jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (539 posts)

Connecticut School Shooting Leaves at Least 27 Dead Children

  1. news-usa profile image60
    news-usaposted 3 years ago

    NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing at least 26 people, including 18 children, by blasting his way through the building as young students cowered helplessly in classrooms while their teachers and classmates were shot.
    The attack, coming less than two weeks before Christmas, appeared to be the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, exceeded only by the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.
    The death toll — 26 victims plus the gunman — was given to The Associated Press by an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way.
    Panicked parents raced to Sandy Hook Elementary School, about 60 miles northeast of New York City, looking for their children in the wake of the shooting. Students were told to close their eyes by police as they were led from the building.
    Robert Licata said his 6-year-old son was in class when the gunman burst in and shot the teacher.
    "That's when my son grabbed a bunch of his friends and ran out the door," he said. "He was very brave. He waited for his friends."
    He said the shooter didn't utter a word.
    A photo taken by The Newtown Bee newspaper showed a group of young students — some crying, others looking visibly frightened — being escorted by adults through a parking lot in a line, hands on each other's shoulders.
    The suspect was 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, whose mother, Nancy, works at the school, a law enforcement official said. His younger brother was being held for questioning as a possible second shooter, the official said.
    Ryan Lanza's girlfriend and another friend were missing in New Jersey, the official also said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to speak on the record about the developing criminal investigation.
    Students and staff were among the victims, state police Lt. Paul Vance said a brief news conference. He also said the gunman was dead inside the school, but he refused to say how people were killed.
    Stephen Delgiadice said his 8-year-old daughter was in the school and heard two big bangs. Teachers told her to get in a corner, he said.
    "It's alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America," he said. His daughter was fine.
    Andrea Rynn, a spokeswoman at the hospital, said it had three patients from the school but she did not have information on the extent or nature of their injuries.
    Mergim Bajraliu, 17, heard the gunshots echo from his home and ran to check on his 9-year-old sister at the school. He said his sister, who was fine, heard a scream come over the intercom at one point. He said teachers were shaking and crying as they came out of the building.
    "Everyone was just traumatized," he said.
    Richard Wilford's 7-year-old son, Richie, is in the second grade at the school. His son told him that he heard a noise that "sounded like what he described as cans falling."
    The boy told him a teacher went out to check on the noise, came back in, locked the door and had the kids huddle up in the corner until police arrived.
    "There's no words," Wilford said. "It's sheer terror, a sense of imminent danger, to get to your child and be there to protect him."
    The White House said Barack Obama was notified of the shooting and his spokesman Jay Carney said the president had "enormous sympathy for families that are affected."

    1. EsmeSanBona profile image88
      EsmeSanBonaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This hurts my heart.

    2. safiq ali patel profile image72
      safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have worked in broadcast news media for nearly 25 years. Over those years I have seen far too many reports come out of America where someone has gone on the rampage and shot either other adults or children. My religious values says that we must always place the protection of human life first and I therefore fail to understand why American can not band together and remove guns from being in any way acceptable in their society. I understand that the protection of property and person is very important and that many Americans hold a valid gun license. However this type of shootings has happened so many times that I feel a new approach is needed somewhere. I find it hard to tolerate the loss of life that comes from these shooting rampages. Without sounding overly critical of American culture I believe there has to be a new approach to security and a duty on those who have a licence to carry guns to store their guns where no-one else can take and use their gun.
      I gather from media reports that the person who pulled the trigger had been refused a gun and so chose to use their mom's gun instead.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You say the protection of human life must come first?

        Just for argument's sake, let's say that 10,000 people are wrongfully murdered with guns every year, and 20,000 people are saved from being murdered by using guns every year.

        What would be the best thing to do? Allow the 10,000 to die, or save them(assuming you could) and let the 20,000 people die?

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And that's assuming the 10,000 wouldn't be killed by other means.

          My favorite bible verse is in Genesis when Abel asked his brother, Cain, "Crikey, mate, where did you get that Glock?"

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yup, but to make the argument simpler, we'll assume we can save them.

          2. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I just fell out of my chair laughing.

      2. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Randy Weaver debacle and the Branch Dividian stand-off and subsequent mass suicide didn't help the climate here. Rather than allow for a reasonable discussion about fire-arms these two events put a lot of people on edge about their future ability to own fire-arms.

        These events "poisoned the well" so to speak.

        Things have been rather divisive on this issue ever since.

      3. cameciob profile image76
        cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Point made.
        As far as Americans loving their guns....my understanding is that some people think they will use them for self defense, that is the strongest argument I've heard so far.
        As you, I worked in media for many years and as you I do not understand.
        It looks like democracy gives people the right to kill in self defense.
        But how many self defense cases are solved positively without casualties vs. the use of a gun to kill someone with intent?

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Those stats were give upstream.

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you really think that other societies over the millennial had no right to self defense?

          1. cameciob profile image76
            cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            At first people have used weapons to kill for food. Then they realized they can get rid of their rivals and get more power, or wealth so they used weapons to gain these things. Then they went to war to kill entire nations or to conquer them.
            So, if you don't need them for killing, then why do you have them?
            Weapons kill, that's their reason to exist.
            One can defend himself or his/her family in many way, including killing someone.
            But when innocent people pay a hard price, when children pay with their lives for the right to have guns at almost free will, then there is something terrible wrong with the adults.
            Very strict laws for gun control are required.
            Even during history, someone had to gain the trust of an authority to wear a sword in public.

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You come from a country that had very strict gun laws do you not? You see in America we were granted the right to keep and bear arms, we will hold on to that right if you don't mind.

              1. cameciob profile image76
                cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                With all respect, I do mind. I live in this country, not being an american citizen. And is not about Americans that cannot live without a gun under their pillow, it is about some people that cannot live without making big bucks out of American citizens. I would call this brainwashing.

                Arm bearing in America is as old as the first pioneers. American history is full of guns. But today things have changed.

                1. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "big bucks..." What are you speaking of...?

                  And if you're not a citizen then please let those of us who are determine just what has "changed" and what has not, and what needs to be done. If you prefer to make the USA over into the place you left... then please go back to the place you left since you seem to be more satisfied with the way they do things there.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Obviously lots of things have changed since the 2nd Amendment was passed. Most of the population now lives in cities. We now have military weapons and armor piercing ammunition in the hands of plenty of people rather than muskets. And the gun manufacturers and sellers are making plenty of big bucks, not to mention the politicians to whom they contribute to prevent rational gun regulations.

                  2. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Love it or leave it eh Jack. Very mature.

                  3. cameciob profile image76
                    cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lots of things are bad in the country I came from. And nobody seems to care. But that's another story. But by your response, you just proved my point: that without a proper guns regulation, guns - as tools for death and destruction, can get into the wrong hands very easy. And the shooting in Conn. should be enough to make you take a stand for tougher laws.
                    And just so you know...I don't respond to personal attacks.

                    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary … D000000082

                  4. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you, cameciob, for a reasonable and accurate perspective. You have made a valuable contribution to this dialog and your suggests for a better America are worthy of consideration. It is a shame that some Americans can not be as astute as you are nor as courteous.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't answer my question, did you. Of course not.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 3 years ago

    Who was the shooter's psychiatrist, and what pharmasics was he on?

  3. peeples profile image90
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    The killer was ADAM LANZA not RYAN.

  4. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Isn't it about time Americans stopped whining about a right to bear arms and the your government took your guns away and Hollywood stopped glamourising guns? Is it time that anyone with a hand gun was arrested and given a mandatory 10 years? This is how most other parts of the civilised world works.

    1. moneyfairy profile image61
      moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes there definitely has to be gun control. Why didn't anyone at the school notice a 20 yr. old amongst all the other kids 5 and up? Didn't anyone think that was strange? Also the mother of the shooter was killed in her home so why did he have to go to the school to shoot innocent children???Because maybe they were so close to the mother he had to eliminate anybody that dealt with the mother???WTF???There is not enough done about mental illness in this country but I don't know what the answer is but these random acts of violence have to stop...soooo very sad.

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think advocating violence in the wake of this tragedy is extremely off-base.

        1. moneyfairy profile image61
          moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          innersmiff:
          what??? I am not advocating it, I am trying to figure out why it happened, trying to figure out what was going on in the mind of the killer to do such a horrible act and what can be done in the future to prevent these horrible happenings.

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's not wise to leap into 'solutions' full of emotion without thinking about what you're advocating.  Gun prohibition is an act of violence. Instead, as you say, let's figure out what could lead to such an unspeakable crime, and let's not jump to an obvious media-shaped conclusion. Guns are simply tools in the long line of mistakes that led to this tragedy.

            1. burndg profile image80
              burndgposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @innersmiff, are you implying that the police are incapable of handling crimes by themselves and that people need to have bushmasters and manpads? i'm not saying that US laws should prohibit gun ownership for its citizens. those high powered guns should be regulated.

              1. Jack Burton profile image80
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                1) Bad guys tend to do crime when there is not a police officer standing five feet away. Police are great at drawing chalk lines and sometimes finding the bad guy  AFTER the crime is committed.

                2) None of the weapons used in this incident were "high powered."

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A Bushmaster certainly qualifies as "high-powered." A muzzle velocity of over 3,200 fps certainly qualifies as "high-powered." This as compared to an M1 Garrand with a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image80
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If the Bushmaster is shooting the standard .223 round it may have high velocity but the bullet itself is woefully small compared to deer hunting rifle bullets that range up to 3 or 4 times its weight.

                    That's one of the reasons it is called the "bushmaster." It is not designed to use in wide open spaces where a deer is 400 yards away.

                2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just weapons that allowed him to shoot at least one child 11 times. And kill 26 people in 3 minutes.

                  It's just hard for Canadians and those from other countries to understand the fascinaton with guns, can't be all due to the Constitution.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image80
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Would you feel better if he had only shot the child four times, and killed eight people?

                    And it's okay.... we Americans have problems understanding Canadians who allow themselves to be subject people instead of free citizens.

      2. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Current info says the mother wasn't even tied to the school.

    2. cameciob profile image76
      cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is way too easy to posses a gun in the United States, for whatever reason one needs it.

      1. moneyfairy profile image61
        moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's very very tragic and sad....

  5. lyndre profile image82
    lyndreposted 3 years ago

    Please please America think about your gun laws

    1. moneyfairy profile image61
      moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      yes Yes and yes!!!!

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Alcohol was prohibited, they still made moonshine. Drugs are prohibited there are many addicts and crazy. Do car kill the people on the roads??? Somebody is messing with minds of young people today. Figure out who and why? Loosing freedom is not solution. Hitler, Stalin took weapon from people and see how many millions people were murdered. In the Switzerland every man has the gun. How many people were murdered? I was drafted soldier in army and no one I know killed innocent person. I would be glad you'll get the idea.

        1. movingout profile image61
          movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What's the cause of such violence? Violence on tv! Violence in video games! Children today are exposed to violence thru the tv! Heck even the cartoons are violent! It used to be called the "idiot box", today I would have to call it the "violence producer!".

          1. cameciob profile image76
            cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am wondering too....
            Violence is a cheap entertaining: a brain cannot process anything else, but violence who address more to instincts, than to a brain, IMHO.

    2. BloodRedPen profile image73
      BloodRedPenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sure !!!! Outlaw guns then guess what - Only outlaws will have guns. And everyone else will be victims. Good Plan

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Nothing but emotional responses that ignore fact, reason, and history.

    Banning guns would not stop tragedies like this. In fact, it would make them happen more often.

    It would be impossible to keep people from getting guns, just as it's impossible to keep any illegal item or substance out of the hands of criminals. The only difference is that the entire US would be a 'gun-free zone', and those gun-free zones are where these massacres always happen.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How would banning guns make incidents like this happen more often?

      I would be interested to know your solution for gun violence in schools.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Virtually all mass shootings take place in posted "gun free" zones. Why do you think this is? If you declare the entire country a "gun free zone" then it just invites those who know they have nothing to fear from anyone at anytime in anyplace to commit their evil deeds.

        What to do about school shootings? Shut down the media attempts to report on the incident. They can never report on them at all. Ever. Those who are doing the shooting in an attempt to become immortalized through the notoriety of the media will have to find another way of doing so.

        [For those who whine about the 1st Amendment rights please be consistent and also back the 2nd Amendment to the same degree.]

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Banning guns certainly won't keep people who want to get their hands on them from getting their hands on them. Banning alcohol didn't work. Banning drugs didn't work. It's fair to assume that banning guns wouldn't work, as existing laws don't keep people from illegally getting guns already.

        Banning guns would disarm the good portion of the populace. It would turn the entire US into a giant gun-free zone. Have you noticed that these shootings always happen in gun-free zones? Criminals don't like to mess with people who can fight back.

        My suggestions involve education, mostly. For policy change, I would like to see guns allowed in schools. Trying to keep them out only works for the people who care about the rules. Murderers don't care about the rules.

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In a way I agree. I do think most people who own high-powered weapons are responsible. My major beef is people with major mental health issues getting their hands on them.

          How do we stop that? That's the question.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know...

            I imagine part of the problem is that we feed kids some of the worst food we can, fill them full of sugar(their school milk is full of sugar), and then drug them because they're too hyper(oops, I mean because they have ADD).

            I imagine part of the problem is that children aren't disciplined, they grow up without learning consequences, without learning right and wrong. Parents have to fear having their kids taken away if they spank them.

            I imagine part of the problem is lack of education about guns. People are ignorant and afraid, so they don't know how to handle them or be around them safely.

          2. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            People with adjudicated major mental issues are not legally supposed to buy guns. That's the federal law and it works pretty darn good.

            We can't cut peoples heads open and examine them. We can't take away rights based on "feelings" about someone else. What we can do it take away the sense of power and fame they get from their shootings. Demand that the media quit covering these like a circus... demand that the media quit giveing these guys their 15 minutes of national,, infamous glory.

            If a mass shooter knows that no one will never, ever know what he did -- many knowledgeable people think the deed won't happen. These shooters are looking for something... if the media is giving it to them... isn't the media responsible for the shooters actions?

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's true, yet there is no real provision in the law to ENSURE that they don't have the banned fire-arms. I've yet to hear of a case where a judge restricted access and then issued a warrant so police could inspect the home of the person and make sure they complied. And if anyone is going to lie and not think a thing about lying, it's someone with mental health problems.

              Living in California I've certainly had to deal with enough of them to know this.

              I'm not suggesting that someone simply be declared insane. It would take the testimony of a professional mental health worker AND a recorded act of violence.

              If at least those two conditions are met they need to be sequestered in a licensed mental health facility; not a prison.

    2. Marisa Wright profile image91
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny you should say that, because since Australia banned civilians from owning semi-automatic weapons, we haven't had another massacre.  We still have shootings, sure - but at least if a crazy person feels like killing people, the damage they do is limited.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What about the US? Since Texas allowed citizens to carry firearms with them, their homicide rate has dropped tremendously. Same thing happened in Florida, Georgia, West Virginia, Washington... just about every state that has adopted it.

        Assault rifles aren't a source of a lot of killings in the US... they only account for(including all rifles, not just 'assault rifles') 2% of homicides. Handguns are much worse.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image91
          Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe, but those weapons are responsible for massacre-style shootings which always involve innocents.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So are handguns, but they are 'responsible' more often.

          2. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They are also used to protect innocents and their property from harm by rampaging mobs. That's why the Koreans sat on their rooftops with them in hand during the LA riots.

            If you were in a crowd of rioters would you rather march down a street torching buildings and destroying everything people worked for if you knew someone had no way to stop you... or was sitting there with a rifle that could shoot 30 of you and your fellow thugs before reloading?

            If your home was the only one in the neighborhood that had a working generator after the hurricane came, and you were keeping medication cold for the sick, feeding the hungry and providing shelter for the elderly, and the thugs down the street knew they could steal it and sell it for $10,000 would you rather have a rifle to defend your shelter and the lives of those around you that could shoot 30 bullets before a reload or one where you could shoot one bullet, and then take 60 seconds to reload another one?

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Funny you should mention a scenario like that. After the Northridge quake out here, yes the same city that saw the Rodney King riots (that's what you were referring to when you mentioned the Korean shop owners), many neighborhoods held block parties. All the food at risk of spoilage was gathered up and cooked on the block. People risked their lives to get neighbors out of collapsed buildings. People helped fire-fighters extinguish fires and rescue others. Neighbors who had little contact before the quake became allies in survival. People who needed diapers for their kids could count on a neighbor down the street to share what they had so baby could be clean and comfortable. People shared food, water, and shelter.

              Fifty-seven people died instantly, sixteen hundred eventually were hospitalized, seven thousand one hundred were injured, freeways, hospitals, television broadcasts, and numerous businesses were shut down.

              There were no shootings. No one died at the hands of another protecting their property.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                During the L.A. riots 58 deaths reported 50 declared homicides.

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yup! Strange isn't it? And how many of those homicides were the result of shop owners killing looters? How many were the result of rioters killing innocents?

                  1. 61
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not really. I don't know the answer to your question but a shop owner killing a looter wouldn't be a homicide.

              2. Jack Burton profile image80
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tell that to the people in New Orleans and the recent hurricane.

  7. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    But other countries are exposed to those same movies and video games and the gun violence is not as bad as it is in the US.

  8. movingout profile image61
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    So in China the wounding of 25 school children with a knife wasn't violence? We just don't see the news reports Im sure.
    Nohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.htmlt to mention thousand wounded or killed overseas with guns.

    1. Any Other Voice profile image60
      Any Other Voiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's all about publicity.

      If nobody hears, nobody cares.

    2. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Horrible violence, of course. Fortunately, because he used a knife, the 25 children are wounded, not dead, unlike the Connecticut tragedy where a gun was used.

      The difference between dead and wounded is not just a matter of degree.

  9. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Prohibit government

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7474930.jpg

  10. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154917_4193991282827_741374361_n.jpg

    1. movingout profile image61
      movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So if I understand you right, children killed by violence don't count because the numbers arent there? Two wrongs don't make a right! Give me a break!

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I guess you really, really didn't "understand me right."

        Does the phrase "weeps and mourns" the children who were killed mean anything to you or did you just overlook that in your effort to post a remark?

        1. movingout profile image61
          movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Obviously you don't understand your own poster! They are down playing the loss of children killed thru violence! Again, comparing the two is stupid anyway! God will judge abortions, so unless youre God, leave the decision up to a husband and wife. So many want less government, but want laws to stop abortions, but don't let the government get involved in guns! lmao, again! Give me a break!

          1. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I guess the concept of "weeping and mourning" = "playing down" in your sick world.

            And comparing the death of children with the death of children is also somehow not allowed.

            Some children obviously just don't count as important to you, eh.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I find it shocking that you are attempting to insert your irrational, religious, anti women's choice, beliefs into this tragedy.

              It most certainly is having the effect of playing down the tragedy, because comparing a cluster of cells to actual children makes no sense.

              These dead children appear to be not as important as your religious/political agenda.

              1. Jack Burton profile image80
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You make it clear you're part of the nation that shrugs its shoulders...

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As I said - your political agenda is more important than acknowledging this senseless tragedy. sad

                  1. Jack Burton profile image80
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes... because a nation "weeping and mourning" is EXACTLY the same thing as not acknowledging the tragedy. You've got to do better than this.

  11. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Anyone who thinks we should not mourn the deaths of the "wrong" children is revealing the very hypocrisy they think they are condemning. They are saying their are deaths we should ignore because they are not, somehow, important enough.

    We do not have a limited amount of compassion.  The more we show, the more we will have.  Any suggestion to the contrary shows the kind of heartless false "logic" of the Phelps crew who are already on the way to protest at the funerals of these murdered children.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Another poster who obviously can't read plain english. The artwork very clearly says the nation "weeps and mourns" the lost children. Do you often let your biases get in the way of your reading comprehension?

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        One must weep when seen this news. Horrible.
        We have broken homes, broken schools and broken media. Hate comes by hearing and is one step to death. We must return to God and He will heal our land… 2 Chronicles 7:14: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So, you felt compelled to stand on a soapbox and thump your bible? Those are your thoughts and actions concerning this tragedy?

  12. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    My response to the comparisons made on this thread cannot be posted on HP.

    1. peeples profile image90
      peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  13. cameciob profile image76
    cameciobposted 3 years ago

    I cannot believe you guys are arguing about religion when this is a political issue.
    When i found out about the shooting, on Friday at noon, my first thought was to run to my daughter elementary school and get her out of there. There was only one issue: I had to go to work to make some money for everyday food and shelter and most important: Health Insurance!
    So I went to work, instead.
    But I realized my kid is never going to be safe in school because there are people that can get guns as easy as a loaf of bread. Because people get guns to kill. Because a gun is for killing.
    America is a great crazy nation. Crazy and dangerous to its own heath. IMHO.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah... when people get killed sometimes other people's thoughts turn to religion.

  14. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    I am glad I don't have TV and watch the news anymore. There is just too much bad these days.

  15. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    And btw, this is not just a US issue...

    "22 kids slashed in knife attack at Chinese elementary school"

    http://now.msn.com/china-school-knife-a … 2-children

    1. cameciob profile image76
      cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      With all respect I believe this is a US issue. The one you mention is a little different. US can control the guns but it doesn't. That's the issue.
      Being so easy to posses a gun makes killing easier. As far as I understood, there were multiple fire arms registered to the shooter's household. For what reason? Not for the love of a human kind.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image91
        paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Paradigmsearch does not wish to get involved in a gun-control debate. Departs thread at approximately mach 3.

        1. cameciob profile image76
          cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You should, paradigmsearch, unless you favor them. Staying away of the debate is not the way to go.
          Here, in Minnesota, two weeks ago, a 4 year old shot and killed his 2 years old brother with a gun found in a closet. Dad forgot to hide it!!!! Duh...
          A month ago, an old man, living alone in a huge house, shot and killed 2 teenagers that trespass his huge propriety. He killed them with pleasure, multiple shots. It was not self defense type. He wanted to kill them.
          And the list can go longer ...
          Because they had guns.

      2. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly right.  And the tragedy in China, though disgusting, was a knife attack. It left many children wounded, not dead. The difference matters. They all still have futures. Their parents still have children.
        There is no justification whatsoever for allowing private ownership of automatic weapons.

  16. wileyspeaks profile image82
    wileyspeaksposted 3 years ago

    I wanted to comment because having 2 young children of my own close to the age of the these children has really terrified me.  I don't know how I'm going to drop my daughter to her school on Monday morning and not be terrified that this will happen.  I think that right now just days after this has happened we should be using this time to mourn for those parents that lost their children and let them greive.  This immediate response to use this incident for a political gain or win on either side is just heartless in my opinion.  Sure, there are some issues that need to be taken notice and lessons to be learned from this incident but can you give it a minute to sink in that these children kissed their parents goodbye for the last time and experienced a horrible tradegy, the kids that survived will never forget this, they will never not remember what happen at their school and some I imagine will be scared to walk into that school again.  Not to mention their parents dealing with leaving their kids again.

    The other point is that from early reports they said that he the shooter had some social issues.  Many kids grow into adults and are never diagnosed because, it is just shrugged off as he is shy, he isn't really touchy feeling, he is just quirky.  People who are like this are on both ends of the spectrum, the ones like Adam Lanza and the ones like Bill Gates and the founder of facebook.  The important message there is don't ignore those things but most importantly there can be help for those individuals to learn how to deal with their social or personality quirks. 

    Finally, I have seen many people say that this sort of media is sensationalizing the events.  As a parent I want to know what is going on, I want to be aware and I don't think it is helpful to just move along, people all over need to know why this happened, what can be done to prevent it and get closure on the situation.  I don't have to know those families personally to grieve for them, it is called empathy folks!!! Which so many people have forgotten.  All you have to do is close your eyes and think of the most important thing in your life being snatch away from you.  I won't remember the name of the shooter, I don't remember the names of the Columbine shooters, or the batman movie theater, I just know those things happened and the names of the innocent lives that were lost and the heroes that imerged from this horrific incident. 

    *To be clear I don't think that they should be interviewing the small children that were in the school but covering this story and putting a face to this tradegy is the only way Americans will get it, as a whole you have to rub this in our faces for us to actually take action.

    1. cameciob profile image76
      cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I totally agree with you.
      That's why I think that the right to posses a gun is wrong. In his state of mind, the shooter had access to firearms way too easy. He used them to kill.

  17. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 3 years ago

    It's not guns its pharmasics. Next up - so and so on why we need to take another look at gun control. The shooter was on medication, but what kind we don't know and probably never will. Now a word from our sponsor - a pharmacy company ad.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's about all of these things. At this point we know the role played by guns.  The role played by medication is purely speculative, including whether he was taking any at all.

  18. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    I notice no one has answered the question. "Why do you need a military grade weapon?"

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/483506_572079449485373_441149819_n.jpg

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What do you mean by military grade weapon? It's another vague term, hard to discuss when everyone can't agree on the subject.

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Since a Bushmaster, AR15, and M16/M4 have the same muzzle velocity, same range, same caliber,and same magazine capacity they all qualify as military grade weapons.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, then give us some criteria.

          What velocity shouldn't be allowed?
          What range?
          What caliber?
          What magazine capacity?

          I'm assuming you don't think people should be able to have one of these either?

          http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-750/Model-750-Woodmaster/750-prod.ashx?w=570&bc=ffffff

          1. cameciob profile image76
            cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            NONE!

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bean is trying to pull a bait and switch.

          read my hub at <link snipped - no promotional links> and you'll see for yourself just why he is not credible.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. Why don't you answer the question.

          2. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry they yanked your link Jack. I'll go look it up shortly from your landing page. Hubpages is funny about stuff. Heck, you'd think since the link was pertinent to the debate they'd have allowed it.

            Good debate by the way. Thanks.

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They used to allow it... It's not like it's a link to my world famous recipe pages (not that I want to be promotional or anything)

    2. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No one disputes it because it is akin to asking "why are unicorns treated so badly down at the circus."

      We are not responsible for answering questions based upon a false premise.

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Fine, name the false premise. You can't. I'm 100% accurate.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which one of us posted a chart showing the actual relative power of the various rifle cartridges. Oh... it was ME.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

  19. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Folks, let's stop bickering over the minutiae of muzzle velocity and tumbling and focus on finding a solution to a serious problem that should transcend petty politics.



    I added the bold.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As a former soldier I resent the fact that untrained, unqualified, undisciplined morons can get their hands on a military grade weapon.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for your service, but how about you show others a little respect?

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          First, please don't thank me for my service. It's a tired phrase that means almost nothing.

          What respect am I getting? You get the respect you show.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It might not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

            You seem to suggest that civilians, being 'untrained', are morons and shouldn't have 'military grade' weapons. If I have one, does that make me a moron?

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oops. If Jack really did 26 years of service, and I have no reason to doubt that then I don't think I'd have a problem with him owning a fire-arm like that. Not really. Heck, if you spent the time and effort to get the proper training I don't have a problem.

              I'm biased, I think the military provides the best training. Sue me!

              As to the moron question, no not really, but there are morons who can get their hands on them. Fortunately, there aren't many morons. Unfortunately, it only takes a few morons to mess things up for the rest of us.

      2. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As a person with 26 years in the military I resent that there are those who would claim military affiliation to lie about firearms.

        http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/Ass … erhaps-not

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If you've got 26 years in the military why are you so ignorant about fire-arms?

          1. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One of us gave the info showing the actual relative power of the .223 vs. other rifle cartridges. It wasn't you, eh

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If it's children we are concerned about, we should go after handguns before going after rifles...

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The only person who died from a hand-gun at Sandy Hook was Adam Lanza.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm talking about more than one event. Handguns kill many, many more children than rifles.

    3. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When one group depends upon falsely reporting on the ability (or special dangerousness) of the firearms involved so that they can make a case for banning them then wouldn't you agree that the actual truth of the matter is important?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I believe facts are important.  I also believe that a certain someone will drive you into oblivion with his ever-narrowing focus on what he considers to be facts.

        Just my opinion, and I don't really have a problem with you two continuing your debate, and it doesn't matter anyway because who am I?  I'm just trying to point out that the issue is so much bigger than that.

        Edited to add: by "you two" I meant Jaxson and Liam.

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course it is. Who has access to military grade fire-arms is very important.

  20. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 3 years ago
  21. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The minutae came up as a direct defense of leaving assault weapons available, not for no reason and not for a political reason.

    IHMO semi-automatics (including hand guns) and assault weapons should required screened licensed owners to keep them in secure storage or under trigger-lock and not accessible to any other person.

    Arguably the same should applies to all guns.

  22. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 3 years ago

    "Medications kill roughly 100,000 Americans each year according to study statistics. The actual number is either 98,000 or 106,000 depending on which study you believe.

    For guns to be as deadly as medications, you’d have to see a Newton-style massacre happening ten times a day, every day of the year. Only then would “gun violence” even match up to the number of deaths caused by doctor-prescribed, FDA-approved medications."

  23. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I would not assume more people are saved by guns than killed by them.  I suspect the reverse is true.  Accidental deaths alone would be a biggish amount.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For the sake of discussion, would you sacrifice the 20,000 to save the 10,000?

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am saying I would want to see real numbers, not made up ones. Then I would vote for the most good for the most people.

        But you can't support your position just by making up numbers.

        We know about 30,000 Americans a year are killed by a  gun.  I am not sure how we would estimate the number saved, and by whom.

        The optimum number saved would most likely involved letting some people have some guns, and stopping others from having any.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Letting some have and some not?

          I didn't know your name was "psychic skinner"

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not trying to say these numbers are real, I'm trying to have a discussion. It's ok to hypothesize in a discussion.

          You said you would save the most people, so if that were the case, you would support guns over banning them, correct?

          We can estimate the number of lives saved by looking at studies, but most people in favor of gun control won't consider those studies.

          How can you stop someone from getting a gun?

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If my only option was free guns for everyone or no guns for anyone I would choose the option were less people die.

            Of course that is not actually the choice we have.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, then how do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of killers?

              Remember, anyone can go online and anonymously buy an illegal gun. Anyone. You can have it anonymously delivered to a secret spot. The black market is literally just a few clicks away from anyone in the US, so how do we keep guns out of their hands?

    2. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's why assuming and suspecting doesn't go well in discussions.

      According to the National Safety Council's Injury Facts, accidental firearm fatalities in the home numbered 500 for 2005. This accounts for 1% of all accidental fatalities in the home. (Source: National Safety Council, Injury Facts Report, 2007 Edition). This number is fairly consistent but has been dropping some little amount each year for the past two decades.

      Cook and Ludwig published a study in 1997, this one sponsored by the (Clinton) Department of Justice. The study was titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms and also investigated DGUs (defensive gun use). What  thoroughly researched and solidly substantiated number did Cook and Ludwig come up with?

      One million, four hundred sixty thousand DGUs per year. That’s right, over 1.4 million.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/1 … avid-frum/

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I said accidents, all of them.  Like being shot for looking too much like a deer, or when the shooter was aiming at someone else.

        But I accept your point.  We can't assume. So please stop insisting I accept your assumptions.  That was exactly my point.

        And as for 1 million saved by guns.  Bollocks.  That si not what the report says.  It says "uses".

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, because the Dept of Justice under Bill Clinton was such a fan of gun ownership that they just made up these numbers from thin air.

          This is why it is so hard to have a discussion with folk like this. You show them the plain, document facts and what do they do... they stick their fingers in their ears and shout lalalala at the top of their voice.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I actually read the report, not just the blog.  It doesn't say what you describe it as saying.

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then you can argue the point with the tens of thousands of scholars who understand the report to say  what I posted. Or we can go with the Kleck-Gertz study that reports 2.5 million.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The problem is, they found 1.5-4.5 million DGUs per year, but that isn't the same thing as 1.5-4.5 million lives saved per year.

  24. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I have no idea what point you are making here. Could you clarify?

    If you mean 'let some people have guns'.  Well. d'uh. Every options involves some people having some guns. For example: cop: yes.  Crazy homicidal  felon: no.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, obviously the only way to know who and who should not have guns because in the future they may or may not do something wrong needs the skills of a psychic.

  25. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Here you go whosit.

    By May 16, 1992, 51 men and 7 women were dead because of the riots and the Los Angeles Coroner's Office listed 50 of the 58 people dead as homicide victims. Forty-one of the victims were shot to death, seven were killed in traffic accidents, four died in fires, three were beaten to death, two were fatally stabbed, and one died of a heart attack.

    I see no distinction in the figures between someone protecting property and someone killing out of rage. How about you?

  26. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    You're gonna love this; or not.

    http://gawker.com/5968807/down-with-big … dium=email

    Advise on how to make the gun manufacturers responsible, kind of like what happened to big tobacco.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah... gawker who is smart the author didn't even realize that gun manufacturers can only be sued under extremely narrow circumstances. That's the person you want to be taking advice from.

      BTW... his advice works both ways, you know. He wants to make a public scene out of gun manufacturers? Let's see how he carps in his pants when, "People camp out by his lawn wearing guns and holding up signs that say OCCUPY GAWKER."

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What advice? I posted a link to a story. By the way, the tobacco industry was Teflon coated too; not any more!

        That would hardly be fitting since Gawker hires left-leaning and right-leaning authors.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Gawker's advice, of course. Who else recommended suing the gun manufacturers.

          Cigarettes were not found in the 2nd Amendment... and they were not responsible for saving peoples lives either.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            An intransigent attitude is not going be very helpful. Hell, Joe Scarborough and Rupert Murdoch are making noise about gun control.

            So I'll ask again, how do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies?

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              define...

              1) out of the hands of

              and

              2) crazies

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The two are part of the same sentence Jack. Parsing it this way is not constructive.

                Look, I'd just as soon see you retain your rights, but without a reasonable alternative to gun control you are going to find your rock-hard stand wither away.

                So again I ask. How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We can't. Simple as that. We can try to institutionalize unsafe people, but we simply can't keep people from getting guns if they really want to.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If that's the standing attitude you are going to lose some of your precious gun rights.

                2. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, they need defining...

                  What you and I consider "of of the hands of" may just be two very different things. I need to know what you are thinking so that I don't waste both our times speaking past one another.

                  It's the same with "crazies". I've had far too many people tell me that the fact that I owned guns meant that I should not be allowed to own a gun. I've had dozens upon dozens state that "conservatives" or "christians" should not own guns based upon the "fact" that one would have to be crazy to be either one.  In another thread going on there is a person posting that, since we really, really can't tell who is "crazy" and who is not the only solution is to keep guns away from everyone.

                  So if you are unwilling to define just what you mean I have no desire to answer the question. Give me an honest definition and I'll give you my honest answer.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Jack, Jack, Jack. Seriously?

                    Out of the hands of means precisely that. Crazy means precisely that.

                    You aren't crazy. I'm not crazy. Someone who would harm themselves or threaten harm to others, for no logical reason, qualifies as mentally unstable. In fact that very condition is the basis of law in most states.

  27. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Very well, Rodney King died of a drug (cocaine & marijuana) and alcohol overdose and drowned in his swimming pool June of this year. Like so many with mental-health issues he managed to take himself out, but he never killed anyone anyone else.

  28. Wendi M profile image82
    Wendi Mposted 3 years ago

    Let it go people.  This tragedy was not about guns, religious beliefs, or fame.  It was about severe mental illness!  No amount of gun control was going to prevent this disturbed person from acting out.  The only thing that may have prevented it would have been getting him the help he needed to control his illness!

    1. cameciob profile image76
      cameciobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Pair an untreated mental illness with a gun and you get a tragedy.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Pair an untreated mental illness with much of anything and you've got a tragedy.

        The common factor in the tragedies is the untreated mental illness...not the firearm

        1. Wendi M profile image82
          Wendi Mposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly...this individual would have used any means available to act out his anger!

          1. Paraglider profile image89
            Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, if he hadn't used one gun from his late mother's arsenal, he'd have used another.

            And if she hadn't had an arsenal he'd have used what exactly? A poisoned toothpick?

            It's time to drop the fatuous argument that available lethal weaponry doesn't facilitate extreme violence. It's worn thin and fools nobody any more, except those that refuse to see the obvious because they are too much in love with their own guns.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +++ Amen! Military weapons can be regulated without interfering with with hunters and target shooters or people with demonstrated need for self-protection by virtue of their occupation or threats on their life.

              1. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly so. And if his mother had owned only a 'reasonable' pistol for self defence, she would have been the only casualty. If she hadn't even owned that, she'd still be here.

            2. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's part of the issue. She had two bolt action hunting rifles, a bushmaster, and two 9mm pistols; a Glock and a Sig Saur. Of the five weapons available Adam chose the three semi-automatics; not the hunting rifles.



              Or a kitchen knife or hell, even her car.  The intransigent gun owners will always find an excuse to exonerate the gun.



              If the supreme court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment allowed the use of RPGs, grenades, or machine guns those would be the weapons used in mass murder. In that way it's not the semi-automatic weapon; it's the most lethal weapon at hand.

            3. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Here's para. the limey who knows exactly nothing factual about guns, gun owners, the American culture but who can tell us all about how we should restrict Americans freedom to have them.

              Poor para... he knows that the three largest mass murders in America took place without a gun. How do I know that he knows this? Because I told him before. Yet he wants to talk about "poisoned toothpicks".

              His attitude and willingness to ignore the facts are one of the prime reasons why it is virtually impossible to have a fruitful discussion about this issue.

              1. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well, Mr Burton, I'll answer you, though your insolence deserves no such condescension.

                The retard who murdered the 20 infants almost certainly did not have the mental faculty to have accomplished it by, for example, carefully planning a lock-in and an arson attack, or staging a gas explosion. The convenience of a readily available firearm capable of fast mass killing was certainly instrumental to his 'success'.

                You have told me many things. You have spewed verbiage all over the comments section of my hub on this subject, perhaps totalling ten times the column inches of the hub itself. And you've impressed nobody along the way.

                Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I thought the term retard was socially unacceptable these days.

                  1. Paraglider profile image89
                    Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It probably is.  Killing 27 people is probably less acceptable still.  Next?

                2. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Offers no evidence about the planning ability of the murderer but makes extravagant claims. Typical.

                  All hat and no cattle as we say in Texas. Or... he's like cattle that has been dehorned. He's missing his points and there's a lot of bull in between the ones he thinks he ought to have.

    2. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agree! But the forces that be will not let it rest on this one issue.

  29. Smokes Angel profile image72
    Smokes Angelposted 3 years ago

    it was 20 children and 6 adults

  30. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/st … officials/

    There's a school district in Texas with armed teachers, seems like a good plan.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would you trust a group of people you deride for being union members?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think you misunderstand the problem I have with unions. I don't hate union members for being union members. I don't distrust them for being union members.

  31. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Please Americans, don't be taken in by this.

    This is one of many (and more to come) false flag operations to justify disarming you. That's what it's all about. There will be more of the same in the coming months, you will see.  Don't fall for it.

    Hang on to your guns!! Once the guns are confiscated, and you can no longer defend yourselves, you will see armed soldiers on the streets, and the imposition of martial law will soon follow.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Twenty dead children and seven dead adults is a false flag? That's amazing!

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Personally I think it is a conspiracy by the anti-freedom people to set up what they see as an opportunity to take away guns. The blood is on the hands of every single person who agrees with the Brady bunch.  The shooter was bought and paid for by those who are on the pro-gun control side and they are responsible for the death of every single child and teacher.

        [which makes as much sense as the media and political commentators who are trying to blame the NRA and gun owners for what happened.]

    2. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      False flag?  How much did they pay the guy to kill his mother, 20 children, 6 teachers and himself? What a clown you are wink

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know right. No conspiracy theory is too outlandish when it comes to gun rights.

        ALERT: Diane Feinstein has pledged to reintroduce assault weapon style legislation. In an interview she related that last time she introduced such legislation, it was during the Clinton administration. Despite an overall attitude that it would never pass it did. Considering the current climate of shock and shame* it has legs and could very well pass both the House and Senate.

        * Rupurt Murdoch, owner of Fox News, is saying the U.S. should use Australia as a model for gun laws. Joe Scarborough, the NRA's favorite son, is saying a ban is called for.

      2. sannyasinman profile image84
        sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How cartesian you are!

        Did you ever see the film "The Manchurian Candidate"? Did you really think it was a work of fiction?

      3. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'd bet you'd pony up ten to fifteen pounds...

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Explain?

          1. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What's to explain? If you types can accuse the NRA of wanting to murder little children I can equally and happily accuse you of paying the shooter to murder the little children so you get more gun control.

  32. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Gun rights enthusiasts please point to one case where guns were seized from law abiding citizens....besides Katrina that is.

    1. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Was that not enough?

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        G.W. Bush was president. Explain that.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He was elected by gaining more electoral votes than Gore.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are quite the literalist aren't you? He was a gun rights champion. Yet his administration had no problem tasking the local police and national guard with confiscating weapon. Where's the "armed society is a civil society?"

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Where's your evidence or cite that Bush "tasked" anyone with anything to do with guns in Katrina. That was a local decision as evidenced by the lawsuit won locally over the issue.

            2. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose you have proof this actually occurred?

    2. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      California, for one. So called assault rifles were required to be registered, and lo and behold, a few years later a ban was passed with the statement that the gun owners had three choices... they could turn the gun in, they could take it out of state, or they could have it seized since the state knew where they all were.

      Illinois tried the same thing earlier this year.

      And besides... wasn't Katrina enough?

  33. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    This is reality on planet earth. Lets all try to avoid falling down the rabbit hole of wild unfounded speculation and fantastical thinking.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You going to hold the pro-gun control/anti-NRA folk to the same standard?

  34. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Yes, it's almost as fantastic a story as the official story that we are supposed to believe about the destruction of the twin towers. That really is unbelievable.  There are millions of people around the world who can now see the truth about 9/11; that is was planned in advance, an inside job, where several thousand people were killed. What is 27 people compared to that? Programming an individual to carry out a killing? A piece of cake. The military have been doing it for years.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not that again! I guess all those engineers who were interviewed were either threatened with death or paid vast sums of money to lie about the way those towers were built.

      You know, when you go from making calculations with a slide rule (Empire State Building) to computers (Twin Towers) the fudge factor in material strength shrinks considerably. They built the towers to withstand the impact of a 727 not the larger 737. On top of that they got a number of things wrong. Like blown insulation on steel girders (hint: it got blown off). What would happen if the core were compromised (it was the primary support with the outer walls more decorative than structural) and where to place stairwells (hint: not in close proximity to the core).

  35. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    I have to say that what amazes me the most about America, is how some individuals see employment- as a privilege, health care- as a privilege, education and housing- as a privilege, but gun ownership- as a right! Mind blowing!

    1. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Spot on!

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      It's not a right to be given guns by the government, nobody feels that way(that I've ever heard).

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Reprogramed feel government should do everything for them. But all dictators fearing of revolt took guns away. We lost all freedom under Nazism and communism. Guns do not kill, people kill. Founders said we may have freedom if we will keep it.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Canada and a number of other democratic countries have much more sensible gun control laws than the United States.( I suppose it's understandable that someone who lived behind the Iron Curtain would be more sensitive to government rules than others. I've noticed this characteristic of many people who lived in communist or other dictatorships.)

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, but it's the right of gun wielding nut cases to massacre little kids at Kindergarten. Because it's their right to carry guns and not be subject to tighter restrictions, the constitution says so.

        I mean, what is wrong with you people? Even if the there were tighter regulation over gun ownership and control, it wouldn't prevent any of you from owning guns- unless of course you feel you wouldn't meet the mental hygiene criteria, or you worry about other issues.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody has the right to massacre little children. Where did you get that idea?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Because your weak argument is defending the right of every gun wielding crazy to bear arms in the future.

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              My argument is nothing like that. As a matter of fact my argument is that no crazie own a gun it also happens to be law.

            2. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And the great majority of gun owners are responsible. There would be many more crimes like this if we were not.

            3. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hurling accusations is really the best that hollie can do

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, you don't understand what a right is. Nobody has the right to murder another.

          People have free will, and there is nothing we can do about that.

          As to restrictions, it depends on what restrictions you are talking about. As I have said before, most any restriction will only affect people who respect the rules, and probably will make crime rates worse.

          Let me ask you this Hollie. Assume you are a burglar. You see two houses, both identical, and you know they both have the same valuable contents. You have a knife, and you know that one house has unarmed people and another house has armed people. Who are you going to rob?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            LAWL

            We get it. You are scared and you want lots of guns and don't care who gets killed. I don't blame you for hiding behind a fake user name and avatar either. Who ya gonna rob?

            Don't you think all this pro murder instrument propaganda is a little out of place given recent mass murders? Bet ya don't care - do ya?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wow Mark. Thank you for the mature, rational discussion.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mature, rational discussion? Don't make me laugh.

                So - you don't think all the pro gun propaganda is out of line given the recent murders of children?

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Its not pro-gun its pro constitution.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not out of line given the recent mass murder of children then? sad

                  2. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No it isn't. We have a standing army which negates a need for a militia.

                2. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  1 - Propaganda is a subjective term. Don't you think all the anti-gun propaganda is out of line given the recent murders of children? It's just the politicizing of a tragedy, right?

                  2 - People are murdered every day Mark. 30 people murdered with guns every day. Does that mean we can't discuss guns ever? Why is it bad to discuss them? Who does it hurt?

                  If you want to have a discussion, cut the attitude or I won't keep responding.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You are not having a discussion - you are lying at me and pushing a pro gun agenda. I don't blame you for hiding yourself though. lol

                3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good point, even the NRA isn't saying much.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The NRA's silence has been deafening. Their facebook page is blank; they pulled all of their content within hours of the shooting. Investment groups are divesting themselves of investments in arms manufacturers. One large one is selling off all of their arms investments. Others will follow.

                    The writing is on the wall and some people are in deep denial.

                4. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  mark speak...

                  Pro gun propaganda = defending the Constitution

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Here's the best that folk such as mark can do... accuse others of "not caring" just be we disagree with him.

              Pitiful... but highly typical.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Would you happen to know what LAWL means?

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You clearly don't care, because if you did you'd be arguing for the rights of those little kids who were gunned down like dogs- instead, you argue for the right of every crazy in the future. Pitiful.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Alright I'll bite how is anyone arguing for the rights of crazy people to own guns? Why don't you direct us to the posts that remotely substantiate anything you have said.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're arguing for the rights of people who may obtain guns in the future, under the current laws. The current laws have failed so many, yet you want them to remain. Your right to own and carry trumps the right of innocent victims in the future- that's all you can see. And what are you worried about? Providing that your not insane and willing to act in a responsible way when it comes to your firearms, you shouldn't have anything to worry about- so why does it worry you so much?

        3. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is why it is difficult to have an honest discussion over this issue. Holle thinks that she is somehow clever by accusing us of thinking there is a right to murder children because we support the 2nd amendment.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, what makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion on the issue is a bunch of folks who insist that their right to bear arms trumps everything else, including children's lives.

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How so? It seems you are the one who would see children put at risk in denying my right to carry a weapon and possibly saving them.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                For all the posters here know, you could be anyone, another gun wielding crazy who cowardly murders little kids. Why are you so reluctant to more scrutiny. If you're sane, sensible and responsible, a change in regulations shouldn't affect you adversely- so what is it, exactly, that you're worried about?

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Guns are more important that children.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yep, it appears so. What are they so worried about?

                2. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have many firearms I have been thoroughly reviewed. I never said I would mind tougher restrictions in purchasing weapons. You and Liam make things up and expect it to go unnoticed.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I've never seen you post anything indicating you'd go along with tougher restrictions.

                    Do you or do you not think 9/11 was a conspiracy?

                3. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  and for all the world knows, you could be a streetwalker spreading STDs everywhere you go. I think a mandatory weekly medical checkup at the local jail, along with a sweep of your home and especially the bedroom is called for. After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to object too.

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Find us a real person who advocates that instead of a strawman you constructed out of your imagination and we'll discuss it.

              But right now, with your emotional ranting, I put you in the same general pool of people who probably contributed to the killer's fund just to give you an excuse to rant against guns.

              How could you have done such a merciless thing? It's beyond me.

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You continue to defend your right to bear arms while saying nothing can be done to prevent the massacre of children.

                I simply find that an unacceptable answer.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  All kinds of things can be done to protect children but you and others on here seem to want to offer them up as lambs to the slaughter.

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's practically impossible.

            Try to have a real discussion. You get Ralph who pops in and out, making ridiculous comparisons, being contradictory in his own acceptance or refusal to accept the same source depending on what it says, and won't actually respond to what you say... You get Marks who respond with LAWL and disparaging remarks... You get Hollie calling people pathetic, appealing to ridicule, and making arguments such as 'You support the right of crazies to kill kids'.

            Very, very real discussion ever happens.

            (Good chance I'll get banned for this post, for observing things that have been posted, and can be proven, lol).

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The only reason a real discussion never happens is because those who proclaim a right to bear arms refuse to compromise on the least little detail of their so called rights.

              And I would not ask that you be banned for any reason.

              I keep trying to have a reasoned discussion with you folks and all I get is intransigence.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A reasoned discussion includes honesty.

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Someone would have to understand the concept of honesty to embrace it.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I refuse to support any form of gun-control that will only serve to restrict constitutional rights, or that will serve to make it more difficult for people to protect themselves. I always discuss why I don't support certain measures, and my opinions are based on solid, peer-reviewed research.

                Most of the suggestions for gun control would do nothing, or make things worse. DC did horribly while it had citizens forced to lock up their handguns.

              3. Jack Burton profile image80
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah... when the idea of compromise is "do it our way" we have a little problem with that.

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And yet this is precisely your stand. "I'm not giving you any compromise. Go pee up a rope."

                  That is hardly conducive to rational discussion.

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Fortunetelling they will never understand just how badly they hurt their cause. What reasonable person would want to stand with folk such as them in the same endeavor.

              I have no problem mentioning that in fear that they'll change their style and reasonability. It will never happen.

    3. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not really that hard to understand its part of our constitution. The right to health care and employment is not. I'm sure you can look it up online.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I understand that it's part of Constitution, that I can understand. Which part of my post indicated otherwise, exactly? Those outside America just feel that it's a bit odd that you'd allow your neighbour to live on the streets and starve, die of preventable illness and injury, allow your children to lag behind educationally in comparison to other nations, but when it comes to their right to bear arms; your neighbour suddenly becomes your brother.

        More than an hint of hypocracy here. If you're somewhat confused by the definition of hypocracy there's always the Oxford English Online Dictionary.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This part.

          I have to say that what amazes me the most about America, is how some individuals see employment- as a privilege, health care- as a privilege, education and housing- as a privilege, but gun ownership- as a right! Mind blowing!

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So explain to me then, whoisit, why the "right" to own and carry guns is part of your constitution? What purpose was it originally intended to serve?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The ultimate purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that we don't lose our other rights.

              Guns can be used as a balance of power against a tyrannical government. Our country is founded on the right to have elected representation, so we protect that right with guns.

              Guns can be used in self-defense. Our country is founded on the right to life, so we protect that right with guns.

              Guns can be used for sport and hunting. Our country is founded on the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, so we protect those rights with guns.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Guns can be used as a balance of power against a tyrannical government. Our country is founded on the right to have elected representation, so we protect that right with guns."

                You mean like John Hinkley's attempted assassination of President Reagan?

                1. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This is why it is so hard to have a rational discussion with bigots such as Ralph...

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would appreciate your not calling me names. That could be considered a personal attack. Oh well, Jaxon has called me a liar, so you may as well join in with your petty little insults. You might at least explain what I've said that caused you to call me a bigot. That's the first time I've been called that. Please note that I've refrained from calling you a 2nd Amendment nutjob or an advocate of murdering 1st graders.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Guns can be used as a balance of power against a tyrannical government. Our country is founded on the right to have elected representation, so we protect that right with guns.

                Good Luck with that one. Shoot any g'ment which you feel is tyrannical and then say "hello" to the equivalent of G'mo.

                Guns can be used in self-defense. Our country is founded on the right to life, so we protect that right with guns.

                Seems to me you're taking life by advocating that crazies have guns.

                Guns can be used for sport and hunting. Our country is founded on the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, so we protect those rights with guns.

                So why did guns and some gun rights nut jobs, take the pursuit of happiness from all those little kids?

            2. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I actually wrote my first hub on guns in America I will quote from that. Feel free to disagree its just my opinion.

              My theory is that the men who wrote our Bill of rights never envisioned an America like the one we have, a large and powerful military was not on their minds. What was on their minds are citizens who would be called upon in time of conflict to protect this country from threats foreign or domestic so they granted our right to own firearms.

              The founders of this country knew what they were doing when the granted us the right to keep and bear arms, they knew that all government at some point would fail us and want more than it should have. They granted us this right to protect us from government.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My theory is that the men who wrote our Bill of rights never envisioned an America like the one we have, a large and powerful military was not on their minds. What was on their minds are citizens who would be called upon in time of conflict to protect this country from threats foreign or domestic so they granted our right to own firearms.

                Good, so now you acknowledge the America that you live in, is not the one envisaged by the men who wrote the Bill Of Rights then perhaps you'll acknowledge that if they were here today, they'd be arguing for the rights of those murdered children- not the rights of the man who is obsessed by his right to bear arms?

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No I think they would be very much in favor of my constitutional rights.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And of course, the constitutional rights of children. Or do your rights trump theirs?

            3. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We don't own you an explanation of our rights, holle

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually you do since the 2nd specifically mentions a well regulated militia. Well regulated meaning it is under some form of command. Militia meaning it is a military organization of some sort.

                You claim neither is necessary to own firearms.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The Supreme court sees things not as you.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The Supreme court is transitory and I can assure you that in the next four years it's makeup will change drastically.

                2. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  unfortunately  for you the supreme court disagreed with you 9-0.

                  Find anything in the 2nd that says the government has any concern with the militia being well regulated. And while you're at it, use the actual definition from the 1700s instead of what you think it means today.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Got a link? I don't see where the supreme court made a ruling. The ban expired in 2004. The highest court did not need to do anything.

              2. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, but you owe the parents of those children an explanation as to what you and other gun users/carriers/owners (I assume) are going to do to reduce the likelihood of such a tragedy happening again. So come on, let's hear it . . .

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We don't owe them an explanation.

                  1. LiamBean profile image89
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry your kids died now bugger off.

                  2. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yep, you do. In fact you owe every citizen in the country who does not use/carry/own a gun and does not want to use/carry/own a gun, an explanation of what you are going to do to ensure your 2nd amendment right doesn't infringe our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A simple, point plan will be fine.

                    We're all listening. Over to you . . . .

                2. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Simple...

                  Vermont carry in every state.

                  BTW... does the homosexual community owe the parents of the children of Penn State an explanation of what they are going to do to ensure that never happens again?

              3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're absolutely right you don't. You OWE it to all those grieving parents and families and all those those kids who will never reach the age of nine or ten, or sixteen, eighteen, twenty one. All those kids and all those parents, who will never become parents or grandparents.

                And you want to introduce to those families MORE guns. This is sickening.

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We really don't care what other nations consider "odd."

          Europe couldn't go a few decades the past 1500 years without starting a continent wide war. Until we sat on them and babysat them they acted like immature land grabbers.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually they got sick of continent wide war. We had little to do with that. It helped that we also jointly killed off most of the battle ready Germans.

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah... and it just so happened that they coincidentally got tired of it after we put hundreds of thousands of our servicemen across the area.

    4. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Probably because you don't really understand the difference between a privilege and a right. Note:  the 2nd Amendment is found in the what...? That's correct... the Bill of RIGHTS.

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I actually spewed tea all over my computer screen when I read that it was very funny until I realized she was serious.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I do. It's just that I believe those all those kids who've been massacred had a "right " to continue their life, without being shot down like cattle, or dogs. Or, do you believe that the right for them to continue their life was a privilege? Do you honestly believe that the right of gun wielding crazies trumps the right of innocent little kids- because the constitution says so? Or, does it?

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You keep saying the right of the killer, he had no right and he took the rights of those children away. What if a parent had been there and had a weapon and shot the killer would you then be complaining of the killers rights?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I see that you can't answer any of my questions specifically. Why is that?

            Fortunately, I've encountered more than enough Americans who would NEVER consider carrying a gun where there are kids. They're sensible, educated, and care more about children than the constitution. You're the one complaining about the killers rights, you're advocating that every crazy in the future should be able to carry, without limitation, because it's written in the constitution.

            You want to increase a child's exposure to violence and guns, not reduce it- because of your constitution. Pitiful!

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not advocating that at all. You say I am and you are wrong just like you don't know the difference between a privilege and a right.

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hollie... you're being silly and if you don't know that then it really isn't worth discussing things with you.

          You go ahead and explain to the rapist holding a knife to your throat about your "rights" and see how much he cares. Bad people have done bad things to innocents since the beginning of time. No "rights" will stop them from doing so.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really. Silly? Let me give you a little incite when it comes to rapists holding a knife to your throat, and I don't say this as *merely* a woman, but a woman who has worked in the largest, highest security prison in the UK. Rapists, in the main, are members of your family, your friends and men whom you have previously trusted. The fact that you equate the rape of women to some knife wielding monster who suddenly jumps out the bushes and holds a knife to your throat, not only evidences your complete and total ignorance when it comes to rape, but your over addiction to the idiot box. If you want to talk about rape with me, then get an education, one which is based on real life.

            And here's another example of my "silliness". I HAVE been in a situation where I've attacked by a convicted rapist- he was one of my clients. After his discharge from prison he followed me home from work, waited until I stopped at my local shop and then waited until I attempted to get in my car- before he attempted to wrap a scarf around my face and drag me into an entry for the inevitable. Only, I had taken control and restraint courses. I had my car keys in my hand which landed in his eyeball. You'd be amazed at the damage that car keys could inflict. A gun would have been in my bag- completely useless in that situation.

            So don't talk to me about rape- or guns and how they'd protect me. You're silly, you know nothing.

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So you agree with me that rapists and other bad guys don't respect "rights" eh. Thank you.

              You had to take action against your attacker... you didn't say "stop, or I'll say stop again." Your "rights" were meaningless to him, correct.

              So why are you so concerned with taking away the rights of American women to defend themselves in what they consider the best possible way?

              BTW... I wasn't aware that women were not supposed to defend themselves against rape just because it was a friend or family member doing it. The things I learn on the net every day never cease to amaze me.

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh that's the funniest post yet from you. Learn something? When,where, about what?

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You have clearly learnt nothing from my post. Your ignorance is your problem. And btw, just to put this in some perspective- how many times are your female family and friends packing when they come to meet you- just on the off chance that you might intend to rape them. Never mind. You didn't get it the first time.

      3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm afraid you are the one who does understand the difference between a privilege and a right. Your posts are quite telling.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hollie Thomas

          I'm afraid you are the one who does understand the difference between a privilege and a right. Your posts are quite telling.

          You are correct he does understand.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A starving, homeless, uneducated man at least has the right- to carry- you're funny!

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A starving homeless hungry man has the right to own a firearm, he does not necessarily have the right to carry it. You should learn more about America before you make these silly statements.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, ok. A starving, homeless, uneducated man at least has the right- to own a gun. THAT makes all the difference. lol lol

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That way he can gather food.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How much food can he gather in a completely urban area?

                2. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I was just clarifying his rights of which once again you display ignorance.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do. You ARE hilarious. You still believe that the right to own arms trumps ALL others. You'd see your neighbour starve, and say nothing. You're kids get a second rate education, and say nothing. Your family die of preventable disease, and say nothing. But shoot your gob off for rights of some potential looney who may massacre a bunch of innocents- because of the constitution, and then have the audacity to call me ignorant.

                    Go back to the century in which the Bill of Rights were written. You may even have some kudos there.

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          hollie... you've already proven you have the reasoning level of a 13 year old. Quite frankly, it is immaterial to me what you think. I can find a better person to have a discussion with from the homeless up on the streets of Chicago.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In other words, you are struggling to defend your position.Your arguments are weak and unsubstantiated, easily discredited. When the insults and attempts to silence fail, which they clearly have, you resort to more insults. And still she will not shut up.

            And btw, your condescension in the respect of the homeless is shining bright. Why on earth would you consider that you are better educated, than myself or them?

  36. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 3 years ago

    I'd like to chuck in something for consideration.

    There are a couple of folk in this thread (and elsewhere) who seem to be pushing the idea that if you are not a technical expert in guns and ammunition you should keep quiet. This is a nonsensical stance. Guns are in the public domain. Therefore any member of the public has the right, even the duty, to contribute to the debate from his/her own perspective, which need not be a technical one.

    An orchestral conductor (or even the guy in the 18th row of the stalls) might not know the intricate technicalities of the French Horn, but s/he is still better placed than the horn players themselves to know if the horns are blending well with the rest of the orchestra.

    All responsible members of society are entitled to a view on the gun phenomenon and should not be bullied into silence by those that say only the specialists should be allowed air-time.

    1. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with that but if you are going to pass a law a little knowledge about the subject would be helpful. Nancy Pelosi may wind up limiting us to slingshots.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At least they wont kill innocent little kids.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They are capable of causing death too.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What would you rather I came at you with - a slingshot or a semi automatic rifle?

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Neither, I'm deadly accurate with a firearm and carry everywhere.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bet I could do you with a pencil.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll take that bet as weird as you made it sound.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure you would. lol lol

              2. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy. That is not the least bit reassuring.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't believe that, where do you come up with these things?

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Mark... it's not polite to threaten other people on hubpages, and in general. You're going to get busted if you keep doing it. I expect better from you.

    2. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You can't quite find any evidence that anyone in this thread or else where are stating that you should keep quiet. What is really being said is that those who no very little about firearms yet continue to post their ignorance are exposing their ignorance to the world.

      I personally don't know much about fishing, and would never presume to explain to a fisherman just how to do the task, but if someone else wants to do so and show their lack of knowledge in front of God and the internet, then go for it.

      But if you want to "contribute" to the debate about guns, yes, it does help to be better informed than a five year old on a trike explaining to a race car driver just what he needs to win a race. It's cute when children do it -- not so cute when adults make do the same type of stuff.

      BTW... para is a person who thinks that the difference between an "automatic" and a "semi automatic" is mere falderal, and can be dismissed with a wave of his hand. He knows the difference, but is more than willing to blur it just to scare people into thinking that fully auto firearms are being sold to the pubic.

      And please state any view you want. We will then explain to "society" why you are wrong, and why when people such as you call for "common sense gun control" it is obvious from your own words that you are speaking from ignorance.

      We who respect the 2nd Amendment also love the 1st Amendment. It allows us to separate out those who really have no idea about which they are speaking, and allows us to destroy any credibility they think they have. No one wants to take advice from a fool who doesn't know what he is speaking about. Go ahead and show society how foolish and ignorant you are about firearms, those who use them, and the culture that they live in -- it only helps our cause.

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Jack, you are making assumptions based on very little. Para is not stupid.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Never said para was stupid.

          Since I never said it, why do you even bring it up? Are you projecting your own thoughts about his capabilities onto me so that you can bring it up without appearing to be the one to actually make the connection between "stupid" and "para"?

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Go ahead and show society how foolish and ignorant you are about firearms, those who use them, and the culture that they live in -- it only helps our cause.

        Yeah, advocating the rights of crazies whilst ignoring the rights of innocent little kids!

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Last time I checked it was against the law to murder children. But your constant baseless accusations about those who disagree with you show far more about you than you realize.

          I bet like para you probably contributed to a fund to ensure this Conn. killer was paid sufficiently to do what he did just so you can rail against firearms. Your support for him and his deed is unthinkable.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Last time I checked it was against the law to murder children. But your constant baseless accusations about those who disagree with you show far more about you than you realize.

            Hallelujah! Ms Burton finally gets it! It's wrong to pull guns and murder children!

            You're the one who makes baseless accusations. ie:

            I bet like para you probably contributed to a fund to ensure this Conn. killer was paid sufficiently to do what he did just so you can rail against firearms. Your support for him and his deed is unthinkable.

            Disgusting! Because you don;t have the nouse to support your ridiculous claims that more guns would save the lives of children, you resort to this kind of accusation. You are sickening. Guns trump the rights of nut jobs and if we don't agree then we are paid to support murderers. Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's a common right wing tactic. Demonize your opponent and claim THEY are being ridiculous.

              "I"m right and you're wrong no matter what." wears thin after a while.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, it does Liam. When common sense and evidence become to difficult to oppose- they wear you down with stupidity.

                1. LiamBean profile image89
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am extremely resilient. And stubborn. I'm especially stubborn when accused of being "emotional," "ignorant," or "overly liberal."

                  Just remember this. You've won the argument when met with silence. It's the only way to tell.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Plenty of commenters know quite a lot about guns, especially hunting rifles and shotguns. I got my first gun at age 12, a 20 gauge single barrel Harrington and Richardson which I used for hunting squirrels. Since then I've hunted birds with a Model 12 Winchester pump gun and plinked at targets with a Remington .22 bolt action repeater. (And FYI, in the Army I fired expert with an M1 and a .45 hand gun.) As far as I'm concerned the manufacture, sale and possession of  automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons, large magazines for any weapon, armor piercing bullets and, body armor should be prohibited, except for sale to the military and police. The manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns should be strictly regulated as they are in Canada. These weapons serve no necessary hunting or target shooting purpose, and they are frequently involved in robberies, murders, accidental deaths , suicides and other mayhem.

        Some people have stupidly said that handguns would/could have prevented the mass killings at the school in Connecticut and the movie theater in Aurora. This is patently stupid because both killers wore body armor and carried several large magazine, semi-automatic weapons. My understanding is that reasonable restrictions are permitted by the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. And perhaps we'll be lucky and eventually get a couple of more members on the Supreme Court who will be more sympathetic to reasonable gun regulations.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph. Can you please provide details about the body armor used by each shooter? I would love to know what type was used.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Look it up yourself, if you doubt what I said. The one in Connecticut was covered from head to toe with body armor. There's no way anyone could have stopped him with a handgun.

            NH store says shooter's body armor pricey
            July 22, 2012, 3:14 pm
            Email
            Print
            Facebook


            WINDHAM, N.H. (AP) — A New Hampshire shop that specializes in police protective gear says the amount of gear used in the movie massacre in Colorado could have cost $2,000 to $3,000.

            Raymond Bellia of Granite State Police Supply tells WMUR-TV ( ) that his store wouldn't sell any tactical body armor to a civilian. But he says the amount of gear that James Holmes was wearing during the time of the shooting could have cost up to $3,000.

            Belia says anyone can buy the same protective gear because there is no required background check by state or federal law .

            But Granite State, in Windham, doesn't sell sophisticated protective gear to anyone but law enforcement officials.

            ___

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are ways you may not know them but I do.

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Can't you prove a claim Ralph?

              I'm just asking for standard burden of proof to be fulfilled. I want to know what kind of body armor they used. Did you know there are multiple types?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Lanza's use of "illegal body armor" has been widely reported. I haven't personally examined it. The details will eventually be officially reported by the police. Here's one published report from a Connecticut newspaper:

                "The guns allegedly used in the Newtown shootings, two automatic pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, are legal in Connecticut, but the 20 year-old shooter, Adam Lanza, was illegally possessing them because state residents can't carry a handgun until they are 21 years old and must have a permit. He was also wearing illegal body armor."

                Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/New … z2FRlwBftQ

                If you don't believe this source, why don't you find one you do believe? This is the last time I'm going to do your homework for you. If you don't believe something I say, disprove it if you can.
                ( and not from Rush Limbaugh.)

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So why do you want to take guns away from those of us who didn't do the crime?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    All I want is reasonable restrictions consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Guns should not be allowed in schools, churches, libraries, bars government buildings, malls, the workplace or anywhere else where guns are not allowed by the owner or proprietor of the building or business. Assault weapons, armor piercing ammunition, large magazines and body armor should be prohibited, except for use by the military and police. Providsion should be made for more effective enforcement of restrictions on the manufacture, sale and possession of prohibited weapons. The regulations should be written so as not to interfere with the use of weapons customarily used by hunters and target shooters.

            3. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It wasn't just body armor. How did he get his hands on CS gas?

              I've been exposed to that stuff. You are lucky to be able to breath (never mind seeing) after being hit with that stuff. One makes an excellent target crawling around on the floor retching up your lunch.

        2. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's really quite amazing Ralph. So many of them assume that because some of us have concerns about guns that we don't know squat about them.

          I haven't forgotten my training. And I was quite a gun enthusiast myself in my youth. I even built a few black powder guns.

        3. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph gets it completely factually wrong, as normal, about the body armor worn in colorado.

          I could give him the truth, but in the end it doesn't matter... he'll be here next week still posting that the shooter in colorado wore body armor.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Feel free. I didn't examine it. I stated what I read in a publication. I recognize that not all the reports on these mass murders are totally accurate. It was reported in the press that the Connecticut and Aurora shooters were wearing body armor.

  37. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    Mark, being pathetic is his right! It's written in the constitution. lol

  38. 61
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Although not as ridiculous as the guy who is going to kill me with a pencil he's special.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      At least he has the guts to give his name.

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I did too if you were following along, obviously you weren't.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Mark. ?

          1. 61
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure what the question mark is for my name is Mark Taylor. You don't seem to be very trusting and you also seem ok with someone being threatened with a pencil. Remember that hypocrite comment you made earlier.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're crying like a big soft baby because you've been threatened with a pencil? lol lol

              And then fight for the rights of crazies to own guns, after they've just massacred little children. Pathetic, in the true sense of the word.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not crying. And why is it so hard for you to tell the truth?

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  About death by pencil? lol lol

  39. LiamBean profile image89
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Whiny pizza customer gets shot in an argument. Shooter claims the right due to the "Castle Doctrine." The police disagree.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/18/s … -customer/

    1. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's why the police are not the final say. And just so you know I didn't read the story.

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well informed as usual eh?

        A customer was whining about a ten minute pizza taking too long. The shooter got into an altercation with him. When the shooter got into the whiner face the whiner pushed him back, out of his face....and got shot for his trouble.

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As I understand the castle doctrine he may have a right to do so. The Courts will settle it.

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So a gun fired into your torso is an appropriate response if you push someone out of your face. Good to know. I consider myself educated.

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It may be appropriate for this case, I read the story and like you I'm assuming its a true representation of what happened. As you know facts are sometimes different when witnesses are brought into it.

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True. Hey I thought you'd get a chuckle out of this.

                https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537636_485354121517121_1727473013_n.jpg

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I would like a teacher to have the authority to carry a concealed weapon. Why would you not want them to have a fighting chance?

          2. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He wasn't in his castle; he was in a public place. Which the police pointed out in their arrest.

      2. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Funny, when they disagree they have the power to jail you. It doesn't matter if they have the final say. Their testimony is critical in a court of law. The shooter was released on a $20,000 bond. The shootee says he feels lucky to be alive.

    2. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For what its worth there is no store-bought pizza worth being shot over.

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's also a matter of opinion.

  40. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    Yes, for those who notice, I am repeating something I posted in a similar thread: 

    Careful what you wish for.  Consider the last two high profile cases...Aurora and Newtown.  In both cases the shooters were determined, and far from stupid.  You will never keep those bent on evil from procuring their guns of choice if they want to, but if you do manage to make it difficult enough to obtain them, what do you suppose they will do?  Wring their hands, shake their heads and say "gosh darn I wish I could kill people but I can't get my hands on a gun"?

    No, they will go to bombs.  Bombs that can be made from household goods that will never be banned.  Bombs that result in many deaths in a fraction of a second and don't care who the targets are.  In both cases cited they were bent on killing as many as possible, and did so as quickly as they could...but not as quickly or efficiently as a bomb.  How many would have made it out of that theater if that had been the weapon of choice?

    It is good to try to find ways to stop these incidents, or mitigate their damage, but forcing those bent on destruction to up their game with more efficient means may not be the answer.  I know I am not offering any answers here, and I think trying to find some is a good idea.  Blaming the tools and the method is not the solution.

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Embracing the tool or method above all else is not the solution either.

  41. Norah Casey profile image80
    Norah Caseyposted 3 years ago

    Due to the number of valid personal attack complaints in this thread, it is now closed. Feel free to open another thread, but be more respectful of all opinions.

Closed to reply
 
working