Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > How To...

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old Today, 10:31 AM   #176
SissySalina
Literotica Guru
 
SissySalina's Avatar
 
SissySalina is online now
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 743
Now you have gone from taking Assault Weapons to Back Ground Checks.
Looks like someone is backing up.
__________________
Sissy for the of IT

Sissy Salina

Sissy Rules
Sissy will only refer to sissy-self as sissy
Sissy will be in chastity (except for cleaning)
Sissy will be plugged both penile & anal(except for cleaning or usage)
Sissy will have enema twice a day
Sissy is never allowed to say "no"
Sissy giving oral servitude will have hands bound behind back
Sissy will swallow all cum or nectar
Sissy should be milked once a month
Sissy is never allowed ejaculation
Sissy’s only duty is to serve others
Sissyies are always bound or caged at night
Sissies are never to wear any male clothing articles
Sissy's will remove all hair except the long head hair
Sissy will have pierced ears and other piercings
  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 10:44 AM   #177
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
 
coachdb18's Avatar
 
coachdb18 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramblethorn View Post
*not actually a fact.
It actually IS a fact, and more than one of these shooters has documented their targeting based on gun free zone status giving them more time to run up a big score unapposed.
__________________
Please, no religious or political discussion. That's not to say I'll simply tolerate dumb shit, and will engage as necessary. If you would like to discuss flying, welcome...I LOVE discussing flying... and then there's ALWAYS the subject we all love....



My Stories
https://www.literotica.com/s/the-bavaria-trip The Bavaria trip
(Exhibitionist/voyeur category - 2 pages)
  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 10:46 AM   #178
NightL
smoke'n'mirrors
 
NightL's Avatar
 
NightL is offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by SissySalina View Post
Now you have gone from taking Assault Weapons to Back Ground Checks.
Looks like someone is backing up.
Once again you spout forth without thinking or apparently reading

Here is another quote from the same published article
"67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;"
  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 02:21 PM   #179
OTCurve
Literotica Guru
 
OTCurve's Avatar
 
OTCurve is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramblethorn View Post
Noting that assault weapons have been banned before, at least partially (the 1994 bill didn't encompass pre-existing weapons) so that doesn't necessarily require amendment to the Constitution. That ban also encompassed some semi-automatic weapons.

(For the benefit of gun enthusiasts who may be grinding their teeth right now, I will acknowledge that "assault weapon" is a vague and unhelpful term, and that the 1994 bill had some very weird inclusions.)

BTW, I realised there's one thing missing from NightL's list, which I will also advocate: kill the Dickey Amendment.

(re. "Surrounding school with razor-wire fences and armed guards. Kindergarteners being taught to yell and throw books at an attacker - not to stop him, not to save their own lives, but to draw out their deaths so their schoolmates have a few more seconds to get away. ")



From this post and this one, you certainly seemed to be advocating armed guards and perhaps even arming teachers, but perhaps I misunderstood?

Fencing has been widely advocated as part of a defensive strategy; if you google through recent discussion on school safety measures or see e.g. here, you'll find it. It's pretty much inevitable if you want to defend something the size of a school campus without hiring dozens of guards (unlikely to be affordable); you need to restrict access to a few choke points that can be covered by a small number of guards, and that means serious fences or walls or something similar.

And you'd better hope the guards are good, because if they don't stop that shooter in a hurry... well, the same measures that were meant to stop the shooter from getting in will also stop students from getting out.



http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...ters-1.4542023



I'll agree that Everytown is partisan. Breitbart is very, very partisan. Unfortunately, thanks largely to that Dickey Amendment, it's very hard to find non-partisan sources on this issue. But in this case we can make some headway by looking at the partisan sources.

The Everytown report I linked to was published in 2017, drawing on data about shootings up to December 2016. The Breitbart article was published in 2014, so obviously it's not a direct response to that report, but let's look at it anyway.

The Breitbart piece is drawn pretty much entirely from this 2014 CPRC report. The first author on that report is John Lott, and as I mentioned before, Lott only considers public mass shootings. The introduction makes this clear: "In this report, the CPRC looks at mass public shootings since the beginning of 2009."

They do go on to criticise a 2014 report from Everytown (not the same one I linked to):

"The CPRC also re-evaluates Everytown for Gun Safety's recent findings on mass shootings... Everytown greatly exaggerated their number by including gang killings and shootings as part of some other crime as well as residential killings involving families."

In other words - both sides are in agreement that the Everytown stats include residential mass shootings, and CPRC's do not. To give CPRC their due, they are very clear that their stats refer only to public mass shootings (i.e. less than half of all mass shooting incidents).

Breitbart repeats that language in the article, but their headline drops out that important qualifier "public". People who only read the headlines then cite that as "92% of mass shootings in gun-free zones", which is simply false, and not supported by either report.

The CPRC report states that "Everytown's discussion contained numerous other errors. Everytown’s claims were flawed as to the extent of mental illness, the age of the killers, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case."

As noted above, this refers to an earlier report from Everytown, not the 2017 report that I linked.

The one I did link includes an appendix which gives the details of all the shootings they looked at in order to get their numbers. So you don't have to take it on trust; if you don't believe Everytown has reported them accurately, you can go verify those reports for yourself.

Since home shootings are the central point of contention here, I randomly picked three of the "home shooting" incidents in their appendix.

#1: Sinking Springs, PA, 08/06/2016. Everytown says: "Mark Short, 40, fatally shot his wife and their three children ... before fatally shooting himself."

So, did that happen?

Yep.
Yep. He shot the family dog, too.

#2: Liberty, SC, 10/14/2011. Everytown says: "Susan Diane Hendricks, 48, fatally shot her ex-husband, their two sons, and her stepmother."

Yep.
Yep.

#3: Greenwood, NM, 9/10/2015. Everytown says: "Brian Short, 45, fatally shot his wife and their three children ... before fatally shooting himself. The shooting took place in the family’s home."

Yep.
Yep.

In all three of those cases, the Everytown appendix seems to be an accurate summary of the facts as reported. I didn't check further - reading up on this kind of shit is profoundly depressing - and I'm sure that if you looked long enough and hard enough, you could find an error in the details here and there. But three for three is enough for me to be pretty confident that their reports are mostly correct.

I haven't hunted down the earlier report that CPRC was criticising, so for all I know it's quite possible that it did have all the failings that CPRC attributes to it. But if so, it's also quite possible that Everytown saw that criticism and improved their quality-checking for the 2017 report.

Bottom line: a very large percentage of mass shootings take place in private homes, the CPRC stats explicitly exclude those events, and therefore they're not going to give accurate information about "mass shootings" in general.



Yes, if a zone has designated people on duty carrying guns there, it's not "gun free". That's what those words mean.

Otherwise, are we going to say that a school with armed guards is still "gun free" because the students aren't allowed to carry?



Last weekend I went to a concert with about 3000 other people. To the best of my knowledge, none of the audience were armed, and neither were the security guards. I expect there would've been a handful of police there, armed with handguns, but I didn't see them.

It wasn't scary at all. The only thought I had for safety was checking that there wasn't any risk of a crowd crush (there wasn't) and then I spent the rest of the evening listening to music and chatting to my partner.

I can understand that if you're used to a violent society, it would feel instinctively scary to know that somebody could attack and you don't have the means to fight back. Even in my neck of the woods, it's not completely risk-free; last year some dickhead killed six people with a car before the police stopped him. But the fact that it's so hard for those dickheads to get guns - especially rapid-fire high-capacity guns - greatly outweighs the tiny difference that carrying a gun might make to my own safety.



As an example, "gentlemen's club" wasn't always a euphemism for "strip joint". Once upon a time it was a place where men could go and spend time exclusively in the company of other men of similar social status and political persuasion. They've declined a bit lately, and some now admit women, but there are still quite a few men-only clubs around. A club may not be officially white-only, but it's easy for them to end up that way; people have plenty of ways to discourage others from showing up.

That's a safe space. It's not called that, it's not advertised as that, it doesn't officially impose the same sort of rules you'd find in a university campus safe space, but in practice it serves the same sort of purpose: it's a place where people can go to relax or to focus on something, without the unpleasantness of having to encounter a contrary opinion.

One thing that these "sheltered snowflakes can't deal with the world, so they demand safe spaces" discussions pretty much always miss is that nobody is expecting to live in that sheltered environment 24/7. Safe spaces are about giving people space where they can breathe easy just for a few hours without having to argue with somebody who believes they shouldn't exist/etc. etc.



"The criminal set" is not a monolith.

Australia has organised crime. I walk past a mob-owned restaurant almost every day. I would expect that our local mafias still have access to semi-automatic weapons if they want them; they have the connections and the resources to smuggle them in, or occasionally to steal them from police/military.

But mafias are businesses, and the people who run them want to stay in business. They may be vicious sons-of-bitches, and sometimes they go after one another, but they're smart enough to understand that mass murder - or any murder of innocent parties - is very bad for business.

I have no doubt that there are other people who've held on to their semi-autos. But a ban gives them a very strong incentive to stash them out of sight, which reduces the temptation to pull them out in the middle of a domestic argument, and reduces the risk that somebody else will get hold of them. That's very nearly as good as taking them out of circulation altogether.

Note also that mass shooters almost always turn out to have a track record of domestic violence, which means at least one family member who has a strong incentive to report any illegal firearms.



They can, and occasionally they do. But there are reasons why guns are the mass killer's weapon of choice.

If a killer just wants to rack up a body count and make the headlines, and doesn't care who they kill, yeah, they can do what the guy in Nice did and drive a vehicle into a crowd during a public event.

But most mass murderers want to target some more specific group: workmates, family members, classmates, and so on. Vehicle attacks aren't so effective for that kind of attack.

There's also the psychological side. Shooting somebody is a different act to bombing them or stabbing them or driving a truck into them; it lets the attacker maintain a certain distance while still seeing the consequences first-hand. A terrorist who can't get a gun will look for some other weapon that does the job; it's not so clear that other would-be killers will simply substitute weapons.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

Your numbers are roughly correct, but note that this wasn't a lone attacker like mass shootings are, or even a two-person attack like Columbine or San Bernardino. It was an organised attack by a group of eight terrorists. Between them they killed 31 civilians, i.e. on average ~ four per attacker. Eight attackers with a gun could've killed a lot more.
Indeed, and it was less than a rousing success. From what I can tell, there was not a noticeable decrease in crime. Reasons given vary, from the scarcity of crimes committed with rifles before the ban to the large amount of rifles grandfathered and still in the population.

That does bring something up, the vast number of rifles already out there. A ban on further purchases does not address that issue, and the only solution would be removal (confiscation), which leads to war. I still think, given how many rifles are actually used in crimes and murders, this needs to be approached from a direction which does not include a ban. These rifles will last decades, and some generations, before they wear out.

You are correct in that I do advocate protecting schools far more than is done now, which is what, locked doors and maybe a resource officer? Given the levels of protection we give to our money in banks and the armed security details for every politician and government building, it seems measures to protect children should be higher than those.

By 'those things', I was referring to razor-wire and the kingergarteners acting as distractions, which I do not agree with at all.

Fencing may be advocated, but I think two or three choke points, hardened, would be a better start. Also, I recall the doors to classrooms being quite flimsy, what about rethinking that with a bullet-resistant measure, plating or whatnot. That isn't my field, but a nice robust door that can be secured against intrusion would be a good compromise, at least something we can all agree on, yes?

Measures have to be taken if you want to save children in their place of schooling. Leaving it just the same as it was isn't likely to change anything.

At this point I think all these reports have errors, whichever side it represents. I don't know I would classify a domestic violence killing as a mass shooting, regardless if it can technically be called that. But I would ask why no huge outcry over the domestic mass shootings, if that report is accurate on the numbers? Where is the outrage? And by that, I do not mean people feeling sick that a husband could do that to his family. I mean why isn't it on the news, demanding change?

Like Chicago, it is a cesspool of law-breaking and violence. Far more than this latest mass shooting. Where is the outcry? Not trying to deflect, I want you to ask yourself why there is no outcry with more killing than these mass shootings going on, every month? Why is no attention being brought to it?

To me, a gun-free zone is an area where citizens (not law enforcement or military), who are allowed to carry (either open or concealed) normally is not allowed to do so in this instance. Sports arenas, courthouses, things like that. You will find most people on the pro-gun side of the fence use this meaning.

Yes, a school with armed guards is considered a 'gun free' zone as I, who is legally allowed to carry concealed, may not do so in that area. Same with any place that posts a 'no guns allowed' sign.

I hope you had a good time at the concert, who did you see?

The point I was trying to make was over here, if people thought a gathering was vulnerable to attack, then purposely made it a 'gun free' zone, effectively disarming the law-biding folk while allowing a criminal free reign, was scary.

As for gentleman's clubs being safe spaces, well, that's an interesting viewpoint. I don't think everyone in a club like that had identical opinions on everything. Going to relax, sure, but the reports on university safe spaces seemed to be more of the emergency variety. Like that university where students were feeling traumatized because someone had used chalk to write the word Trump on some steps.

Mature people can discuss contrary views without getting triggered or traumatized. Losing control just because someone has an opinion that is not in line with yours is a different matter completely, don't you think?

I get what you say about organized crime and how 'the criminal set' isn't a monolith. You have these, for lack of a better term, businessmen, and they operate in a certain understanding that, as you say, mass murder is bad for business. The mass shooters over here, the ones publicized in the news, don't have that restriction. They do not care about business, they certainly do not care about laws, as they go and murder people. I don't know of the correlation between these murderers and domestic violence, but it certainly is a factor to investigate. One of the problems that arises are the new laws proposed that allow people to report on other people when something is 'off'. If used properly, certainly they can save lives. The problem is that these laws are almost always abused, like the restraining orders. Used properly, and assuming the party that is 'restrained' feels like obeying the law, which is not all cases by far, and it works. But when they are used spitefully, like to set up property and child custody in a divorce, well, that abuse needs to be considered as well.

I don't know if most mass murderers want to target specifics. Certainly a lot do, but I wonder, if the San Bernadino duo didn't have access to the workplace, would they have shot up others? Or that guy in the Pulse nightclub, or Vegas, they seemed a little on the vague side. The nut that shot the Congressfolk playing baseball, yeah, he had an axe to grind it seemed. Still, I think the answer is simpler than that. Guns over here are a mass killer's weapon of choice due to availability, something that will not change noticeably after a ban, given the numbers involved. But, theorize the absence of guns and out come the trucks, etc. Before you say the number of killings without rifles will be lower, do know that both blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc) and 'personal weapons' (hands, fists, feet, etc) each were responsible for more deaths than rifles. That's all rifles, not just the AR series.

No, it isn't clear what the would-be killers would do without rifles. I do believe, though, that someone that bent, who is ready to murder the innocent, will most likely wind up doing so in some manner.

I will ask one thing, again, not to deflect, but an actual question. Why is it, do you think, that in all other murders, whether it be by hammers, fists, crowbars, knives, hit and runs, and such, the object used is never blamed, it is always the person doing the killing. But with a gun, so often it is the item blamed and not the killer?
  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 02:38 PM   #180
OTCurve
Literotica Guru
 
OTCurve's Avatar
 
OTCurve is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightL View Post
The dinosaurs are feeling threatened, but it was the young who were slaughtered yet again. The young will take over and your world will cease to exist. If they feel short changed and dismissed in the forthcoming nationwide school walk out, just remember they are the next round of voters. When offered the opportunity they will vote in numbers like never before.

An NRA controlled government is establishment they will reject. The young are never fond of establishment. They also don't fear your kind OTCurve.

Your arguments and scrabbling for Breitbart "statistics" will soon enough be just irrelevant.

_______________________________

I mentioned my disdain for what I see as the influence of American nightly television shows and also violent games has on the normalising and glorification of guns. Guns are nightly portrayed as the easy solution to solve disputes and also the almighty attention seeker. If you throw in lax upholding of laws, laws that allow military style weapons to be easily accessible, the careless nature and regard to storing weapons then those bent on self-destructive attention seeking or have a propensity toward domestic abuse are likely to gravitate to what is dished up nightly as "normal". If guns are easily accessible they will use them to tragic results time and time again.

The argument "but if they bring in tighter gun laws it will only be a matter of time before the government regulates how you wipe your arse" is just nonsense. As I mentioned in an earlier post here, you don't drive the kids to school in a formula 1 car, nascar or indeed an armoured tank as they are deemed dangerous to be on public roads. Regulation, restriction and licensing for the safety of the public - the world has not gone to hell and back again because of that, nor will tighter gun control laws be the downfall of modern America.

This whole "but they will use knives or drive cars" - maybe, but I fancy my running ability against someone wielding a knife any day, or even leaping from the path of an oncoming car than trying to dodge a bullet, especially when the bullet is followed almost instantaneously by countless other rounds.

Stupid stupid dinosaurs. Young people now resent you and their bite, even before they can vote is making the NRA controlled government nervous as all hell.

I'm curious OTCurve, how will you respond to this growing swell of protest from the young? Threaten them with an automatic weapon?



I find it very telling, NightL, that in that whole overdramatic diatribe, you seem to blame an inanimate object, never the killer.

You seem okay with killing, and will take your chances running or leaping, but there is never any thought about the killer.

Goodness, you do seem to view the opposing side as violent. Threatening people with an automatic weapon? You're talking to the wrong side for that.


  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 02:42 PM   #181
OTCurve
Literotica Guru
 
OTCurve's Avatar
 
OTCurve is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightL View Post
"Support for Gun Control Surges to Highest Level Ever as GOP Lawmakers Sit on Their Hands"

"In a new poll, a whopping 97 percent of people say they support universal background checks."

Yet Florida legislators vote down attempt to ban assault rifles

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...LLP/story.html

The motion failed by a 36-71 vote.
  Reply With Quote

Old Today, 05:05 PM   #182
SissySalina
Literotica Guru
 
SissySalina's Avatar
 
SissySalina is online now
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightL View Post
Once again you spout forth without thinking or apparently reading

Here is another quote from the same published article
"67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;"
Poles are great for people that like numbers. If you keep asking the same people same or different questions you still come up with the same type numbers.
A pole is only as good as its data base. sissy can ask the same people with a little different worded question and get the result that sissy wants. Poles are for politicians because they can be manipulated to say anything you want it to.
__________________
Sissy for the of IT

Sissy Salina

Sissy Rules
Sissy will only refer to sissy-self as sissy
Sissy will be in chastity (except for cleaning)
Sissy will be plugged both penile & anal(except for cleaning or usage)
Sissy will have enema twice a day
Sissy is never allowed to say "no"
Sissy giving oral servitude will have hands bound behind back
Sissy will swallow all cum or nectar
Sissy should be milked once a month
Sissy is never allowed ejaculation
Sissy’s only duty is to serve others
Sissyies are always bound or caged at night
Sissies are never to wear any male clothing articles
Sissy's will remove all hair except the long head hair
Sissy will have pierced ears and other piercings
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.