PDA

View Full Version : Connecticut school shooting


BrandonCarr39
12-14-2012, 01:20 PM
Oh boy, this is WORSE than Columbine...

http://fox40.com/2012/12/14/close-to-20-people-killed-in-connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/

CNN) — The suspected gunman’s body was found in a classroom inside a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school where authorities say as many as 20 were killed, including 10 children, a source close to the investigation told CNN’s Susan Candiotti.

More information to come. Keep checking FOX40.com.

Vis
12-14-2012, 01:26 PM
Official: 27 dead in Conn. school shooting

NEWTOWN — A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left the gunman dead and at least one teacher wounded and sent frightened pupils into the parking lot.

The shooter was killed and apparently had two guns, a person with knowledge of the shooting said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way.

It wasn't clear how many people were injured at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

A dispatcher at the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps said a teacher had been shot in the foot and taken to Danbury Hospital. 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.

Stephen Delgiadice said his 8-year-old daughter heard two big bangs and teachers told her to get in a corner. His daughter was fine.

"It's alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America," he said.

The superintendent's office said the district had locked down schools in Newtown, about 60 miles northeast of New York City. Schools in neighboring towns also were locked down as a precaution.

State police said Newtown police called them around 9:40 a.m. A SWAT team was among the throngs of police to respond.

A photo posted 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 White House said President Barack Obama was notified of the shooting.

___

Associated Press writer Michael Melia contributed to this report from Hartford.

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 01:34 PM
And noithing will change

Maybe someone will suggest it is unfortunate the students in grades K through 4 were not allowed to carry

MACH1
12-14-2012, 01:38 PM
That didn't take long to politicize.

Vis
12-14-2012, 01:42 PM
That didn't take long to politicize.


Why is that politics?

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 01:46 PM
That didn't take long to politicize.

Sorry I pissed you off (I sincerely mean that)

I am fucking tired of having this constantly happen and being told it is God's will or that shit happens or that if hanguns are banned only crimninals will have handguns

The way this is ever going to change is "politics"

As far as the kids being armed, several posters on this board seriously suggested that The Joker taking out miviegoers last summer might have been stopped if they had been packing - so as far as "politicizing" tragedies, those with views opposed to mine have been doing so for a long fucking time and I am fucking tired of innocent people having to be sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment

The idea that something apparently cannot be done about this saddens me for the latest innocent victims and their families (Jesus - a mass shooting of K-4 students?)and those that you can bet we will read about in the coming months

If you want to ban me go ahead - I promise never to post again on anything to do with mass shootings

Fire Haley
12-14-2012, 01:49 PM
I'd stay away from "gun-free" zones like shopping malls and schools with all the nutters on the loose

MACH1
12-14-2012, 01:52 PM
You didn't piss me off. Sorry :hunch:

Don't tell me that we need more gun control. Guns are not the problem, crazy, evil people are the problem.

Terminator
12-14-2012, 01:54 PM
I hate this world.

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 01:56 PM
You didn't piss me off. Sorry :hunch:

Don't tell me that we need more gun control. Guns are not the problem, crazy, evil people are the problem.

No worries:drink:

I am one of the more cynical people around but this tragedy punched through the crust I have built up over the years - not the best frame of mind in which to post

Fire Haley
12-14-2012, 02:09 PM
“The shooter was 20? He had his kid when he was 16?


NEWTOWN, Conn. (CBS Connecticut/AP) — CBS News is reporting that 27 people are dead, including 18 students, after a mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The gunman is among the dead.


CBS News’ John Miller reports there is preliminary information that the gunman was the father of one of the students. Miller additionally reports the gunman is 20 years old and is from New Jersey.

The shooter was killed and apparently had two guns, a person with knowledge of the shooting said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way. It is not known whether the shooter took his own life or was killed.

CBS News reports that a second person is in custody and that SWAT is now investigating the home of the suspect.

A witness tells WFSB-TV that a second man was taken out of the woods in handcuffs wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants and telling parents on the scene, “I did not do it.”

Fox Connecticut reports that the shooting began in the kindergarten classroom. Two students and a teacher were also injured in the shooting and they were taken to Dansbury Hospital, spokeswoman Diane Burke told CBS News York.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/school-shooting-leaves-multiple-injured/

MACH1
12-14-2012, 02:10 PM
Seems the wacko killed his mother too.

Fire Haley
12-14-2012, 02:21 PM
One week before Christmas...

Looks like the mother of the shooter had custody of his child and put the kid in the CT school. So he drove in from NJ, killed his mom and then went to the school and killed his son and the Kindergarten class and teachers and staffers. Evil

MACH1
12-14-2012, 02:53 PM
He killed his father too.

Fire Haley
12-14-2012, 03:08 PM
I'd still drag the fuckers's body through the streets from a trunk bumper for a couple days if my kid got killed

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 03:15 PM
He killed his father too.

A brother apparently was arrested at the school - trying to head the killer off before he shot his mother (and allegedly a number of kids in her class)?

Even by mass shooting standards this is beyond horrific

I apologize to everyone for my initial post on this - it was ignorant

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 03:18 PM
Obama is as busted up as the rest of us

steelax04
12-14-2012, 03:21 PM
Unfortunately, the focus out of this horrible tragedy will be gun control. This is not a gun control issue. This is an issue with the fact that we care less and less about each other every day. We become more polarized and jaded, particularly along the lines of religion, politics, and class. Mental health is a serious issue in this country and that's what caused this tragedy, not guns.
Just say that the impossible happens and all guns are removed from the world. What stops someone from hacking away with a samauri sword? Or going after a classroom with a knife? Is the loss of only two or three lives any less tragic than the loss of 30, particularly when it's children?
People with mental health problems will find a way to deal the level of damage they feel is fair to their suffering. You don't need guns to do that. Take in to account that the worst school massacre was carried out with homemade pipe bombs. Timothy McVeigh didn't need guns to inflict the horrible pain that he did. The 9/11 hijackers didn't need guns either.
This is about actually giving a shit about each other a little more... caring that the violence in the inner cities is just as tragic and affects lives just the same as in a small Connecticut town. It's all horrible, no matter where it happens.

Unfortunately, just as my thoughts about everyone caring more about each other are too idealistic and will never happen, so is getting rid of all of the guns. There is no "sensible" gun control that will stop a handful of mentally ill people (remember, we do have 314 million people in this country, so handful is more than generous). The only solution would be complete elimination of guns. That is the only fail-safe way to stop gun violence. Waiting periods won't deter someone when they can get it off of the black market, steal from a law abiding person's home, etc. If someone is serious about it, they're going to get a gun.

steelax04
12-14-2012, 03:24 PM
A brother apparently was arrested at the school - trying to head the killer off before he shot his mother (and allegedly a number of kids in her class)?

Even by mass shooting standards this is beyond horrific

I apologize to everyone for my initial post on this - it was ignorant

Seriously, this keeps getting worse.

Fire Haley
12-14-2012, 05:10 PM
first reports were wrong - like so many times before


School shooter identified as Ryan Lanza, 24, he killed his mother during massacre, officials say



yeah - Now they’re saying Ryan had nothing to do with it, that Adam was the lone shooter and was autistic with a personality disorder

pretty shitty press corps if you ask me - at least name the right guy

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 05:27 PM
first reports were wrong - like so many times before - he's 24


School shooter identified as Ryan Lanza, 24, he killed his mother during massacre, officials say

The gunman who killed 26 people, 20 of them children, in Newtown, Conn., was 24-year-old Ryan Lanza and he targeted his mother, a kindergarten teacher who was among the dead, sources told NBC News.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15911025-profile-of-shooter-mom-was-one-of-those-targeted?lite

yeah - Now they’re saying Ryan had nothing to do with it, that Adam was the lone shooter and was autistic with a personality disorder

pretty shitty press corps if you ask me - at least name the right guy

Of course the media posted the Facebook profile of the 24 year old brother as the shooter

Reporters and producers around the country, frantically searching for information online about the alleged school shooter and found what seemed like a match. Ryan Lanza, 24, was believed responsible for the deaths of 27 people in Newtown, Conn., at the Sandy Hook elementary school.

The Facebook profile showed a Ryan Lanza from Newtown, Conn., who currently lives in Hoboken, N.J., and is a male who looks like he’s in his 20s. It fits the police description, so countless news orgs ran with it in stories and tweets.

Problem is, it seems to be the wrong guy.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/198262/news-orgs-circulate-facebook-profile-of-the-wrong-ryan-lanza/

Fire Arians
12-14-2012, 05:43 PM
sick in the head, man

Vis
12-14-2012, 06:25 PM
sick in the head, man

Here's another:

Fischer: God Didn't Stop CT School Shooting Because He's a 'Gentleman' Who Doesn't Go Where He Is Not Wanted

Bryan Fischer spent the first hour of his radio program today discussing this morning's truly horrific shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, which he, of course, blamed on the fact that prayer, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments are not taught in public schools.

Fischer said that God could have protected the victims of this massacre, but didn't because "God is not going to go where he is not wanted" and so if school administrators really want to protect students, they will start every school day with prayer:

PATS16N0
12-14-2012, 07:20 PM
The story makes me ill. My eyes watered up watching some of the scenes unfold earlier today. It's a sickening story. One can't even fathom how even the most mentally deranged in society could inflict that sort of horror on little children. I don't think many people would have flinched were he taken alive and sentenced to death by burning.

But with that said, and prayers and condolences offered to the families and the communities, the true way to start preventing this from happening in the future is in rebuilding our families, rebuilding our communities, and rebuilding our societies. It isn't in sweeping gun control laws that trash our 2nd amendment and make victims and prey of law abiding citizens all across the country.

I blame the media, honestly. I was a teenager in the 90's and our parents had no idea just how destructive the music and the youth culture that arose from it and much of our `entertainment` created. But we were also alive in the 80's and so we could understand when we aged and got a little wiser that it was a fad and not a way to actually live or conduct ourselves. It was just a teenage fashion.

People ten years younger than I, I feel, have no such perspective. They've been born into a wildly degenerate society and that is all they know. Vile music, degenerates praised as "artists" and `entertainment` that is trashy and culturally worthless at best and destructive to society at worst.

I don't think it is a coincidence that so many of these maniacs were born after 1990.

Everyone is to blame. We have turned a blind eye to the direction the media-barons have been leading this nation and pretended our children will be forever isolated by it, even if they have responsible parents, or won't be affected by it.

And now we're soon going to have a conversation thrusted on us about fire-arms where Americans will be expected to give up more liberty in the name of security and real problems of our society will continue on as usual.

Atlanta Dan
12-14-2012, 07:49 PM
.

I don't think it is a coincidence that so many of these maniacs were born after 1990.

.

You obviously were not around for the 1960s - Google Charles Whitman - this shit has been going on as long as I can remember, although mass murders of elementary school kids is a new twist

Fire Arians
12-14-2012, 08:03 PM
what pisses me off is whenever stuff like this happens the shooter always kills himself when the cops show up. death is too good for scumbags like that, he should spend a year getting gang raped in a federal fuck me in the ass prison and eventually getting bludgeoned to death by other degenerates like himself

PATS16N0
12-14-2012, 08:19 PM
what pisses me off is whenever stuff like this happens the shooter always kills himself when the cops show up. death is too good for scumbags like that, he should spend a year getting gang raped in a federal fuck me in the ass prison and eventually getting bludgeoned to death by other degenerates like himself

This.

I'd be personally fine with this guy getting crucified above a pile of tires that were then set ablaze. Totally evil. He isn't even a human being. He's like some sort of creature.

JPPT1974
12-14-2012, 08:41 PM
You didn't piss me off. Sorry :hunch:

Don't tell me that we need more gun control. Guns are not the problem, crazy, evil people are the problem.

Couldn't say it any better myself. As you took the words out of my mouth!

Thoughts and prayers are with those that lost loved ones and victims. So sad! :(

Lady Steel
12-15-2012, 12:39 AM
What makes people do this to their fellow man?

Prayers and healing to the families and staff of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

In the area where I live, parents and teachers are being asked to consider having their children and students write letters of comfort and support to the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393363_10151126009075916_772654947_n.jpg

ricardisimo
12-15-2012, 04:58 AM
I have an eight-year-old and a four-year-old, and I couldn't help crying and hugging them all day yesterday. So sad. I read that there was only one casualty. All of the rest dead. How sick is that? One survivor. Maybe.

Vis
12-15-2012, 05:07 AM
I have an eight-year-old and a four-year-old, and I couldn't help crying and hugging them all day yesterday. So sad. I read that there was only one casualty. All of the rest dead. How sick is that? One survivor. Maybe.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/68130_10151587232809852_336651865_n.jpg

steelax04
12-15-2012, 09:09 AM
Here's another:

Fischer: God Didn't Stop CT School Shooting Because He's a 'Gentleman' Who Doesn't Go Where He Is Not Wanted

Bryan Fischer spent the first hour of his radio program today discussing this morning's truly horrific shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, which he, of course, blamed on the fact that prayer, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments are not taught in public schools.

Fischer said that God could have protected the victims of this massacre, but didn't because "God is not going to go where he is not wanted" and so if school administrators really want to protect students, they will start every school day with prayer:

This burns me up to no end... just about as much as all of this knee-jerk gun control talk. No one "banned" God from the 9/11 flights. No one "banned" God from Oklahoma City. God wasn't "banned" from the worst school tragedy in the 40s before this "war on Christianity" began. I HATE when people spew this trash.

Fire Haley
12-15-2012, 10:24 AM
This burns me up to no end... just about as much as all of this knee-jerk gun control talk. .

Yeah - blame everyone but the shooter - that's how they want us to think.

I bet we'll find out the shooter was pumped full of brain med pharmaceuticals from an early age....because that's what we do as a society now.

Problem child? Start them on Ritalin early, then later drug them up with antidepressants and send them on their way.


But let's be real, the only thing that can stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun.

Israeli school:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/20527_10151293185747726_1163856696_n.jpg

Fire Haley
12-15-2012, 10:37 AM
oh yeah - a .223 rifle was NOT used in the shootings - like all the blathering press wanted it to be an "assault rifle"

According to the Associated Press, three guns were found at the scene - a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car Lanza drove to the scene. A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said some of the guns used in the attack may have belonged to Lanza's family

http://www.wfsb.com/story/20345707/cbs-27-people-dead-in-newtown-school-shooting

SteelCityMom
12-15-2012, 12:04 PM
Some good ways to help those affected in CT yesterday, and how do deal with this tragedy (and others) with your own children.

A couple of suggestions I saw posted today (and a good idea would be to try and organize some kind of community card instead of just sending individual cards/teddy bears).

Teddy Bears and/or cards can be sent to: Voices of September 11/161 Cherry St/Mew Canaan CT 06840. Voices Director email: MAFetchet@voicesofsept11.org. Please consider sending a card of comfort for a parent or a Teddy Bear for one of the many children affected by this abdominal act.

If you would like to mail sympathy cards, postcards, letters of support or even teddy bears for the children and solidarity to the school, the school address is Sandy Hook Elementary School, 12 Dickenson Drive, Sandy Hook, CT 06482

You can also make donations to their local clinics and groups. Info here... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting-how-to-help_n_2302760.html

In times of community or world-wide crisis, it's easy to assume that young children don't know what's going on. But one thing's for sure -- children are very sensitive to how their parents feel. They're keenly aware of the expressions on their parents' faces and the tone of their voices. Children can sense when their parents are really worried, whether they're watching the news or talking about it with others. No matter what children know about a “crisis,” it’s especially scary for children to realize that their parents are scared.

Helpful Hints

-Do your best to keep the television off, or at least limit how much your child sees of any news event.

-Try to keep yourself calm. Your presence can help your child feel more secure.
Give your child extra comfort and physical affection, like hugs or snuggling up together with a favorite book. Physical comfort goes a long way towards providing inner security. That closeness can nourish you, too.

-Try to keep regular routines as normal as possible. Children and adults count on their familiar pattern of everyday life.

-Plan something that you and your child enjoy doing together, like taking a walk, going on a picnic, having some quiet time, or doing something silly. It can help to know there are simple things in life that can help us feel better, in good times and in bad.

-Even if children don't mention what they've seen or heard in the news, it can help to ask what they think has happened. If parents don't bring up the subject, children can be left with their misinterpretations. You may be really surprised at how much your child has heard from others.

-Focus attention on the helpers, like the police, firemen, doctors, nurses, paramedics, and volunteers. It's reassuring to know there are many caring people who are doing all they can to help others in this world.

-Let your child know if you're making a donation, going to a town meeting, writing a letter or e-mail of support, or taking some other action. It can help children to know that adults take many different active roles and that we don't give in to helplessness in times of worldwide crisis.

http://www.fci.org/new-site/par-tragic-events.html

Atlanta Dan
12-15-2012, 12:06 PM
But let's be real, the only thing that can stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun.

Israeli school:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/20527_10151293185747726_1163856696_n.jpg

Israeli gun laws

It’s pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in [the] massacre in Aurora, Colo. James E. Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 in the Aurora movie theater, legally bought the firearms he used, according to reports, including a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol and a 12-gauge shotgun. Leading up to the shooting, Holmes had bought thousands of bullets online.

In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

ricardisimo
12-15-2012, 01:57 PM
Yeah - blame everyone but the shooter - that's how they want us to think.

I bet we'll find out the shooter was pumped full of brain med pharmaceuticals from an early age....because that's what we do as a society now.

Problem child? Start them on Ritalin early, then later drug them up with antidepressants and send them on their way.


But let's be real, the only thing that can stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun.

Israeli school:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/20527_10151293185747726_1163856696_n.jpg
Yes, because the Israelis live such safe, secure lives.

MACH1
12-15-2012, 04:22 PM
Maybe they should ban terrorism and suicide bombings.

Atlanta Dan
12-15-2012, 05:00 PM
oh yeah - a .223 rifle was NOT used in the shootings - like all the blathering press wanted it to be an "assault rifle"

According to the Associated Press, three guns were found at the scene - a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car Lanza drove to the scene. A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said some of the guns used in the attack may have belonged to Lanza's family

http://www.wfsb.com/story/20345707/cbs-27-people-dead-in-newtown-school-shooting

Add the blathering medical examiner to those who say a rifle was used

More on what the state's chief medical examiner told reporters minutes ago in Newtown: He said the "rifle" was used in the shooting, and that the rifle caused all of the wounds that he knew of.

He didn't say what that rifle was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead with next to three guns: a semi-automatic.223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/children-and-adults-gunned-down-in-connecticut-school-massacre/?hpt=hp_t1

All of the children killed by a gunman at a Connecticut elementary school were shot multiple times, according to the state’s chief medical examiner, who said that it was worst scene he had witnessed in three decades examining crime scenes.

“This is a very devastating set of injuries,” said Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the chief medical examiner for the state. He said that it appeared that all of the children had been killed by a long rifle that the gunman was carrying, one of several weapons police recovered from the school. ...

Dr. Carver said that in the seven autopsies he himself had performed, the victims had from 3 to 11 wounds.

With the examinations complete and the families informed, the authorities released the names of those killed.

They ranged in age from 6 to 56. Among the children, there were 12 girls killed and 8 boys. All of the children were in the first grade, officials said, and all were 6 or 7 years old. One little girl had just turned 7 on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?hp

There is evil in the world

And also grace - the father of one of the children (Emily Parker) who was murdered is on CNN expressing his condolences to the family of the shooter - and then takes questions - I cannot conceive of having the faith and strength to do that

Fire Haley
12-15-2012, 06:28 PM
He said the "rifle" was used in the shooting, and that the rifle caused all of the wounds that he knew of.

He didn't say what that rifle was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead with next to three guns: a semi-automatic.223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.[/I]


they change the story every 20 min on this

I quit, I'm ignoring everything anyone says for a week

Atlanta Dan
12-15-2012, 07:09 PM
they change the story every 20 min on this

I quit, I'm ignoring everything anyone says for a week

Agreed it has been total chaos

The stories of the heroic teachers are one thing I definitely believe - when hell broke loose the proincipal ran in the direction of rather than away from the shooting and another teacher apparently was shot to death while trying to shield her first graders

tony hipchest
12-15-2012, 07:35 PM
There is evil in the world

And also grace - the father of one of the children (Emily Parker) who was murdered is on CNN expressing his condolences to the family of the shooter - and then takes questions - I cannot conceive of having the faith and strength to do that

i was just sitting here at the comp watching this as i help my 9 year old girl touch up her make-up for her ballet recital in an hour.

as a dad you never want your kid to see you with tears in your eyes, but at this point i dont think it even matters.

mikegrimey
12-16-2012, 05:46 AM
The story makes me ill. My eyes watered up watching some of the scenes unfold earlier today. It's a sickening story. One can't even fathom how even the most mentally deranged in society could inflict that sort of horror on little children. I don't think many people would have flinched were he taken alive and sentenced to death by burning.

But with that said, and prayers and condolences offered to the families and the communities, the true way to start preventing this from happening in the future is in rebuilding our families, rebuilding our communities, and rebuilding our societies. It isn't in sweeping gun control laws that trash our 2nd amendment and make victims and prey of law abiding citizens all across the country.

I blame the media, honestly. I was a teenager in the 90's and our parents had no idea just how destructive the music and the youth culture that arose from it and much of our `entertainment` created. But we were also alive in the 80's and so we could understand when we aged and got a little wiser that it was a fad and not a way to actually live or conduct ourselves. It was just a teenage fashion.


People ten years younger than I, I feel, have no such perspective. They've been born into a wildly degenerate society and that is all they know. Vile music, degenerates praised as "artists" and `entertainment` that is trashy and culturally worthless at best and destructive to society at worst.

I don't think it is a coincidence that so mauny of these maniacs were born after 1990.

Everyone is to blame. We have turned a blind eye to the direction the media-barons have been leading this nation and pretended our children will be forever isolated by it, even if they have responsible parents, or won't be affected by it.

And now we're soon going to have a conversation thrusted on us about fire-arms where Americans will be expected to give up more liberty in the name of security and real problems of our society will continue on as usual.

That's a silly excuse. Saying people 10 years younger than you feel your generation is degenerate... What else is new? I run into people of every age group who feel the younger generation is softer, more prone to moral turpitude, lacking discipline etc. I'm site the Neanderthals probably had an expression for "kids these days." There have been trashy artists and immoral people in every generation. Blaming music, books movies etc? That's an easy cop out and a perpetually embarrassing argument that rears its head everytime there is a fresh tragedy

Vis
12-16-2012, 08:59 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/17881_10151179510271275_1186786847_n.jpg

Wallace108
12-16-2012, 10:25 AM
Sorry I pissed you off (I sincerely mean that)

I am fucking tired of having this constantly happen and being told it is God's will or that shit happens or that if hanguns are banned only crimninals will have handguns

The way this is ever going to change is "politics"

As far as the kids being armed, several posters on this board seriously suggested that The Joker taking out miviegoers last summer might have been stopped if they had been packing - so as far as "politicizing" tragedies, those with views opposed to mine have been doing so for a long fucking time and I am fucking tired of innocent people having to be sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment

The idea that something apparently cannot be done about this saddens me for the latest innocent victims and their families (Jesus - a mass shooting of K-4 students?)and those that you can bet we will read about in the coming months

If you want to ban me go ahead - I promise never to post again on anything to do with mass shootings
Dan, I have two children, so I can certainly understand the emotions behind your post. It's really hard to understand senseless tragedies like this, but I do understand why they always trigger (pun intended) gun-control talk. I get it; I really do. But Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more control still wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. The only thing that might have prevented it would be a complete ban on all guns. But even then, who's to say he wouldn't have done something like this?

Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China

BEIJING (Reuters) - A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.

...

In 2010, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

Yeah, I know a gun can cause a lot more harm than a knife, but if someone wants to kill people, they're going to find a way to do it. And they might not be able to take out as many with a knife (or other weapon), but that doesn't make the loss of life any less painful. Just imagine what Adam Lanza could have done if he had entered the school room with a sword, machete, or a knife and locked the door. What would a teacher and those young children have been able to do against him? It would have taken longer for him to kill them all, and maybe police would have gotten there in time before he had time to finish his evil act, but children still would have died.

I keep hearing a lot of people calling for more gun control. But like I said earlier, no amount of gun control would have prevented this tragedy since Lanza's mother was legally able to own weapons. Like I said, only a complete ban might have prevented it. But with a complete ban, what would have happened to Kendra, a 12-year-old girl in Oklahoma?

Girl Shoots Intruder While Home Alone

A teen girl from Oklahoma had to defend herself and her home this past Wednesday when an intruder burst into her home along the state’s border with Texas. The girl, Kendra, was home alone when the suspect rang the doorbell. She did not answer the door, causing the suspect to go to the back of the house and kick in the back door.

The girl called her mother, Debra St. Clair, who told the girl to grab the gun in the house, hide in a closet and call 911. St. Clair then stopped what she was doing and raced to get home as quickly as possible to her daughter.

According to Ken Golden, the Bryan County Under Sheriff, “He had worked his way all the way through the house and into the bathroom. And from what we understand, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door.”

The suspect has been identified as Stacy Jones, from Texarkana. Jones was flown to a hospital in Plano, Texas and is expected to survive.

http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/10/22/teen-girl-shoots-intruder-while-home-alone/

If Kendra's mother didn't have a gun in the house, she could have been kidnapped, raped, and possibly even killed. That gun likely saved her life. And this isn't an isolated story ... there are countless others, but they don't get the same kind of attention as this shooting in Connecticut. Every time a tragedy like this happens and everyone starts talking about the need for more gun control or the total ban of guns, they don't mention all the lives that have been saved by guns.

There's no doubt that gun violence is a problem. But the problem isn't the guns. There are millions of Americans who own guns and don't go around shooting people. The problem is with the people who don't see anything wrong with killing another human being. THAT'S the issue we need to start paying more attention to.

It's really no different than the problem we have with drunken driving and automobile accidents in general. Last year alone, more than 32,000 people were killed in automobile accidents. Many of those killed were children. But every time I see people get killed by a drunk driver, I don't see people crying out that we should ban cars. When there are bad accidents, rather than talking about more car control or an outright ban on cars, we talk about how to improve safety, and how to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. And that's how the gun discussion should be framed ... how do we improve safety, and how do we keep those with mental problems from getting their hands on guns?

Perhaps we can start by trying to change the culture of violence we live in. Is it wise to allow young children to play video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto? When people, especially from a young age, become desensitized to death, should we be at all surprised by what we're seeing?

Atlanta Dan
12-16-2012, 11:20 AM
Dan, I have two children, so I can certainly understand the emotions behind your post. It's really hard to understand senseless tragedies like this, but I do understand why they always trigger (pun intended) gun-control talk. I get it; I really do. But Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more control still wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. The only thing that might have prevented it would be a complete ban on all guns. But even then, who's to say he wouldn't have done something like this?



Yeah, I know a gun can cause a lot more harm than a knife, but if someone wants to kill people, they're going to find a way to do it. And they might not be able to take out as many with a knife (or other weapon), but that doesn't make the loss of life any less painful. Just imagine what Adam Lanza could have done if he had entered the school room with a sword, machete, or a knife and locked the door. What would a teacher and those young children have been able to do against him? It would have taken longer for him to kill them all, and maybe police would have gotten there in time before he had time to finish his evil act, but children still would have died.

I keep hearing a lot of people calling for more gun control. But like I said earlier, no amount of gun control would have prevented this tragedy since Lanza's mother was legally able to own weapons. Like I said, only a complete ban might have prevented it. But with a complete ban, what would have happened to Kendra, a 12-year-old girl in Oklahoma?



If Kendra's mother didn't have a gun in the house, she could have been kidnapped, raped, and possibly even killed. That gun likely saved her life. And this isn't an isolated story ... there are countless others, but they don't get the same kind of attention as this shooting in Connecticut. Every time a tragedy like this happens and everyone starts talking about the need for more gun control or the total ban of guns, they don't mention all the lives that have been saved by guns.

There's no doubt that gun violence is a problem. But the problem isn't the guns. There are millions of Americans who own guns and don't go around shooting people. The problem is with the people who don't see anything wrong with killing another human being. THAT'S the issue we need to start paying more attention to.

It's really no different than the problem we have with drunken driving and automobile accidents in general. Last year alone, more than 32,000 people were killed in automobile accidents. Many of those killed were children. But every time I see people get killed by a drunken driver, I don't see people crying out that we should ban cars. When there are bad accidents, rather than talking about more car control or an outright ban on cars, we talk about how to improve safety, and how to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. And that's how the gun discussion should be framed ... how do we improve safety, and how do we keep those with mental problems from getting their hands on guns?

Perhaps we can start by trying to change the culture of violence we live in. Is it wise to allow young children to play video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto? When people, especially from a young age, become desensitized to death, should we be at all surprised by what we're seeing?

Evil will always be with us and I agree the current level of treatment of the mentally ill in a culture drenched with violence is another obvious part of the problem.

But while someone who is batshit crazy can always do harm before he is stopped, it is possible to regulate the amount of damage they can do without unconstitutionally infringing upon the right to bear arms. All lives have value but I assume you agree the pain of 20 young lives being snuffed has a greater cumulative effect upon the families directly impacted than the loss of 5. The cumulative impact of conduct is the cost-benefit rationale that supports regulations of the auto industry that you cite as an appropriate regulatory model.

[O]ne pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics. If you stick a knife in your first victim, it takes time to move on to your second. You might need two stabs or more to finish off the first kid. By then, the other kids have begun to flee. Soon, the cops will be here. How much time do you have? At some point, it’s time to off yourself. And all you managed to kill were two lousy kids because the only weapon you had was a kitchen knife....

Guns do more damage. Look down the list and you’ll see gun after gun after gun. But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing. High-capacity magazines are another common factor. All these patterns converge on a common lesson: Speed kills. Madness pulls the trigger, but the rate of fire drives the body count.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons _and_other_high_speed.html

I agree that under current laws any of us probably could buy the weapons and ammo used by the killer. The killer's mother legally owned the weapons he used - screening sales to the mentally ill would not have prevented him gaining access to these weapons. And a mother deciding to purchase an array of weapons and then apparently deciding nothing could possibly go wrong if she took her deranged son to the range to learn how to use those weapons efficiently also was not illegal.

Police said that they found “dozens and dozens” of shell casings from .223 high-velocity rounds inside the school, the type of spent casings that come from bullets used in the Bushmaster rifle.

The lightweight .223 bullets travel at a velocity of about 3,000 feet per second, and after they enter their target, they explode throughout the tissue. As the medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II put it at a news conference Saturday, the bullets’ “energy stays in the body.”

A similar high-powered, semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle was the weapon used by the Washington snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who terrorized the metropolitan area in 2002, killing 10 people and critically wounding three.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-used-in-conn-shooting-inflict-devastating-wounds/2012/12/15/91fcd1a4-4702-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_story.html

I would respectfully submit the benefits of limiting the sale of those types of munitions would have a great net public benefit without unconstitutionally infringing upon the right to bear arms.

:drink:

mikegrimey
12-16-2012, 11:32 AM
Dan, I have two children, so I can certainly understand the emotions behind your post. It's really hard to understand senseless tragedies like this, but I do understand why they always trigger (pun intended) gun-control talk. I get it; I really do. But Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more control still wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. The only thing that might have prevented it would be a complete ban on all guns. But even then, who's to say he wouldn't have done something like this?



Yeah, I know a gun can cause a lot more harm than a knife, but if someone wants to kill people, they're going to find a way to do it. And they might not be able to take out as many with a knife (or other weapon), but that doesn't make the loss of life any less painful. Just imagine what Adam Lanza could have done if he had entered the school room with a sword, machete, or a knife and locked the door. What would a teacher and those young children have been able to do against him? It would have taken longer for him to kill them all, and maybe police would have gotten there in time before he had time to finish his evil act, but children still would have died.

I keep hearing a lot of people calling for more gun control. But like I said earlier, no amount of gun control would have prevented this tragedy since Lanza's mother was legally able to own weapons. Like I said, only a complete ban might have prevented it. But with a complete ban, what would have happened to Kendra, a 12-year-old girl in Oklahoma?



If Kendra's mother didn't have a gun in the house, she could have been kidnapped, raped, and possibly even killed. That gun likely saved her life. And this isn't an isolated story ... there are countless others, but they don't get the same kind of attention as this shooting in Connecticut. Every time a tragedy like this happens and everyone starts talking about the need for more gun control or the total ban of guns, they don't mention all the lives that have been saved by guns.

There's no doubt that gun violence is a problem. But the problem isn't the guns. There are millions of Americans who own guns and don't go around shooting people. The problem is with the people who don't see anything wrong with killing another human being. THAT'S the issue we need to start paying more attention to.

It's really no different than the problem we have with drunken driving and automobile accidents in general. Last year alone, more than 32,000 people were killed in automobile accidents. Many of those killed were children. But every time I see people get killed by a drunk driver, I don't see people crying out that we should ban cars. When there are bad accidents, rather than talking about more car control or an outright ban on cars, we talk about how to improve safety, and how to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. And that's how the gun discussion should be framed ... how do we improve safety, and how do we keep those with mental problems from getting their hands on guns?

Perhaps we can start by trying to change the culture of violence we live in. Is it wise to allow young children to play video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto? When people, especially from a young age, become desensitized to death, should we be at all surprised by what we're seeing?

In regards to your last paragraph I feel you're way off the mark in blaming video games. Violence has always been a part of human culture, and in fact, the western world experiences far higher levels of peacefulness than our ancestors ever did.

Video games weren't around 500 years ago when you could have your asshole impailed on a spike (judas cradle) for criticizing authority, practicing witchcraft or offending the upper class elite... Blaming them for the violence we have now isn't the answer. Canadians play the same games is Americans do and have lower levels of violent crimes, the "why" involves a lot more than video games or violent movies, the real answer is probably tied more to violent nature, our evolutionary past and biological make up. Certain people simply lack empathy or compassion or temperance, there have always been violent criminals, it's not a novelty of our age

MasterOfPuppets
12-16-2012, 11:56 AM
That's a silly excuse. Saying people 10 years younger than you feel your generation is degenerate... What else is new? I run into people of every age group who feel the younger generation is softer, more prone to moral turpitude, lacking discipline etc. I'm site the Neanderthals probably had an expression for "kids these days." There have been trashy artists and immoral people in every generation. Blaming music, books movies etc? That's an easy cop out and a perpetually embarrassing argument that rears its head everytime there is a fresh tragedy
20 years ago i never locked my house or car doors . now i won't even leave a first floor window unlocked before i go to bed or leave the house.
before i could leave such things like a bicycle or anything really on my front porch without fear of it "disappearing" , now i make arrangements to have delivered packages left by ups secured as quickly as possible , because there's a good chance it may not still be there by the time i get home from work.
things have definitely changed for the worst in my little town. and yes i blame the little punks wearing the baggy pants and the sideways baseball caps.

MACH1
12-16-2012, 01:57 PM
Liberals blame the guns, I blame the criminals,

So Dan, should .223's be banned whether their painted black or wrapped in a walnut stock, because they both shoot the same. If so where do you stop, .222, .243, .308, 30-06 where?

As far as .233's go their far from being a "high powered" rifle.

mikegrimey
12-16-2012, 02:09 PM
20 years ago i never locked my house or car doors . now i won't even leave a first floor window unlocked before i go to bed or leave the house.
before i could leave such things like a bicycle or anything really on my front porch without fear of it "disappearing" , now i make arrangements to have delivered packages left by ups secured as quickly as possible , because there's a good chance it may not still be there by the time i get home from work.
things have definitely changed for the worst in my little town. and yes i blame the little punks wearing the baggy pants and the sideways baseball caps.

I can't speak for your personal experience and wouldn't even want to. What town do you live in?

Atlanta Dan
12-16-2012, 03:08 PM
Liberals blame the guns, I blame the criminals,

So Dan, should .223's be banned whether their painted black or wrapped in a walnut stock, because they both shoot the same. If so where do you stop, .222, .243, .308, 30-06 where?

As far as .233's go their far from being a "high powered" rifle.

It is a public policy (not a Second Amendment) question - write your Congressman about which guns any lunatic with a mother who wants to indulge him can possess - the bill is being introduced in 2013

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/feinstein-schumer-push-changes-on-gun-laws-85135.html

My side has been getting rolled for 20 years on this issue - but now the Dems have figured out that they can win national elections without certain demographic groups. Having already lost a lot of districts where the NRA is strong they may be willing to tell the NRA to screw itself and let the GOP build upon its winning electoral strategy in 2012 by now defending the zero tolerance position on regulating owenership of all guns.

MACH1
12-16-2012, 03:30 PM
We'll see how it pans out but it's only going to affect law abiding people not the criminals or nut jobs. Where theres a will theres a way.

Public policy does not override the constitution.

ricardisimo
12-16-2012, 04:18 PM
We'll see how it pans out but it's only going to affect law abiding people not the criminals or nut jobs. Where theres a will theres a way.

Public policy does not override the constitution.
Yes and no. I'm sure there's a will among the nutjobs to blow shit up in dramatic fashion, yet aside from OK City and 911 it hasn't really happened. That's because there are restrictions on obtaining explosives (and airplanes). We passed laws. I don't know about you, but I don't feel any less free because I'm not allowed to purchase nuclear weapons and rocket launchers.

silver & black
12-16-2012, 08:29 PM
Gun control is a joke. There is no such thing, no matter what "laws" are passed.

Atlanta Dan
12-16-2012, 08:29 PM
We'll see how it pans out but it's only going to affect law abiding people not the criminals or nut jobs. Where theres a will theres a way.

Public policy does not override the constitution.

Agreed - when the Supeme Court held an absolute ban upon ownership of handguns violated the Second Amendment it did not hold the types of weapons used in the Newtown murders could not be banned

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Liberals from the 1980s expected the judiciary to bail them out when they could no longer win arguments in the legislature - after the Supreme Court upheld Obamcare I would not count on a legal challenge to any restrictions upon ownership of weapons such as those used in Newtown being successful

ricardisimo
12-16-2012, 11:51 PM
Gun control is a joke. There is no such thing, no matter what "laws" are passed.
:huh: It's not as though there is any lack of examples from around the globe of varying degrees of gun control laws. The only joke is the one that is perpetually pulled on the American people, the last two in Connecticut and Oregon. We'll have many, many more of these sad jokes, but we're not allowed to do anything about it. Just laugh and cry into our beers.

SteelCityMom
12-17-2012, 08:15 AM
:huh: It's not as though there is any lack of examples from around the globe of varying degrees of gun control laws. The only joke is the one that is perpetually pulled on the American people, the last two in Connecticut and Oregon. We'll have many, many more of these sad jokes, but we're not allowed to do anything about it. Just laugh and cry into our beers.

The real difference in those nations is culture though. British people, for example, never really needed gun control laws. Even when most guns were fairly legal, they didn't have a gun death problem. And they certainly didn't have one when they insisted on stricter regulations. It works for them because they don't have as many nutters running around, and they deal with their social issues in a different way than we do.

There are definitely countries that have more lenient gun laws than the often cited UK example, that don't have alarming gun death rates (Switzerland for example).

There's no easy answer for the gun debate in the US. I'm not for very restrictive gun bans...but I am for very intense background checks and mandatory training, as well as having to be re-issued licenses at least every 4 years. That would include going through background checks again and updating your training.

Mental health problems need to be addressed in this country as well (I know someone brought this up already). And they need properly dealt with at an earlier age. I have no real solution to this either, except to say that much of it could be deterred with better parenting overall in this country...but that comes back to culture. Stricter gun laws may seem like a nice idea, but we need to figure out why we have so many people who want to kill other people to really get at a solution. Guns didn't just up and start telling people to kill other people. The crazy in that person's head did that.

It's a crazy time right now, and I can understand why people would want stricter gun laws. It's not like it doesn't make sense from certain aspects. I'm just not for it if a person clearly shows that they don't have a criminal record, and are sane and capable.

I agree that very restrictive gun laws wouldn't work in the US. The black market on guns is too deep here. I think they would work just about as well as restrictive drug laws have worked here.

Vis
12-17-2012, 03:16 PM
We'll see how it pans out but it's only going to affect law abiding people not the criminals or nut jobs. Where theres a will theres a way.

Public policy does not override the constitution.


Where did the latest nut job get his guns? If only his first victim had been armed....oh, wait.

Vincent
12-17-2012, 03:17 PM
We'll see how it pans out but it's only going to affect law abiding people not the criminals or nut jobs. Where theres a will theres a way.

Public policy does not override the constitution.

No, thankfully it doesn't.

And as much gasoline as the media pour on this, the sane among us still far outnumber the insane. "The public" are able to discern isolated acts from broad societal problems...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/15/connecticut-shootings-isolated-incident-or-cultural-problem/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-15-at-9.30.10-PM.png

Politics will follow. And pols, being the self serving @#$%s they are, won't do anything to cost themselves votes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/15/the-trouble-with-changing-gun-laws-in-1-chart/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-15-at-2.33.56-PM.png

SteelCityMom
12-17-2012, 04:54 PM
Where did the latest nut job get his guns? If only his first victim had been armed....oh, wait.

You're talking about a mother/son relationship. This guy had obvious mental problems, and was going to do what he was going to do...gun or no gun.

What if he grabbed his mothers kitchen knife? Who would you blame then?

MACH1
12-17-2012, 05:03 PM
Where did the latest nut job get his guns? If only his first victim had been armed....oh, wait.

Where did the last fat guy get his spoon. :noidea:

Atlanta Dan
12-17-2012, 05:15 PM
No, thankfully it doesn't.

And as much gasoline as the media pour on this, the sane among us still far outnumber the insane. "The public" are able to discern isolated acts from broad societal problems...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/15/connecticut-shootings-isolated-incident-or-cultural-problem/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-15-at-9.30.10-PM.png

Politics will follow. And pols, being the self serving @#$%s they are, won't do anything to cost themselves votes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/15/the-trouble-with-changing-gun-laws-in-1-chart/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-15-at-2.33.56-PM.png

Surprised you still believe in Gallup after its less than brilliant prognostication during the campaign - anything yet from Unskewed Polls?

As far as polling on the isolated incident question, 20 first graders getting murdered might change that perspective

Majority sees Connecticut shooting as societal problem

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/17/National-Politics/Graphics/w-mustchangePOLL18-g.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/majority-sees-connecticut-shooting-as-societal-problem/2012/12/17/97b4ed0e-4877-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_graphic.html?hpid=z1

And you nailed it about politicians not doing anything that will cost them votes - don't assume the demographic that is more inclined to oppose further regulation is the one incumbents are most concerned about anymore - times change

As funerals began in Connecticut on Monday, there was further proof that Friday’s mass shooting has reawakened a long-dormant debate in Washington: whether, and how, to limit assault weapons like the one used by the gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Two prominent Democratic senators — both of whom had won support from gun-rights groups in the past — said the killings had changed long-held positions. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said they would be open to greater regulation of assault rifles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawmakers-focus-on-possible-assault-weapons-ban/2012/12/17/667504b0-4852-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html?hpid=z1

ricardisimo
12-17-2012, 09:05 PM
You're talking about a mother/son relationship. This guy had obvious mental problems, and was going to do what he was going to do...gun or no gun.

What if he grabbed his mothers kitchen knife? Who would you blame then?
It's interesting that you mention knives, because of course it calls to mind the nutjob in China who attacked a bunch of school kids a few years ago. It was the darling story of the pro-gun lobby for quite a while. "You see! There are sickos in every culture, and they will find a way to kill no matter what!" Except that he didn't kill. All 22 kids survived. Only one survivor from this last attack in Connecticut, by comparison. I wonder why? :scratchchin:

Another thing: almost all of these guys do eventually have their kill-sprees stopped by a bullet... their own. I don't remember the last time any of them were stopped by a a bullet from a bystander or cop. The exceptions are when they get gang-tackled while trying to reload. The lesson? Guns are not defensive, judo is.

Atlanta Dan
12-17-2012, 09:18 PM
The lesson? Guns are not defensive, judo is.

During the entire hellish weekend this was the only moment during the coverage that caused me to laugh

And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, "I know karate. So it's okay. I'll lead the way out." :thumbsup:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/obama_in_newtown_ct_on_sandy_h.html

MACH1
12-17-2012, 09:54 PM
For all you that want to ban guns have you forgot about the douche bag that killed 168 people with a uhaul truck cow shit and diesel fuel......amazing how no one wants to ban any of that shit no mass shooting has ever killed as many as he did with a damn uhaul.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/546853_229583857175454_1565285455_n.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
12-17-2012, 10:38 PM
..amazing how no one wants to ban any of that shit no mass shooting has ever killed as many as he did with a damn uhaul.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/546853_229583857175454_1565285455_n.jpg

oh please mach....ban uhaul and they'll just use a ryder...:doh:

http://www.rydertrucksales.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ryder-Truck-Sales.jpg

ricardisimo
12-17-2012, 11:30 PM
For all you that want to ban guns have you forgot about the douche bag that killed 168 people with a uhaul truck cow shit and diesel fuel......amazing how no one wants to ban any of that shit no mass shooting has ever killed as many as he did with a damn uhaul.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/546853_229583857175454_1565285455_n.jpg
I'm hoping that no one has forgotten it. My understanding is that the FBI now monitors large purchases of such material. Mind you, manure is a lot more useful and necessary than guns, but no one is crying foul about controlling its sale. No one feels less free because you can't buy forty tons of nitrates without cause or license.

But restrict gun ownership... no, no, no.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 01:13 AM
It's interesting that you mention knives, because of course it calls to mind the nutjob in China who attacked a bunch of school kids a few years ago. It was the darling story of the pro-gun lobby for quite a while. "You see! There are sickos in every culture, and they will find a way to kill no matter what!" Except that he didn't kill. All 22 kids survived. Only one survivor from this last attack in Connecticut, by comparison. I wonder why? :scratchchin:

Another thing: almost all of these guys do eventually have their kill-sprees stopped by a bullet... their own. I don't remember the last time any of them were stopped by a a bullet from a bystander or cop. The exceptions are when they get gang-tackled while trying to reload. The lesson? Guns are not defensive, judo is.

That wasn't my point...and honestly, I didn't know about the China incident. I was just sayin'.

Like most times, I haven't seen any anti-gun folks bring up a logical solution to the problem that affects our nation. Is it really guns that is the issue? Or could it possibly be our culture? No one seems to want to delve into that, on either side.

There are first world countries that have gun laws comparable to ours, but don't share the crime rate...why is that? Some say it's lack of God in our nation. Do you follow that belief? (I know you don't) What is it then? How do many Nordic countries manage to have a decent balance of gun laws and personal liberty? How are people not oppressed there? What is wrong with our people? It can't be just guns themselves...It's has to be something much deeper.

Vis
12-18-2012, 01:13 AM
Not being able to solve every problem is no reason not to try to solve any problems

Vis
12-18-2012, 01:25 AM
That wasn't my point...and honestly, I didn't know about the China incident. I was just sayin'.

Like most times, I haven't seen any anti-gun folks bring up a logical solution to the problem that affects our nation. Is it really guns that is the issue? Or could it possibly be our culture? No one seems to want to delve into that, on either side.

There are first world countries that have gun laws comparable to ours, but don't share the crime rate...why is that? Some say it's lack of God in our nation. Do you follow that belief? (I know you don't) What is it then? How do many Nordic countries manage to have a decent balance of gun laws and personal liberty? How are people not oppressed there? What is wrong with our people? It can't be just guns themselves...It's has to be something much deeper.

Here's what's different:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/15610_10151182005041275_226936693_n.jpg

This is how the gun used in the killings was sold to Americans. This appeal works here. That is what's wrong with our culture. If the problem is about worship, it's gun worship.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 01:37 AM
Yeah, well thought out answers there, Vis.

Thanks for putting so much thought into it. Appreciate your "deep" insight into the issue.

Vis
12-18-2012, 01:42 AM
Yeah, well thought out answers there, Vis.

Thanks for putting so much thought into it. Appreciate your "deep" insight into the issue.

Are you for real? Do you want an essay about religion and violence? Do you know the beliefs of the killer? I can do ten pages on the evils of religion and have. Shall we start a new thread?

There isn't a country other than ours that glorifies the gun. No Nordic country, certainly.

If you want a real solution other than gun control, it's universal healthcare that includes good psychological screening and care. Sell that in this country.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 01:45 AM
Are you for real? Do you want an essay about religion and violence? Do you know the beliefs of the killer? I can do ten pages on the evils of religion and have. Shall we start a new thread?

No, but at least put a little more thought into the issue than a fucking picture.

Really? That's all you have? You don't have any thoughts of your own on the topic? Pathetic, IMO.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but my patience has worn thin with people after this tragedy. If you want more gun control, come up with decent reasons as to why, and explain. I've grown incredibly tired of internet memes from both sides. Time to talk about solutions, not pictures.

Vis
12-18-2012, 02:11 AM
No, but at least put a little more thought into the issue than a fucking picture.

Really? That's all you have? You don't have any thoughts of your own on the topic? Pathetic, IMO.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but my patience has worn thin with people after this tragedy. If you want more gun control, come up with decent reasons as to why, and explain. I've grown incredibly tired of internet memes from both sides. Time to talk about solutions, not pictures.



The picture says a lot. Mamma was a gun enthusiast. The reports say that she used to show her collection off to visiters. Her enthusiasm, if she wasn't also some sort of militia kook, isn't why this happened but it is why no rational discussion on the topic of reasonable gun restrictions is possible in this country. Maybe now we can. Maybe we can have Israel's rules. Maybe we can require proper training. I have a shotgun and a Glock 20. I have 3 kids ages 17, 16 and 10. they can't get to the guns and if they did, they couldn't make them fire or find the ammunition.

Today I saw a story about a 21 year old who shot himself in the head trying to show off the safety on his new gun. The responses on the story are all darwin jokes. The truth is, someone that unserious about the responsibilities shouldn't have a gun. He should had to get training which he should have failed.

MACH1
12-18-2012, 02:16 AM
Are you for real? Do you want an essay about religion and violence? Do you know the beliefs of the killer? I can do ten pages on the evils of religion and have. Shall we start a new thread?

There isn't a country other than ours that glorifies the gun. No Nordic country, certainly.

If you want a real solution other than gun control, it's universal healthcare that includes good psychological screening and care. Sell that in this country.

Really? We should put it on our flag then.

Trivia Question: What country's flag has an AK-47 on it?

Take a moment to think about it....

....keep thinking....

...seriously, there really is a country that has an AK-47 pictured on its flag...

...give up?....

...here's the flag....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_95axFonbwHw/TIS1YLrwpGI/AAAAAAAAIGo/zguJ8zHxlbg/s320/mozambique-flag.gif

...still can't figure it out, right?...

The answer is...

Mozambique.

Yes, Mozambique's national flag has a picture of an AK-47 on it. According to wikipedia the Kalashnikov assault rifle's image on the flag is supposed to symbolize the nation's struggle for independence.

MACH1
12-18-2012, 02:17 AM
The picture says a lot. Mamma was a gun enthusiast. The reports say that she used to show her collection off to visiters. Her enthusiasm, if she wasn't also some sort of militia kook, isn't why this happened but it is why no rational discussion on the topic of reasonable gun restrictions is possible in this country. Maybe now we can. Maybe we can have Israel's rules. Maybe we can require proper training. I have a shotgun and a Glock 20. I have 3 kids ages 17, 16 and 10. they can't get to the guns and if they did, they couldn't make them fire or find the ammunition.

Today I saw a story about a 21 year old who shot himself in the head trying to show off the safety on his new gun. The responses on the story are all darwin jokes. The truth is, someone that unserious about the responsibilities shouldn't have a gun. He should had to get training which he should have failed.

By that logic cars should be banned too.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 02:23 AM
The picture says a lot. Mamma was a gun enthusiast. The reports say that she used to show her collection off to visiters. Her enthusiasm, if she wasn't also some sort of militia kook, isn't why this happened but it is why no rational discussion on the topic of reasonable gun restrictions is possible in this country. Maybe now we can. Maybe we can have Israel's rules. Maybe we can require proper training. I have a shotgun and a Glock 20. I have 3 kids ages 17, 16 and 10. they can't get to the guns and if they did, they couldn't make them fire or find the ammunition.

Today I saw a story about a 21 year old who shot himself in the head trying to show off the safety on his new gun. The responses on the story are all darwin jokes. The truth is, someone that unserious about the responsibilities shouldn't have a gun. He should had to get training which he should have failed.

Again, you're not offering any kind of solution...just commentary. So her son shot little kids because she was a gun enthusiast? And that's the reason no rational discussion is possible? Or do you just not want to take the time?

I've already highlighted what I think is necessary in bringing about legitimate gun regulation, how bout you?

Why would you not want your children to know how to properly shoot or handle the guns you have in your own home? I have a 10 year old daughter who perfectly understands life and death, and knows how to handle a gun. We keep ours locked up too), but she's values what pointing a gun at a living thing means. It's not a video game in our household.

And believe me, I'm all about proper training. It should be stricter than receiving your drivers license.

These are absolutely the things that need discussed though. Ignoring them and posting internet memes just furthers the problem. There is no solution until people start being totally honest with each other and trying to figure out why we are so much more far gone than other 1st world nations.

MACH1
12-18-2012, 02:33 AM
Again, you're not offering any kind of solution...just commentary. So her son shot little kids because she was a gun enthusiast? And that's the reason no rational discussion is possible? Or do you just not want to take the time?

I've already highlighted what I think is necessary in bringing about legitimate gun regulation, how bout you?

Why would you not want your children to know how to properly shoot or handle the guns you have in your own home? I have a 10 year old daughter who perfectly understands life and death, and knows how to handle a gun. We keep ours locked up too), but she's values what pointing a gun at a living thing means. It's not a video game in our household.

And believe me, I'm all about proper training. It should be stricter than receiving your drivers license.

These are absolutely the things that need discussed though. Ignoring them and posting internet memes just furthers the problem. There is no solution until people start being totally honest with each other and trying to figure out why we are so much more far gone than other 1st world nations.

I seen a guy on the tube giving his reason as to why this happened. He said it was because of those "simulated murder boxes" i.e x-box, playstations and they need to be banned too. :screwy:

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 08:05 AM
No, but at least put a little more thought into the issue than a fucking picture.

Really? That's all you have? You don't have any thoughts of your own on the topic? Pathetic, IMO.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but my patience has worn thin with people after this tragedy. If you want more gun control, come up with decent reasons as to why, and explain. I've grown incredibly tired of internet memes from both sides. Time to talk about solutions, not pictures.

Here is one from gun control nut Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal

Congress should move quickly—really, right away—to ban something almost every member would ban next week if they were given a clean, short, unambiguous piece of legislation. Two years ago, after Tucson, I urgedPresident Obama to make such a bill a priority in his 2011 State of the Union Address.

A hot subject then was the polarizing nature of our political rhetoric. But I wrote:

Normal people are not afraid of a lowering of discourse in political speech. They don’t like it, but it’s not keeping them up nights. Normal people are afraid of nuts with guns. That keeps them up nights. They know our society has grown more broken, families more sundered, our culture more degraded, and they fear it is producing more lost and disturbed young people. They fear those young people walking into a school or a mall with a semiautomatic pistol with an extended clip.

What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent. Those clips were banned once; the president should call for reimposing the ban. . . . The president should seize the moment and come out strong for a ban.

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 08:18 AM
Why would you not want your children to know how to properly shoot or handle the guns you have in your own home? I have a 10 year old daughter who perfectly understands life and death, and knows how to handle a gun. We keep ours locked up too), but she's values what pointing a gun at a living thing means. It's not a video game in our household.

And believe me, I'm all about proper training. It should be stricter than receiving your drivers license.

These are absolutely the things that need discussed though. Ignoring them and posting internet memes just furthers the problem. There is no solution until people start being totally honest with each other and trying to figure out why we are so much more far gone than other 1st world nations.

"Gun enthusiast" is one term to describe the murdered mother - survivalist is another

The mother apparently told a kid who used to babysit the shooter never to turn his back on him. Yet the mother saw nothing wrong with teaching the murderer to become proficient in the use of the weapons used in the slaughter at Sandy Hook.? Walk me through what part of that was responsible parenting.

With regard to why, to use your term, "we are so much more far gone than other 1st world nations," I would respectfully submit the current talking points that blame it all on video games and inadequate mental health treatment ignores the elephant in the room (sorry to use a picture)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg

America’s gun-related murder rate is the highest in the developed world, excluding Mexico, where the ongoing drug war pushes the murder stats way up. The question of what causes the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate is a complicated one involving many variables, but it certainly seems plausible, especially the day after a knife attack in China injured 22 children but killed none, that one of those variables would be access to firearms. And, in this regard, America is truly exceptional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

Vincent
12-18-2012, 08:53 AM
Several ironies emerge from this Sandy Hook tragedy. Two in particular should leap forward, were it not for the crisis “management” of the left and their mouthpieces, the “media”.

We are presented with the aftermath of the attack – a chaotic sea of “first responders” armed to the teeth, clad in body armor, their vehicles strewn about the landscape. A show of force. A statement. “This will not stand”. “We come against this”. This against the background of how many gubmint schools equipped with metal detectors, armed security, and “protocols”. What? Sandy Hook was an oversight? Couldn’t fund a few guards for that little school out of the trillions taken from us every year? If you’re looking for something to blame, blame those to whom we foolishly trust our “security”, the ones that show up to posture and preen AFTER something like this has occurred. Yeah, it reeks of irony. We’re being told that we don’t “need” to be armed, that we should take this tragedy as our instruction to surrender the ONLY thing that stands between us and another tragedy, our weapons. That’s rich. And with 300-500 million guns in the hands of citizens, it isn’t going to happen.

“Oh, but we must get these ‘assault rifles’ out of the hands of… blah, blah, blah…”. The fly in the ointment here is that an “assault rifle” wasn’t involved. This was the isolated act of a single kid, dazed by psychotropic drugs, that took his mother’s weapons, killed her, then “acted out” whatever psychedelia the drugs imposed on his diseased little mind. Regrettably a happy little country school was in the way. Looking for something to blame? Yeah, of course, it was the “assault rifle”. “We desperately need to get them off the street”. Right?

But the irony that should drown out all others in this tragedy is the loss of the children themselves. 20 of them. Every one a dear one. Every one a staggering loss. What might they have become? What could possibly replace them? I know personally how this feels, so don’t take what I say here as rhetoric. The irony here is that this tragedy occurred in a state that murders on average between 35 to 50 of its children each day, depending on whose figures you cite – the CDC or AGI. Every day. Since before they started keeping those statistics. And every day going forward.

Every one of those children died a death we wouldn’t wish on satan himself. Every one was torn from their mother’s womb in unspeakable agony and cast in a dumpster like a bad habit. Indeed the mourner in chief that descends from on high with his “tears” brought forth as a state senator “legislation” to ensure that an aborted child that “accidently” survived would be killed rather than giving it the life support we’d give to a fallen enemy on a battle field. I hesitate to call this irony more than the unholy bull@#$% that it is.

So I won’t. Newtown isn’t about the children. We demonstrated that when we failed to protect them. We demonstrate that daily as we destroy more than twice their number in that state alone, without a thought. For some reason, those 20 little souls that perished that day are more important to us than the countless little souls that weren’t given the opportunity to experience all that we ourselves have enjoyed. Maybe that’s what lies beneath our shock and outrage at this tragedy. Maybe it is our own souls crying out for the innocents whose blood is on all our hands.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 09:29 AM
"Gun enthusiast" is one term to describe the murdered mother - survivalist is another

The mother apparently told a kid who used to babysit the shooter never to turn his back on him. Yet the mother saw nothing wrong with teaching the murderer to become proficient in the use of the weapons used in the slaughter at Sandy Hook.? Walk me through what part of that was responsible parenting.

I never commented on her skills as a parent, nor will I. I don't personally know these folks...hell, I've never even spoken to them online, so I'm not going to pretend that I have some kind of insider information into her parenting skills. All I know is that my own daughter respects life and the use of firearms. She knows it's not some kind of joke.

With regard to why, to use your term, "we are so much more far gone than other 1st world nations," I would respectfully submit the current talking points that blame it all on video games and inadequate mental health treatment ignores the elephant in the room (sorry to use a picture)

Mental health treatment, definitely. Video games? Maybe...though I'm remiss to single that out. The news and cartoons can be very violent as well.


America’s gun-related murder rate is the highest in the developed world, excluding Mexico, where the ongoing drug war pushes the murder stats way up. The question of what causes the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate is a complicated one involving many variables, but it certainly seems plausible, especially the day after a knife attack in China injured 22 children but killed none, that one of those variables would be access to firearms. And, in this regard, America is truly exceptional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

Does it matter that more people's lives are saved by guns each year? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 09:44 AM
I never commented on her skills as a parent, nor will I. I don't personally know these folks...hell, I've never even spoken to them online, so I'm not going to pretend that I have some kind of insider information into her parenting skills. All I know is that my own daughter respects life and the use of firearms. She knows it's not some kind of joke.

SC Mom - I am not sayng teaching responsible people such as your daughter how to use firearms is improper. But this guy was so far gone he had his own school psycholgist minder while he was enrolled in high school in Newtown.and should not have been given access to a burnt match, let alone a Bushmaster.

Does it matter that more people's lives are saved by guns each year? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Stats on number of lives saved by non-law enforcement use of firearms as opposed to lives lost by non-law enforcerment use of firearms?

Just want to let everyone know I respect the opinions of those who do not share my views on increased regulation of firearms. While there are absolutists on both sides of this problem who cannot debate the issue, IMO it is a debate that needs to occur.

:drink:

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 09:55 AM
SC Mom - I am not sayng teaching responsible people such as your daughter how to use firearms is improper. But this guy was so far gone he had his own school psycholgist minder while he was enrolled in high school in Newtown.and should not have been given access to a burnt match, let alone a Bushmaster.



Stats on number of lives saved by non-law enforcement use of firearms as opposed to lives lost by non-law enforcerment use of firearms?

Just want to let everyone know I respect the opinions of those who do not share my views on increased regulation of firearms. While there are absolutists on both sides of this problem who cannot debate the issue, IMO it is a debate that needs to occur.

:drink:

As do I...even if it doesn't always seem like it lol. And I agree, these are things that need talked about, extensively.

I'm not totally opposed to some gun regulations, but I don't think knee jerk gun regulation actions are going to solve anything. You brought up a ban on larger gun clips (most people use those for target shooting). I don't see, at all, how that would make anything that happened in CT, or any other shooting, any better.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 10:04 AM
As do I...even if it doesn't always seem like it lol. And I agree, these are things that need talked about, extensively.

I'm not totally opposed to some gun regulations, but I don't think knee jerk gun regulation actions are going to solve anything. You brought up a ban on larger gun clips (most people use those for target shooting). I don't see, at all, how that would make anything that happened in CT, or any other shooting, any better.

If he was required to reload he might not have been able to get off as many shots - the medical examiner said each victim had anywhere from 3 to 10 bullet wounds - that is anywhere from 72 to 240 rounds he emptied into 2 rooms where 24 were murdred after he took down the principal and school psychologist

Same thing with The Joker in Aurora

As far as target shooting, if you want to go to a range and purchase the clip there and use the clip on site that avoids having the clips in the stream (sewer?) of commerce

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 10:10 AM
Little kids got shot and killed...I don't think the size of the clip or having to reload (which, if he got off that many shots, he probably had to reload at some point), would ease any of the parents hearts. I understand your point, but even if he walked in there with a 6 shooter, it still would have been a tragedy.

It takes the focus in the wrong direction, IMO. Stricter gun regulations aren't going to even serve as a bandaid fix to what the real issues are. And those regulations aren't going to deter criminals and crazy murderous bastards at all.

Wallace108
12-18-2012, 10:33 AM
The mother apparently told a kid who used to babysit the shooter never to turn his back on him.

I've heard that reported several times, but there's never been a source given. The media has reported so many wrong details in this tragedy that I won't believe anything until it's confirmed by a reliable source. In this case, it would be nice to hear from the babysitter.

I've seen quite a few interviews with friends of the family who said there was no indication that Adam was violent, which is contrary to the reports about what the babysitter supposedly said. By all accounts, the mother was a loving and caring person. But there's no way she should have exposed her son to guns. I wouldn't even need hindsight to say it was a mistake.

Little kids got shot and killed...I don't think the size of the clip or having to reload (which, if he got off that many shots, he probably had to reload at some point), would ease any of the parents hearts. I understand your point, but even if he walked in there with a 6 shooter, it still would have been a tragedy.

It takes the focus in the wrong direction, IMO. Stricter gun regulations aren't going to even serve as a bandaid fix to what the real issues are. And those regulations aren't going to deter criminals and crazy murderous bastards at all.
Agreed. The killing of 20 kids is a tragedy. If it had been only 6 kids, it would still be a tragedy. And I don't think the parents of those 6 kids would take comfort in knowing that it could have been worse.

These mass shootings are a problem, and it's beyond time for some serious and continued dialogue. I believe that if we just ban certain kinds of guns, we're treating a symptom and not the problem. The problem is whatever makes these people decide to open fire on innocent people. That's what we should be focusing on. I know it's become cliche, but guns don't kill people ... people kill people. And we need to figure out why these people are doing it. That's our best hope for preventing these tragedies. If we take away the guns but not these people's desire to kill, we haven't solved the problem. We've only lessened it. And that won't be any consolation to the people who will still lose loved ones my means other than a semi-automatic weapon.

Vincent
12-18-2012, 11:09 AM
These mass shootings are a problem, and it's beyond time for some serious and continued dialogue. I believe that if we just ban certain kinds of guns, we're treating a symptom and not the problem. The problem is whatever makes these people decide to open fire on innocent people. That's what we should be focusing on. I know it's become cliche, but guns don't kill people ... people kill people. And we need to figure out why these people are doing it. That's our best hope for preventing these tragedies. If we take away the guns but not these people's desire to kill, we haven't solved the problem. We've only lessened it. And that won't be any consolation to the people who will still lose loved ones my means other than a semi-automatic weapon.

Why these people do these things is the core of the issue at Newtown......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkbIF67pbGw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26e5PqrCePk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4vD4QC0kQ8

.... but its absolutely the last thing that will be discussed, much less investigated.

Gotta get those dreaded guns off the street. You betcha!

ricardisimo
12-18-2012, 11:39 AM
Little kids got shot and killed...I don't think the size of the clip or having to reload (which, if he got off that many shots, he probably had to reload at some point), would ease any of the parents hearts. I understand your point, but even if he walked in there with a 6 shooter, it still would have been a tragedy.

It takes the focus in the wrong direction, IMO. Stricter gun regulations aren't going to even serve as a bandaid fix to what the real issues are. And those regulations aren't going to deter criminals and crazy murderous bastards at all.

You assert this as fact, that gun control laws are completely worthless. Where do you get this idea? In almost the same breath you say you aren't completely opposed to gun control laws, so you are conflicted at a minimum. Also, you and I both know that the claims about lives saved by guns are creative accounting at best. Real people are killed every minute by guns; wishful anecdotes and hero fantasies are saved by them.

Like I said before, none of these psychos ever seem to get downed even by a cop, let alone an armed bystander. They either take their own lives or they get wrestled to the ground while reloading (a strong argument against large clip automatics and semiautomatic).

Vinnie's ****-stroking about armed first responders misses the obvious (shock!): they were less than useless, nothing but an insult to grieving parents after the fact. But his stance is very useful in illustrating what I think you are referring to when you say the problem is cultural. Gun love is the problem. Testosterone-driven power fantasies are the problem. Trust me, if nuclear weapons were legal, Vinny would have one... to "defend" himself, of course.

People need to step back from these insecurities and fantasies, for sure. But again, these are cultural issues, and we have no right forcing cultural changes, belief changes on people. We do have a right to legislate arms control. And there are good reasons to believe gun control laws will minimize the killing, but not stop it of course. Maybe minimize it greatly. Only one way to find out.

Getting onto a plane. Check in with you all later.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 05:03 PM
Little kids got shot and killed...I don't think the size of the clip or having to reload (which, if he got off that many shots, he probably had to reload at some point), would ease any of the parents hearts. I understand your point, but even if he walked in there with a 6 shooter, it still would have been a tragedy.

It takes the focus in the wrong direction, IMO. Stricter gun regulations aren't going to even serve as a bandaid fix to what the real issues are. And those regulations aren't going to deter criminals and crazy murderous bastards at all.

He killed off more kids with a semi-automatic and a big clip than he would have with a six shooter in the same amount of time - as soon as the first responders arrived he killed himself so he was working in a tight time frame

Every life has value and hearts are broken with very loss, but there were a lot more losses and a lot more hearts broken because of how that lunatic was armed

When Australia instituted significant increases in gun regulation the stats showed a significant reduction in deaths , so i am uncertain what your statistical basis is for saying any increased regulation of guns would be a "band aid"

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html

You busted on Vis earlier about not proposing any specific solutions but when specific solutions are suggested all I am hearing in return that it will not work with no explanation as to why it clearly will not work, other than it is "the wrong direction."

So I guess your position is you have a zero tolerance approach to barring the sales of any types of ammo or weapon? You may regard any such action as an unjustified impingement upon a fundamental right but to say it would be futile is not a foregone conclusion.

So what are "the real issues"? Mental health treatment can be improved but the shooter's Dad was a senior executive at GE Capital and his Mom was gettimng $325K per year in alimony and child support - it was not as if the family lacked the financial ability to get teh finest psychiatric treatment $$ can buy.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 05:09 PM
I've heard that reported several times, but there's never been a source given. The media has reported so many wrong details in this tragedy that I won't believe anything until it's confirmed by a reliable source. In this case, it would be nice to hear from the babysitter.

That was the source upon which I was relying -

A man who says he once babysat for Newtown, Conn., gunman Adam Lanza says he recalls Lanza's mother warning him never to turn his back on the boy - not even to go to the bathroom.

Ryan Kraft now lives in Hermosa Beach, in Southern California.

But, he tells CBS station KCBS in Los Angeles, he was once a student at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and babysat for Lanza when Lanza was about 9 or 10 and Kraft was 14 or 15.

Police say Lanza, 20, went on a rampage in the school Friday, killing 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults before taking his own life. Lanza also shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, to death in the nearby home they shared before heading to the school, authorities say.

Kraft tells KCBS when he first heard about the shooting and that Lanza was involved, "I just couldn't think for a little while. I was shaking."

He says he recalls Nancy Lanza cautioning him never to turn his back on Adam -- "to keep an eye on him at all times ... to never turn my back, or even to go to the bathroom or anything like that."

http://www.ktvq.com/news/ex-babysitter-says-newtown-conn-school-shooter-adam-lanza-s-mother-warned-don-t-turn-your-back/

Wallace108
12-18-2012, 05:12 PM
That was the source upon which I was relying -

A man who says he once babysat for Newtown, Conn., gunman Adam Lanza says he recalls Lanza's mother warning him never to turn his back on the boy - not even to go to the bathroom.

Ryan Kraft now lives in Hermosa Beach, in Southern California.

But, he tells CBS station KCBS in Los Angeles, he was once a student at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and babysat for Lanza when Lanza was about 9 or 10 and Kraft was 14 or 15.

Police say Lanza, 20, went on a rampage in the school Friday, killing 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults before taking his own life. Lanza also shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, to death in the nearby home they shared before heading to the school, authorities say.

Kraft tells KCBS when he first heard about the shooting and that Lanza was involved, "I just couldn't think for a little while. I was shaking."

He says he recalls Nancy Lanza cautioning him never to turn his back on Adam -- "to keep an eye on him at all times ... to never turn my back, or even to go to the bathroom or anything like that."

http://www.ktvq.com/news/ex-babysitter-says-newtown-conn-school-shooter-adam-lanza-s-mother-warned-don-t-turn-your-back/
Oh, OK. Every time I heard it, it sounded like second-hand accounts. I didn't know that it was coming straight from the babysitter.

Sheeeesh. If the mother felt that the babysitter should never turn his back on her son, what the heck was she doing leaving him alone with a 14- or 15-year-old babysitter? :doh:

As of right now, I still think she was a good person, but her judgment was very suspect.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 05:18 PM
Oh, OK. Every time I heard it, it sounded like second-hand accounts. I didn't know that it was coming straight from the babysitter.

Sheeeesh. If the mother felt that the babysitter should never turn his back on her son, what the heck was she doing leaving him alone with a 14- or 15-year-old babysitter? :doh:

As of right now, I still think she was a good person, but her judgment was very suspect.

Knowing the kid was nuts and taking him to the range to learn how to shoot semi-automatic weapons caused me to question her judgment more than the age of the babysitter she hired

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 05:23 PM
You assert this as fact, that gun control laws are completely worthless. Where do you get this idea? In almost the same breath you say you aren't completely opposed to gun control laws, so you are conflicted at a minimum. Also, you and I both know that the claims about lives saved by guns are creative accounting at best. Real people are killed every minute by guns; wishful anecdotes and hero fantasies are saved by them.

Well, because I believe it to be fact. Gun laws aren't going to fix what's wrong with people (never said they are completely worthless). You can ban guns all you want, but that's not going to take the crazy out of people, or even come close to being a deterrent for criminals.

As for the number of people saved/crimes twarted by guns, the numbers certainly are overblown by gun groups. I've never claimed they weren't. Actual numbers are probably closer to 50k-100k /year. It's hard to say for sure, because some may never be reported...but there's nothing concrete saying it isn't though. At worst, it's still a much higher number than gun death rate. We've discussed this before though, and I feel I stated my case from a reasonably objective standpoint. I don't dabble in hero fantasies and wishful thinking.

I'm not conflicted when I state that I am for some gun regulations...and I've even stated what I think some of them should be. Mandatory training and very intensive background checks (for all sales) along with being updated in your training and background checks at least every four years (I'd be fine with annually). I'm also glad that fully automatic weapons are not allowed. What I am opposed to is knee jerk reaction gun bans...because like I said before and above, that does nothing for the deeper issue, which is why are there more and more people who are running around screwed in the head enough to do something like this?

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 05:37 PM
He killed off more kids with a semi-automatic and a big clip than he would have with a six shooter in the same amount of time - as soon as the first responders arrived he killed himself so he was working in a tight time frame

Every life has value and hearts are broken with very loss, but there were a lot more losses and a lot more hearts broken because of how that lunatic was armed

When Australia instituted significant increases in gun regulation the stats showed a significant reduction in deaths , so i am uncertain what your statistical basis is for saying any increased regulation of guns would be a "band aid"

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html

You busted on Vis earlier about not proposing any specific solutions but when specific solutions are suggested all I am hearing in return that it will not work with no explanation as to why it clearly will not work, other than it is "the wrong direction."

So I guess your position is you have a zero tolerance approach to barring the sales of any types of ammo or weapon? You may regard any such action as an unjustified impingement upon a fundamental right but to say it would be futile is not a foregone conclusion.

So what are "the real issues"? Mental health treatment can be improved but the shooter's Dad was a senior executive at GE Capital and his Mom was gettimng $325K per year in alimony and child support - it was not as if the family lacked the financial ability to get teh finest psychiatric treatment $$ can buy.

No, I never said I have a zero tolerance approach...and have actually said that I'd be ok with some regulations. That does include clip size. Sorry if it came off as sounding like me being totally against it...I'm not. I just don't think it would have stopped this guy (or any of the other shooters) from doing what they set out to do. There still would have been tragedies.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 05:57 PM
Also, I believe the Mac 10's they used in Columbine were banned, weren't they?

As far as real issues go, I don't know how exactly want to describe it. Yes, mental health is one of them. And I was talking about overall issues, not family issues. There is something wrong with these people who are capable of doing this. There will still be something wrong with the same types even if strict gun laws are implemented.

The_Joker
12-18-2012, 07:00 PM
My 2 cents.

Instead of focusing on gun rights, how about we provide mental care to the people who need it?

I am a hardcore democrat, but seriously, banning guns solves nothing. Banning cocaine doesn't stop it being sold, does it?

To help limit these disasters, stop it at the source; not the guns, the people.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 07:24 PM
There will still be something wrong with the same types even if strict gun laws are implemented.

True that:drink:

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts

MACH1
12-18-2012, 07:32 PM
True that:drink:

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts

Thats because it's not the cars fault.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 07:35 PM
My 2 cents.

Instead of focusing on gun rights, how about we provide mental care to the people who need it?

I am a hardcore democrat, but seriously, banning guns solves nothing. Banning cocaine doesn't stop it being sold, does it?

To help limit these disasters, stop it at the source; not the guns, the people.

Outlawing murder does not stop that either - so i guess we should no longer prosecute murders?:noidea:

Any stats on banning guns solving "nothing"?

As far as improved mental health , what do you do if (as Drudge & Fox report - it must be true) the shooter goes off because he is going to be forced to obtain mental health treatment

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

It is a complex problem with many causes - access to high powered munitions in this society is one of them

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 07:41 PM
True that:drink:

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts

No, but you also don't ban cars and/or alcohol because of accidents or DUI's.

To me, it really is a culture thing. I'm glad Australia is seeing good results (in terms of mass killings...their crime rate overall has gone up since gun bans though, similar to UK).

These are people who were never as violent as Americans though, so of course it's going to work better there. The UK barely even needed gun regulations before they were implemented.

If you want good, solid, comparisons, look at our own cities. A lot of people use NYC as a talking point in how gun control has worked, but then you look at cities like Chicago, or LA, where gun laws are strict, but gun violence and crime in general is high. I truly believe that if criminals do not think that you have guns, it makes it easier for them to victimize you. And I know this is cliche, but there's a reason you never hear about mass shootings in, say, gun ranges. They are almost always in gun free zones.

My main focus is on increasing the responsible gun owner population. These are not toys or games that we're dealing with. It's fucking serious business, and it should be treated as such. I don't want a gun in the hands of someone irresponsible any more than you do....trust me on that.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 07:41 PM
Thats because it's not the cars fault.

It is not the guns fault either

My point is you do not base imposing a regulation on a product (which is what guns and ammo are - they are not holy relics) upon whether it eliminates the problem - you do a cost/benefit analysis

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 07:55 PM
No, but you also don't ban cars and/or alcohol because of accidents or DUI's.

To me, it really is a culture thing. I'm glad Australia is seeing good results (in terms of mass killings...their crime rate overall has gone up since gun bans though, similar to UK).

These are people who were never as violent as Americans though, so of course it's going to work better there. The UK barely even needed gun regulations before they were implemented.

If you want good, solid, comparisons, look at our own cities. A lot of people use NYC as a talking point in how gun control has worked, but then you look at cities like Chicago, or LA, where gun laws are strict, but gun violence and crime in general is high. I truly believe that if criminals do not think that you have guns, it makes it easier for them to victimize you. And I know this is cliche, but there's a reason you never hear about mass shootings in, say, gun ranges. They are almost always in gun free zones.

My main focus is on increasing the responsible gun owner population. These are not toys or games that we're dealing with. It's fucking serious business, and it should be treated as such. I don't want a gun in the hands of someone irresponsible any more than you do....trust me on that.

But the shooter's mother was "high strung" but apparently what is defined as sane - no background check was going to keep the weapons she bought away from her nutcake son

It gets back to measuring the costs and benefits of regulating a product - if you need a 30 clip magazine to make target practice meaningful fine - you can buy it at the range and not take it offsite

If you want to go hunting go for it - but you do not need an AR-15 to do it

Urban dwellers such as myself have a blind spot with regard to gun enthusiasts (I joined FBI agents in my federal prosecutor days at the range but have not continued the practice) but red state America has made my previous enjoyment of marijuana a crime so it as not as if the Government has not banned what I regard as a net benefit to my personal well being.

As far as Americans being "culturally" more violent than Aussies? - really? As I said before, you cannot ignore the easy access to guns as part of that difference.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 08:55 PM
But the shooter's mother was "high strung" but apparently what is defined as sane - no background check was going to keep the weapons she bought away from her nutcake son

It gets back to measuring the costs and benefits of regulating a product - if you need a 30 clip magazine to make target practice meaningful fine - you can buy it at the range and not take it offsite

If you want to go hunting go for it - but you do not need an AR-15 to do it

Urban dwellers such as myself have a blind spot with regard to gun enthusiasts (I joined FBI agents in my federal prosecutor days at the range but have not continued the practice) but red state America has made my previous enjoyment of marijuana a crime so it as not as if the Government has not banned what I regard as a net benefit to my personal well being.

As far as Americans being "culturally" more violent than Aussies? - really? As I said before, you cannot ignore the easy access to guns as part of that difference.

Meanwhile, you totally overlook that banned guns have been used in mass shootings.

I used to be an urban dweller too. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the topic.

Nobody uses AR-15's for hunting. You can't use semi-auto weapons for hunting. The 2nd amendment doesn't just define hunting though.

You also keep wanting to make this a personal issue (blaming a high strung mother). So what if she was sane enough to own guns? You think if she didn't own guns something like this couldn't happen? The dude had mental issues. Obviously. To be able to shoot your own mother, and then classrooms full of children means you have serious issues. Yeah, gun bans will surely fix that shit.

MACH1
12-18-2012, 09:31 PM
It is not the guns fault either

My point is you do not base imposing a regulation on a product (which is what guns and ammo are - they are not holy relics) upon whether it eliminates the problem - you do a cost/benefit analysis

The same could be said about cars.

Put a limit of only being able to drive them 10 miles a day, ban "high powered" cars and so on. More people/children are killed by cars every year than people by guns a year. And hey think of the energy we'd be saving.

MACH1
12-18-2012, 09:41 PM
Meanwhile, you totally overlook that banned guns have been used in mass shootings.

I used to be an urban dweller too. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the topic.

Nobody uses AR-15's for hunting. You can't use semi-auto weapons for hunting. The 2nd amendment doesn't just define hunting though.

You also keep wanting to make this a personal issue (blaming a high strung mother). So what if she was sane enough to own guns? You think if she didn't own guns something like this couldn't happen? The dude had mental issues. Obviously. To be able to shoot your own mother, and then classrooms full of children means you have serious issues. Yeah, gun bans will surely fix that shit.

Umm I do. They make a good coyote rifle and for rock chucks. :noidea:

Remember because their black doesn't make them useless as a rifle, it's a .223 which is a great varmint caliber.

Atlanta Dan
12-18-2012, 09:46 PM
The same could be said about cars.

Put a limit of only being able to drive them 10 miles a day, ban "high powered" cars and so on. More people/children are killed by cars every year than people by guns a year. And hey think of the energy we'd be saving.

Hate to break the news to you but private ownership of vehicles has a hell of a lot greater net benefit to the majority of the citizenry than the private ownership of guns
(take a poll - ask how many people would be willing to walk everywhere)

Leaving aside the theological position that the right to bear all munitions is absolute under the Second Amendment, regulation is based upon cost/benefit analysis - the lesser the benefit the more justified the costs

As I told SC Mom earlier, I respect your opinion - we will agree to disagree on this:drink:

cubanstogie
12-18-2012, 09:53 PM
The same could be said about cars.

Put a limit of only being able to drive them 10 miles a day, ban "high powered" cars and so on. More people/children are killed by cars every year than people by guns a year. And hey think of the energy we'd be saving.

very good point. These horrendous acts get all the publicity, but drunk drivers kill many more than these crimes do. Bottom line is people need to be held accountable for actions. Stiff crimes and not letting multiple offenders or even psych patients into the general public. Some people just cant be rehabilitated. This country is fubar'd in many ways.I personally would like to go back to the wild west and have everyone armed. These crazy fucks might get 1 or 2 but not 20 victims. Really sucks that I have to explain this shit to my daughter and she is scared to go to school.

SteelCityMom
12-18-2012, 11:12 PM
Umm I do. They make a good coyote rifle and for rock chucks. :noidea:

Remember because their black doesn't make them useless as a rifle, it's a .223 which is a great varmint caliber.

True. I guess I should have specified that those laws go by state. You aren't legally allowed to use an AR (or any other semi auto) for any hunting purposes in PA (which is a generally lenient gun state). That's my bad.

Just got done reading an article about how hunters (of larger game) abhor those that use .223's for hunting because they are not efficient in kills and cause the animal to suffer more. I don't think they're useless by any means...just wasn't thinking past state hunting laws.

ricardisimo
12-18-2012, 11:31 PM
No, but you also don't ban cars and/or alcohol because of accidents or DUI's.

To me, it really is a culture thing. I'm glad Australia is seeing good results (in terms of mass killings...their crime rate overall has gone up since gun bans though, similar to UK).

These are people who were never as violent as Americans though, so of course it's going to work better there. The UK barely even needed gun regulations before they were implemented.

If you want good, solid, comparisons, look at our own cities. A lot of people use NYC as a talking point in how gun control has worked, but then you look at cities like Chicago, or LA, where gun laws are strict, but gun violence and crime in general is high. I truly believe that if criminals do not think that you have guns, it makes it easier for them to victimize you. And I know this is cliche, but there's a reason you never hear about mass shootings in, say, gun ranges. They are almost always in gun free zones.

My main focus is on increasing the responsible gun owner population. These are not toys or games that we're dealing with. It's fucking serious business, and it should be treated as such. I don't want a gun in the hands of someone irresponsible any more than you do....trust me on that.
Australia was a penal colony, for goodness sake. There are aspects to their culture and history that are more violent than our own. But we are the Empire, and I suspect that this is the difference-maker, and is the ultimate source of the cultural problems we're talking about. Running the planet is a lot easier when your soldiers start playing with guns at birth, and prepare at a doing age for killing.

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Well, I was speaking in modern terms...not hundreds of years ago. Somehow, that penal colony evolved into a civilized nation. That's the nation I'm talking about when I say Australia.

I'm always surprised by your reactions on gun control. You are a self described anarchist that wants a federal ban on weapons. It's just weird to me.

As Dan wants to agree to disagree with me, I suppose we should do the same. I don't disagree with you on much, but this seems to be the issue where there is lack of middle ground.

ricardisimo
12-19-2012, 12:38 AM
Well, I was speaking in modern terms...not hundreds of years ago. Somehow, that penal colony evolved into a civilized nation. That's the nation I'm talking about when I say Australia.

I'm always surprised by your reactions on gun control. You are a self described anarchist that wants a federal ban on weapons. It's just weird to me.

As Dan wants to agree to disagree with me, I suppose we should do the same. I don't disagree with you on much, but this seems to be the issue where there is lack of middle ground.

I am indeed an anarchist, which means I have little choice but to agree to disagree with people. :chuckle: But I also am a committed pacifist and democrat (small "d" of course). I am quite certain that guns are toxic to any healthy political discourse, and they are clearly not peaceful.

MasterOfPuppets
12-19-2012, 12:39 AM
True that:drink:

But people still die in auto accidents - that does not mean you eliminate equipping vehicles with air bags and seat belts
perhaps not , but does anyone need a 400 hp engine anymore than a person needs a 30 round clip ?
people die everyday thanks to driving at high rates of speed despite speed limits and laws ....i know / knew people on both ends of traffic fatalities that were due to driving at wreck less high speeds and i'm sure most of you do as well... so where's the outrage over these killing machines ?
does anyone need a car or motorcycle that does 160 when the speed limit is 65 ?
would you support a ban on sports cars or anything over 150 hp ? :noidea:
would traffic fatalities decrease with strict "auto control" ?

i want an all out ban on these death traps !!! what say you mach ?
http://gomotors.net/pics/Ford/ford-mustang-mach-1-04.jpg

MACH1
12-19-2012, 12:40 AM
True. I guess I should have specified that those laws go by state. You aren't legally allowed to use an AR (or any other semi auto) for any hunting purposes in PA (which is a generally lenient gun state). That's my bad.

Just got done reading an article about how hunters (of larger game) abhor those that use .223's for hunting because they are not efficient in kills and cause the animal to suffer more. I don't think they're useless by any means...just wasn't thinking past state hunting laws.

That comes down to hunter ethics and knowing the limits of your weapon with the size of game your going after. I feel the same way about trying to use a small caliber rifle with big game.
I did not know that law in PA either. Guess I just assumed it was basically the same as here.

MasterOfPuppets
12-19-2012, 12:53 AM
That comes down to hunter ethics and knowing the limits of your weapon with the size of game your going after. I feel the same way about trying to use a small caliber rifle with big game.
I did not know that law in PA either. Guess I just assumed it was basically the same as here.
you can hunt with a .223 in MD , even deer. as long as you have 1200 lbs muzzle energy its all good. but all All military, full metal jacketed, incendiary or tracer bullets are prohibited. plus you can not have more than 8 rounds in the clip.

MACH1
12-19-2012, 01:36 AM
Who the fuck uses tracers for hunting? FMJ's only leave little pencil hole, not real good for solid knock down.

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 03:15 PM
I am indeed an anarchist, which means I have little choice but to agree to disagree with people. :chuckle: But I also am a committed pacifist and democrat (small "d" of course). I am quite certain that guns are toxic to any healthy political discourse, and they are clearly not peaceful.

I know, and I'm not trying to bash your personal beliefs. To be honest, we don't own any guns for political reasons. We have them for hunting and protection purposes. I've said before, but we live in an area where if someone broke in here and victimized us, first responders would be about 15-20 minutes away, and no neighbors in earshot. I value our right to protect ourselves. When we had our business in the city, even, I've had to deter a potential robber with my 1911. At the time, my daughter and I lived in a small area above the club/retail area. I don't make any apologies for that.

I understand your feelings, it's just weird to hear an anarchist be for federal regulations, that's all.

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 03:17 PM
That comes down to hunter ethics and knowing the limits of your weapon with the size of game your going after. I feel the same way about trying to use a small caliber rifle with big game.
I did not know that law in PA either. Guess I just assumed it was basically the same as here.

Yeah, I was kind of assuming the same thing. Despite relatively lenient gun laws here, the hunting laws are fairly strict. You can't even hunt small game with semi auto .22's. Not like it's that heavily enforced in all areas...some people are way off the grid here.

Atlanta Dan
12-19-2012, 03:33 PM
I understand your feelings, it's just weird to hear an anarchist be for federal regulations, that's all.

But it is not as if ric is running for office.

In the most recent Georgia election the Libertarians nominated candidates for 2 seats on the Public Service Commission. I voted for them without exactly being quite certain what the Libertarian approach to regulating what Georgia Power charges me might be.:chuckle:

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 03:57 PM
But it is not as if ric is running for office.

In the most recent Georgia election the Libertarians nominated candidates for 2 seats on the Public Service Commission. I voted for them without exactly being quite certain what the Libertarian approach to regulating what Georgia Power charges me might be.:chuckle:

I never suggested he was running for office. I'm not running for office either (libertarian here. Voting for people without being certain of their actual approaches seems to be a common thing in the US today. Why would you vote for them if you weren't certain of their approaches?

MACH1
12-19-2012, 04:31 PM
perhaps not , but does anyone need a 400 hp engine anymore than a person needs a 30 round clip ?
people die everyday thanks to driving at high rates of speed despite speed limits and laws ....i know / knew people on both ends of traffic fatalities that were due to driving at wreck less high speeds and i'm sure most of you do as well... so where's the outrage over these killing machines ?
does anyone need a car or motorcycle that does 160 when the speed limit is 65 ?
would you support a ban on sports cars or anything over 150 hp ? :noidea:
would traffic fatalities decrease with strict "auto control" ?

i want an all out ban on these death traps !!! what say you mach ?
http://gomotors.net/pics/Ford/ford-mustang-mach-1-04.jpg

Mines prettier. :chuckle:

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/bcrab/IMAG0025.jpg

Atlanta Dan
12-19-2012, 05:34 PM
I never suggested he was running for office. I'm not running for office either (libertarian here. Voting for people without being certain of their actual approaches seems to be a common thing in the US today. Why would you vote for them if you weren't certain of their approaches?

Because aside from the Presidential and U.S. Senate races Georgia elections usually are walkovers - the Dems did not even bother to nominate someone to run against the 2 GOP incumbents.

If there only minor party candidates opposing the incumbent in those circumstances I will vote for the minor party candidate - if only the incumbent is on the ballot I leave my ballot for that office blank - my small protest regarding how most "elections" have become a ritual term renewal for whomever holds the office
.
FWIW I did not think you were accusing him of running for office either - my reply was in response to the question of how one engages with the Government while having grave reservations about much of what the Government oversees in the 21st century

:drink:

ricardisimo
12-19-2012, 05:47 PM
I never suggested he was running for office. I'm not running for office either (libertarian here. Voting for people without being certain of their actual approaches seems to be a common thing in the US today. Why would you vote for them if you weren't certain of their approaches?

I think voting 3rd party is admirable, even if you're not completely certain about this or that particular party or candidate. If we didn't have Greens or P&F here in California I would absolutely vote Libertarian. And there is a lot I don't like about the Libs, but give me any Libertarian before even the best Democrat or Republican.

Just make sure the third party you're voting for is not National Socialist or theologically based, and you're pretty much good beyond that.

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 06:33 PM
Understood from both perspectives.

I just didn't get why you would vote for someone based on party alone, Dan. As a libertarian, I'm not questioning your choices, just wondering lol.

I'm a firm believer in knowing what people are running for, and why. That includes local elections.

This isn't on topic though, even if I think it's an interesting debate (why people vote the way they do).

What I'd like to know is, what are people's opinions on UN gun bans? (I'd mostly like to hear opinions from those who are for more US gun regulation.)

Do you think the US has a right to allow the UN to impose gun regulations on our country? Or should we be allowed to decide those laws for ourselves?

My answer would be that I don't think the federal gov't should be allowed to determine laws for all states (minus slavery laws, etc.). I see gun laws like I see drug or abortion laws. I don't think the federal gov't should have a say in it. The 10th amendment allows states to make their own laws that are not superseded by federal laws. So obviously I don't think the UN should be allowed to determine out gun laws.

Atlanta Dan
12-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Do you think the US has a right to allow the UN to impose gun regulations on our country? Or should we be allowed to decide those laws for ourselves?

The U.S. has a right to enter into a treaty that might include restrictions on some practice but can pretty much elect to ignore whatever the UN or any nation regards as a best practice - power does flow from the barrel of a gun - the U.S. still has the biggest gun and can respond to just aboiut anything propsoed by the UN or another natioon by saying thanks for the suggestion and get lost. And even a treaty cannot justify a practice that is unconstitutional.

My answer would be that I don't think the federal gov't should be allowed to determine laws for all states (minus slavery laws, etc.). I see gun laws like I see drug or abortion laws. I don't think the federal gov't should have a say in it. The 10th amendment allows states to make their own laws that are not superseded by federal laws. So obviously I don't think the UN should be allowed to determine out gun laws.

As you note, he 10th Amendment needs to interact with the powers granted the federal government under the Constitution, one of the most sweeping of which is the power to regulate whatever migkt be defined as "interstate" commerce under the Commerce Clause (a big issue in the Obamacare Supreme Court decision). Of course just because some law is constitutional does not mean it is good public policy - as the saying goes that is why elections matter

IMO the tussle in gun regulation will not be under the Commerce Clause or the 10th Amenmdnt - sales of guns & ammo pretty clearly enter intersate commerce. It will be what bans or regulations of guns and ammo do not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment under teh ratioanle of the Heller v. District of Columbia decision in which the Supreme Court held an absolaute ban on handguns in DC violated the 2nd Amendment but noted not all regulations of firearms are unconstitutional

SteelCityMom
12-19-2012, 07:19 PM
I've had too much wine already...I shall try to process your thoughts in the AM :chuckle:

One thing I agree with you on though is that just because something is deemed constitutional does not mean it's good public policy. Prohibition laws come first to mind in that respect. That's another law that I don't think the federal gov't should have a say in. Obviously, I'm more states rights than anything else (except when it comes to obvious lack of human rights).

ricardisimo
12-20-2012, 01:21 AM
I'm not entirely sure why people are for states' rights over those of the federal government. The US is a state, after all, and why is one state better than another (and let's face it: if you live in the Deep South, for example, Federal laws might seem positively dreamy compared to state and local laws, especially for non-rich non-whites.

But at least one part of it I get: it's a movement downward, closer to oneself, which is cool. But it's still largely moot in these here United States. Anything beyond the county level (and probably more like the city level) is completely bought and paid for and out of our hands. So why choose the states over the Feds?

There are advantages to federal law, especially with something like gun bans. It would be nice to think that a California gun ban isn't rendered completely meaningless by lax Nevada and Arizona laws.

And yes, the second amendment is all that matters. It needs to be repealed. No meaningful debate (even just debate!) can take place in this country while the 2nd amendment stands.

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 08:57 AM
I'm not entirely sure why people are for states' rights over those of the federal government. The US is a state, after all, and why is one state better than another (and let's face it: if you live in the Deep South, for example, Federal laws might seem positively dreamy compared to state and local laws, especially for non-rich non-whites.

But at least one part of it I get: it's a movement downward, closer to oneself, which is cool. But it's still largely moot in these here United States. Anything beyond the county level (and probably more like the city level) is completely bought and paid for and out of our hands. So why choose the states over the Feds?

There are advantages to federal law, especially with something like gun bans. It would be nice to think that a California gun ban isn't rendered completely meaningless by lax Nevada and Arizona laws.

And yes, the second amendment is all that matters. It needs to be repealed. No meaningful debate (even just debate!) can take place in this country while the 2nd amendment stands.

Like I said, I'm for federal regulations in certain instances (slavery, civil rights, commerce and labor regulations, etc....powers already delegated by the US Constitution).

I am not for federal regulations on things like drug laws, same sex marriage, abortion...where federal law trumps state law. Or do you want the 10th amendment struck down as well? Should individual states not have a right to their own laws anymore, period? When the federal gun bans were lifted, I'm sure you were still glad that CA had strict gun laws. What if federal law trumped all that, meaning that CA no longer had the right to pass it's own gun regulations? I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

That's what I mean by being for states rights.

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2012, 10:12 AM
Like I said, I'm for federal regulations in certain instances (slavery, civil rights, commerce and labor regulations, etc....powers already delegated by the US Constitution).

I am not for federal regulations on things like drug laws, same sex marriage, abortion...where federal law trumps state law. Or do you want the 10th amendment struck down as well? Should individual states not have a right to their own laws anymore, period? When the federal gun bans were lifted, I'm sure you were still glad that CA had strict gun laws. What if federal law trumped all that, meaning that CA no longer had the right to pass it's own gun regulations? I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

That's what I mean by being for states rights.

It is an open question exactly what gun laws California can pass after Heller. "States rights" are trumped by the Second Amendment

For example, the 7th Circuit struck down an Illinois gun law last week that pretty much banned public carying of weapons on the basis that it violated the Second Amendment
http://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2012/12/seventh-circuit-illinois-gun-law-unconstitutional.html

With regard to federal "regulation" of abortion, that is based upon a constitutional right to privacy established by the Supreme Court that limits the power of State and local governments to regulate access to abortion - you may disagree with Roe v. Wade but is is just as much a binding opinion of the Supreme Court as the two Second Amendment opinions handed down in 2008 (Heller v. District of Columbia) and 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) that for the first time, after more than 200 years of constitutional law, held the Second Amendment clearly created an individual right to bear arms and thereby barred significant regulation of handguns by DC and Chicago. Links to opinions below if you have some spare time and have not had the opportunity to read how the Second Amendment has been interpreted recently

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

State and local governments are not just subject to laws passed by Congress. They are subject to Constitutional limitations upon their actions established by the incorporation of certain rights articulated in the Bill of Rights under the original amendments to the Constitution (which only limited actions by the federal government) into the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteeenth Amendment, which limits the actions of state and local governments (limitatoins upon actions by the District of Columbia are diffeent becuase it is a creation of the fedral government).

Just as you may regard Roe v. Wade as unwise, some of us are not big fans of the Heller and McDonald opinions. But they are all binding Supreme Court precedent and are all based upon the same theory that places Constitutional restrictions upon the ability of State and local governments to regulate certain private conduct.

:drink:

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 10:19 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/282869_400685796673650_515810622_n.jpg


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2001/1/cj26n1-6.pdf

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa109.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/december/crimestats_122109

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 10:23 AM
It is an open question exactly what gun laws California can pass after Heller. "States rights" are trumped by the Second Amendment

For example, the 7th Circuit struck down an Illinois gun law last week that pretty much banned public carying of weapons on the basis that it violated the Second Amendment
http://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2012/12/seventh-circuit-illinois-gun-law-unconstitutional.html

With regard to federal "regulation" of abortion, that is based upon a constitutional right to privacy established by the Supreme Court that limits the power of State and local governments to regulate access to abortion - you may disagree with Roe v. Wade but is is just as much a binding opinion of the Supreme Court as the two Second Amendment opinions handed down in 2008 (Heller v. District of Columbia) and 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) that for the first time, after more than 200 years of constitutional law, held the Second Amendment clearly created an individual right to bear arms and thereby barred significant regulation of handguns by DC and Chicago. Links to opinions below if you have some spare time and have not had the opportunity to read how the Second Amendment has been interpreted recently

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

State and local governments are not just subject to laws passed by Congress. They are subject to Constitutional limitations upon their actions established by the incorporation of certain rights articulated in the Bill of Rights under the original amendments to the Constitution (which only limited actions by the federal government) into the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteeenth Amendment, which limits the actions of state and local governments (limitatoins upon actions by the District of Columbia are diffeent becuase it is a creation of the fedral government).

Just as you may regard Roe v. Wade as unwise, some of us are not big fans of the Heller and McDonald opinions. But they are all binding Supreme Court precedent and are all based upon the same theory that places Constitutional restrictions upon the ability of State and local governments to regulate certain private conduct.

:drink:

I will read into those, I hadn't heard about that.

And it's not that I'm against Roe vs. Wade necessarily, I just don't think the federal gov't should have a right to legislate that law (same with drug laws and marriage laws). So no, I doubt I'm going to be in favor of the Heller/McDonald rulings. I can't imagine that ric likes it either, even though it takes away a states right.

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2012, 10:27 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/282869_400685796673650_515810622_n.jpg


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2001/1/cj26n1-6.pdf

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa109.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/december/crimestats_122109

I thought this thread was supposed to be a no picture zone:chuckle:

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 10:29 AM
Haha...I don't usually go for picture things, but I saw this posted with sources, so I figured it was ok. :chuckle:

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 10:36 AM
Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2012, 10:29 PM
Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

True that:drink:

ricardisimo
12-20-2012, 11:13 PM
Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

Jane, you ignorant $lut...

ricardisimo
12-20-2012, 11:20 PM
Like I said, I'm for federal regulations in certain instances (slavery, civil rights, commerce and labor regulations, etc....powers already delegated by the US Constitution).

I am not for federal regulations on things like drug laws, same sex marriage, abortion...where federal law trumps state law. Or do you want the 10th amendment struck down as well? Should individual states not have a right to their own laws anymore, period? When the federal gun bans were lifted, I'm sure you were still glad that CA had strict gun laws. What if federal law trumped all that, meaning that CA no longer had the right to pass it's own gun regulations? I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

That's what I mean by being for states rights.

I guess my point is that we focus too much on states vs. Feds in this country. How do other countries get around this? Individual liberties shouldn't depend on those sort of tensions. Way too often all levels of government are in agreement.

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 11:26 PM
Jane, you ignorant $lut...

Dan, you pompous ass. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. :flap:

SteelCityMom
12-20-2012, 11:34 PM
I guess my point is that we focus too much on states vs. Feds in this country. How do other countries get around this? Individual liberties shouldn't depend on those sort of tensions. Way too often all levels of government are in agreement.

Well, unless you're 'murrica. :chuckle: Seems to me some states don't seem to agree with the federal gov't on things like marijuana laws, marriage laws, gun laws, abortion laws, etc.

Other countries don't have Constitutions defining individual states rights? That'd be my guess.

Like I said, I (usually) agree with federal laws when they are powers delegated to them by the Constitution...but that's where it ends for me.

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2012, 11:39 PM
Dan, you pompous ass. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. :flap:

Harsh words :mad:

I am putting you on my ignore list until sunrise tomorrow

JPPT1974
12-22-2012, 08:50 PM
It is about using the guns responsibly. As it isn't the guns themselves. But the people using them. As you have to be very careful. And really lock up guns or take out the bullets or the cartlidges out.
To make sure that it is a safety issue. That they are hidden out of view. Hiding them in a place where nobody will find them at all.
Where young children can mistake it for a toy. When it is really not.
It is about safety and about not using them for foolish gain. Plus using them in a responsible way.
Even though I am terrified of any kind of weapons no matter what kind of gun. Even a toy gun freaks me out!

ricardisimo
12-24-2012, 01:52 AM
It is about using the guns responsibly. As it isn't the guns themselves. But the people using them. As you have to be very careful. And really lock up guns or take out the bullets or the cartlidges out.
To make sure that it is a safety issue. That they are hidden out of view. Hiding them in a place where nobody will find them at all.
Where young children can mistake it for a toy. When it is really not.
It is about safety and about not using them for foolish gain. Plus using them in a responsible way.
Even though I am terrified of any kind of weapons no matter what kind of gun. Even a toy gun freaks me out!
I agree. I think we should take the bullets out and hide all of the guns in a deep hole in the ground, preferably on another planet. Then kids will understand that they are not toys.

I'm also curious why Vinny isn't here talking about how all of these almost exclusively white, Christian men committing these atrocities are sub-humans, and posting pseudo-scientific links to back up his claims.

MACH1
12-24-2012, 11:40 AM
Stole this from SCM.

FgrIsuO5PLc

MasterOfPuppets
12-28-2012, 12:26 AM
Stole this from SCM.

FgrIsuO5PLc
the last 10 seconds pretty much sums up the video when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and gun control....my sig sums up the rest.

SteelCityMom
12-28-2012, 01:22 AM
A very, very good read. It is pro-gun rights...but anyone who is anti-gun rights should be prepared to intelligently debate all of these points. Most people who are anti-gun rights simply don't know anything about guns. This blog post distinguishes why. It's a bit long, but well worth the read. If you don't have an intelligent point against any of these statements, you don't have any business debating the topic at all.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

ricardisimo
12-28-2012, 04:41 AM
A very, very good read. It is pro-gun rights...but anyone who is anti-gun rights should be prepared to intelligently debate all of these points. Most people who are anti-gun rights simply don't know anything about guns. This blog post distinguishes why. It's a bit long, but well worth the read. If you don't have an intelligent point against any of these statements, you don't have any business debating the topic at all.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
I resemble that remark, Mom. :mad:

MasterOfPuppets
12-28-2012, 03:38 PM
I resemble that remark, Mom. :mad:
:chuckle:
http://dawkinsdouche.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/8516admitting-you-re-an-asshole-posters.jpg

MACH1
12-31-2012, 06:55 PM
7mh_vXH5WFU&feature

BrandonCarr39
01-09-2013, 01:16 AM
nmnmnm

BrandonCarr39
01-09-2013, 03:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYGEdJEi_g

BrandonCarr39
01-10-2013, 01:45 AM
Mass shooters and meds. What they all have in common.
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 - 10:15am
Nicole Vowell
ketknbc.com video (http://www.ketknbc.com/news/mass-shooters-and-meds-what-they-all-have-in-commo)

By now the entire country is involved in the gun control debate, but guns may not be the issue. With the string of recent mass shootings in our country, all of those shooters had something in common, and it was more than just holding a fire arm in their hand.

It could be that many shooters who go on mass killing sprees are misusing prescription medications, such as anti-psychotics.

Dr. Joseph Arisco, a private practice Psychiatrist in Tyler tells us, "Anti-psychotic medicine is the most potent medicine that psychiatrists use."

And according to professionals, like Dr. David Davis, Pharmacist; sometimes he says, "The side effects are more detrimental than the benefits of taking the medications."

These mass shooters in America were all reportedly taking some heavy duty anti-psychotics or other medications during or right before their killing sprees.

Aurora, Colorado killer, James Holmes, was reportedly taking a form of Prozac.

Adam Lanza, who was responsible for taking innocent children's lives at sandy hook elementary in Connecticut, was reportedly taking a controversial anti-psychotic medicine called “Fantapt.”

Even looking back to 1999 one of the shooters, Eric Harris, who was involved in taking a countless number of lives at Columbine High School was allegedly taking a heavy pharmaceutical called “Luvox.”

According to Davis, in some cases these meds can induce aggressive behavior rather than inhibit it, Davis says, "In some cases, yes anger, aggression combativeness those type of things increase in those types of patients."

The culprit to these mass shooting massacres is yet to be determined. Some think its guns; some think it's the lack of medicine for mental illness. But you can't rule out heavy prescription side effects as a possible cause of behavioral changes especially if taken improperly. Dr. Arisco says, “Anti-psychotics do not cause psychosis and do not cause people to become more psychotic. Now could that happen while you're taking those medicines of course it could."

Both Doctors Davis, and Arisco say, your mental health is important. Taking the right dosage of medicine is important and consulting with your doctor regularly while on medications like anti-psychotics is the best way to control, inhibit and reduce any adverse side effects.

BrandonCarr39
01-10-2013, 11:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6VKe2bNDkE

BrandonCarr39
01-28-2013, 09:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/background-checks-peak-week-conn-shooting-215045463.html

1/28/13

Background checks peak in week after Conn shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI said Monday it conducted more background checks for firearms sales and permits to carry guns the week following the Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre that it has in any other one-week period since 1998.

The second highest week for background checks came earlier this month as President Barack Obama announced sweeping plans to curb gun violence. The FBI started keeping track of federally mandated background checks in 1998.

The newly released FBI data confirms what many gun dealers around the country have said about sales going up after the deadly Connecticut shooting that left 27 dead, including 20 children, as gun enthusiasts braced for stricter controls. The number of background checks does not represent the number of firearms purchased, but gun manufacturers use these statistics to measure the health of the gun industry in the U.S.

After the Dec. 14 shooting at a Newtown elementary school, the FBI conducted 953,613 background checks between Dec. 17 and Dec. 23. The highest number of background checks in a single day since 1998 was Dec. 21, just one week after a gunman shot and killed his mother at their Connecticut home using weapons his mother had legally purchased before he drove to the school and shot his way into the building. The second highest day for background checks was December 20.

During the week that Obama announced his plans to curb gun violence, the FBI conducted 641,501 background checks. The 10th highest single day for background checks came Jan. 19, three days after Obama spoke about gun violence and new gun control measures. Obama has announced a $500 million plan to tighten federal gun laws, and he is urging Congress to pass new laws that would ban "military-style assault weapons."
Nationally, there were nearly twice as many more background checks for firearms between November and December 2012 than during the same time period one year ago.

Background checks typically spike during the holiday shopping season, and some of the increases in the most recent FBI numbers can be attributed to that. But the number of background checks also tends to increase after mass shootings, when gun enthusiasts fear restrictive measures are imminent.

One gun store owner in Nashville, Tenn., said people in the business are calling this rush to buy guns after the Newton shooting a "banic," meaning people are panicked that Obama would ban guns.