Trending Content
| +89 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +70 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 46 | 45m | |
| +52 | How to develop a thick skin? | 22 | 5d | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +36 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 21 | 2h | |
| +35 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 4h | |
| +32 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 5d | |
| +22 | When do you plan to buy your first house and how much do you expect to spend? | 24 | 14h |
Career Resources
Two words: Minority Report
You can't really put a stop to it... Even if we were to limit gun use (yea right) suspects would still get a hold of them and commit crimes. The only thing I can really think of is if we armed the teachers or principal or had a gun safe installed in the school. But that's just crazy. Thoughts and prayers out to the folks in newtown.
Right. But I'd rather have it so that some socially awkward loser has to illegally buy a gun off some sketchy dude in the black market rather than simply be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, or better yet, order one online.
Gun safety classes? Give me a break. My father spent 10+ years in the military & related outfits, first as a special forces operative and then in intelligence... He's seen how people react under life-threatening circumstances. Typically, unless someone is both highly trained and experienced, they respond very poorly to high pressure situations. People shit themselves. Literally. There's friendly fire. Their accuracy is awful. Some people completely freeze and can't even shoot. See: the NY empire state building shooting, where cops shot 10+ innocent civilians before getting their guy. To think that gun safety courses will prepare you for life-threatening situations is a complete fucking joke.
I've done martial arts my entire life (mostly muay thai). I had done very well in competitions throughout, before stopping at 22 when I was finishing up college. When it came to a bar fight around that time, I quickly got outnumbered, got a beer bottle smashed on my face, and basically got my ass kicked. Sure, I got some good hits in, but I wasn't prepared for the unpredictability of a real fight.
So just give up because it's going to happen regardless? Making it harder to access guns will make them less accessible and will reduce death rates. See: NYC, the rest of the developed world, etc. What's the best way to reduce gun violence in the U.S.? I don't know the exact answer, but I do know that "more guns" is not the right answer. "Fun" fact: The U.S. has a higher rate of gun-related deaths than Mexico, even though the latter has a brutal drug war going on.
I still disagree, putting a gun safe in a school will at least give the teachers a chance. Regarding your NYC example, in this case a teacher could have shot all he/she wanted down the hallway at the suspect because all the students were safely in the classroom huddled in the corner. The chance of the teacher accidentally hitting a student would be minimal. We need more guns, not less.
Regarding your "fun" fact, I don't know where you get your info from but a simple google search shows that Mexico has 8-12 homicides per 1000 people while the US has 2-5.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/24/we-have-a-lot-o…
This is simply an unimaginable tragedy. Prayers go out to all those affected.
RIP beautiful children. As a dad this makes me cry. Just like gay marriage and thousands of other issues, the idiotic gun control laws in this country need to change and certainly will in the next 10 years. Thank Gd the republicans are irrelevant and the NRA and scared old folks in the country are fading into oblivion. How many more tragedies do we need? There is NO counter to this. Ban guns and this sht is 99% less likely to happen. The British ain't comin, time to f*ckin move on....
if you're fucked enough in the head to do something like this, I don't think the fact that you don't have a gun is going to stop you from going FUCKING INSANE... pipe bombs aren't hard to make. you're not going to be able to stop stuff like this from happening, and if you wanted to try, you'd be better off worrying about the mental health of everybody and not what weapons they have access to.
I'm not for banning firearms, not at all. But the fact that people can get so fucked up in the head honestly leaves me little faith in anything.
I know that people can always find a way, but if you put enough obstacles up, you can eliminate certain avenues of destruction. Why let them freely purchase guns? It only makes sense to make it harder for them to acquire weaponry.
how sad, this sucks
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,55…
we should outlaw sharp eating utensils too....
This is the biggest BS article against gun control.
Pretty sure a knife can't kill people at range, kill people through walls, kill people through people, kill multiple people in a very short time frame regardless of whether the people are in close quarters or not, knives can't randomly spray up a room and maim and kill indiscriminately.
That, and the main purpose of knives is to prepare and eat food. The main purpose of guns is to shoot things, generally animals while hunting or people in self-defense.
I'm not some anti-gun nut, but arguing that someone once killed people with a knife, so we can't have stricter gun rules is a weak argument.
If anything, just have universal background checks to ensure that people who get guns are non-felons and don't have major mental issues. End of the day, we have WAY more gun violence than any other major modern country on Earth. Obviously, gun violence will never fully end, but why not make it more rare while still allowing law abiding citizens to get guns? Seems reasonable to me.
I understand what you're saying, but the point about knives being more prevalent to perpetrate violent crime in a society that heavily regulates gun ownership is still valid IMO. Look at China - there are no school shootings, but there are very many cases of deranged people attacking children in schools with knives.
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"
Are people in Japan not free?
Note - I'm not arguing for that level of gun laws, not even close. But, let's not argue that people won't be free if they need to have a background check / waiting period to get guns.
So does owning the gun make you more 'free' or 'secure' ?
No, but the choice and freedom to make that decision does. You have the right, not the obligation, to bear arms. The choice is yours.
The majority of gun violence is located in inner city sections. You exclude these outliers and the US is very safe. Yes, we have higher gun violence than other countries, but we also have more gun rights and freedoms. It is a trade off.
Go visit Arlington National Cemetery and take a look at all the brave men and women who dies protecting these rights we so frivolously want to throw away the second a news headline pops up. Those are all someones husband or son. Freedom isn't free boys and girls.
They all died protecting our right to bear arms? That was what WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq #1, Afghanistan, and Iraq #2 were about? That's why we were fighting? Because these countries were threatening our second amendment rights? Please. The second amendment was put in place to protect us against sovereign invaders, not our neighbors. And I'm not even calling for the outright ban of guns. I have no idea what the right solution is. I do know that we need stricter controls. Again, NYC has been a great example of what can happen under tighter enforcement.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "
"...defend the Constitution of the United States..."
Constitution = Bill of Rights + 17 amendments
Bill of Rights = 10 original Amendments
Right to Bear Arms = 2nd of 10 Amendments
So when someone joins the military, fights and dies, they do so defending the Constitution which encompasses the 2nd Amendment.
NYC? NYC has a murder rate of 6.4 murders per 100,000 people and a violent crime rate of 581.7 per capita. Chicago (another anti-gun city with strict gun control) has a murder rate of 15.2 per capita and a violent crime rate of 1002.3 per capita. In comparison gun friendly San Antonio Texas has a murder rate of only 5.7 per capita and a violent crime rate of 605.8 per capita.
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the…
Also get some real statistics, don't just pull numbers out of your ass.
I'm not sure whether your claim that the "majority of gun violence is located in inner city sections" is true or not, but assuming it is, if you were to implement stricter gun control laws / bans, then presumably it would become prohibitively costly to acquire a firearm (legally or otherwise). Therefore, residents of those "inner city sections" and frankly, anywhere, would be less likely to purchase them.
That's not necessarily true. A lot of the guns that move around on the street were acquired legally at one point, then stolen and resold. I had a handgun stolen from me that was being resold at a pawn shop for quite a bit cheaper than what I paid for it. Presumably, the pawn shop bought it for a bit less than what they were selling it for...in order to make a profit...and the guy that sold it to the pawn shop probably sold it for a pretty cheap price because he got it for free...out of my car.
Regards
Depends how you define free. And it took a couple nukes to free them now didn't it. Gun rights hold a special place in American history and freedom. It is the 2nd amendment, trumped only by freedom of speech. While this is horrible, this is the price we pay for having the right to bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.4 A small majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,5 with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.7
So about 17,000 deaths in 2007 were due to people killing someone else, intentionally, with a gun.
0.006% of the US population
Price we pay for freedom.
By your logic, we shouldn't care about this school shooting. It's only 30 people or 0.00001% of the population. Hell, school shootings in general don't really matter then... A typical year has even less than that @ 10-20 people. Kids? Fuck 'em. Small price to pay for freedom.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 150-250k people total. That's just ~9-15 years of intentional American gun violence (I'm excluding the accidents, even though I don't think I should). Seems like a much more reasonable price to pay for freedom.
You need to look at comps. Our comps are other developed nations. We are far, far worse than the rest of the developed world when it comes to gun violence. Plain and simple.
By my logic I don't care. While I feel bad and this is horrible, I do not want to remove 200+ year old freedoms because of a headline. More than 30 people have been killed in Philly in the past couple of months, yet people come out of the wood work because of this headline. Sensationalism.
I turned the TV back to Bloomberg at work. The worthless "news" we have is a joke.
Why? Could someone from the US enlighten me please.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/01/6601/
If you want to pull "correlation doesn't equate causation" - fine... But I just don't understand where someone gets the idea that even more guns would somehow lead to less killings.
This is the only statement from the pro-gun side that I can take serious in this thread. If the US as a society decides carrying around a gun is so fucking great that it's worth it to have a batch of elementary/ high school/ college students shot to death by the dozens every few weeks... um, I guess? It's fucked up, but at least it's honest.
Anybody who thinks more guns will result in increased safety/ security... please make your case, I honestly do not understand it!
If you are actually looking for a serious answer it's simply this...it's a numbers game. Criminals rarely target people they think will successfully resist their criminal intent. This is why old ladies and girls walking by themselves are targeted. It's not too likely that you will hear about a group of guys walking back from their weekly lacrosse practice that get held up by a guy with a club. The odds are not in the criminals favor and though they are, by nature, dumb, they are smart enough to know how to find an easy target.
Which goes back to my point about unarmed individuals in predominantly gun free zones. They target people they think are unable to resist their efforts. Florida is a good example. When they were trying to pass their concealed carry law, gun control advocates all over the country were flying off the handle talking about how it will be like a wild west town in Florida with bad guys shooting at good guys and good guys shooting back at bad guys and all of these innocent people being killed. Yet, violent crime decrease after the passage of the bill. Why? My guess is that criminals think twice about committing a crime when the thought that the potential target might be armed. Probably why criminals never really rob cops. That is why the Castle Doctrine is good. You should know that if you come into my house uninvited, with criminal intent, that you are probably going to die...instead of me being legally bound to gather my loved ones in a locked room and wait for you to leave with my stuff.
And I know people want to argue the point about how effective an armed citizen might be in a scenario like what occurred today. The truth is, we will never know for sure. What we do know is armed citizens stop crimes virtually everyday but that these valiant efforts go unrecognized by the news media. Knowing that, I think I would prefer the odds of having 1 armed and 99 unarmed citizens in a crowd getting shot up rather than just 100 unarmed citizens. But some people call me optimistic.
Regards
Not sure today is the right day to be having a damn gun-rights debate. Frankly, the moment I heard the news I got too pissed to continue work. Usually I'm desensitized to these things (had a few incidents at my high school, nowhere near as severe, that kind of made me shrug public violence off). But elementary schools? That's just fucked up. Shootings are bad enough, but why anyone would open fire on a classroom of 5-year-olds is beyond my comprehension.
Seriously, what the hell.
Quoted for truth.
I personally heard about this through a text message earlier today, as I have two nephews who were among the students evacuated... thank God. The message was pretty cryptic, so I went online to get more information. When I saw the body count (at 12 then) I was so pissed I had to stop working for a little while. I told my CFO who is an older woman and she just became exasperated: "This is it... we've lost it. We're all done..." I have to agree. I was pissed about the CO shooting, but this is on a whole other level.
I don't know. I personally think we can try to prevent these types of tragedies by beefing up security a little in places with high traffic and big crowds and especially at schools. At least at schools. My mother is a teacher at an elementary school in one of the nicest little towns in CT... They have one way in and you pretty much need an appointment with someone to get buzzed in through the two sets of doors. I know this is not completely effective, and I know we can't have security everywhere, all the time, but I think that is the mentality we need at schools now. I had numerous bomb threats while I was in school, and the response was to hire one more old man-security guard and make kids sign in and out of the bathroom... We apparently need to take this shit more seriously.
I know I'm quackin' at this point, but one final thought - I am thoroughly disappointed with the way the news is covering this, and the fact that each time something like this happens the first thing that comes up is gun control. I personally don't even think of gun control when this shit happens. Let's start small please.
Connecticut Post is now reporting 29 fatalities including, tragically, 22 children.
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Source-29-dead-including-22-children…
CBS is streaming their special report and they seem to be ahead of the other news outlets:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-201_162-1950/cbs-news-live-video/?tag=speci…
Looks like the shooter killed his mother prior to heading to the school, she apparently used to be teacher at the school.
Gunman has been identified as Ryan Lanza and his mother was a teacher at the school, additionally, her students appear to have been some of the victims.
I also have a hard time believing that some people think guns don't make it easier to kill someone since that is what they were designed to do. Knives do not equal guns. How best to regulate it? Above my pay grade. People that want guns will generally find a way to get them, but having them around certainly makes it much more likely that you can kill people in the heat of the moment. I grew up in a very gun friendly environment that did not have many murders (almost certainly had more guns than people). I did know some kids that were killed accidentally by kids messing around with their parent's guns and suicide was much easier with a gun. Arming teachers is definitely not a solution, for whomever brought that one up. That's just crazy talk. I have little kids and would never own a gun with them in the house. It's much more likely that they do something stupid with our gun than us being able to protect them with our gun.
If you're smart with your guns, your kids aren't going to hurt themselves with them. My dad had guns my whole life and I never even saw them until last year (I'm 23). Also, this wasn't heat of the moment, you don't kill your mom then drive to a school and kill children in the heat of the moment. This is a mental health issue... what do you people think is going to happen if guns "go away"? All the crazies will lose their motivation to kill? Not even close. Somebody who wants to kill will kill, taking unsuspecting human lives is not rocket science. I'm sure you could come up with a way to massacre people without a gun right now if you really tried.
I also wish he was alive so we could do some medical/psychological testing and he can deal with the prison life of a child-killer.
I'm for more gun control. Does this stuff happen in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, France? Not nearly as much.
No law will keep you safe from a truly derranged individual (which this individual clearly was). Even if guns did not exist, this guy would be making bombs out of fertilizer or setting buildings on fire. You cannot control all the items that can potentially be used to inflict mass fatalities.
Remember Anders Breivik in Norway. And the nerve gas attacks in Japan. Crazy people will find a way to kill.
Yes, you can't control all items, but you can limit what people readily have access to. Creating a barrier is a good thing.
And what would you limit access to? Knives? Scissors? Chain Saws? Chemicals readily available at the grocery store or hardware store? The internet where people can look up bomb and chemical weapon recipes? Motor vehicles because you can run people over with them?
When does the line get drawn?
To quote GS elevator: "Guns kill people like spoons make people fat."
I am 6'1 230, I was on a powerlifting team in college and still powerlift to this day. If I came into work on Monday with a knife and took out an entire floor of my company (which is possible given my size and the copious amount of fat people in corporate America) are we going to blame knives for the incident or me for being an out of control psychopath? Are we going to ban gyms for giving me an outlet to build up strength allowing me to barrel through people? No.
It is total bullshit and an absolute cop out to blame guns. The gun didn't walk into the school and do this on its own free will. It is an inanimate object being controlled by someone with free will.
Unfortunately, we are going to have a bunch of fucking political assholes using this for their political agenda instead of recognizing that some fucked up psychopath just killed 20 eight year old kids.
I wish we never revolted against the British. We could still be a happy colony. To think of all the brave men who died to free us and preserve our freedoms and to see people just bleat to have those taken away makes it all in vein.
This country has become so full of tree hugging pussies it is unbelievable.
Yeah man, completely agree. Keep throwing down knowledge. It won't matter as we are sold into European style slavery, but one day people will see that a few people had common sense and an appreciation for what once made this country great.
This incident, along with the Javon Belcher story, has so many people calling for a gun ban... yet Josh Brent drunk drives and kills a teammate, and nobody wants to talk about banning alcohol. In 2010 there were 10,759 drunk driving fatalities in the US. People are too quick to react to one problem and almost completely ignore the other.
Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. N
do you even know what semi-automatic means? will you please stop talking until you know anything about what you're talking about?
glocks bad, revolvers ok?
Mr. Smith is a math teacher in a CT elementary school. Mr. Smith is a handgun enthusiast and possesses a concealed carry license. Mr. Smith takes his weapon to school every day even though the administration would fire him if they found out. Mr. Smith hears a gunshot in the hallway. He unholsters his handgun from its ankle holster and peeks out into the hallway. He sees a 20-twenty something in a military vest walking down the hallway with a rifle. Mr. Smith draws his weapon and scores a headshot on the gunman. Zero innocent lives are lost that day.
an extreme scenario... but not any more extreme than the anti-gun people are gonna bring up
"Mr. Smith would have missed every shot while pissing his pants and crying hysterically, every bullet from Mr. Smith's gun would go straight into a child's head! All citizens are incapable of defending themselves!"
Mr. Smith hears a gunshot, yet zero innocent lives are lost? The logic doesn't stick for me. Typically, if Mr. Smith can hear gunshots, he is already far too late. Furthermore, I'd bet that unless Mr. Smith is a well-trained and experienced ex-military or SWAT (regular police officers have terrible training... see: Empire State shooting or talk to any CO about how the typical soldier responds to their first time in combat), he is more likely to fuck up and get himself killed than prevent anything.
Totally agree with this. It's not a slippery slope at all. Other G8 countries have the same freedoms as America. Why do people even need to own a gun? It's 2012. Not like we're still in the hunter-gatherer stages of human civilization. It's borderline immature. Americans walking around like GI Joes? Why do other developed countries find the whole issue so stupid? Guiliani was on Piers Morgan last night and sounded like a complete moron on the subject. He said something like "norway or finland, or whatever the place was", in reference to the Norway shooting. Having a gun is not an important "freedom" to have.
The other comments about being able to take people out with knives are ridiculous. It's a totally different weapon.
What makes guns different is the ease of execution. Duh. I think people are way overstressed in America right now and they're reacting out of character. But the lapse can be treated. Building a bomb is totally different, there's a lot of planning involved and more time to think about the consequences. The person may decide it's not worth the effort.
Isn't it the same thing with suicide? Cities make fences on foot bridges two or three feet higher because it makes a huge difference psychologically. It gives people more time to think about the consequences and ultimately reconsider.
When have you seen citizens walking around like "GI Joes"? Most armed citizens have their guns concealed and you don't even notice them... which is probably good because it sounds like you'd pee your pants and maybe even cry in fear if you did. Why do people even need to own a gun? Because I don't have a personal body guard on me all the time, because people still kill people, because the probability that I may need a gun sometime in my life IS NOT 0%. It's amazing how condescending you are towards people who aren't foolish enough to actually believe that they are safe 100% of the time from violence so guns aren't necessary at all... get off your high horse and hope that you never find yourself on the other end of a barrel. More restrictions may be necessary, but banning them completely? That's such a stupid idea, I don't even understand why people would want to be told that they can't have a gun to protect themselves.
Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. Not that it matters..gun control is coming, long overdue.
You mean a hunting rifle? lol
Semi automatic means one trigger pull, one round fired. Fully automatic weapons are banned already.
just one of those people that's not educated about something they feel so strongly about ha... annoying
No one (reasonable) is saying ban all guns. But please explain why anyone non-military needs this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg
If you're such a real man go kill the deer with a bowie knife or a shotgun. The issue here is these massive clips that allow a person to kill large amounts of people without reloading. If the guy today is using a revolver then he kills 2-5 people and then get tackled, not 30.
This issue is the "mass" aspect of these shootings. We can never totally prevent someone from killing a couple people here and there - the gun access will never go away. But we CAN prevent this large scale devastation, or at least make it more difficult to pull off than walking into a Walmart and picking up military grade weaponry.
wait, so why does the guy with the revolver get tackled and not the guy with the 30 round clip? And how come every single bullet from the 30 round clip is a kill shot while only 2-5 from a revolver is? what would stop the guy that's planning to kill himself anyways from bringing more than 1 gun or more than one clip?
as for guns like that^... they're fun, a friend of a friend has one of those and they're just a joy to play around with... as for clip sizes, well, clips aren't too hard to make.
and not everybody hunts to prove their manliness... stupid stereotyping and assumption
Exactly. There are thousands upon thousands of responsible gun owners in the country who own big weapons as a hobby because they're fun. A sports car will get you from point A to point B just the same as a Toyota or Honda. Why do people own sports cars? Because they're fun.
The issue isn't with guns, it's with the person deranged enough to take out his anger on schoolkids. If somebody is that fucked up in the head, you don't think that they'd find another way to cause harm besides a gun?
Like I said before, drunk driving in this country is an epidemic. Why are there no calls to ban alcohol?
I can't understand why more schools don't have security guards.
The Constitution can evolve. Using hyperbolic logic and appealing to some sort of patriotic emotion of the past makes no sense in defending the right to have a gun. No one fights for your right to bear arms, despite the contrived logic of including it in the "defense of the constitution". That is just a byproduct of the actual cause of the war. Do you think a soldier goes to war thinking he is fighting for your right to carry a weapon? Reducing accessibilty to guns may not solve the problem but it will help. Saying "any psycho who wants a gun will find a way" isn't accurate. While some attacks may be pre-planned many may not be. Guns should obviously be less accessible and that will help mitigate the problem. I can't believe you guys actually believe the logic that a knife or a gym is equivalent to having a gun.
Let's clarify here, YOU didn't fight for anyone's right to bear arms, but I did.
Regards
I find it highly disturbing that it's easier to buy a military-level assault gun (by just ordering it on-line) than it is to get a driver's license, here in the U.S.
In the meanwhile, it is almost impossible to even get a revolver in countries like Germany, Japan, UK, or pretty much any other developed nation besides U.S.
And don't tell me we need all these military-level assault guns to 'protect' our freedom.Yeah right. So that means people living in UK, Australia, Japan, or Germany aren't 'protecting' their freedom.
The only reason we still have this lax of gun laws is because anti-gun stance is a political suicide, for most law makers and politicians. NRA is a very powerful and rich organization and I suspect even the president of the U.S. doesn't have the power to over-ride pro-gun policies lobbied by NRA and gun manufacturers.
This. We're living a pretty decent life with less crime and no need to "protect our freedom" (lol..) over here. ivygrad hit the nail on its head in my opinion. Although I enjoyed shooting a gun at one of these weird gun ranges when I was in the US, I prefer living in a society where gun possession is restricted to cops and the army. There's just no need for an ordinary person to own a gun.
lol... you do know that there are worse neighborhoods than the ones you live in, right?
Really military level assault guns? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Besides the fact that that is not a real term, anything "military level" is fully automatic. Do you know how hard it is to buy a fully automatic weapon in the U.S.? To purchase a machine gun, not only does that gun need to have been registered before 1986, you must be fingerprinted, receive a signature from the chief law enforcement officer in your area, submit paper work to the BATFE, pass an extensive background check that often lasts for months, and pay a $200 tax. Did I mention that the cheapest legal machine guns currently available cost upwards of $5,000? The guns you see are merely semi-automatic rifles designed to look like the military versions. You can not purchase them online. You can order them on the internet, but then they must be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer where you must present ID (like that drivers license that's so hard to get...) and pass an instant criminal background check. So no, I don't think they are that easy to get.
Yes, mentally unstable people can find another way to murder if they wish - but that other way will not be as effective or as easy to execute.
I don't understand how some of you people equate being illegal to problem solved or even remotely fixed... you need to go after the source of the problems, your efforts would be better placed trying to fix these mental problems... something really needs to be done with these mental issues, they need to be taken more seriously or something, because this and Aurora were just literally insane acts.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So we need to make it harder for people to get guns.
^why is the crazy gunman a master combatant but every possible Mr. Smith is a bumbling idiot? both of your situations are extreme and HYPOTHETICAL. just stop.
Also, when 26 people are killed, hearing gunshots doesn't mean it's too late, because there's probably more coming.
The gunman has the advantage of preparation, often including a bullet-proof vest and other gear for protection, superior weaponry (typically an assault rifle or shotgun), and position (it's easier to defend a position than to take it over, particularly if there's only one entrance/exit). These aren't the movies. An ill-prepared "master combatant" is going to find it difficult to stop a bumbling idiot if the latter party has all the advantages I listed above. The guy I trained under for most of my life was at one point a world champion kickboxer. He was mugged when he was in his 20s and thought he'd be able to kick the guy's ass... so he tried. He ended up succeeding, sure, but he also ended up in a hospital with multiple stab wounds.
You can hypothesize all you want about what you would do in a hairy situation, but it's all moot unless you have proof to back up your machismo. Truth of the matter is that very few people have the training and experience necessary to respond effectively--particularly if they're on their own--and even for them it's very difficult due to the unpredictability of combat.
so let's just assume the worst and base our decisions on that?
I love how people see a scary, black gun and think it is any different than an oak stock 30-06 rifle. lol
"why do we even need guns"
Because the 2nd Amendment. I love how people are so capricious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_ye…
More people die in auto accidents, yet we still drive. This mentality is why we have gestapo measures when we fly.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
No, the purpose is to fire a projectile down a rifled chamber with a high degree of accuracy.
Not entirely true. There are lots of people who fancy themselves sharpshooters and only 'kill' targets. Again, it's the person holding the object, not the object itself...be it a car, a knife, a baseball bat or a gun.
Regards
If you really want to fix this country you should ban main stream news. That trash that passes for information is ruining this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910
Ban knives also.
This pretty much negates the argument that guns = knives. Notice that while 22 children were injured in this knife attack, ZERO were killed.
What about the half a dozens other Chinese school attacks...that were actually reported...where kids were killed?
Regards
This pretty much negates the argument that guns = knives. Notice that while 22 children were injured in this knife attack, ZERO were killed.
Let me get this straight, just so I am clear. The problem is that some guy with his marbles loose has easy access to a gun, so the solution is to add more guns to the equation? Increase their availability by making them easier to obtain? Adding them to other people's pockets, random "safe" boxes, maybe a big plastic bin near the school entrance that's full of all sorts of guns? So that it's a free-for-all? If you really want to "protect yourself", maybe you can just never leave your underground bunker. Life is unpredictable and cruel enough as it is, and increasing its unpredictability and the level of cruelty possible doesn't help anybody.
.
Most of you seem to not be aware of Swiss Gun politics and its standing militia. I would watch this video and read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
I think the issue is why are we infringing on otherwise lawfully used rights because one crazy guy does something. That is the real question.
This is horrible, absolutely. But statistically speaking, gun violence is rare and something nearly all of us never encounter. More people die in car crashes on a yearly basis. And when you isolate out high crime areas, the incidence of gun violence is even less.
Most people use guns for target shooting, hunting, self defense, collecting, whatever. People see this sensationalized in the news and become reactionary. People in the North East also have no concept of how things are in the rest of the country. Outside the city guns are woven into society. All of my friends hunt and have guns and have grown up around them, no issues.
Just like the TSA, mass, irrational fear opens the door for government control and removal of freedoms. It is disgusting and sad that people who seek to infringe on gun rights use this horrible incident as fodder for their totalitarian and anti-American campaign.
Exactly.
I find it ridiculous that a country like Switzerland pretty much makes it mandatory for a gun to be kept in every household as part of the country's militia policy, but they see gun violence at 1 for every 250,000 citizens. Gun crime is far less than knife crime in that country, and it is a decreasing number.
The government even has a national range day which is typically turned into a family outing where everyone in the country goes to the range to shoot ammo supplied, for free, by the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime
So why is everyone suddenly all up in arms (excuse the saying) about gun policies when we should be addressing the important matter at hand - that someone was fucked up enough to murder a classroom of children?!
And let's not get started with my opinions of the TSA. To this day I still cross through airport security with a scowl on my face.
This is what I find so laughable. It's not that a classroom full of kids was murdered, it's that they were murdered in such a quick and efficient manner. I caught a few minutes of CNN in the business lounge area on my floor and could here all the buzz words being dropped by the anchor. They hadn't brought up the gun issue outright, but there was plenty of talk about 'killed so quickly' and 'no stop firing' etc...which all leads back to high capacity magazines and semi automatic rifles...known as 'assault weapons' to the mainstream media.
Regards
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/05/C…
Large metropolitan areas suffer about two-thirds of all firearm homicides in the United States, with inner cities most affected, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bang, exactly. If you want to reduce gun violence you need to go to the inner city, legalize drugs, and help poor minorities receive an education and economic freedom. If you strip these poor, inner city areas out of the intentional gun murders, you have a miniscule death rate from guns.
But hey, they isn't sensational.
I imagine most of pro-gun argument people are pro-gun because they grew up with the gun culture and got used to it. (or that they have personal affiliations with NRA/ gun manufacturers) That doesn't mean that having these mass weapons available for anyone to attain with minimal effort is an ethically sound proposition.
I believe if these same people were born and raised in Canada, Australia, or France, they would more likely to be anti-gun. Being able to look at the issue from objective, moral point of view.
150 years ago, slavery was legal in the U.S. However, many people in the Northern U.S., even then, grew up with the notion that slavery was wrong and it had to stop at certain point. People from Southern U.S., since their economy essentially depended on slavery and since these folks grew up with the culture of slavery from birth, were needless to say, pro-slavery. However, looking back now, we all now know that slavery was an evil system and it had to end.
Also - for those who compare knives to guns. Are you serious. What makes guns so devastating is 1) unpredictable nature of gun crimes, due to enabling criminals to attack at any distance, with ease, and with high frequency. Many people die from gun wounds shot by thugs in ghettos when they are inside their cars, for example. Someone can't kill a person inside a car with a knife from outside. 2) say a man tries to kill with a knife, the other person may counter-attack with another object at disposal, or choose to run away. But when someone is pointing a gun at your face, you can't do neither, 3) A gun is the most effective and efficient way of killing masses. If someone tries to kill with a knife, it won't be instant and there will be struggles. (counter attack) As a result, the criminal can't kill masses, since usually there will be 3rd party involved (such as a cop, neighbor, etc) that will try to stop the violence to spread, 4) Due to ease of killing enabled by guns, guns lead to more crimes that have to do with 'crimes committed in passion". Someone with a knife would have more time to think things through, calm down, etc before deciding to kill others.
The point the pro-gun faction is trying to make is that heavier gun regulation doesn't necessarily prevent horrible things from happening, not to mention it would require time and capital to implement... resources that could be going somewhere better and more useful for fixing the heart of the matter. I'm personally for regulation to mitigate risk, but at no point do I ever believe in removing the right at a whole. In this case, it's not so much a matter of making new legislation but tightening current measures.
By the way:
This rhetoric is horrible; I fail to see why the PoV of an Australian is more "moral" than mine, simply because of the political landscape of the country they're born in.The idea that regular citizens could stand up to our army, given the differential in destructive capability, is not really a pro-gun argument anymore. When the Constitution was written, the guns of regular citizens we're basically the same as the army. Nobody has a fully functioning f-15 or aircraft carrier in private possession.
If you take the 'it's just crazy people doing crazy things' or 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument to the extreme, then why don't we let citizens purchase nukes?
The likelihood of F-15s raining down bombs on America is a bit far fetched. At best it will be factions from a military organization, say something similar to The Rock, that have to be dealt with...but potentially on a larger scale.
At any rate, the best answer to the 'why' question is really just 'why not'. The constitution was put in place to limit the infringement on my various rights, one of which is gun ownership. So, yeah...I want to.
And nobody is advocating the private ownership of nukes because we understand there are reasonable limits to the freedoms protected by the constitution. This means not defaming someone and not shouting 'fire' in a theater, potentially causing irreparable harm or undue panic on the public, respectively.
My concealed weapon affords me the ability to defend myself while not causing public distress. Pulling around a black market nuclear weapon in a Radio Flyer would...so it's a reasonable limitation of that right.
And just to make clear, the 'why no nukes, then?' argument is the strawman of all strawman.
Regards
The bottom line is that the law concerning gun control needs some serious modifications.
Someone mentioned drunk driving. In countries like Singapore, there is literally no single person who is killed by drunk drivers. Guess why - because if you are caught with DUI, you can get executed in Singapore. Maybe this is a bit extreme, but in many Western European countries, DUI is taken a lot more seriously than here in U.S. and the offenders can be jailed for years if caught.
In U.S., usually people who get caught with DUI get their license suspended and have to pay fees.That's it. It's very rare that you will be jailed for first time offense DUI, in U.S. If the punishment for the crime is set at a higher barrier, I am sure deaths related to DUI will dramatically decrease over time.
Same shit with guns. There is not a single developed country in the world that has these staggering level of deaths related to gun crimes that U.S. does. Something like 30,000 people die each year in the U.S. due to gun activities. When the consequences of "protecting our rights with guns" are this severe, it's usually a sign that we should do something about it. I believe It's about time to make changes to gun law.
You are tap dancing all around the real issue. It's not the lack of laws, it's the enforcement. There are reasonable laws in place already but just like everything else that has to do with the criminal justice system, criminals find it laughable. Should me have more DUI laws, or enforce the ones we do have and then punish the people that break them?
I've said for many years that an orderly society or household or whatever exists for two reasons, either the participants in that system respect the rules or they fear the consequences. I've grow up to be a largely law abiding citizen because I was taught to respect the rules. I have never done drugs because for the first half of my life I was fearful of the outcome and the second half because I respect the law, despite seeing that the negative consequences can be mitigated.
We sit around after a tragedy like what unfolded today and scratch our heads wondering, "You can someone be so cruel, such a monster?" or "Why didn't he just kill himself, why did he half to kill the children too?". Well, for the last 30 years we've cultivated a society where no one is odd or peculiar or absurd...but unique and individualistic and expressive. A society where people find it funny to plaster their cars with bumper stickers that say 'Fuck' or wear t-shirts that are equally profane. A society were figures of authority receive little-to-no respect. That behavior used to be frowned upon and those people were pressure to step back in line. Now you are a bigot of some sort when you look at weird behavior and point it out.
Add to that this bogus idea that keeping score and having a winner and loser somehow hurts the development of a child. The fact is, your parents cannot protect you from the reality of the real world...sadly, the events today outline just how literal that statement can be...but everyone will eventually have to face some sort of failure or rejection or despair or depression. When you shelter kids from this growing up they never develop the necessary coping mechanisms and instead of having a well adjust adult, you have a really tall, really immature kid that gets pissed off because his gf dumped him or because he's losing custody of his child or whatever else and instead of saying, 'Damn, I'm an idiot and I need to fix this situation.' they pick up a weapon and seek revenge by inflicting pain on others.
If we lived in and/or promoted a society where we weren't so self centered and focused on what everyone else can do for us but, instead, spent a little more time giving back and considering the impact our behavior has on others incidents like these would be fewer.
Regards
So you're saying that what happened today was because the kid's mom was too nice to him? I kind of have a hunch that this is about as far off from reality as you can get, but then again maybe I'm just dim.
Murder is punishable by death in my state.
The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms easily. Nothing unconstitutional about having go through a background check, waiting period, or anything other preventative measures to ensure crazies don't get to play with bullets.
How do you stop a previously sane guy, who obtains a gun legally, but subsequently goes bananas, from killing people?
Regards
Just want to interrupt this thread to say that cphbravo has earned major respect from me today.
This is a good point. Crazies will obtain means to kill if they want to, whether legally or not. And honesty by the time you've decided on doing a shoot-and-suicide act like this, no one cares about potential punishment. Goes back to your idea about either 1) having law-respecting citizens vs. 2) having to hang the possibility of punishment over their heads. Positive vs. negative reinforcement, I suppose. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to promote more of the former.Just so we're starting with the same base of information, this is the full text of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What do we define as "Arms"? Is owning a gun for any purpose other than for a militia constitutionally protected? Does this mean that I can buy nukes? You will notice that this says nothing about pistols, rifles, automatic, or semi-automatic weapons. If we have any lawyers here, I would love to hear their comments.
It's called the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, the constitution was never intended to be a document that grants us rights...which is a common misconception...it actually prohibits the government from infringing on our inalienable rights, among others.
However, if we were to accept your premise that we can't do anything that isn't wholly authorized by the constitution, then log out of WSO and disconnect the Wi-Fi because you don't have the right to express your opinion on the Internet...since, I don't recall this particular document mentioning anything about social media, online forums and the like.
...no law school required.
Regards
I don't think that was my premise. The point is, legislators can draft laws, as long as they aren't unconstitutional. By reading that one sentence that is the 2nd amendment, how can one clearly say what laws can and can't be made restricting gun use? Nukes....we both agree is no. Rifles for people living in the woods...probably ok. Handguns? Grenades? It's not like there is an obvious answer in the constitution about what restrictions law makers can put on "Arms". There are some restrictions that are not unconstitutional, where can that line be drawn....I think that is open to interpretation.
Gun control is not a debate. Like most republican policies, uncontrolled access to guns is dying a slow death as the elderly and sheltered ppl who support them die off and shrink in number.
You obviously don't make it south of the Mason Dixon much do you? We still got plenty of guns and our thought process isn't dying, I assure you.
Ivygrad has it right. Pretty basic stuff here. Guns just don't need to be part of society.
Sociologically, it seems like America is "behind", for lack of a better word, on this issue. As others have mentioned, in Canada, Australia, France, Japan, UK etc, people don't think about guns on a day-to-day basis. If you told someone you owned a gun in these countries, more often than not, they'd think you're unusual. Why is that? I don't have the answers...can someone please tell me? We're at a stage where developed countries have well defined laws and moral standards. World Wars are behind us, ya da ya da ya da, it just seems like shooting guns are not where things are at in the developed world. And America is supposedly the pinnacle of civilization? I get the whole historical context in the south, but can't we just move on? It reminds me of what happened in the presidential election. The Republican party thinks they're on track for a win, but it turns out they're way out of touch on a lot of social issues and they end up losing. Anyway, for another day..
On the psychological side, I really believe there's a difference between a momentary snap and being psychologically deranged. There will always be isolated cases of homemade bombs or gas attacks every several years, but I think these kinds of people have long been over the edge. The gun violence seems more spur of the moment. It's people consistently getting bad breaks until they can't take it anymore. With a bit of counselling or support, a lot of these things would never happen.
NYC mayor Mr. Bloomberg said, today:
“President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action.”
He's part of the reason I really enjoy living in NYC. Under his tenure, NYC has witnessed a significant drop in crimes and murders, having a lot to do with enforcement of very strict gun laws. Now NYC is the safest large U.S. city to live in. I feel very safe walking around Manhattan, even when it's 2-3 am. The same can't be said, in downtown L.A. or Detroit.
Completely. Fucking. Irrelevant. The gun Lanza obtained were from his mother, who had gone through the proper and legal channels to get her weapons. He fucking stole them from her.
Moreover, consider that DC and Chicago tried handgun bans. It is arguably as difficult to buy a gun in Chicago as it is in NY. But I wouldn't necessarily go walking around the South Side in a suit at 2am.
NYC is arguably the highest COL area in the country. And it also has some of the heaviest surveillance, and one of the most expansive police forces. You would have to be insane to try a drive-by or rob a store.
And yet, crazy people still exist. Take that gunman from outside the Empire State building, for instance.
I do not own a gun, I grew up in Northern CA, and have no plans to buy one anytime soon. But I firmly believe that a private citizen should be able to own whatever he pleases, as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership, yet a far lower rate of homicide by firearm.
These incidents, while undeniably tragic, are a rounding error in total gun-related homicides. Consider why we have elevated rates of violent crime in the US, particularly in the inner cities. I personally think it stems from our drug policies - just as you saw an explosion in inner city violence during prohibition, the current drug policy creates an economic demand for criminals.
If you think that we should rethink how easy it is to get guns in the US, then I can understand that.... if you think that no citizen should be able to own a gun, you need to take a real look at just how safe you are. Like I said before, the chances of you needing a gun ARE NOT 0%.
My opinion may not matter much as 1) I'm British and 2) I've only been living here for about 6 months but its clear as day to see. No matter whether we agree on it or not, guns have to be legislated upon. We, as a society, arent able to legislate or criminalize the mental capacity of some coward in a movie theater or school until after the fact. What we can do is prevent the fact from occurring, and the only way to do that is to have stricter gun control. Frankly, utilizing ancient laws or battles to prevent legislation on guns is stupid.
How is that different from drunk driving? Anyone can buy a car sober and then get liquored up and drive drunk, putting others at risk. Since we can't know for certain who will do that, do we ban liquor or start getting rid of vehicles?
Regards
Yeah, if we wanted to completely prevent drunk driving, we should ban liquor or vehicles. Of course the benefit from doing that would be far underwhelmed by the benefits provided by allowing their usage, which have purposes other than killing, namely happiness and transportation respectively.
cphbravo, Were you an officer or enlisted? Your line of reasoning seems very enlisted-ish.
I know people get angry when events like these, but calm down and think about. Take a moment and think about this: If you had children, would want them to go to a school where every teacher had a handgun under their desk. I mean of course the school security guards should have guns, they should have adequate weapons to kill any invaders, but come one, think about it for a second. Do you really think grade school teachers should be armed with guns? I am very uncomfortable with the idea of teachers having guns.
Look at the mass stabbing in China, none of the children died. Imagine if the crazy person had access to semi-automatic guns. There would be a lot more casualties than that.
The point you seem to be missing is that we can stop people from going berserk, but if they don't have guns, they can not inflict as much damage. If that whack-job in CT had a knife instead of a gun, it would have been tragic, but still not as bad. Now I am not saying that the security guard should not had a gun, maybe even a semi, but not the teachers man, and certainly not depressed teenagers.
Guns compound the effect. You can crash a car if you are drunk driving, but that will only inflict so much damage. If you go crazy and have access to a semi-automatic weapon, you can do a lot more damage.
Our civilians should not have access to the same guns that our military does.
I'm not even thinking about taking away gun rights, but just making stricter laws.
One more thing, I don't believe in any god or religion, but every time I hear something happening to children, I hope there is a god. I really hope there is someone who will take care of them after this life. Makes me want to believe in religion. One of those awful times when I wish it was me instead of those children.
I can not imagine any greater pain in life then something happening to you children. Seriously, nothing comes even close.
As Abby Huntsman told Piers Morgan, those gun laws were written to protect Americans from crazy Brits like you.
Just kidding. Me a foreigner myself though.
I'd call myself a conservative on most issues, this is a no brainer, there need to be stronger gun laws. I am not talking about banning guns--but just making sure that mentally unstable people don't have access to guns.
This is all fantasy land mumbo jumbo. How do you do that? What qualifies or disqualifies a person from being allowed to purchase a gun? Do you have annual mental health check ups in order to see if you are still fit to be a gun owner?
As a psychologist I heard on the radio tonight pointed out we should remember that there are a huge number of people in this country that suffer from various 'mental illnesses' and virtually none of them commit these terrible crimes. You can't prevent crazy.
Regards
Figure I will toss this grenade in the mix to see how you anti-gun tree huggers will handle it:
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,55…
[quote=Nefarious-]Figure I will toss this grenade in the mix to see how you anti-gun tree huggers will handle it:
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,55…]
Maybe you should evaluate your definition of the word 'grenade' a bit more. A total of zero people were killed there. Also, not entirely sure how guns are related to giving some weeping willow a wet and sloppy.
my prayers go out to the families who lost a loved one today.
with regard to this animated but important debate: i'd like to see more hard data. on both sides. that's all.
Let me repeat this, I would consider myself a conservative on most issues, but some of these southern gentlemen filling up my newsfeed today think we need to start arming Kindergarten teachers.
Really? Do you want to live in a society where KG teachers carry guns?
So you trust some lady to watch your kid and 29 others for 6 hours a day and build the foundation for which their future will rest upon but they don't rise to the standard you've erected for gun ownership??
Regards
Completely different scenarios. Say if teachers do decide to carry, and it becomes a accepted principle. How long before those guns are transported to school on a regular basis? And they end up in the wrong hands and we get a fairly regular occurrence of these shootings. Not sure I'd want to send my kid to a school in that world. I think its a case of arguing for arguments sake.
If we could get rid of all of the guns in the world, then I'd love that, but that's not gonna happen... if a KG teacher has proper training, is mentally fit, and isn't a moron (hard to make sure that every gun holder satisfies these requirements)... then yeah, I wouldn't really care if a KG teacher had a gun on them because there'd be no reason for any of the students to know unless some nutjob came into the school and shot up the place.
Guns aren't inherently bad, violence and chaos doesn't break out just because a gun is in the vicinity. I bet most of you walk around people with some badass guns hidden from you every day.
In europe we have no guns and hardly any shootings what an odd coincident ... Better arm those teachers... When I read these forums and realise how many complete idiots there are in the states I get super excited about all the money to be made from these suckers
Qui repellendus sed voluptate laboriosam corporis numquam. Deleniti quis saepe quasi. Eaque non voluptas non ratione. Dolores quam cumque non.
Nulla consequatur aut nobis. Consequatur delectus cum dolor sequi eum doloremque omnis. Ullam in dolorem voluptates.
Odio sed tempora provident id assumenda ipsum. Ut in veritatis molestiae doloremque aut rerum asperiores. Ducimus temporibus corporis aut suscipit id numquam voluptatem adipisci.
Quaerat sit et voluptatem et. Consequuntur eos officia dolores placeat et cumque.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequuntur et quaerat fugiat impedit tenetur. Recusandae ut quae et error doloribus est. Facilis consequatur quia assumenda est vel ullam. Ea ipsam voluptates repudiandae voluptas veniam nihil autem et. Natus exercitationem cum ipsam vitae commodi.
Sed pariatur id rem id itaque. Ullam voluptatem odio natus incidunt soluta eum. Quam quasi labore aut et ut sed ut doloribus. Quia quod officia voluptatibus odio. Cupiditate ut accusamus modi maiores aut sit perspiciatis.
Commodi non dolores officiis nobis omnis numquam at. Eos porro nesciunt quaerat repudiandae quia enim veniam. Non sint est quod vitae aut facere accusantium. Tenetur corrupti accusantium sunt doloremque natus impedit eveniet. Tempora voluptatum aperiam fugiat pariatur et et.
Error corporis ut blanditiis illum impedit unde porro. Sapiente sit sunt rerum commodi unde non ullam. Laudantium dolorum culpa non cupiditate tempore. Beatae aliquid quidem omnis.
Ut facere ut quidem nobis beatae explicabo enim. Iste perspiciatis repudiandae rem blanditiis consequatur asperiores atque. Culpa quis voluptate odio inventore nobis. Eum rem voluptates dolorum eum velit in.
Dicta veritatis temporibus est vero beatae quia. Illo sit sed omnis dignissimos consequatur aliquam. Tempore velit amet et totam aspernatur. Labore consequatur quam quod maxime blanditiis.
Dignissimos ut eum non sed. Qui pariatur qui distinctio. Maiores laudantium officiis modi non eos debitis et.
Illo eligendi incidunt id perferendis dolorem unde similique. Qui nulla ut et quia nulla repudiandae odio. Vero fugit sed voluptas perferendis accusamus beatae. A voluptas voluptas eos vel. Iusto error modi facilis fuga velit. Earum consequatur sunt minima dolor. Expedita quod excepturi quasi enim ad.
Et et eum sunt sint quisquam unde. Ratione facilis fugit eos.
Ex reprehenderit vel asperiores et. Quidem sed nihil cumque fuga et quo.
Consectetur illo voluptas in minima libero rerum nihil. Saepe aut porro id sunt illo inventore cumque.
Autem autem aliquid commodi quia quae. Voluptas soluta qui eum molestias. Ipsum non dolore quia molestiae. Deserunt itaque culpa accusamus et rerum.
Dolorem delectus asperiores et nesciunt labore ratione quos. Voluptates harum sequi et voluptatem. Quis sed est dolorem. Consequuntur repellat quis soluta earum et quis quisquam id.
Dolor tenetur omnis aut architecto. Voluptate ut hic doloribus error.