Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

Brick-and-Happy-Gun logo (above) by Munky Wrench, of Bent Wrench Studios

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

Friday, December 14, 2012

Oh my god...

Utterly horrified just now to hear about the K-4 Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I went to school not far from there myself, grades 1-4 and later grades 7-10.  I just cannot believe it. How unbelievably horrible.  My thoughts go out to the families and friends of everyone affected.

I have nothing more to say, politically speaking, as I am not exactly an anti-gun advocate myself, and I do truly believe that emotional cases make for bad laws, but I have to ask: After Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, now Newtown, and so many others... How many more, America?  How many are going to die before we can at least have an intelligent discussion about the issue?

Unbelievable. What an utterly senseless loss.



31 comments:

  1. You would think we could have the discussion, right? We will see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's quite funny, Janet. You "laugh" about the dangers of drug use, yet think there should be a discussion on the dangers of guns.

      I feel sorry for the kids that got killed, but no more or less sorry than I feel for the kids that get killed from drug use ... every DAY. It is a waste of a life and lives lost for no good cause. Maybe Mr Obama will order flags flown at half-staff when a couple dozen children die from overdoses? Maybe he (and you, Janet) don't think drug use is as dangerous as guns? Maybe using drugs isn't important enough to highlite on the daily news. I understand that drug use is becoming more acceptable. Maybe (someday) all the deaths caused by drug use will be somehow equated to the deaths caused by gun use and determined to be just as awful. But, with our current societal priorities ... I doubt it. Because people like you, Janet, think drug use is laughable, while gun violence should be discussed.

      Delete
    2. [The above comment] was not what I had in mind. What the hell, dude? What does this have to do with DURGS?! DON'T ANSWER THAT! The answer is NOTHING, and you're off-topic. We've had intelligent conversations about drugs. We've been having them for a LOOONG time. I believe saner heads are finally prevailing that you have a different opinion does not mean that their hasn't been an intelligent conversation. BTW? Couple of facts: First: People kill THEMSELVES with drugs. This guy killed OTHER PEOPLE. And there IS a difference. Second: No one ever died of an overdose of Marijuana - the only "narcotic" that's been legalized. As for out other legal drugs? We tried outlawing alcohol once didn't work. You want to get rid of tobacco? Go right ahead. Won't bother me any, but you won't find a whole lot of support for it. Finally, have you considered the amount of people killed by GUNS in the WAR ON DRUGS? Making the drugs illegal only creates a n unregulated black market, where the money involved will rationalize the use of violence to protect it. Market forces, my friend. The disproportionate number of deaths due to the war on drugs is what happens when Conservatives try to act like Liberals. (By ignoring market forces and the laws of microeconomics, I mean.)

      ALSO not falling into the realm of "intelligent conversation" is THIS pile of horseshit from Preacher/Scumbag Mike Huckabee: http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/12/14/huckabee-schools-become-a-place-of-carnage-when/191864

      Apparently we need more evangelizing and proselytizing in the schools and we'll have less killings. So let's talk about GOD, and god forbid we talk about GUNS, and our unfortunate culture of VIOLENCE.

      Folks, I meant it when I said that I did not believe that we should use emotional events to drive an agenda. This event does NOT mean it's time to 'take away everyone's guns.' (And CT already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, so that wouldn't have worked either.) However, it is also not the time to push OTHER, peripheral, agendas whether they be anti-drug (rolls eyes) or prayer in school. (Which would have accomplished precisely DICK in this case, and in every other.)

      Sadly, Janet, I believe that we are still not nearly mature enough as a country, people and society to have an intelligent conversation about any kind of remotely sensitive issue. (And that statement goes well beyond this particular issue.)

      So, somehow, I don't think this will be any different that the numerous times before.

      Delete
    3. And just WHERE do you think we GET that "culture of violence"?!?

      You crazy statement about the "war on drugs". Wow. What drugs are we fighting against? Illegal or legal? Did you know that drugs have been "legal" for years? No, I guess you don't know that. Or you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement. Why don't you check your stats before you speak up about DEATHS. Hey, I'm terribly sorry for the people that were killed, but people die every day. Does that mean we should mourn every death? Maybe just the ones that make headlines for your 'war on guns'? If you're going to act so hypocritical about deaths then stop whining when those of us who have been affected by deaths caused by drugs get upset about your pity party you try to start for gun deaths.

      Delete
    4. I'm inclined to dismiss this a no more that a poorly consturcted strawman, but because I'm not nearly as insensitive as you appear to be, I'll humor you: Who died, as a result of which LEGAL drug, and under what circumstances?

      It remains irrelevant to this argument anyway, since the "war on drugs" has only have been waged againts illegal drugs (duh!) but if you feel the need to share some personal anectdote here, go rigth ahead.

      Delete
    5. Mr Ed ... A poorly constructed strawman? Give us some of your brilliance, then. Where DID the "culture of violence" come from? Did Huckabee and his God create it by inventing all those video games that seem to make killing fun? Wait, maybe it was that morality shift that we saw liberals cause during the 60's. Because EVERY ONE of these school killing incidents that you want us all to cry about happened after that shift. And of course NONE of the killers were on any kind of medication, were they? Since there is no legal narcotic in our nation (except pot).
      Hey, you implied you wanted an intelligent conversation on this issue. Bring it. Or sit there and cry about comments made by other posters, like Mr C does. Bring your damn faux conversation. I don't think you're capable, surprise me.

      Delete
  2. The gun problem, like most other problems, is really simple:

    step 1 - get rid of republicans

    There are lots of people who know what step 2 is. We'll consult them when the time comes. I tentatively suggest training for anyone holding a mass-murdering device.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exactly. The gun people aren't even willing to DISCUSS it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps we need to get the knife people in the discussion too?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

      At least they have the death penalty in place in Japan and because of that, those instances don't happen often there. Here ... that's a different story. It would be nice to know that a murderer may face an actual penalty for the ghastly crimes they commit. Instead of praying that the murderer kills themselves, since the government has been handcuffed from carrying out 'eye-for-an-eye' punishments by those who fear punishments to criminals.

      Delete
    2. The gun people aren't even willing to DISCUSS it.

      And for good reason: it has nothing to do with what happened. Harping on gun control after something like this is like demanding that potato salad be subject to more strict government regulation because it was the killer's favorite thing to eat. As a response, it's a non sequitur. Functionally, it's an assault on freedom that yields no benefits (none of the standard-issue proposals pimped in the press would have done anything to prevent what happened, and when it comes to the more extreme, fascistic measures, no one, particularly those who advocate for them (urbanites who don't know what they're talking about), would be willing to live in an America in which the government was empowered to give them any real enforcement.

      Delete
  4. "At least they have the death penalty in place in Japan and because of that, those instances don't happen often there."

    Where is your evidence that it's the death penalty, rather than the fact that 1% (or less) of the population own firearms, that accounts for the comparative rarity of massacres in Japan? The UK doesn't have the death penalty either (which accounts for the fact that Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill, and 16 other people wrongly (and corruptly) convicted of terrorism in Birmingham England, are alive, exonerated, and free today), but they do have stringent gun laws and only one Newtown type massacre that I can remember, ever.

    This event, Nemo, cried out for you to be as silent as you are nameless, narcissistic and illogical. You blew your chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Japan massacre ... the killer used a KNIFE. What does that have to do with "1% of the population own firearms"? Does England forbid knives as well?

      And, from what I've been reading, the Newton killer was autistic. Wonder what kind of DRUGS he was on. Which leads back to my first post. The one that Mr. Eddie vilified me for posting. Looks like we end up with a murderer who was prescribed (God only knows) what kind of drugs and illegally gets firearms. Eddie is in favor of legal drugs but not legal firearms. Wonder if he is in favor of illegally used legal drugs and illegally garnered legal guns. Which this case will turn out being. How about you, Mr Conchobhar?

      Delete
    2. I don't need you to tell me what Eddie's in favor of, I've read his posts myself, and you've completely misrepresented what he's written, then used that as a springboard to jump, once again, into your drug monomania. Everything you've written above is conjecture, tethered to neither reality nor logic. Case in point: the US is not unique in the prevalence of drugs, both prescribed and proscribed; it is unique in its recurring cavalcade of cordite scented carnage. In addition, your question about the UK and knives is totally idiotic. You've chosen a random outlier and tried to draw a comparison to a series of slaughters. Reductio ad absurdum is a technique someone with your rhetorical powers should avoid. You just end up making yourself look absurd.
      Happy Solstice, William.

      Delete
    3. Eddie, I apologize for contributing to the hijacking of the thread. I couldn't help myself, though. The depraved indifference to innocent life demonstrated in the "pity party" crack threw me into a fury.

      Delete
    4. Answer this: how would the MOST strict gun laws have prevented the kid from stealing guns and using them as he did? Unless your idea of gun control is to completely prohibit ANYONE from owning them. Is that YOUR idea of "reasonable discussion" on gun laws? You do know he stole those guns, right?
      Nothing I said is incorrect. You simply choose to ignore facts and truth.

      Delete
    5. The "MOST strict gun laws" would have made it impossible for Adam Lanza to have stolen those guns because they would not have been available to steal. His mother would not have owned them. After an horrific mass murder in '96, Australia's CONSERVATIVE government instituted the 'most strict' gun laws, as the UK did after Dunblane. One has to show a need, e.g. farmer, hunter, etc. Specifically exempted from that qualification is a desire to defend the home with a handgun. And assault weapons are available only to the military and the police. Neither country has had a like incident since. We've had something like 70 in this century.


      "Eddie is in favor of legal drugs but not legal firearms." That is incorrect. If you disagree, point out where he's said he's not in favor of legal firearms.


      Your assertion that the death penalty, rather than an absence of firearms, is what keeps Japan from having our rate of slaughter is completely unsubstantiated.

      Actually, most of what you say is incorrect. Even when you accurately state a fact, you misunderstand its implications.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Are you saying that "farmers, hunters, etc" would NEVER have kids that may go crazy? Hmmm. Sounds kind of contradictory from your assertion that this event would have been "impossible" to happen with the "MOST strict gun laws". Also you insinuate that military personal never go crazy (Ft Hood massacre comes to mind). Back to the link to the Japan incident ... he used a KITCHEN KNIFE. You may (or may not) know that Japan has one of the most strict guns laws out there, yet a horrific incident (quite similar to this one) happened. Explain that possibility using your quantification (impossible).
      When are you going to blame the PERSON for their actions and not the method they use to achieve their crazed goal? Or is that too inconceivable for you to understand? If you have a flat tire, does the tool you use to change the tire get the job done or the person using the tool? Perhaps that is too tough a question to ask of you (or for you to understand)? If so, let me know and I'll stop expecting you to understand simple questions.
      What else do you think could keep the Japanese from committing such horrendous crimes, if not the respect (or fear) of the death penalty? Do you think they are just plain 'nice' people and would never commit such a crime (oops ... proven wrong)? Perhaps you should talk to some Chinese about the capabilities of the Japanese to commit horrendous crimes.
      Do you think 'morals' have any connection to the way people treat other people (I do)? How have the American 'morals' changed over the period you expressed a concern over? What caused that change in morals? Maybe you should address Eddie's concern of the "culture of violence" and my question about that before you admit I bring facts and then complain that that isn't good enough? What is it, exactly, are you after with your line of questioning and concerns you have directed at me? Are you saying guns are the only method to kill multiple people? Are you saying guns should be completely eliminated and that will stop ALL mass murders? Explain your position or stop your silly retorts. Because you're starting to sound like the typical 'anti-religous nut' with your line of questioning and statements.
      Sorry for so many questions, but you seem so wishy-washy about this event that I am having trouble understanding your position. Maybe you can clarify what YOU want and stop complaining about what I say. That is (after all) part of an intelligent conversation, right? Do you have that capability?

      Delete
    8. Thanks for the laugh. After something like four hundred words without a coherent thought, you question ANOTHER'S ability to converse intelligently. Hilarious.

      If you do, indeed wish to engage in a conversation, go back and read my previous post. Read it all. You have a tendency to jump on phrases, and ignore the rest of the sentence. You also don't seem to know the meanings of common words, like "contradictory," and "insinuate." Look them up.

      Try, also when conversing with adults, to stick to the topic. Red herrings like asking me to address Eddie's statements don't cut it. If you wish to argue with me, try to do just that. Argue with Eddie on his points, argue with me on mine.

      As for your Sino-Nipponese red herring, it would be up to you to "bring facts," as you like to say, to support your contention that it is the death penalty that keeps the Japanese from slaughtering each other in the numbers that we enjoy here. (per capita, of course) That is, by the way, the only question I've asked you, "where is the evidence that it's the death penalty,... that accounts for the comparative rarity of massacres in Japan?" so your 'line of questioning' phrase is totally unwarranted. I might also point out that, not only is it the ONLY question I've asked you, it's one you've avoided addressing. I don't blame you. There is no evidence supporting your conjecture.

      I can see that you have problems understanding, but they have nothing to do with my being wishy-washy. They come from the fact that you clearly have an undisciplined mind, and logic escapes you.

      In spite of that, I'll humor you with an answer to one of your more stupid questions. Yes, the gun is the most efficient weapon, when the object is multiple victims, and the assault rifle, with high capacity magazines is an horrific force multiplier. We have 5% of the world's people, and well over 50% of the world's privately owned firearms. According to gun nuts, that should make the U.S. the safest country on earth. But we know that's not the case. We have, far and away, the most homicides, per capita, of any country on earth. And that dubious honor is due, exclusively, to the prevalence of firearms and easy access to them. When you take murder by gun out of the equation, our murder rate is, per capita, in line with the rest of the industrialized world.

      These are facts: In countries which strictly regulate the ownership of firearms, high-body-count murders are as rare as they are horrifying. In the U.S. they're a regular occurrence.

      Delete
    9. "Sorry for so many questions, but you seem so wishy-washy about this event that I am having trouble understanding your position. Maybe you can clarify what YOU want and stop complaining about what I say. That is (after all) part of an intelligent conversation, right? Do you have that capability?"

      I guess I was expecting too much of your abilities. But, I'll keep reading what you write (all of it) just in case you wish to start.

      Have a Merry Christmas, God bless you and your family

      Delete
    10. Speaking of Christmas, my favorite Christmas songs are:

      1: Here comes Santa Claus by Gene Autry
      2: Mary, Did You Know by Clay Aiken
      3: O Holy Night by Johnny Mathis
      4: Christmas Shoes by New Song
      5: Grown-up Christmas List by Natalie Cole
      6: My Favorite Things by The Supremes

      Merry Christmas to all. May God richly bless you

      Delete
    11. Ah, Willie, Willie;
      So sad, to be so self involved, so self-assured, and yet so self-unaware.
      I do recall asking you one (still unaddressed) question on this thread, and it had nothing to do with Christmas songs, fascinating as your list was. (It must have killed you to leave out Alvin and the Chipmunks.)

      Let's face it: given the fact that you can't respond directly to the challenge with which I started this dialogue, it's clear that being called incapable of intelligent conversation by you is like being called ugly by a toad.

      Thank you for your good wishes. Nollaig Shona to you and yours. (Actually, it's a little late for that: Athbhliain faoi mhaise daoibh would be more timely.)

      Delete
    12. It seems to be quite self-evident that the US, after having "something like 70 in this century" (your unsubstantiated statistic) and Japan only having 1 incident like this, that the fear/respect for the death penalty is the reason. Which is what I mentioned in my reply to your ramblings during the first time I answered that question.

      So, Richard, if you're going to continue to ignorantly make wild accusations about my statements perhaps you should back up your own somewhere along the line. Name half of the "70" that have occurred "this century". I could make it easy for you and just ask for 10 of those "70", but you brought the statistic, not me ... so what are they? How did you phrase that again? Oh yeah: "Everything you've written above is conjecture, tethered to neither reality nor logic.". You don't suppose you can back up anything YOU'VE said, do you? Since you denied I answered your 'priority' concern without acknowledging that you failed to actually read the answer, you just skipped over it and denied that I answered. Making my assertions about your abilities of discussion all the more true.

      Delete
    13. Tell you what, Richard, I'll help you substantiate YOUR claim (70 like incidences this century). There is the Blacksburg (VA) incident, the Red Lake (MN) incident, the Oakland (CA) incident, the DeKalb (ILL) incident, the Nickel Mines (PA) incident, the Santee (CA) incident and the Red Lion (PA) incident.

      I only do this because it is obvious you are not capable of doing it your self. If there are any other stats (that you make) that you need me to establish for you, just let me know. I am beginning to understand your limitations and feel a need to help you while you discuss (at your intellectual limits) in front of your peers.

      That's 7 (seven) "like incident(s)" in THIS century. Maybe you want to include the last century also? Still ... how you going to get to 70? You might even notice that during the worst one on record (last century) the guy didn't even use a gun. But, you don't think using bombs to kill people is worthy of any rational discourse, do you, Richard?

      BTW there are 17 "like incident(s)" during this AND last century in the US, with only 15 using firearms. Perhaps you meant world-wide? Who knows what you're really talking about, huh?

      Delete
    14. "It seems to be quite self-evident that the US, after having "something like 70 in this century" (your unsubstantiated statistic) and Japan only having 1 incident like this, that the fear/respect for the death penalty is the reason."

      It may seem "self-evident" to you, but it is not, by a long shot (no pun intended.) You have, however, shown that you can do some research when motivated, so get motivated and find some scientific studies (or a study) which shows, definitively, that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. There is, to my knowledge, no such study. If the death penalty were a deterrent, it would follow that the U.S. at least those states that implement it, would have a lower murder rate than Europe, which abandoned it as barbaric, long ago. But that is not the case, is it? We have a much higher rate than godless Europe and, if I remember correctly, those states which still impose execution actually have higher murder rates than those which do not. Things could have changed since I read that. I await your enlightenment.

      "Richard?"

      Delete
    15. "Willie"?

      Europe isn't "godless", but the US is becoming that way. That is proof on it own that men no longer fear punishments handed down by the government. Where in your earlier demands are you crying for "scientific" studies of any kind? Didn't you merely ask for proof? I provided it. Japan (godless) has the death penalty and it has a lower rate of murder than almost any other country. So does Iraq, Iran and many other countries that implement the death penalty. I don't whine about facts, just point them out.

      Time for you to move on to your stated fact of the 70 similar incidences of this type to occur in the US in this century. Are you going to prove that or admit you know not what you are talking about?

      Delete
    16. Mr C, have you stopped with your childish phallic name-calling, googled foreign language phrases and made-up statistics? Can we get on with a real conversation on gun control, now?

      Are you in favor of complete removal of private gun ownership or partial restrictions that would not have prevented this latest event? Because I have made quite clear my position (a murderer will get the weapons he/she needs to murder through whatever possible means they feel necessary). And that doesn't change the FACT that the person doing the murdering will murder with whatever weapon is handy. Fear of punishment is certainly one aspect that is taken into consideration by the murderer before they pursue their sick passions. If you wish to do your own research on that, you go right ahead. Although, while it has been dutifully noted that you don't do research for your own claims, maybe you'll do some for claims made by others.

      So, if you wish to continue making things up to substantiate your undeclared position just let me know so I can better plan on how to converse with your type of person. You've made several declarations of fact concerning murder rampages, I simply figured you'd be able to prove them. I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who calls others names and lies when asked to state their opinion on a subject. But, if you are that kind of person (which by all indications seems obvious) please ... please let me know so others know what kind of person is participating.

      Delete
  5. Well lets set aside our differences for a minute here. My heart goes out to the families, the loved ones, and the citizens affected by this tragedy in Connecticut. I would think that Eddie had the idea that even those of us that disagree could unite to condemn this act of violence. To turn this into a political football and to attack me on a completely different subject was sort of silly. I would be happy to have a discussion about the "war on drugs" or whatever it is you are referring to, but not now, not on this thread. May the victims rest in peace and rise in glory. May the loved ones left behind find closure and acceptance and peace. May those of us hardened and cynical soften our hearts to look with hope to a better tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janet, how do we have a discussion on guns when statements like this are made: "but I have to ask: After Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, now Newtown, and so many others... How many more, America? How many are going to die before we can at least have an intelligent discussion about the issue?"?

      He is automatically blaming the guns for the deaths and not the people doing the killing. Does he think that a single shot shotgun would be less effective? Or a bolt-reload rifle would not do the same thing? As pointed out in the link I brought, it doesn't need to be a gun that does the killing. It is the PERSON. But your input on how to stop PEOPLE from killing is more than welcome at any time. I also noticed, in yesterday's paper, that dozens of people were killed in bomb attacks. Is there some emotional outcry about bombing deaths? I see none. From previous history, I see condemnation of the US military (and ex-president Bush) for trying to STOP that kind of thing, yet it continues with NO outcry from those who are outraged at deaths caused by guns. Is that the kind of "conversation" you want on gun control?

      Delete
    2. "He is automatically blaming the guns for the deaths and not the people doing the killing."

      I've done no such thing. You're a liar, Will. Or at leats, you've been brainwashed to believe that anytime a Liberal says something, he must obvioulsy mean whatever the Right told you to believe he means. I means precisely what I say, no more no less, and I've warned you before about telling me what my position is.

      I said I wanted to have (as a COUNTRY) an "INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION." That you feel like that somehow shuts out your POV is your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    3. Stop your crying. If you aren't blaming guns for what happened in "Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, now Newtown, and so many others..." what ARE you blaming?

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/29/5-children-1-adult-die-in-mississippi-car-accident/

      A family of children died in a CAR accident, recently. The only thing I see you crying about is that I had the nerve to mention that children die in many ways. I didn't see President Obama ordering that flags be flown at half-staff after these children died. I don't see you rushing to get some faux sympathy article out there after these children died, either. Maybe when YOU stop using emotion to drive YOUR priorities we can have an "intelligent conversation" on this (and other) issues. But, no, you cry about drugs not being legal enough and you cry about religion not being good enough.

      BTW (not that you care ... since you claim I do all the lying) this statement that YOU made: "Second: No one ever died of an overdose of Marijuana - the only "narcotic" that's been legalized."

      If that's the extent of your intelligence then there will never be a possibility for intelligent conversation with you. Google can look up cute foreign phrases and it can look up narcotics. Mr C used it for cute phrases, you might want to use it for narcotics. Do a little (just a little) research before you cry that pot is the ONLY narcotic that is legal.
      Maybe you'll deny you said that one too? Your history does give that indication.

      Delete