Connecticut School Shooting Leaves at Least 27 Dead Children
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."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.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?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?"
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.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?Do you really think that other societies over the millennial had no right to self defense?
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.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.
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."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.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.
I have absolutely no remorse in telling non-citizens who wish to change the culture of the USA into the country that they left to go back to where they feel more comfortable. This has nothing to do with "loving" the country.
If the poster was trying to gut the 1st Amendment because he felt that freedom of speech was not correct I'd give him the same advice.
My wife is foreign born and her family came here to escape the 3rd world pest hole they came from. They had no intention of attempting to change here into "there." They left "there" to get away from it.
If you don't like America's freedoms... stay home.
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 … D0000000821) It seems it would be incumbent upon you to try to fix the things you see wrong in your native country than come to America and immediately try to fix the things you see wrong here even though we've been doing it right for several centuries.
2) And I proved your point how? By disagreeing with you? Are you stating for the record that every person who disagrees with you are the "wrong hands" who should have guns? (Bean, are you reading this?)
3) And just why do you think everyone should agree with your emotional response to what happened in Conn.?
4) If you find a "personal attack" in that response of mine please tell me. Cause there sure isn't one at all.
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.
You didn't answer my question, did you. Of course not.
Who was the shooter's psychiatrist, and what pharmasics was he on?
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.
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.
I think advocating violence in the wake of this tragedy is extremely off-base.
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.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.
@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) 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."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.
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.However in close quarters it could go through 4-5 little bodies before stopping.
This is a muzzle energy high enough to go through the skull of a buffalo at close range.1 - Comparing a small, fast round to a large, slower round, the larger round will do more damage to a person.
2 - If a bullet is designed to go through people, it won't do even a fraction of the damage that a round that isn't designed to go through people will do.In a close quarters mass murder situation this means they are either dead or extremely dead. Not really an important distinction.
No, not really. Rifle wounds are only fatal 10-20% of the time. If FMJ ammo(that can go through multiple people) is used, that figure would be around 1-2%.
It depends on the rifle, the impact velocity, the type of round, and where the person is struck. These extremely loose estimations of what is deadly and what is not are meaningless.
Those 'estimations' are the actual statistics of gunshot wounds, which means they already include every variable.
And the fact that every person shot by this weapon in this event, apart from one hit in the foot, was killed seems to suggest pretty high deadliness.
Also, when choosing which gun/bullet combo you may legally euthanize an animal with, the only thing USDA specifies is the muzzle velocity. That suggests to me it is a key parameter.Yup!
The energy the bullet imparts is determined by two factors. How fast the bullet was traveling on impact (velocity) and what the bullet does when it strikes something. The .223 tends to tumble or yaw once it impacts, particularly in flesh. This means that almost all of it's energy is transferred to whatever it hits. A 9mm or .45 may be a larger bullet, but they both have lower velocities and neither is known for tumbling once the impact takes place.
If the bullet does not tumble another factor comes into play. The shockwave of the bullet passing through flesh. A higher impact velocity means a larger shockwave. This also has some very damaging effects. In fact the surround flesh does not have to have any direct contact with the bullet to be damaged, irreparably, by it.1 - Hollow-points will cause more damage than FMJ. This has nothing to do with caliber, and everything to do with bullet design.
2 - Heavier, slower bullets will cause more shock-trauma... it's not even close.The tumbling of the .223 has to do with factors that are not related to it's supposed "high power." You still offer no evidence, no proof that that chart was wrong in the least.
Nope, one of the reasons the military chose it was it's very high likelihood of tumbling. Another factor was the rifle twist, which also has an effect on possible tumble. The M16/M4 rifling was specifically designed to add ballistic stability and also increase the chances of tumble.
The military did not spend years of research and millions of dollars for nothing.None of which contradicts the chart I posted showing that it fall towards the bottom of the power rankings.
Like I said, go tell the Army and the Navy. I'm sure they'll drop the .223 immediately because of your immense knowledge.
Funny how you haven't responded to the things I posted about that.
The army has different rules and needs than citizens. What's best for the army isn't what's best for citizens.What is the difference between an AR15/Bushmaster and an M16/M4?
AR-15 is a term used to apply to different weapons. It was an Armalite, now the term is owned by Colt, but used generally to refer to any AR-15 style rifle. It can refer to semi-automatic, or automatic rifles, chambered in just about any caliber.
Bushmaster is a manufacturer of rifles.
M16 is the military's name for the AR-15(kind of, since now AR-15 is only the semi-automatic Colt model) that they use with selective fire. M4 is basically a smaller version of the M16.You still haven't responded to the points I made. That's kind of rude.
I'm working on it. Hard to respond to two simultaneously.
Despite your likely thinking I'm a major butt-hole I do appreciate the debate.
so can my .45 acp handgun ammo. If that becomes the criterial for banning types of guns then we'll see 80 percent of guns banned. If that is what someone wants then be honest about it.
The size of the round is compensated for by its higher velocity.The entire reason the .223 [5.56mm] round was chosen is because it has the same hitting power as the larger 7.62mm round due to it's higher velocity, but because of its size a larger number of rounds can be carried compared to the heavier 7.62.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD … tTRDoc.pdf
The Bushmaster, AR15, and M16 have the exact same muzzle velocity.
Of the two images above which is the Bushmaster and which is the AR15?Still considered a "medium powered" round by the shooting community.
Here's the ranking of rifle round ballistics... low to high. Notice where the .223 comes in?
.223 WSSM (64 grain at 3600 fps) - 10.1
.243 Winchester (100 grain at 2960 fps) - 18.1
.243 WSSM (100 grain at 3100 fps) - 20.0
.25-06 Remington (120 grain at 2990 fps) - 26.5
6.5x55 SE (140 grain at 2700 fps) - 30.7
6.5mm Remington Magnum (120 grain at 3210 fps) - 30.2
.270 Winchester (130 grain at 3150 fps) - 35.0
.270 Winchester (150 grain at 2850 fps) - 37.4
.270 WSM (140 grain at 3125 fps) - 40.1
7mm-08 Remington (140 grain at 2860 fps) - 33.6
.280 Remington (140 grain at 3000 fps) - 37.1
7mm Remington Magnum (150 grain at 3110 fps) - 44.8
.30 Carbine (110 grain at 1990 fps) - 7.4
.30-30 Winchester (150 grain at 2390 fps) - 22.8
.30-30 Winchester (170 grain at 2200 fps) - 25.4
.300 Savage (150 grain at 2630 fps) - 30.0
.308 Winchester (150 grain at 2820 fps) - 34.7
.308 Winchester (180 grain at 2620 fps) - 46.2
.30-06 Springfield (150 grain at 2920 fps) - 37.3
.30-06 Springfield (180 grain at 2700 fps) - 49.2
.300 WSM (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5
.300 Winchester Magnum (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5
.300 Weatherby Magnum (180 grain at 3240 fps) - 72.8
7.62x39 Soviet (123 grain at 2365 fps) - 15.7
.303 British (180 grain at 2460 fps) - 40.1
.32 Winchester Special (170 at 2250 fps) - 25.4
8x57 JS Mauser (195 grain at 2550 fps) - 52.0
.325 WSM (200 grain at 2950 fps) - 75.6
.338x57 O'Connor (200 grain at 2400 fps) - 39.7
.338 Winchester Magnum (250 grain at 2650 fps) - 94.8
.357 Magnum (Rifle) (158 grain at 1830 fps) - 12.7
.35 Whelen (200 at 2675 fps) - 56.4
.350 Remington Magnum (200 grain at 2770 fps) - 60.9
.375 H&H Magnum (270 grain at 2690 fps) - 106.2
.416 Remington Magnum (400 grain at 2400 fps) - 188.4
.44 Remington Magnum (Rifle) (240 grain at 1760 fps) - 26.4
.444 Marlin (265 grain at 2325 fps) - 63.4
.45-70 Government (300 grain at 1810 fps) - 50.1
.45-70 Government (405 grain at 1330 fps) - 55.0
.450 Marlin (350 grain at 2100 fps) - 88.9
.458 Winchester Magnum (500 grain at 2090 fps) - 217.3Yes I do. It has the highest velocity of all those listed.
Stop throwing me soft-balls, this is getting boring. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.Muzzle velocity isn't as important as you seem to think it is.
Tell that to the Army and Navy.
Impact velocity, as has been shown time and time again, is more important that many other factors though it is not necessarily the most important.
Why do you amateurs get on here and pretend to know more than a former soldier?Why don't you keep any form of insult out of it?
A 62 grain 5.56×45mm NATO travels at ~3,000 fps, with about 1,300 ft-lbs of energy. It's a fragmenting bullet, which is less effective for self-defense than a hollow-point. Smaller wound channels.
A 325 grain .50 travels at ~1,900 fps, with about 3,000 ft-lbs of energy.
Muzzle velocity is only one factor, and by itself, it is meaningless.
What's good for the army is not necessarily what's good for self-defense. Different applications, not to mention different rules. The army isn't allowed to use hollow-point, and they also like using ammo that wounds rather than kills, as a wounded soldier will take other soldiers out of the fight to tend to him.One of many factors, eh... and not the most important by your own admission.
As a hunting round the .223 is ranked towards the bottom. You cannot dispute this without looking as a fool. Many states won't even allow it's use in hunting except as a varmint round.
It is not a "high powered" round compared to really high powered rounds. But it sounds good in the media.Yeah, high-powered rounds work great on first graders.
As clear as any evidence possible that "facts" really just don't matter to some people. With a list in front of him that clearly shows the relative power of each of the major rifle rounds, he STILL denies what the truth is.
And ~this~ is the kind of person who thinks we should listen to his "reasonable" view on gun control.
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.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.You seem to have missed UW's point. I'm shocked.
You are a slave to your fear and your fire-arms and you think that you are free.If I missed his point then you should be able to dispute what I posted. Would he feel better?... or not?
I don't think you'll quite got the concept of either "slave," "fear" or "free" down yet.So far I've disputed every "fact" you've posted. You didn't see that?
You live in fear; I don't. Who is the slave?Yes, you "disputed" a lot. Haven't proven anything, but you sure do "dispute."
Just the same way you can't quite get around to rationally explaining just what it is I live in "fear" of.
But it makes you ffffeeeeelllll ggggooooddd to say that about me. And that is all that counts with you.I'm not responsible for your lack of research.
Why do you "need" a gun?
You lost the argument; get over it.He's not responsible for much of anything... but which one of us provided a chart showing clearly where the .223 round fits into the rifle catridge? Oh... it was ME... and not HIM
He's the type who believes that people who have fire extinguishers live in :"fear" of a fire... and those with spare tires live in "fear" of a flat... and those who lock their doors at night live in "fear" of a home invasion. He believes "being prepared = living in fear"
He's not even in the argument. He's offer nothing of evidence, and not much of anything else.And where did the .233 fall in the range of muzzle velocities?
Why do you need a military grade weapon?
The evidence is easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a browser. Interestingly most of my supporting evidence comes from the very manufacturers that you cite.Why is muzzle velocity important? Is it because you find the energy of a bullet by multiplying weight by velocity?
As noted prevoiusly.... muzzle velocity ain't everything.
And the fact that he claims to be a "former soldier" and thinks that the ARs sold in the stores are "military grade" weapons is telling.
That is like a person claiming to be a former football star in high school and then complaining that the reason the Cowboys didn't win the Stanley Cup was because their power forward didn't score high enough on the high bar routine.
It just isn't so, folk.I am a former soldier. As one I was required to know all sorts of 'stuff' about the weapons I fired. Even stuff that didn't seem all that important at the time.
What's the difference between an AR15, Bushmaster, and an M16/M4? Bet you can't answer that.
Your saying so does not make it true. And considering how little you know about fire-arms this carries very little weight.Deleted
It's really simple, why not answer the question here. It will take one sentence.
An AR and its many varients are required by Federal law to be a "one pull of the trigger" for each round fired. They are also required to be machined in such a way as to make it nigh impossible for one to be converted to a "one pull of the trigger" fires many rounds.
A true military grade M4 continues to fire when you have the trigger depressed. Or, it can be set up to fire a 3-round burst with one trigger pull.
All of which is in my hub...Thank you. So the difference is one can be fired full-auto and the other cannot.
Big difference huh?You asked me a question. I answered it. You never made a point with it.
Just say it, don't play that game, it's not good for discussion.
We were talking about calibers, energy, velocity, etc... You asked me the difference, you didn't make a point.Very well, the point is there is little difference since most of the time the true military weapon is NOT fired in full-auto. As I said it is a waste of ammo and accomplishes little other than (hopefully) frightening the poop out of your opponent.
We still have a problem. How do we keep the crazies from getting their hands on them?
yes, it is a significant difference in the eyes of the public. This is why the media and the gun bigots always try to confuse the public by claiming that any gun -- even a bolt action rifle -- is a fully automatic firing weapon.
The public doesn't like the idea of "machine guns" in public hands. Making them think that ever AR and AK sold in America is really a machine gun is a prime strategy of the gun controllers and their lap dog media.
That's exactly why NBC got busted for falsifing a news story on this issue.
[I am kidding about the bolt action rifle... but not by much]Actually at one time I owned a Lee-Enfield. In a shooting competition in the late 1800s one of the reasons it won the admiration of the military is that one of the testers attained a firing rate of 17 rounds per minute. Not bad for a bolt-action.
Machine guns are allowed in public hands if the owner does not mind going through an FBI background check and paying for the weapon prior to possession. Considering there's been only one recorded case of abuse that's a pretty good record.Yes, a master with a bolt action can accomplish wonders. A true pro even with a lever action can be deadly. As the rebels said, the yankees load on Sunday and fire all week.
About 400,000 fully auto firearms in the hands of the public if I remember correctly. The price skyrocketed in the 80s due to the new regulations. The average person has a tough time affording one.
Yes, why not answer questions here? You have ignored most of mine, yet you act like nobody will answer yours...
Hey JACK - Your forefathers wrote the laws to try and protect their children, not to kill them. To be really FREE citizens you should try and learn to respect the wishes of those that won your freedom and the lives of your children. It was one of today's AMERICAN ADULTS that killed those AMERICAN children, not a Canadian, Iranian, North Korean or Afghan.
It is only when Americans stop blaming others, that they can start to get their own house in order and boy, it does need order.
Probably every year for about the last 15 years, there has been school shootings in the US and every time no laws are changed because "they were not legally gun owning people". Try this, just for a change. Instead of telling the "Free Citizens" that they can't own a gun, why not teach them how to secure a gun, before they can get a licence.
Current info says the mother wasn't even tied to the school.
It is way too easy to posses a gun in the United States, for whatever reason one needs it.
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.
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!".
Sure !!!! Outlaw guns then guess what - Only outlaws will have guns. And everyone else will be victims. Good Plan
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
0Nothing 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.How would banning guns make incidents like this happen more often?
I would be interested to know your solution for gun violence in schools.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.]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.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.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.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?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.
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.
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.Maybe, but those weapons are responsible for massacre-style shootings which always involve innocents.
So are handguns, but they are 'responsible' more often.
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?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.During the L.A. riots 58 deaths reported 50 declared homicides.
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?
Not really. I don't know the answer to your question but a shop owner killing a looter wouldn't be a homicide.
How many of the 50 homicides were shop owners protecting property?
How many of the 50 homicides were rioters killing innocents?Actually it would.
Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) is the act of a human killing another human. Murder, for example, is a type of homicide.
Homicide is not always a punishable act under criminal law, and is different from murder from a formal legal point of view.
Homicide is a generic term. Murder is not.It's not a lesson; it's a clarification.
Why do those of you who insist upon having guns for your personal protection always go to the dark side? I provide a true incident of people helping each other without blasting each other to hamburger over possessions and someone has to bring up riots.
Hey if you want things to go bad they will.I brought up riots to contrast all the love the earthquake generated. Your gleaming city is known for its brotherly love.
Your sarcasm is palpable. Nevertheless the story I related is true. Now do you want to tell me what sparked the riots (since you know so much)? How about a profile of the looters?
Why the dark side whoisit; are you just itching to put someone six feet under?You assume too much. What started the riots? If I remember correctly it was the police officers being exonerated for the Rodney King beating.
Tell that to the people in New Orleans and the recent hurricane.
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.
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.It's all about publicity.
If nobody hears, nobody cares.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.
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!
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?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!
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.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.You make it clear you're part of the nation that shrugs its shoulders...
As I said - your political agenda is more important than acknowledging this senseless tragedy.
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.
Do better than what? Pointing out that you are detracting from what is a senseless tragedy and demeaning the families involved because you want to make a religious/political point?
Sorry you cannot tell the difference or why no one is interested in you pushing your political anti-women's choice agenda by using this tragedy?Do better than what? Well, for starters, I pointed out that your comment about "a nation "weeping and mourning" is EXACTLY the same thing as not acknowledging the tragedy"
Would you like me to point it out again?
And again... ;you're just making up from thin air that I am in any way "demeaning" those families just because you don't like my truthful graphic. Unless you want to make the argument that "weeping and mourning" is somehow equal to "demeaning."
You see... THAT is what you have to do better at.
Just man up and admit that you're one of those who shrugs your shoulders over 70 million dead children. It's not that hard for you to do.As I said - your religious/political agenda is far more important to you than this event. I see it went up by 20 million. Don't forget the kids that they would have had - jack it up to 300 million.
Demeaning - yes. It apparently upsets you that people are weeping and mourning when there is a bigger problem to mourn. Abortion.You don't want to deal the the reality of the graphic, do you. That's okay. You can self-identify as one of those who shrug your shoulders. I won't stop you from doing so.
And notice, Dear Readers, how Mark keeps trying to insult and make ME the issue. I supposedly think it is "demeaning", eh.
BTW, yes, I did make a typo in the numbers as I was typing faster than my brain was moving.You are the issue. You want to suggest that a nation weeping and mourning for real dead children should not be happening because abortion exists and that is a far bigger issue.
The reality of the graphic is just that. You trying to insert your religious/political agenda into a senseless tragedy. Bet you are a fan of guns as well huh?There's ya go, Dear Readers.
I state the nation is weeping and mourning. Somehow, in his guilty conscience, Mark is trying to make the case that I am "want[ing] to suggest that a nation weeping and mourning for real dead children should not be happening"
How can he get from the factual statement "the nation is weeping and mourning" (which, BTW, is factual as noted) to me "wanting" anything?
It's easy... in his heart he knows that killing innocent children thru abortion is wrong, and therefor he has to deflect the issue to me. He has to make Jack the issue so that he doesn't have to confront the other factual statement on the graphic.
He has to make up strawmen, nonsensical arguments about what I "want" in order to change the subject. He's even attempting to do it with "guns."Dear me.
"Over a dozen children lose their lives to violence in one day and the nation weeps and mourns....
50 million innocent children lost their live to abortion since 1973 and the nation shrugs its shoulders...."
Your political/religious agenda is clear. And disrespectful of the victims. Using this tragedy to push your anti-women's choice agenda is offensive to everyone.
Mark still hasn't come up with anything to post other than "I don't like it."
The truth of the graphic is so plain that even he cannot dispute it.
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.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?
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.So, you felt compelled to stand on a soapbox and thump your bible? Those are your thoughts and actions concerning this tragedy?
My response to the comparisons made on this thread cannot be posted on HP.
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.Yeah... when people get killed sometimes other people's thoughts turn to religion.
I am glad I don't have TV and watch the news anymore. There is just too much bad these days.
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-childrenWith 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.Paradigmsearch does not wish to get involved in a gun-control debate. Departs thread at approximately mach 3.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
I notice no one has answered the question. "Why do you need a military grade weapon?"
What do you mean by military grade weapon? It's another vague term, hard to discuss when everyone can't agree on the subject.
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.
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?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.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.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)
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.Fine, name the false premise. You can't. I'm 100% accurate.
- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago0
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.As a former soldier I resent the fact that untrained, unqualified, undisciplined morons can get their hands on a military grade weapon.
Thank you for your service, but how about you show others a little respect?
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.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?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.
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
If it's children we are concerned about, we should go after handguns before going after rifles...
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?
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.
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."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."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.
For the sake of discussion, would you sacrifice the 20,000 to save the 10,000?
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.Letting some have and some not?
I didn't know your name was "psychic skinner"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?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.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?
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/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".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.I actually read the report, not just the blog. It doesn't say what you describe it as saying.
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.
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.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.
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?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.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."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.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.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?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?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.
If that's the standing attitude you are going to lose some of your precious gun rights.
Alright, what's your solution?
Even if we banned all guns, people would be able to get their hands on them, so how do you propose we stop people from getting them?I'm not the one who insists on having them. That's why I'm asking you. I have nothing to lose here; apparently you do. What is keeping your fire-arms worth to you?
Imagine having a weapon that would only work for you the owner and was totally fail-safe.
I wish we had the technology to disable any gun that was not handled by the owner or a designated user. But we are a long way off from making biometric sensors small enough and robust enough to fit and work in a firearm.Let me get this straight. You don't have a solution to the problem, so you think the only solution is a solution that wouldn't actually address the problem, but rather make it worse?
Wow, you really know how to put words in someone else's mouth don't you?
Where did I say that? Why do you think I keep asking you what should be done? No I don't have a solution, or at least not one you would like.
Insurance would be nice, but I can guarantee you that if you think gun restrictions imposed by the government would be bad, that would be nothing compared to what the insurance companies would require to mitigate liability. Gun training surely, but most of you guys claim you have that. A license might be nice, but you are opposed to that in case the commies show up and use the registrations to root you out.
There's always an excuse to do nothing at all, but I suspect that is just not going to be good enough pretty soon.
So no, I don't have a solution you'd be comfortable with. What would you be comfortable with?I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said if I don't have a solution, then I'm going to lose gun rights. That's a solution that won't do anything for the problem but make it worse.
I told you, we can't keep guns out of the hands of bad people. It's impossible. We could ban all guns, ban all production and trade, and you would still be able to go online and anonymously buy one.
I think the most important things to do are to educate people, there is far too much ignorance involving guns. We need to eliminate gun-free zones.
And, separately, we need to address crime at its roots. Weapons don't cause crime.According to you. You could be wrong.
Forgive me but that strikes me as an "I'm not willing to make any changes so I'll tell you nothing can be done," otherwise known as a cop-out.
Like bars, schools and shopping malls?
Weapons may not cause crime but they certainly make it more thrilling.1 - No, I'm not wrong. Gun control measures in the US have always been accompanied with higher crime rates. Gun rights laws are accompanied by lower crime rates. Why? Because criminals don't care that they are breaking the law. They only care about whether or not the can get away with something without being killed or caught.
2 - I'm not willing to restrict gun rights, because that only serves to take guns away from good citizens. Criminals break the law. Why would they obey any new laws about guns? That's what makes them criminals. As I have said, there are other things that can be done, rather than taking guns away from good people.
3 - Yes. Almost every single mass-shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. Why? Because again, criminals don't care about the law. A sign on the door isn't going to stop them. They just care about easy targets, and getting away without getting shot. Gun-free zones are the perfect grounds for predators... everyone is disarmed."2 - I'm not willing to restrict gun rights, because that only serves to take guns away from good citizens."
That's a quite extreme, uncompromising statement. Do you mean there should be no restrictions on manufacture, sale and possession of any type guns? Do you support repeal of all current laws that restrict the manufacture, sale and use of guns of all types? No middle ground whatsoever? What about restricting body armor to military and police? What about licensing handguns?I'm pretty much fine with where things stand now. I would like to see the restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles lifted, that's basically just there for revenue.
Any further gun control laws are all going to have one thing in common. They are only going to be followed by good people. As I've said before, even if we outright banned all guns, body armor, etc... people would still be able to buy them, or make them(gets easier every year), if they wanted.
Licensing handguns? What good is that going to do?
There is so much misinformation out there that it is almost impossible to point to any set of statistics and say "this proves, beyond any doubt, that guns prevent crime and crime rates are lower with guns in the hands of the populace."
The Internet has made this that much more difficult. You may be right about your statistics. You may be wrong too. It comes down to what you choose to believe. I haven't made up my mind what I choose to believe. What I do know is that way too may of the mass shootings have been perpetrated by the less than sane with military grade weapons.
So what are those other things? Come on man you're reasonable share!
I've heard that, and I've heard what a lot of teachers have said about that. They are basically saying "I am not carrying a gun to school."
This is the flip side of gun rights. You can't force someone to carry weapons who doesn't want to.The best you can do is to look at the before/after of the same area when a change is made. That's the closest you can get to having the same framework and variables.
I have shared other ideas, but some here want to keep saying that I'm not offering anything. Here's another. Stop publishing the name and photo of these murderers. They usually are wanting to die, but wanting to be remembered. If they see that we don't pay attention to them, we might avert some of these tragedies.
I'm not saying we should force teachers to carry. I also know for a fact that there are teachers who would carry if they were allowed to, but we can't just ignore the fact that putting a sign on the door that says 'no guns allowed' doesn't do us any good.
If banning guns kept guns out of bad peoples' hands, then why don't we just ban murder?First, it hardly matters to a dead perpetrator how much air-time they get. Certainly it might inflame the desires for fame of other less than sane potential murders who are still alive. But isn't that another form of insanity?
I do agree that the media runs these things right into the ground. But they learned long ago that disaster and heart-break sells airtime for ads. If you are looking for morals from a media company I think you are out of luck. At least that's the conclusion I came to well over thirty years ago...and they've just gotten worse.
I wasn't implying that forcing someone to carry would work. What I was trying to point out was that abolishing gun free zones is only as effective as the number of people willing to carry.
Murder is banned.That's my point. These mass-murderers that end with committing suicide... clearly they didn't want to live, but why not just off themselves? They are depressed, in oblivion. They feel alone and hopeless. They want some form of attention. They know that an event like that will get them attention, even if they are dead.
I know, I'm not expecting a change.
Isn't it better to allow people who want to carry to defend themselves to do so? If one teacher, or one parent at that school had a gun, they might have been able to stop him. I'm not saying it's a certainty, but maybe those 20 kids would still be alive. It's happened before.
I know murder is banned, that's the point. Just because we ban something doesn't make it go away.
I read an interesting interview with John Lott. Apparently, the Aurora shooter had 7 theaters he could have gone to. Only one of them had a no-guns policy. It wasn't the closest to him, and it wasn't the largest theater. He specifically went to the one that had the least likelihood of someone being armed.That does not make sense. How can a dead person revel in attention?
We agree.
Again if a teacher refuses carry because of her or his students, you can have all the gun free zones your heart desires. They won't carry if their primary concern is injuring a student.
In other words I think it is an unrealistic "solution."
Your John Lott example is completely without foundation. It is pure speculation and wishful thinking.They want to be remembered. While they are living, they make the decision to kill themselves in a way to get attention. It's not about enjoying the attention after they are dead.
Why is it unrealistic? Are you saying no teachers would carry? What about the district in Texas? It seems many teachers are willing to do so.
The John Lott example isn't without foundation. Are any of those facts wrong?
Yeah... great... so the bad guy can stand 100 feet off and disable every cop gun in the block.
No, that's not the way biometric ID works. They aren't affected by remote control. It is possible to put a finger print reader in a weapon that would not be affected by anything less than an EMP. And if that happened a malfunctioning weapon would be the least of your worries.
If you can fantasize a biometric reader that works like magic then I can also fantasize an area wide EMP device that will shut down the electronics in it.
The concept is great in theory but bad in reality. A damaged hand, a dirty hand, a bloody hand all leave the good guy vulnerable since his "reader" might not work any more. It becomes impossible for the good guy to have assistance from another person since the other person is unable to use the firearm.
And worst of all, it does absolutely nothing to keep the guns out of bad guys hands.
And even worse than that... IF the tech was available, and IF the new guns were being sold with it... just how long do you think it is going to be before the anti-freedom crowd starts demanding that the older, "unsafe" guns be collected and destroyed?Biometric finger print readers are common items, particularly on Lenovo (formerly IBM's) line of business laptops. It's not a fantasy; they exist and they work. As I said getting down to fire-arm size is the problem, not that they don't work. They absolutely do work.
Damaged hand? You are going to shoot with a damaged hand? Dirty hand? Wipe it off. Same for a bloody one. A bad guy with the wrong fingerprint pattern can't use your weapon; that's the whole point. And if you need armed assistance I'm pretty sure you are going to choose someone who typically arms themselves.
You are basically making excuses for keeping things the way they are.
The last time assault weapons were banned the ban only applied to new purchases not existing ownership. No one wants to seize the guns you have.
Your fantasies about "seizing guns" is just that; fantasy.
By the way I forgot to mention, I read two of your articles. Very nice. Extremely detailed, well worded and logically presented. I'll read more as time permits.1) yes, because we all know that laptop computers are responsible for firing a bullet out of a barrel at 1000 feet per second, subjecting it and all the electronics within to immense stress and heat.
2) Yes, one can shoot with a damaged hand. Do you really think that if one has a finger damaged that the incident is over? He just lays down and dies? Good to know that in every single incident people will have time to wipe off the dirt and blood. I wasn't aware that I would have that luxury. And "pretty sure" on your part doesn't equal a "winning strategy" on my part, does it?
3) I am explaining to those who are not a aware of firearms just why your idea is shaky at best, and most likely unworkable in the next 20 years or so.
4) Explain to the politicians and media people who are out there, along with the posters here, who are tumpeting "no one needs a [so called] assault weapon.] YOU know that they are there. I don't know why you are pretending otherwise.
5) Explain that to Sen. [I'll seize them if I get the votes] Feinstein.
6) Try the recipe hubs. I am particularly proud of those (and they give great food).
Don't think so. The trend is all in our favor, even after the previous mass shootings. People have seen thru the lies and nonsesne of the gun-banners. They are even afraid to use the word "gun control" anymore because the people have rejected the premise.
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.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.The mother of the shooter in Conn. had guns. He stole them. I've read many commentators in the national media who said, merely because the son was having problems, that the mother should not have had firearms herself. Do you also define that as "out of the hands of" or is that going too far for you.
As far as "crazies" did you know that the federal government has attempted with a fair amount of success in denying the right to keep and bear arms from soldiers returning to the US who have merely gone into counseling concerning some of their trauma experienced over there? Tens of thousands of vets no longer can legally own guns merely because they told a VA counselor that they have "bad dreams" about the war.
There are three kinds of crazies. Those that everyone knows about and have gone thru the system. They are forbidden by law to have possession of a weapon.
There are those that everyone knows about and have not gone thru the system, and those that no one knows about but are still crazy as bat carp.
The law makes no provision for either one of those. The last group would be impossible to keep firearms away from without a manifest denial of rights to hundreds of thousands of people. The second group can only be helped if society (and families) decides how to handle mental illness itself.
It's not "keeping the guns out of crazy hands". It is "what do we do with the crazy people" first.The few accounts that I read regarding her weapons stated that she had a gun safe. How Adam got around the lock hasn't been revealed so without that information I really can't comment on it.
You said you served in the military for twenty-six years. During all that time, if you were not in a combat zone, how often were you allowed to have your weapon along with ammunition?
I served too. Unless we are going out to the field for training, into combat, or to the firing range the weapons were locked up in the armory along with the ammunition. Only in combat was ammunition freely issued.
In that way civilians have more access to fire-arms and ammunition than soldiers.
I addressed this. A judge making that determination and telling the defendant they cannot hold fire-arms in no assurance that the judge will issue a warrant allowing officers to enter the home and confiscate any weapons. More often than not the defendant is trusted to self regulate, which is stupid if they have mental health issues.
That is a whole other issue. Treating mental illness has come down to prescribing pills and fifteen minute visits with a mental health professional. Institutions where an extreme case can be held have virtually disappeared. The situation is so bad that prison is now the only alternative for the mentally ill displaying violent behavior or ideation.
It's the same thing Jack.
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.
- Wendi Mposted 12 years ago0
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!
Pair an untreated mental illness with a gun and you get a tragedy.
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 firearmExactly...this individual would have used any means available to act out his anger!
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.+++ 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.
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.
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.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.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...I thought the term retard was socially unacceptable these days.
It probably is. Killing 27 people is probably less acceptable still. Next?
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.
Agree! But the forces that be will not let it rest on this one issue.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
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.Why would you trust a group of people you deride for being union members?
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.Twenty dead children and seven dead adults is a false flag? That's amazing!
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.]
False flag? How much did they pay the guy to kill his mother, 20 children, 6 teachers and himself? What a clown you are
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.How cartesian you are!
Did you ever see the film "The Manchurian Candidate"? Did you really think it was a work of fiction?I'd bet you'd pony up ten to fifteen pounds...
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.
Gun rights enthusiasts please point to one case where guns were seized from law abiding citizens....besides Katrina that is.
He was elected by gaining more electoral votes than Gore.
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?"
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.
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?
This is reality on planet earth. Lets all try to avoid falling down the rabbit hole of wild unfounded speculation and fantastical thinking.
You going to hold the pro-gun control/anti-NRA folk to the same standard?
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.
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).
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!
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).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.
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.)
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.Nobody has the right to massacre little children. Where did you get that idea?
Really? Because your weak argument is defending the right of every gun wielding crazy to bear arms in the future.
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.
And the great majority of gun owners are responsible. There would be many more crimes like this if we were not.
Hurling accusations is really the best that hollie can do
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?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?Wow Mark. Thank you for the mature, rational discussion.
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?Not out of line given the recent mass murder of children then?
No it isn't. We have a standing army which negates a need for a militia.
And you have that in writing where...?
The FF who purposefully empowered a citizen militia to control the government surely would disagree with your concept that the government supplanted the militia with a standing army.
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.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.
Alright, that's too bad, because I love discussing with people who I don't agree with. If you change your mind just let me know.
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.
The federal government murdered 3,000 of it's own people on 9/11. Very funny huh whoisit? You believe this and you proudly proclaim your right to carry.Once again I don't believe that why must you make up things?
So what happened on 9/11? You did imply it wasn't just bad architecture.
No I didn't I have never said anything about 9/11 why do you keep making things up?
What does this mean?
"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." whoisit.My deepest and most sincere apologies. It was someone name sanny- something or other, not you.
I apologize.After 30 posts from you harping and making accusations about it you just now figure it out?
You can expect the NRA to engage in the dialogue now. They were being courteous in not politicizing this tragedy by being silent. Overwhelming lack of restraint to do so on the other side has the NRA acquiescing to defend gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment.
Is that what you call it. The least they could have done was extend condolences, but they didn't even do that.
How do you know what the NRA has done or not done? Unlike some not everybody has to be in the spotlight.
Have you heard anything on the news about the NRA offering condolences to the family's because I haven't. And I'm pretty darned sure if they had it would be a news item.
I haven't watched any coverage of this crime but just because I didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't occur. And just to be clear you are not one I would go to for honest information you are way too emotional.
You have a right to your opinion.
Similarly I have qualms about your own objectivity considering you seem to love a fire-arm more than your fellow human being.I don't love my firearm that's the single most ridiculous thing you've said today and you have said a lot of ridiculous things.
It's called sarcasm. Ridiculous posts require ridiculous responses in my world.
This kind of remark is even further evidence of why it is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with people such as bean.
And yet the only thing you've given any importance to is your right to bear arms.
Why on earth would you think I'm not being rational when that is your only point?Liam, you are not being rational and you know it. Your arguments are on par with Hollies. you seem like a well educated man so why continue to speak falsehoods?
Your assessment of what is rational is questionable at best.
Falsehoods are a matter of opinion on this topic. And your opinion on the matter carries no more weight than my own. Your insistence that I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm too emotional about a topic is nothing more than your opinion and has little basis in reality.
One of the funniest things you lot do is take a stand of moral authority. You have none.My assessment of what is rational is questionable? Ok, but I'm not the one making accusations about things you aren't saying. That is you. Now goodnight I have stuff to do.
did the LBGT Resource Center offer condolences to the families who were hurt at Penn State?
mark speak...
Pro gun propaganda = defending the Constitution
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.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.
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.
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?
You once again do not know the facts. The killer in this tragedy did not own these weapons, he took them from his mother. The killer at the mall last week did not own the guns he stole them. I am advocating for the continuation of my second amendment right.
This is an aspect I'm really interested in knowing more about. She had a gun safe. How did Adam get into it?
Again, why are you so worried about tighter regulation? It shouldn't affect you, who are you arguing on behalf of?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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).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.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.Yeah... when the idea of compromise is "do it our way" we have a little problem with that.
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.
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.
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.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!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?
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."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?This is why it is so hard to have a rational discussion with bigots such as Ralph...
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.
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?
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.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?
We don't own you an explanation of our rights, holle
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.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.
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 . . .
Nonsense, I do not owe anyone an explanation. Your emotions seem to be out of control so I doubt a rational discussion with you is even possible.
If you want to retain your so-called rights you need to justify that rationale.
So yes, you owe at least a point of view on why your gun rights trump the lives of children.
This has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with common sense and decency.My gun rights are guaranteed by the United States Constitution, you may want to see my rights infringed upon but you will not see it in your lifetime. Your asinine suggestion that I owe anybody an explanation is laughable.
Wow... just wow...
Americans now have to "justify" rights?
Trash the Declaration of Independence along with the Constitution, eh.When your rights trump the right to life. Yes. You need to justify it.
You're just not able to give up are you? You ceased making any reasonable posts a long time ago.
That's your opinion. From where I sit your insistence that your right to own arms, any arms regardless of how sophisticated, over-rules any other right is beyond ridiculous.
Point to the post where I said that, please. My right to own a firearm ensures the rest of my rights and could come in very handy to secure someone else's too.
Fine. Where's your regret over dead children? I've yet to see you say a single sympathetic thing about the loss of life. Not one.
Every post is about your "god given" rights or how stupid the rest of us for disagreeing with you.
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 . . . .Don't owe anyone an explanation about the second amendment any more than you owe an explanation about deaths involving cars. I'm sure you own a car.
Cars have nothing to do with this topic, except that they must be licensed and insured. Perhaps gun owners should be required to purchase insurance when they register their guns. That might reduce the size of arsenals accumulated by the nutjobs.
I am astounded at the reasoning some of you display. Don insists I have an explanation because I support the 2nd amendment. If that is reasonable then so is he having an explanation supporting the continued use of an object that caused many more deaths than guns have. Sorry Ralph cars have to be included.
Unless you are a member of a well regulated militia you are NOT supporting the second amendment.
Cars are only relevant when they are used purposely to kill. Furthermore, transportation is absolutely necessary, particularly in a nation such as the US to transport food, medicine and other goods. Your economy, as would many others, would shrivel and die without transportation which includes cars, motor cycles etc.
Another stupid argument. Unless you're living in some rural outback you're not dependent on guns for food, medicine or anything else.
So far I've seen guns equated to "cars", "shovels", and even (would you believe) "rope"(?!) No dice. None of those things are designed for the purpose of causing destruction to life. Guns typically are. That's what separates them from other types of everyday objects.
They are also now a public health issue, and it is the governments duty to reduce the risk to the general public from health issues. It is currently deciding the best way to do that in the case of guns. You do not want access to guns restricted for various (spurious) reasons. Fine. Then what are you (and your NRA buddies) going to do to reduce the risk? If you have no answers, the government steps (it would be remiss not to in the case of a danger to public health).
And it's not that I don't believe in defending constitutional rights. It comes down to this: The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, directly impinged on those children's unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That cannot and should not be tolerated. A child's right to life should take precedence over your right to buy a gun. That was thing the country ever said. Long before the 2nd amendment.Actually the second amendment did not impinge on their rights. The shooter violated law in order to kill that alone impinged their rights. You may as well give up, you wanted me to give people an explanation on why I supported the second amendment you have since changed the debate to firearms.
Whoa. I thought the second amendment was about firearms. Wow,learn something new every day.
That makes no sense. The killer violated the law by carrying the handguns used, he stole the guns he used from the woman he murdered. He then continued to violate the children's right by murdering them. The second amendment right had nothing to do with what he did.
The reason he had easy access to guns was because his mother was exercising her 2nd amendment right. If she had chosen not to exercise that right, it's highly likely he would not have been able to act so lethally on impulse. Don't shy way from the truth.
And I asked for no such explanation. I asked you to explain what you (gun owners/users/carriers) are going to do to ensure your 2nd amendment right doesn't impinge on our (non gun owners/users/carriers) right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These children are dead because someone had easy access to guns. What are you going to do about it? (and no, not everyone wants to own/carry/use a gun, so arming everyone isn't an option).
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
I actually spewed tea all over my computer screen when I read that it was very funny until I realized she was serious.
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?
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?
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!
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.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.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.Oh that's the funniest post yet from you. Learn something? When,where, about what?
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.
I'm afraid you are the one who does understand the difference between a privilege and a right. Your posts are quite telling.
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.A starving, homeless, uneducated man at least has the right- to carry- you're funny!
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.
Oh, ok. A starving, homeless, uneducated man at least has the right- to own a gun. THAT makes all the difference.
How much food can he gather in a completely urban area?
Sarcasm Hollie, sarcasm.
Hey if he can't gather food he can rob the rich. It's a win win.Which reminds me. Some nimrod out there is telling everyone the children should have rushed the shooter. That one dead child was better than twenty because they certainly would have overpowered him.
My response? If you ever fall into a lion's cage be sure to leap into his mouth. That'll show him!
I was just clarifying his rights of which once again you display ignorance.
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.You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You also like some others on this site can't seem to speak without making things up.
Really, then point out to me *exactly* that which I've misunderstood.
I have never said that I want crazy people to have firearms yet you keep saying it. I really don't think I need to go back and point out your complete ignorance about the United States Constitution anybody who reads this thread with a bit of reasoning understands where you are coming from. Once last thing pencils can kill should we ban them also?
Well, let's put it this way, so far the United States Constitution has not protected children. It's protected crazies, not children- and you want it to remain as it is? I've never, ever heard of death by pencil- perhaps you would be good enough to point me to some studies which examine death by pencil in comparison to death by guns? I'm all ears.
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.
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?
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.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.
At least they wont kill innocent little kids.
What would you rather I came at you with - a slingshot or a semi automatic rifle?
Neither, I'm deadly accurate with a firearm and carry everywhere.
Funny. You are funny hiding away there. Laughable actually. Well - more pathetic.
Ok, you're the one making threats and doing nothing.
Who are you again? Doing something on an internet forum thread?
Mark, if you've still got my email address drop me a line will you?
And you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy. That is not the least bit reassuring.
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.
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.Jack, you are making assumptions based on very little. Para is not stupid.
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"?
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!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.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?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.Yeah, it does Liam. When common sense and evidence become to difficult to oppose- they wear you down with stupidity.
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.Ralph. Can you please provide details about the body armor used by each shooter? I would love to know what type was used.
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.
___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?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.)So why do you want to take guns away from those of us who didn't do the crime?
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.
You want gun free zones? That is where the crimes are happening.
Come on Ralph. Bars are the perfect place for guns. What's better than two drunks shooting it out over basketball scores?
Indiana has allowed citizens to carry in bars for over 80 years and yet we don't seem to have any of the fear, doom or gloom that you post about.
Neither do the other 30 states or so.
Bean lives in a fantasy world of his own. Facts are things that just don't matter or count.
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.
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.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.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.
Mark, being pathetic is his right! It's written in the constitution.
Although not as ridiculous as the guy who is going to kill me with a pencil he's special.
I did too if you were following along, obviously you weren't.
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.
You're crying like a big soft baby because you've been threatened with a pencil?
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.
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/That's why the police are not the final say. And just so you know I didn't read the story.
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.As I understand the castle doctrine he may have a right to do so. The Courts will settle it.
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.
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.
He wasn't in his castle; he was in a public place. Which the police pointed out in their arrest.
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.
For what its worth there is no store-bought pizza worth being shot over.
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.- Norah Caseyposted 12 years ago0
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.
Related Discussions
- 21
Why do school shooting mainly happen in the U.S.?
by nightwork4 12 years ago
Why do school shooting mainly happen in the U.S.?there is the odd time where other countries experience it, but what makes it so common in the U.S. what is different there then other civilized countries?
- 260
Another school shooting
by IzzyM 12 years ago
Dear God, what is the matter with America?Another school shooting. High death toll. Few days before Christmas. Connecticut.http://abcnews.go.com/US/27-people-dead … Mtxy2_tRGY
- 116
Another School Shooting - This Time in Texas
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
Another day, another school shooting. This time it occurred in Santa Fe, Texas with up to 10 people dead.What's obvious is that these students could not defend themselves. Until all high school students are allowed to bring their own guns to school for self-defense purposes, none of them will ever...
- 47
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot about school shooting
by Michele Travis 12 years ago
Rush said this even before the children started to have a funeral."It is terrible, incomprehensible but I'm going to tell you something as we sit here at this very moment, you know it and I know it there are liberals trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives or...
- 386
Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child
by SpanStar 11 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
- 40
What should we do in response to the school shooting?
by Sarah Spradlin 7 years ago
I'm so sick of hearing arguments about guns and mental illness and bad parenting. What school meetings or city meetings would be a good place for people to go to express their concern?