Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12


missytootsweet

Recommended Posts

Dandu,

As I stated in that earlier post I was "on the fence" as far as the success of smaller clips reducing the mass killings - after watching a smegment on ABC news, where a firearm dealer replaced a 10 round clip and recocked the AR-15 he had in less than 5 seconds - that solidified my point that it wouldn't help much. The nut job who wanted to kill lots of people would simply carry multiple clips - like the Columbine killer did!

Ask the people at the Gabby Giffords shooting if it helped. That shooter was taken down (by unarmed civilians) as he tried to reload. I find the argument that "because an expert can change a clip in 5 seconds in a controlled environment we should allow people to have clips as big as possible" utterly absurd. Worst case, that is 5 seconds where a person can run away.

I think there are too many guns in the wrong hands here in the US. But as I stated in the earlier post, banning private ownership of guns ain't gonna happen - even if authorities went door to door. i have 5 firearms in my house, none of them are registered (not required when they were purchased or inherited), so the government wouldn't know I even had them! If it was mandatory to register ANY gun in private ownership, law-abiding citizens would probably do it, but the nut cases and criminals wouldn't. so what would that solve?

Let me get this straight. The argument is there are so many guns out there we should do nothing about it because it will be too difficult? Again, hardly convincing.

You neglected to mention my recommendation of dealing with the mental issues of those committing these crimes.

I didn't neglect it. I asked what restrictions you would put on the second amendment. Dealing with mental issues is separate. Denying gun access to those with mental health issues would be a limit, but based on your logic above those "nut cases" will find a way to get their hands on them so that wouldn't really help. Right? Accordingly shouldn't we take steps to limit the number of guns out there to reduce the chances that they will end up in the hands of "nut cases"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leather,

If I get a chance I will respond to your other points later today. But for now let me deal with your last paragraph.

Our constitution is not your concern.

How do you know?

Type0, Steve Jones and Stryder1978 have already repeatedly answered your questions as clearly as can be answered, But still you and a few other non-Americans continue to scoff at the Supreme court decisions which have been made which uphold the definition of individual gun owner rights under the 2nd Amendment. On that issue it's not up for debate anymore than the supreme court decision which defined abortion laws. it is what it is. You may not like it, our own President might not even like it. But for you to say it was just a political hack job (United States vs. Heller) is insulting. When the referee makes the call, you live with the decision.

I can live with the decision but do I have to blindly accept it as correct?

Besides its a bit of a backwards argument for you to make no? I thought the whole point of the second amendment is when the referee makes a decision based upon something other than the rules of the game, the players don't have to live with it. Isn't that why you took a run at my country earlier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple stories that don't get much coverage, since they don't follow the gun control mania the media is peddling behind the Newtown tragedy.

For everyone who says more people being armed wouldn't make a difference -

Just yesterday - movie theater shooter is shot by off-duty cop.

http://www.theblaze....ith-one-bullet/

Oregon Mall shooting - 3 days before Newtown.

Not much mention of this part - shooter was drawn on by a conceal-carry permit owner, and retreated into stairwell and shot himself.

http://www.infowars....-mall-shooting/

Pearl, MS shooting in 1999 - Principal retrieved his .45 from his car and stopped the shooter from escaping.

http://www.davekopel...incipal&gun.htm

In the book "Private Guns, Public Health", there are examples where UNARMED individuals prevented further damage from a shooter. Specifically Moses Lake, West Paducah and Springfield Oregon.

Typical of people to only post the things that support THEIR view and conveniently ignore evidence that supports a view they do not support.

Just sayin......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask the people at the Gabby Giffords shooting if it helped. That shooter was taken down (by unarmed civilians) as he tried to reload. I find the argument that "because an expert can change a clip in 5 seconds in a controlled environment we should allow people to have clips as big as possible" utterly absurd. Worst case, that is 5 seconds where a person can run away.

First of all, it's called a magazine. It's NOT a "clip". But what is absurd is the belief that a criminal isn't going to just obtain a larger capacity magazine at will anyway. So then for whom is the restriction affecting? It is a useless law designed to make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the equation. Therfore the ONLY people affected by the regulation are law abiding citizens who are forced to dance around these "absurd" restrictions for fear of being charged with a felony gun violation.

Let me get this straight. The argument is there are so many guns out there we should do nothing about it because it will be too difficult? Again, hardly convincing.

No, the argument is that unless you go after the criminals and the people with mental illness, you aren't going to accomplish anything anyway. Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that there are already thousands of gun laws and yet criminals and nuts are still able to do as they will? After the Dunblane shooting in the UK that nation outlawed ALL handguns, but that still didn't prevent some nut a few years later from using a legally owned shotgun and rifle and going out and killing bunch of people.

It doesn't work and then there is also that tricky little thing which you refuse to accept which a constitutional right to own a gun. At least be honest and just say you want to take away people's right to own all guns. Because that is really your only logical argument based on your irrational fears of big magazines and other scary looking and sounding things.

I asked what restrictions you would put on the second amendment. Dealing with mental issues is separate. Denying gun access to those with mental health issues would be a limit, but based on your logic above those "nut cases" will find a way to get their hands on them so that wouldn't really help. Right? Accordingly shouldn't we take steps to limit the number of guns out there to reduce the chances that they will end up in the hands of "nut cases"?

No. Because your goal is actually to reduce the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who have a right to own them.

You continue to make a false argument that the mental health issue is a separate issue. In all of the cases you sighted it is the ONLY issue in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can live with the decision but do I have to blindly accept it as correct?

If I had to guess, you WILL live with the decision [United States vs Heller] the same way you live with Brown vs. Board of Education.

Does democracy work some other way in Canada that I'm not aware of? Is it a universal condition of those on the left to believe that they can "wish" things into existence just because they want it? The decision on the 2nd Amendment stands.

I can live with the decision but do I have to blindly accept it as correct?

Besides its a bit of a backwards argument for you to make no? I thought the whole point of the second amendment is when the referee makes a decision based upon something other than the rules of the game, the players don't have to live with it. Isn't that why you took a run at my country earlier?

I didn't take a run at your country. I made an observation on the nature of the point of view by many non-Americans, especially Canadians. You liked being part of Britain and we hated it. We wrote our own constitution to suit our needs and to protect what we valued because of the abuses in power that your country seemed to be okay with.

I was only making an observation on why you and I will never see this issue the same way. Our political DNA is very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it's called a magazine. It's NOT a "clip".

Sorry. I was using the words used by the original poster. As I understand it he owns five guns. I thought he would know the right terminology.

But what is absurd is the belief that a criminal isn't going to just obtain a larger capacity magazine at will anyway. So then for whom is the restriction affecting? It is a useless law designed to make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the equation. Therefore the ONLY people affected by the regulation are law abiding citizens who are forced to dance around these "absurd" restrictions for fear of being charged with a felony gun violation.

So why have laws against insider trading? The crooks are going to do it anyway. Why ban abortion? People will find a way. Why have any laws at all??? They only restict the law abiding among us.

Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that there are already thousands of gun laws and yet criminals and nuts are still able to do as they will?

Because the gun laws are not stringent enough. There are 300,000,000 guns in America. With numbers like that access is too easy for criminals and "nuts".

After the Dunblane shooting in the UK that nation outlawed ALL handguns, but that still didn't prevent some nut a few years later from using a legally owned shotgun and rifle and going out and killing bunch of people.

You are not seriously comparing gun murder rates in the UK to those in the US are you? Yes, people still kill with legal and illegal guns, but it happens a lot less in the UK than in the US per capita or otherwise. I would say that is a success wouldn't you?

It doesn't work and then there is also that tricky little thing which you refuse to accept which a constitutional right to own a gun. At least be honest and just say you want to take away people's right to own all guns. Because that is really your only logical argument based on your irrational fears of big magazines and other scary looking and sounding things.

I would have no issue with a ban on all guns. I am trying to find the middle ground that gun owners would agree to and the constitution would support.

As for "irrational fears", tell that to the parents in Connecticut.

No. Because your goal is actually to reduce the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who have a right to own them.

My goal, if I have one, is to reduce the number of guns. I am less concerned about who they belong to. Presumably the shooter's mother was a law abiding citizen. Her guns were used to commit a crime - and to kill her.

You continue to make a false argument that the mental health issue is a separate issue. In all of the cases you sighted it is the ONLY issue in my opinion.

The vast majority of gun murders in the US are not committed by the insane. Regardless, I agree that the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns. What happens if a person becomes mentally ill after having legally obtained an assault rifle? How do you police that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book "Private Guns, Public Health", there are examples where UNARMED individuals prevented further damage from a shooter. Specifically Moses Lake, West Paducah and Springfield Oregon.

Typical of people to only post the things that support THEIR view and conveniently ignore evidence that supports a view they do not support.

Just sayin......

Where, exactly, did I say or suggest unarmed people can't do anything?

My post was a rebuttal to the claim that more people with guns doesn't help, they probably couldn't make a difference, it's different in the real world than just practicing on a range, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, you WILL live with the decision [United States vs Heller] the same way you live with Brown vs. Board of Education.

Funny you should pick Brown vs. Board. It underscores my point as it overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson. People lived with Plessy, but they didn't stop fighting it.

Does democracy work some other way in Canada that I'm not aware of? Is it a universal condition of those on the left to believe that they can "wish" things into existence just because they want it? The decision on the 2nd Amendment stands.

Nope. Democracy works just the same in Canada. We abide by the rules that are set, but we still have the right to critique them. Is that not a right in America?

I was only making an observation on why you and I will never see this issue the same way. Our political DNA is very different.

Lots of Americans agree with me. In a recent poll 52% said they would be in favour of banning guns. So it can't just be a function of geography.

The number of Americans who favor major restrictions or an outright ban has typically hovered just under the 50% mark in recent years; now that number is just over 50%. According to the poll 52% say they favor major restrictions on guns or making all guns illegal. That's a five point rise from a CNN survey conducted in early August, following the mass shooting in July at a movie theater in suburban Denver, Colorado that left 12 dead, and shootings two weeks later at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where six people were killed. The five point rise is within the poll's sampling error.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/cnn-poll-bare-majority-now-support-major-gun-restrictions/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leather - as promised:

My point was in response to your comment that semi-automatic rifles would be of no use against the United States Military. While it is certain that it could "make a parking lot" anywhere it wishes. History also tells us that an armed resistance can also be a bit of a tricky bitch for an occupying nation. The 2nd Amendment at least provides a fighting chance, or in another way puts the government on notice that there could always be a fighting chance out there.

Not really worth continuing this debate, but engaging in a fire fight with the US military is a good way to get killed. The "armed resistance" seem to be much more successful with RPG's and IED's. I assume you don’t think those should be legal.

Why did the government not elect to restrict rifles which were far more accurate than muskets as they were developed? Why didn't they restrict breech loading rifles, repeating rifles and revolvers as the technology evolved to more efficient firearms?

Presumably because gun crime had not gotten so far out of control that tens of thousands of innocent people were being killed on an annual basis.

And besides, I would really like to hear your explanation of how a semi-automatic hunting rifle is any different that a military "style" semi-automatic rifle? Just because of the scary name someone gave it? Just because of the way it looks?

They are not different. There is no need for any person other than law enforcement or the military to own either one of them.

If all you and others are going to offer is some new 'feel good' legislation, then you are just blowing hot air. It's up to you to come up with something more logical than what you are offering, if you are going to convince people who actually know a thing or two about guns. Because all you end up doing is sounding ridiculous to us. Because we know that there many, many more guns that can still accomplish the very same results. At some point you have to consider that you are being manipulated by politicians seeking only to secure their own political seats by playing to the masses of uninformed voters looking for quick (feel good) answers..

I don't want a feel good answer. I want the killing of innocent people to stop. If that means something more drastic than what is currently being suggested, I am in favour of that. I'm sorry if that sounds ridiculous to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, confession time.

I got home and logged on and realized, "why am I arguing with 2 or 3 guys at the same time?"

I know the feeling!! :D

Good thing I'm off the rest of the year - today was my final day until after New Year's.

Enjoy your holiday! I, on the other hand, must get back to work!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two seconds after a state attempts to secede from the union.

You are joking, right? There have been ample examples for reasons to ban at least all assault riffles made in this thread. A stringent psychological test to question anyone who feels the need to have one seems a good place to start IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I was using the words used by the original poster. As I understand it he owns five guns. I thought he would know the right terminology.

Just out of curiosity, do you own guns, or do you have any experience with them? Not trying to be nosey, but please help me understand your point of view? Because on this end it seems as if you have an irrational fear not only of guns, but also people's ability to own them responsibly.

So why have laws against insider trading? The crooks are going to do it anyway. Why ban abortion? People will find a way. Why have any laws at all??? They only restict the law abiding among us.

Thousands of children die every year in automobiles, so why are you against banning cars? Don't you care about the children who are dying? Do you deny that banning cars will save children's lives?

See, I can play the same fallacious argument game you do.

Because the gun laws are not stringent enough. There are 300,000,000 guns in America. With numbers like that access is too easy for criminals and "nuts".

I don't know where you get the notion that the gun laws are not stringent enough? But it doesn't matter because the gun didn't commit the crime, so the cause had to be something else. If there are 300 million guns in the United States then you have to conclude that these incidents are extremely rare then wouldn't you? That Americans are actually very law abiding citizens.

You are not seriously comparing gun murder rates in the UK to those in the US are you? Yes, people still kill with legal and illegal guns, but it happens a lot less in the UK than in the US per capita or otherwise. I would say that is a success wouldn't you?

I believe that the murder and gun violence rates in Switzerland is even a better success, wouldn't you agree? The Swiss are HEAVILY armed and seem to avoid the varying degrees of violence that the United States or even your country have. Therefore, given the fact that guns are never going to be erradicated from American life and culture; and because they are guaranteed constitutional right; why aren't you interested in finding out why/how America can be more like the Swiss experience with guns?

I would have no issue with a ban on all guns. I am trying to find the middle ground that gun owners would agree to and the constitution would support.

I will agree to more stringent controls on mentally distrurbed people. Unfortunatly due to more recent lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union it is far more difficult for even family members to have mentally ill people committed to hospitals for evaluation. In this misguided effort to correct the abuses of a century ago. We have basically filled our cities with crazy people who nobody knows how to deal with.

How about something like the federal 'no fly list' we use at airports for anyone who has been treated for mental illness? Make the list available to local police, schools, and every gun dealer to help identify potential risks? But that would mean you would need to profile people I suppose. That is one idea.

I also have no problem with requiring additional training for people who decide to purchase a gun. Not just a 4 hour lecture on safety, but something a bit more comprehensive. Actual hands on tactical experience on a range with an expert. I have always advocated this and the NRA has always been a great resource finding quality firearms instructors.

Just a week or so ago a gun owner accidentally killed his own son when he mishandled his handgun in a car and it fired. Really stupid, and is not supposed to ever happen. And I don't know what this man's experience with guns was, but he failed to follow the most basic rule of guns which is ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. I for one don't believe that there should be an accidental discharge resulting in death anymore than there should be an accidental launch of a nuclear missle. I personally take gun ownership very seriously as most of the gun owners I know. Yet out on the gun range I see people doing stupid things from time to time and I end up having to "give them some friendly advise" to put it nicely.

Some gun owners can be just as stupid as some drivers. And it sounds like the mother of the kid who did this shooting was pretty stupid if she already suspected her son of having mental issues but didn't do enough to secure her guns from him.

I have no problem with additional education and training requirments....why not? Does that qualify as "middle ground" to you, or were you thinking more about taking guns away from people like me as "middle ground"?

As for "irrational fears", tell that to the parents in Connecticut.

I can appreciate it if these parents are experiencing many questions in their state of grief. I am making no judgement on them in view of what happened. However, I really resent the fact that there are people exploiting these families and this situation in order persue their anti-gun goals.

My goal, if I have one, is to reduce the number of guns. I am less concerned about who they belong to. Presumably the shooter's mother was a law abiding citizen. Her guns were used to commit a crime - and to kill her.

Do you have any statistics on how many people use a gun to stop or prevent a crime? How many women who are not raped because the are armed? The numbers are actually very significant.

My goal is to increase the number of guns available for law abiding citizens, and enforce the laws we already have to keep them out of the hands of those who are not entitled to have them.

The vast majority of gun murders in the US are not committed by the insane. Regardless, I agree that the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns. What happens if a person becomes mentally ill after having legally obtained an assault rifle? How do you police that?

You can't fix the whole world friend. You are over thinking this.

In 2009 an Army Major at Fort Hood military base in Texas (a psychiatrist in fact),decided to kill 13 fellow soldiers. Wether you understand it or not, military bases have STRICT regulations on all firearms. Who has them, where and how they are secured, and very limited situations where people even have permission to have one.

If these things can happen in those kinds of closely controlled enviroments, they can happen anywhere. You need to accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are joking, right? There have been ample examples for reasons to ban at least all assault riffles made in this thread. A stringent psychological test to question anyone who feels the need to have one seems a good place to start IMO.

Did that make you feel better to say that?

Timothy McVeigh killed more people with fertilizer and a rental truck than any 10 of these spree shooters combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where, exactly, did I say or suggest unarmed people can't do anything?

My post was a rebuttal to the claim that more people with guns doesn't help, they probably couldn't make a difference, it's different in the real world than just practicing on a range, etc.

Since you didn't reference any previous post in the post of yours i quoted, it looked like you just made a random post in favor of armed citizenry. To which i offered other situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dandu,

In the Arizona shooting, Loughner had a 9mm pistol with a 33 round magazine. HAD HE NOT DROPPED THE SECOND MAGAZINE WHILE RELOADING - he would have had that gun reloaded and continued firing. So whether he had a 30 round clip or 3 10 round clips, it wouldn't have made much difference accept his bad luck (and the victims good luck that he dropped one) You watch WAY too much TV if you think 5 seconds is enough time for a person to look at the shotter to see if they are reloading or simply stopped firing, look for a safe place and run out of firing range.Usain Bolt caouldn't run that fast! And had it not been for an ex-military guy who happened to be at the event and knew enough about guns that he was able to tackle Loghner, the carnage would have continued.

I never said there were too many guns so we should do nothing - reading is fundamental! I'm saying the books are already loaded with local, State and federal laws on guns - that the criminals and nut jobs already ignore. You state yourself that there are 300,000,000 guns in the US - how many of those are involved in mass shottings per year. Americans are NOT ready to give up their constitutional right to own a private firearm because out of those 300,000,000 guns abut 15 guns each year are involved in a mass shooting.

BTW, I've yet to read ANY rational solutions proposed by you on this matter, unless you are in the "Get rid of all guns" camp....which is a ridiculous argument.

And finally, you asked what I suggested as a means to stop th emass killings, not what my thoughts are on gun control. Thus my suggestions included more security measures at soft targets, "ground marshalls" and most importantly recognizing and dealing with the mentally unstable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadecatcher,

I'll post this one more time about assualt rifles. Which of these is an assualt rifle?

WRONG! They are the SAME rifle! The top gun has been changed using a conversion kit. They added a folding stock, a metal body casing, a suppressor on the barrel, a tripod and scope, a pistol grip and a larger magazine. Other than having a larger capacity magazine, it is the SAME WEAPON - same fire power, both semi-automatics, same velocity and same ammunition! The bill currently proposed by Dianne Fienstein is the same one that was passed in 1994 - which basically addresses only cosmetic changes to a firearm and in no way changes the lethality! During that assault ban period, we had the Columbine massacre and the DC Sniper shootings. An "assault rifle" is the same as a "hunting rifle"...except it LOOKS scarier! Banning them didn't stop the school massacre in 1999 and it won't stop school shootings today if it is passed. It is "feel good" legislation only!

post-1944-0-80263700-1356037268_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about guns makes me feel good.

Unless of course one saved your life or that of your children I would certainly hope?

So if a police officer could have shot and killed that crazed gunman last week before he killed 26 innocent people, you would protest that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll post this one more time about assualt rifles. Which of these is an assualt rifle?

Great information Stryder!

I'll add this video of a Browning semi-automatic (autoloading) HUNTING rifle for those who don't understand what you are talking about in terms of what these guns do. The technology of these hunting rifles is no different than the technology of the riles people like to call "assault rifles". No difference whatsoever other than the way they look or the size of the magazine (the thingy that holds the bullets) which can always be altered or changed even if it is done illegally. Because we all realize that criminals don't obey laws.

Now here is a rifle that is classified as an "assault rifle". It actually has less bullet velocity (power) than the above hunting rifle, but it is somehow considered by the anti-gun people more dangerous because it LOOKS LIKE a miltiary rifle. Note: it is NOT a miltary rifle because it is not fully automatic (like a machine gun). Just like the hunting rifle you have to sqeeze off each shot individually.

So how about that? Did you watch both videos Dandu?

Ok now wrap your head around this for a moment if you will. The 2nd video of the Ruger Mini-14 assault rifle is only an "assault rifle" in some states because of the 20 round magazine that was being used. But guess what? You can still own that exact same rifle with a 10 round magazine and then it's somehow not an "assault rifle" anymore?

So tell me how that makes any sense, because we can all see for ourself that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless of course one saved your life or that of your children I would certainly hope?

So if a police officer could have shot and killed that crazed gunman last week before he killed 26 innocent people, you would protest that as well?

Just to clarify my opinion, I don't believe the general population should own/carry firearms. For any reason. At all. Perhaps I should have described assault weapons as automatic weapons. Police and military are trained and armed and can dispense firepower if warranted. There are times when a mentally disturbed person can be talked down instead of shot dead. There is the possibility of shooting an innocent in a panic. When a member of the public takes the initiative to react with a gun in the name of taking down a shooter or saving someone they can injure or kill innocent people or get killed because they are not trained as the cops are to handle those situations. There is no easy answer to the problem of unstable people with guns and I'm well aware not every gun owner is an unstable person. But if guns were not available at least some of the fatal violence that occurs would be avoided. The same day as the CT murders, children in China also faced a potential murderer. But he had a knife. Those children will survive. Too many incidents of accidental shootings to make me feel that gun ownership is a wise step. In my opinion only, real men do not carry guns unless it is required by their job. They have the capacity to think their way out of most threatening situations. Love guns excepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...