helped.
Since the advent of "main streaming" into society problems have risen Thar show we must go back to the way it was. It's safer for them as well as society as a whole.
At the end of WW 2, and Korea there were more guns in America than people, however this sort of tragedy never happened,and remember a gun was in almost every home why was this the case ?
Tom Ford
I cannot imagine. I only know that I cannot get my mind around these insane people with history of mental illness able to get assault rifles so easily. This is a tragedy that didn't need to happen, just like Virginia Tech. It is so very sad for the grieving families.
7:03 PM Blogger: The one thing that must be in effect is the fact that this must not be politicized.
On CNN yesterday there was a Mental health specialist physician who stated that "It's not the gun's fault, nor is it the fault of the manufacture, IT is a mental health problem, pure and simple."
I agree completely. "assault rifle" has been banned in America since 1928 for all but the Military and Law Enforcement personnel. In other words, a civilian cannot own a fully automatic weapon unless they have a Federal Firearms license (class 3and a very expensive tax stamp.)
The murderer did not have an assault rifle, but rather a "look alike" copy of a Russian AK-47 7.62x39 CAL. rifle. Deadly, yes they are, but so is a kitchen butcher knife (see the Chinese man who stabbed 22 people the same day.)
We have all the laws we need now on the books (use of a gun in a crime, extra five year sentence tacked on,) but the so called judges fail to enforce them (I have seen it personally.(
Mayor Bloomberg has already been on TV over this, what other lame brained politico will follow for some "face time ?" This is not a case for votes, it is a God given chance for the American public to stand up and tell these judges to enforce the laws we now have!
Tom Ford
7:03 PM Blogger: The way I see it is that people who find "assault-rifles" appealing are already a half a bubble off center.
7:03 PM Blogger: For what it's worth, don't you think that by your logic anyone who owns a Corvette instead of a Belaire could be thought of in the same manner?
I don't own a firearm that is, or could be considered an "assault weapon," nor do I plan on ever getting one. That said however, to each his 0own, no?
Once we start "picking and choosing" parts of the Constitution we are on the road to loosing your Liberty and Freedom. Do you think that's a good idea?
Tom Ford
I find this very interesting indeed. Maybe if this was not the case this sort of thing could be halted. At any rate it would be a great start.
More laws only clouds the issues and slows the prosecution of the criminal. Just enforce the laws now on the books and watch the crimes committed with firearms decrease markedly.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-over-40-percent-percent/article/2516175#.UM-JbEbCz8B
Tom Ford
Were our Founding father referring to assault rifles in the Constitution? I hadn't thought they were. And I thought the ban on assault rifles expired in 2004.
6:54...When I start reading stories of mass murderers using a Corvettes as murder weapons I'll think of it in the same manner. Until then, I'll continue to think of assault-rifle owners as paranoid nut-jobs.
5:56 PM Blogger The rifles carried by the founding fathers were either smooth bore or rifled bore flint lock types.
They were in fact the "assault rifles" of the day, and as such were "state of the art" for the time period.
If you would like to see one call Roseann n ask her to view the one in the Sappington house. Failing that, I will be glad to do a 'show and tell' for you.
You are correct on the ban expiring in 2004, but I guess the democrats will just have to do something (read knee jerk reaction) in the wake of this tragedy.
First and most important, there are no assault rifles on the street, just look a likes. Second the obama regime has done little to enforce the laws (see above) on the books (they are up to their nose in the "fast and furious debacle.)
Third, no one has looked into the real root cause of this, that being it's a mental health issue, not an inanimate object capable of doing anything without a user.
Tom Ford
9:19 PM Blogger: It's nice to see that you have an 'open mind' on such things.It's also nice that the government has not (yet) decided that having a open mind is not allowed.
I guess we can assume that if you like and want it, it's OK, if you do not, well it's bad and must be removed.
Merry Christmas to you and your family, and i guess we shall have to agree to dis agree on this one.
Tom Ford
I made an interesting observation from the Facebook and media chatter chatter following this tragedy , The people who make comments about the need to repel the 2nd amendment were many of the same people who were making pro-abortion comments during the election last month. Ap
banning assault rifles does not repeal the second ammendment. Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
5:14 PMN Blogger: Where in this thread does it say that "the second amendment will be repealed (other that your remarks?)
I have a couple 0of people that I will list below that know about these things for our edification, you tell us if they are wrong.
"It’s easy to talk about gun policy, but we really need to have a conversation about mental illness in this country. I have already seen in my brief time working with the current public administrator, as I prepare to take office, that for many (make that most!) people who don’t get enough help with their mentally ill relatives, the criminal justice system is the only resort, unfortunately; and that needs to change; as it only exacerbates the problems and prevents treatment. Let’s use this very horrific, unfortunate incident to have a reasoned, logical conversation about what we do now rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction."
Steve Farmer
“To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.” ~ Plutarch
“One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils of this world are to be cured by legislation.” ~ Thomas B. Reed, 1886
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who did not do it.” ~ William Burroughs
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Top 10 Myths About Mass Shootings
December 18, 2012, 2:42 pm
By James Alan Fox
Even before the death toll in last Friday’s school massacre in Newtown, Conn., was determined, politicians, pundits, and professors of varied disciplines were all over the news, pushing their proposals for change. Some talked about the role of guns, others about mental-health services, and still more about the need for better security in schools and other public places. Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.
Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.
Part two by Mr. Jamws Allen Fox.
"Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.
Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.
Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.
Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.
In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown school shootings, there seems to be great momentum to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer. Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough."
James Alan Fox is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern University and the author of Violence and Security on Campus: From Preschool Through College (Praeger, 2010).
well, the 8:30 am post mentioned someone wanting to "repel" the ammendment, so I assumed that person meant "repeal".
Yes I misspelled repeal, sorry it bothered you so much, I had difficulty typing from my phone. Basically all I was saying is that I have obserevered much hiprocrosy from liberal left leaning folks who are pro gun control and have jumped on the band wagon of calling for the 2nd amendment to be changed. I also saw many of theses same folks go on and on about keeping abortion legal during this past election. It just seems like an oxy moron to me.
it didn't bother me. I was stating a fact about my assumption of your meaning.
Sandy Hook is an example of evil concept of the "right to privacy" foster on us by the left and ACLU. Security, like food and water, trumps any other so-called right. Everyone should be able to find out everything about everyone else. You should be able to google any radius from your house and get information on who is being treated for mental illness, who has arrest records, etc. Read the book "The Transparent Society" by David Brin to get a good idea of how society should work. If everyone (and I am meaning the public not just the government) can watch everyone else, we would have a whole lot less problems.
MZ
11:19 PM Blogger: Missouri does have certain offender list's available to the public (sex offender comes to mind.) You can see who they are and where they live if you wish by accessing the sites available.
In Missouri you do have the right to know where certain offenders live and work, and you also have the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property, it's called the "castle Doctrine."
When the "Castle Doctrine" was signed by Governor Nixon it gave all of the the right to defend our homes and all in them without the need to retreat.
Since that law went into effect the home invasions have been less prevalent, and the carjackings have been cut as well. (FBI crime statistics report.)
Please don't misunderstand me here, there will always be dumb criminals and drug addicts who will try it anyway, but their numbers have been greatly reduced by the law.
Tom Ford
" evil concept of the "right to privacy" foster on us by the left and ACLU".
Republicans need to make up their minds. Either you want intense personal privacy or you don't. "Big Brother" can't watch you all the time and still give you privacy. Which is it?
Anonymous @ 7:01 said
Republicans need to make up their minds. Either you want intense personal privacy or you don't. "Big Brother" can't watch you all the time and still give you privacy. Which is it?
You misunderstood the concept I was talking about. In the "Transparent Society", it is not "Big Brother", rather it is "Every Brother". By that I mean that you, me and the guy next door can find out everything about everyone. You can find out who in your neighborhood has a mental illness (and potentially dangerous) or not. Whose kids have been busted for drugs, etc. Think of an application on your cell phone that enables you, when you enter a story, who has a criminal record. So it is not the concept that only the Government knows everything about everyone, the transparent society concept is that everyone knows about everything. Knowledge is power and therefore the power is completely diffused among all of us. The good news (and I work in the software field) is that these kind of capabilities are being developed.
So as a conservative and normally voting republican, I categorically reject "intense personal privacy". The "intense personal privacy" is the cloak that potential criminals and other dangerous people hide behind. Avoiding things like the Sandy Hook events requires the elimination of the concept of personal privacy. Elimination of the whole personal privacy concept would enable you and me to access software that could have tagged and tracked over time people like Adam Lanza rather than he being hidden by his mother so to speak.
MZ
Oh, I see your point. While I agree with the base of that idea, I do not care for a society so transparent that there is no personal privacy any more at all. People's sexual preference, likes, dislikes, family dynamics, etc. There's a very fine line that separates "we need to know for our safety" and "everyone is tracked and nothing you do or say is private". Some things really ARE no one's business.
very interesting op-ed. I took the time to read it, and I hope others will too.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
9:31 and 8:36 PM Bloggers: I believe the government shod be tracking sex offenders, people judged by competent authority to be mentally deficient, and violent criminals. No one else should be on any sort of data list for any agency.
Our problems in society today stem from lack of jobs, race baiters telling ________(you pick it) that they are being held down, and the fact that 25 years ago we mainstreamed the mental patients into society.
All Washington wants to do is further their agenda by doing anything, not getting to the root of the problem.
In China on that same day a man attacked 22 school children with a knife. There is no call there to ban knives, but you can bet that that guy won't be with us much longer, and that will certainly detour him if not others from this sort of thing.
Really think about it and tell us what an inanimate object such as a gun, knife, rental truck (timmy mcveigh) OR a Chevy have to do with a mental patient on the other end of them.
If you want this stopped (who dosen't) work on the mental health problems in the country today, not some 'tool' that was used in the crime.
Tom Ford
The difference is that in the China knife attack no one was killed. There's a pretty high chance that multiple rounds with an assault rifle will leave few survivors. The tool used in an attack does matter. It matters a lot. Yes, getting into the issues in mental health care is HUGELY important. But so is making sure no one outside the military and law enforcement have multi round assault rifles. Why? Quite frankly no one other than those people needs one.
Crestwood Independent wrote: No one else should be on any sort of data list for any agency
I think you are still missing the concept of the a Transparent Society as outlined by David Brin (and I think is a great concept). It sounds like by "any agency" you mean "any [Government] agency". This was not what I was describing. Corporate and trans-national entities like Google are what I was describing as being able to provide the tag and track capabilities of potential dangerous people like the mentally ill, criminals and heck kids who order violent video games. As a conservative and software engineer, I know that companies like Google are way beyond what the Governments can do. So in reality, being tracked and accessible by public can have absolutely nothing to do with the Government. As a matter of fact, there is no reason or justification for the Government to put in regulations to protect your privacy
I assume that you are pro-life and a fan of conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. I will quote to you in his own words from a July 2012 interview on Fox with Chris Wallace on the right to privacy:
WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965?
SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.
WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was.
SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was -- that was wrong.
So you see, your and mine's conservative Justice directly supports my position. The Transparent Society as envisioned by the likes of David Brin and me are well within the constitution.
MZ
8:13 AM Blogger: "The difference is that in the China knife attack no one was killed."
So knives are not bad because no one was killed? Come now, surly you don't mean to say that do you?
I have no idea what your hobby or recreation is, but to many Americans it is target shooting and hunting. I have participated in both (not so much any more since loosing the sight in the right eye) but I still enjoy trying.
I am at a loss as to why you would champion removal of inanimate objects and not demand that we go after those who would misuse them.
IF the Washington crowd would stop[ at the so called assault weapons (they aren't) and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, I would not oppose it. They will not however as history has shown, so I have no choice but to oppose it.
The second amendment was written into the Constitution because prior to the war the British under Lord Cornwallis confiscated guns from the city of Philadelphia with the promise to return them, the didn't, so the founders wrote this to protect lawful citizens from having the same thing happen after the war.
If you have never tried target shooting you should. In fact I will invite you and whomever to join me at my club for a go at it, just tell me when.
Tom Ford
7:42 PM Blogger: I do in fact understand what your saying on "transparency," and I agree that it's more than rampant in America today.
Now, as there is nothing we can do about what is in effect, what can we do about things such as drones flying over our cities for the ad hoc purpose of "watching" us?
Will some low level government bureaucrat decide that you or I am a "menace" on their own because they don't like our haircuts?
You see we can launch into all sorts of theories, but in the end we MUST be ready and ABLE to protect ourselves from whatever, and, if needed I intend to do so.
Tom Ford
I grew up shooting guns. My father taught me to shoot by the time I was 10. I do not hunt, but I am a hell of a shot with a target and tin cans. I do not, nor have I ever needed, a gun capable of shooting 500 rounds at a time. No one outside the military needs that kind of fire power for any reason. Those weapons are designed and built to do one thing and one thing only: to kill people. If you are really trying to tell me that the average person has a use or a need for assault style weaponry, then I can't even imagine what sort of logic you could possibly be using. I would not ever suggest that regular guns should be messed with in any way. I am suggesting that outside of our soldiers, assault rifles should be banned, period.
And no I am not saying because no one was killed in China's attack that knives can't be bad. Way to completely miss the point. What I meant was that if a person can't see the difference between the damage a knife can do and the damage an assault rifle can do, then you're simply not looking or are using willful ignorance.
9:09 Am Blogger: "then you're simply not looking or are using willful ignorance. " A bit up tight aren't we, or is it just that your a liberal who cant go ten sentence's without hurling insults?
ONLY TJE MILITARY HAVE ASSUALT WEAPONS NOW! If as you say you were brought up around guns you know that as well as I do!
Why must you attack an object that without a MENTALY ILL PERSON behind it is as useless as a broken parachute? Do you feel better, are you just emotionally driven, or do you just want to usurp someones freedom and liberty?
Now, and in the future if you wish to make any comment's here that contain idiot insults sign your name or play somewhere else as I will drop your post in a heartbeat.
Oh and in closing, MERRY CHRISTNAS to you and yours.
Tom Ford
There was no insult intended. Stating what I did was in no way an insult, and I am sorry if that's how you read it. I was trying to make the pint that some in a room with a knife and someone in a room with semi-automatic rifle...well, as far as carnage goes, the rifle wins, so the tool does matter.
Perhaps it would help me if you would tell me what you view as weapons that are already banned. I am unaware of weapon ban that is current. The last one I was aware of lasted from 1994 to 2004. When was this ban enacted? How long does it run? Where can I find this law to see details? I have not been able to find anything about this.
And Merry Christmas to you as well.
2:25 PM Blogger: Fair enough my friend, here are some dates and what happened on those dates to ban fully automatic (AKA assault) weapons.
1928 was the year the government banned ALL automatic firearms such as the Thompson sub machine gun from the public (Note criminals had them anyway as they stole them.)
1968 saw the enactment of the NFA (National firearms act) that disallowed the purchase over the phone of any firearm (You have to fill out a two page form and it must be called into the ATF for clearance by them before a dealer can sell or deliver it to you.)
This would be a very good time to send all the mental health records to the ATF so they can have them in their data base when and if a mentally disturbed person attempts to purchase a firearm of any sort. Forget the "HIPPA" laws and get this going ASAP.
As you said, in 1994 the government voted to ban all "look a like semi auto military type weapons (no0 they were and are still semi automatic.) At the same time they banned all magazines that held over 10 rounds of ammunition.
As you also stated the ban was allowed to sunset due to the fact that the reining politico's at the time saw no real use in keeping it in effect.
As we speak there are about 1.7 million of these in the country today, 98% of them are in the hands of citizens with NO criminal record or intent. The others unfortunately may be in the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed individuals who have stolen them or had a "straw party" purchase them (illegal) for them, such as was the case at Sandy Hook.
My point is one of civil liberty as dictated by the Constitution. Take one amendment away and it's nothing to remove the 4th, 10th, and yes, the 1st.(or parts of it. Before you know it we have a Nazi Germany with all the trappings of socialist States such as Germany, Italy, Japan in the 40's.
Incidentally, I have demonstrated many a time (I was a firearms instructor for out Po9lice Department as well as the Police Explorer post's,) that a person with a knife can cover 21 feet (7 yards) and stab you to death before you can get you gun into action. Why? Well they know they are going to do it, you don't, they have a tremendous advantage over the person with the gun.
Believe me, had that Chinese person wanted to kill those kids (thank God he did not) it was more than possible.
So what? We'll never ever discount a knife in any nasty circumstance as it is an extremely lethal weapon in anyone's hands, much less a trained knife fighter.
Tom Ford
For what it may be worth, a further history of gun control according to the Washington Post Newspaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-is-cautionary-tale-for-those-who-want-more-regulations/2012/12/22/73a07294-4afc-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_print.html
Tom Ford
OK, if you want the laws, let's enforce them. When this guy is prosecuted for breaking a clear law, I will be impressed.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/25/D-C-Police-Investigating-NBC-s-Gregory-For-Violations-of-Gun-Banning-Laws#disqus_thread
Tom Ford
Hypocrisy in hollywood, watch this before they have it taken down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItiypwjHx4&feature=youtu.be
All it takes is for you to become a star and then you too can lie through your teeth!
Tom Ford
I still want to know what assault rifles have to do with the second amendment. Please clarify, because I don't think anyone's talking about plain old guns. Assault rifles are made to hunt people and kill them. I need enlightenment about what's wrong with making them harder to get.
And, though I clearly see the point of the video, I want to point our that most of the pictures shown are the actors in movie roles, not wielding a gun in a shopping mall.
Thanks for the link. Man, I totally agree with the observed hypocrisy of Hollywood coming out for gun control while promoting violence. I do not buy the argument of "its just acting". They have the gall on the one hand to glorify violence via profits and then come out against "the senseless violence".
Actually things are even worse than the hypocrisy shown by the video. I absolutely hate the whole "torture porn" stuff put out with moves like Saw, Hostel, etc. People who enjoy these moves should be tracked as potential wackos like the Newton Conn. guy.
I really wish that Conservatives would have the guts to start banning these films ... or at least making life financially difficult for the companies and directors that make them.
MZ
oh, so banning movies is okay, but not actual weapons? I see a flaw in that logic.
Diane Feinstein (darling of the left) displays her hypocrisy when it comes to gun control!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA&feature=youtu.be
Amazing that these fools are to stupid to not remember what they have said in the past.
Pathetic lying liberal!
Tom Ford
8:59 PM Blogger: As much as a rental box truck from Chevy has to do with killing people at Federal Buildings (Ala timmy McVeigh.)
It's not the object. it's the fiend behind it. And by the way there were no calls for banning rental trucks were there? Np there were not!
Most are rightly concerned that banning ANY sort of firearm will eventually lead to the banning of ALL firearms.
There are but two enemies of a firearm, rust and democrats (as long as they have one, see above.)
I have stated that I do not own one, but I am smart enough to know that your owning one is not a danger to me at all (unless you become crazed, and then it's the responsibility of your family to remove it from your grasp.)
If you want to make more laws, how about arresting The NBC reporter, Greggory who, in violation of a DC statute flourished a high cap. magazine of national TV?
He knew it was a felony to possess one (the DC police told him so) and yet he did it
! Enforce the laws now on the books, or forget any type of new ones, right?
In passing, Chicago a democrat controlled City with a very tight and restrictive ban on firearms just "celebrated" it's 500th murder (so far this year) two days ago, what do you say to that little anomaly?
Tom Ford
9:16 PM Blogger: MZ, "I really wish that Conservatives would have the guts to start banning these films ... or at least making life financially difficult for the companies and directors that make them."
They do have the so called nerve to do it but it is and has been blocked by the democrats every time it's brought up!
The left has a funny way of wanting their cake but eating it too. Change their two faced approach yo life in general and there is a chance that these things can change.
How to do thyat? Vote them out in 2014!
Tom Ford
I ask again, how is banning movies alright but making assault rifles harder to get isn't alright? Isn't it the same slippery slope? First movies that conservatives feel are too violent, then music that has explicit lyrics, then plays with any violence. Orwell's 1984 becomes reality. If the movies are too violent and tend to influence people, Mr. Ford already has a solution:
"unless you become crazed, and then it's the responsibility of your family to remove it from your grasp.)"
So, violent movies are fine if the crazy person's family has him committed before he can act out "Saw', but if the person has no family or they cannot contain him, it needs to be as easy as walking into a gun show to get a semi automatic rifle?
8:00 AM Blogger: Just like a good little liberal you attempt to justify YOUR side but daemonize the other.
Well I am all stocked up with people who refuse to see and understand the truth, so if yo want to continue this place your real name under what you so vehemently believe in, or your out of here.
I am sick to death of sanctimonious people who are afraid to stand by their beliefs for fear of ? So post away, but sign it or don't bother.
And yes, Mr. Ford does indeed have at least one solution. Maybe your too young to remember when FAMILIES took care of their own, but I'm not.
Had the "family" of the shooter been doing their job this never would have happened as he would have not had access to any sort of weapon, not even a kitchen knife!
Tom Ford
(PS, I never said violent movies or video games were OKI with me, are you having some sort of Hillary moment?)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2:56 PM Blogger: Well that was simple, you again failed to follow the rule i set out for you, SO..........
Tom Ford
please explain. I did not once insult you.
4:26 PM Blogger: I almost did not answer this question of yours as my post of 9:48 AM (12/31'12) should have tipped you as to why.
Please look at it and I believe you will understand, but if you don't, I abhor anyone who will continue to ask the same question when it's been asked and answered before.
Your question was asked many times by you with no recognition of any of the answers, therefor I must assume your just here to try and obfuscate the issue! If your going to do that then YOU MUST SIGN YOUR NAME, PERIOD!
Tom Ford
Crestwood Independent wrote: "They do have the so called nerve to do it but it is and has been blocked by the democrats every time it's brought up!"
There is plenty of evidence I can show you that this statement is not true. First item, the [very liberal] state of California tried to put restrictions on violent video games. The law was over-turned by the U.S. Supreme court in 2011. The Supreme Court decision was 7-2 to over-turn the law. The majority opinion was written by none other than Scalia. Justices Roberts and Alito.
Now I will offer you another more recent evidence of Conservative ideas on the regulation of violent video games. Take the case of the National Review magazine. I think no one would argue that the NRA is more conservative than the National Review guys. On 20 December 2012, the National Review contains an article called "The Folly of Blaming Video Games" at the URL of
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336116/folly-blaming-video-games-robert-verbruggen#
I think one could argue that National Review is definitely a primary source of Conservative ideas and intellectual authority. So even they take a Government hands-off of regulating violent video games.
MZ
Sorry, I forgot to add that the Supreme Court case that struck down the California "can not sell violent video games to minors law" was Brown, Governor of California vs. Entertainment Merchants Association decided in June 2011.
11:42 and 1:47 Blogger: MZ, well it dosen't seem to look as though it was conservatives who blocked any of the California legislation now does it. (SCOTUS opinions are brought by a majority justice and reflect the majority vote.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants
_Association
As far as the NRA and the American Spectator may well have been erring on the side of the first amendment to the Constitution when they made their statements.
The entertainment group is 98% made up of card carrying democrat's and I believe you know it. They will NEVER allow their cash cow to be gored by any sort of ban on their so call4ed acting!
My statement stand my friend until and unless you can bring me concrete proof that ALL the votes to ban violent videos would come from conservatives.
By the way, why aren't you going after the ones who would usurp our second amendment rights? There is really no difference now is there.
Tom Ford
The California entertainment merchants association:
http://firstamendment.wpengine.com/tag/california-v-entertainment-merchants-association/
ALL Conservatives, right MZ?
Tom Ford
First, the Supreme Court ruling on Brown vs. EMA was 7-2. So the point was that the Conservative judges voted against the violent video game ruling.
The entertainment group is 98% made up of card carrying democrat's and I believe you know it
If you read your own link, the California law was started by state senator Leland Yee, who was a high ranking democrat. So the point is that it was not the democrats that blocked passage of this type of law in this case.
By the way, why aren't you going after the ones who would usurp our second amendment rights? There is really no difference now is there.
For some reason you must think that I am a democrat or liberal. Actually I think that any further legislation to ban assault rifles or other restrictions is wrong. I am totally for the 2nd amendment. Where I don't think you get is is that my opinion is that the way to go is far beyond the proposals of the NRA with regards to mental health tracking. Because I work in the software industry, I know how powerful and cheap computers and memory are becoming. My proposal is that even simple software concepts like "rules engines" could be setup to watch and correlate behaviors, mental health, purchasing of guns, subject searches to predict and stop things like Newton, Conn.
A good example locally was the case of the mother in Webster Groves this last summer who killed her kids and herself. The technology is there that her purchase of the handgun, her being treated for depression, and her internet search history could have been spotted by software running well known behavior rule sets. Alerts could have been emailed to her family members and even authorities.
And to be clear, I am saying that there should be NO MORE laws restricting gun ownership in any case. The 2nd amendment is clear on that case. I am saying that we could easily extrapolate technology to solve these types of problems. Again, the watching would be done by non-humans, machines. Computers are an unrealized force that can do both active law enforcement as well as predictive capabilities (like in the Webster Groves case).
The great advantage of having machines do these tasks is that the rule sets could be publicaly known and it does not involve either democrats or even republicans to execute the capabilities.
MZ
6:31 PM Blogger: MZ, i know when the ruling was. The SCOTUS simply moved to protect the first amendment, not because they were conservatives, but because that is what they were charged to do.
Now as to your idea of a machine telling the government who is and is not mentally ill, how about if another uses your IP address to send out suggestive materials, then what?
Your right about one thing though, we have ALL the laws we need, just start enforcing them. In both recent cases "straw parties" were use to buy the guns, a felony since 1968, and no one has said a word about it.
Anderson Cooper commits a felony or two ON NATIONAL TV AFTER HE AND NBC WERE WARNED NOT T0 DO IT BY THE dc POLICE AND AGAIN, NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
Let's work to strengthen the mental health problem we have and leave the Constitution alone!
Tom Ford
Now as to your idea of a machine telling the government who is and is not mentally ill, how about if another uses your IP address to send out suggestive materials, then what?
That is an easy one for software to handle. I can take the case of the Webster Groves mother as an example. Spoofing an IP address alone would not necessarily trigger the software. A women buying a handgun is not a trigger. A women being treated for depression is not a trigger. However, correlation of these separate events would indicate a trigger. In mathematics, a Bayesian analysis would work on this type of problem (e.g. the updating of the probability estimate for a hypothesis such as a suicidal mother as additional evidence collected by a massive software watcher system of private insurance claims, credit card purchases is learned).
As a matter of mathematical probability, it would be hard for a hacker to spoof many separate data sources to trigger something required for a multi-variable event correlation rules engine.
Google spends 100's of millions of dollars on this type of technology. It would be just a matter of integrating the separate date streams and databases to accomplish these types of tasks. One of the greatest ideas in my opinion was under the Bush administration for a DARPA program called the Total Information Awareness program. While TIA would have been targeted at terrorist activity, the same technology could easily be adapted to the types of mental health tracking, prediction and law enforcement that I have been talking about. It was a sad day when TIA was canceled by Congress (and that included many Republicans unfortionately)
MZ
7:07 PM Blogger: "MZ," Sorry it took so long to get back to you but I incurred a forced absence from normal duties for a bit.
Now as to your remarks about it being "easy" to track, I agree, in fact it's TOO easy for someone to track.
My question is a simple one, knowing the propensity for lying and the control freaks in Washington, do you really want them to have such power?
As we both know any code or any series of numbers can be compromised by any decient hacker on this planet. We hear of it everyday, and we hear of the results that are not favorable to the ones who were "hacked."
As far ads I am concerned the government should have a data base that consists of nothing relating to any private citizen.
We have just witnessed the most egregious theft of our liberty in the history of the Republic, and it was done right under our noses by no less than BOTH parties! Do we give them even more power to ruin our lives, or do we push back?
I am not a republican as they have sold out their constituency way too many times, and I certainly can never be a democrat for what should by now be obvious to all by now! I am a firm believer in the Constitution as written, and I damn anyone who would change it for their ruinous agenda.
I guess you could say that I have morphed into a Libertarian, and as such I have nothing but disdain for the so called ruling class! The man said it best "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!"
Tom Ford
Thought for the day as sent to me by a reader in Crestwood.
San Antonio Shooting
On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora , CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php
Tom Ford
I agree totally with your point. I really have come to believe that the best thing for this country is for everyone to be walking around armed. It will be like a scene out of The Walking Dead, where you enter a room, guns drawn, ready to mow down anything that moves. People can break off into little survival groups, trusting no one outside their band of survivors. Sadly, I think it may come to this before too long.
5:21 PM Blogger: Do you really believe that (rhetorical question?) No, you do not and we all know it!
Why would you even bother to inject such foolishness into a conversation that will affect all of us in the first place?
If your motives were to be "cute," well you missed the mark by a mile. We have a serious problem in this Country and it's not a firearm, or a person with a firearm who is responsible and stable?
I am sure that you know concealed cary of firearms by TRAINED, LAWABIDING citizens is legal in all States but Illinois right? Do you also know that in ALL those States violent crime (according to the FBI statistics) has seen a marked drop?
Attempts at being "cute" or trying to insult the opposition when your out of facts is the hallmark of a progressive / liberal, with a typical emotional reaction to _______ (you name it.)
Social engineering back in the 60's has caused many of today's Ill's along with the "mainstreaming" of the unfortunate few with serious mental health problems.
Show me a willingness to discuss the reasonable cure for those issues and we will be making strides to stop mass murders, anything else is just window dressing and will not work!
Tom Ford
Oh for Heaven's sake, calm down. I was exaggerating to make a point, no need to get so prickly.
I do have a non-exaggerated question about this statement you made:
I am sure that you know concealed cary of firearms by TRAINED, LAWABIDING citizens is legal in all States but Illinois right?
your use of the word "trained" gave me pause. How do you foresee the average citizen becoming properly "trained"? Do you envision a system for this?
9:02 Am Blogger: Well you didn't think I would let a comment like that just sail on by do you?
I am and have been "calm," you should see me with my "war face" on. That said however, now that we all know your real intention's, on to your question.
Let me preface your question by stating that I used to be a firearms instructor for two police Explorer Posts in the County years ago. There are still a few Police officers on the street today that went through my class. and they re doing quite well.
Training in live fire is an on going thing that MUST be kept up on a quarterly (I prefer a monthly) basis to be effective.
Training should consist of State and Federal laws pertaining to the use of deadly force, as well as the laws pertaining to concealed cary of a firearm. This should be in a classroom environment, and a written test should be given to evaluate the retained knowledge of the student involved.
The actual safe handling of THE FIREARM the trainee will be carrying should consist of the safe handling, loading and unloading (with dummy ammo) of same prior to actual range time.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the non firing course syllabus (16 hours) the student will be introduced to the range for live fire exercises. At this time the standard B-5 Police human silhouette target will be used to insure that the student is completely clear on the fact that they will be firing at a human, and not a round paper target.
It should be noted at this time if the student is not comfortable with the fact that they may have to fire on a live target, the student should, (and will be given) an non completion of the course.
The live fire will be conducted from 7 yards (21 fee3t,) and the student must score at least 70% of the hits in what is known as the K-5 zone (mortal wounds) in order to pass the course. This would be at least 96 rounds of ammunition in 6 round strings.
To maintain your qualification to carry concealed the live fire on the range should be completed with an instructor every 6 months.
Now this is more than the State requires, but in my mind it's the least I would have any friend or family member do before they set foot on the street with a firearm.
Now you know my minimums when it comes to firearms training. Why am I so "strict" on this ? Well please remember that every time your in contact with another person there is at least one firearm there (yours,)it is your responsibility to insure that nothing is a concern to either of you unless it becomes a confrontation requiring deadly force. At that point your training will kick in, and God willing it will not be necessary to use that force.
Tom Ford
I absolutely agree with your "strict" rules about firearms. I actually don't think anyone can be strict or careful enough.
You have no idea what my intentions are or aren't.
But, to be more specific, I was actually referring to the part of your statement that indicates citizens should be properly trained in the use of firearms. I wondered if you envision a system where it is mandatory by a certain age, or if you meant law enforcement, or what the details are that you meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.
5:44 PM Blogger: "
You have no idea what my intentions are or aren't." Really?
The answer is again simple. NO I do not envision anyone you does not want a firearm being required to have one.
I do believe strongly that if you do wish to have one, it's your right if you are a law abiding citizen with no mental issues that would preclude you from owning any dangerous object or item.
Tom Ford
again, agreed.
So, how do we get from here...to there?
8:22 AM Blogger: Well, one thing is for certain, you cannot legislate morality. I give you Chicago, home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation (and democrat controlled I might add,) where they saw 500 murders in 2012 alone!
I think were "here," it does require responsible people to make it happen, but one thing is for sure, laws will not do it.
If you toss out the second amendment, what's to say that the fourth isn't next? What will you do if they come for your computer, "for the good of the State?"
You see these old boy's who wrote this pesky (to liberals) Constitution knew what they were doing long before anyone had an idea to make things happen their way.
It used to be that people who would banish certain parts of our founding document were considered outcasts. I think we need to bring back that line of thinking, and soon.
Tom Ford
agreed again. Morality cannot be legislated. But I have heard no one asking to remove the second amendment. Tell where you've heard this as an option.
10:25 AM Blogger: Not remove it but gut it to their liking.
If this is allowed it's a simple step to removing the other pesky amendments that stop their agenda such as the 1st, the 4th and the 10th.
It has been said that "For those who fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
I subscribe to, and fully understand that, and I guess that's why I am so adamant about maintaining it with all my fervor!
Tom Ford
Post a Comment
<< Home