Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12

[ledded1]

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.

Oh you have set yourself up for some shit now cos the real men around here need their penis extensions to feel good about themselves. I would hazard a guess some couldn't talk themselves out of a Macdonalds visit. Pump action love guns a necessity.

[jabe]

Oh you have set yourself up for some shit now cos the real men around here need their penis extensions to feel good about themselves. I would hazard a guess some couldn't talk themselves out of a Macdonalds visit. Pump action love guns a necessity.

What about the dudes packing a snub nose or a derringer?

[redrum]

Americans with guns! It's the reason Russia never attacked us. (Watch 'The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!')

Now China may be a different story. All the more reason to arm everyone! :^)

[ledded1]

Americans with guns! It's the reason Russia never attacked us. (Watch 'The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!')

Now China may be a different story. All the more reason to arm everyone! :^)

Nukes vs hand guns, only one winner. Plus some may already be in the US working in the restaurants waiting for the go ahead.

[redrum]

Plus some may already be in the US working in the restaurants waiting for the go ahead.

I'll be armed when we go to the Thai restaurant tomorrow night.

[ledded1]

I'll be armed when we go to the Thai restaurant tomorrow night.

Their green curry can blow your head off.

[Stryder1978]

Shadecatcher,

Sounds like you are opposed to hunting as well....and probably the Olympic sports of biathalon and target shooting. Both involve "real men" with guns!

The typical ,mass shooting lasts 10-12 minutes....and ends WAYYYYY before first responders (the only people you approve of having guns) arrive on the scene.

You can "what if" till the cows come home, but let's look at reality. Maniacs are killing innocent people with the weapon of their choice NOW. We can't wave a magic wand and make those evil guns go away.....so what is your solution?

[redrum]

Their green curry can blow your head off.

We like the chicken/spinach with peanut sauce and brown rice. Yum!!

[Leather Apron]

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.

So let me get this straight: You believe that ONLY the police or the military are trained enough to protect themselves and others with a firearm? You could't not be more wrong in that. Do you also believe that only a fireman can put out a fire too?

A gun is just a tool like any other tool. There isn't some magic quality to it that only some mystic can figure out. You obviously iive a sheltered life void of any real world experiences to support your opinions.

And where in goodness sakes did you get the idea that a knife can't kill someone? Just because thankfully nobody died in that Chinese knife attack does not mean a knife is not a serious threat.

[Shadecatcher]

In the end it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks. What matters is what steps are going to be taken to address future school (or other) shootings.

I don't personally involve myself in hunting but hunting and target shooting are sports and regulated.

Bottom line if whatshisname in CT didn't have access to a gun last Friday, 27 people would most likely be alive today.

And on that note, gentlemen, let us agree to disagree.

[Leather Apron]

In the end it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks. What matters is what steps are going to be taken to address future school (or other) shootings.

Hopefully they are the correct steps which should deal with figuring out a profile for these types of offenders before they act, and not just more senseless feel good anti-gun laws which haven't worked, and which did not work in this instance.

Bottom line if whatshisname in CT didn't have access to a gun last Friday, 27 people would most likely be alive today.

Bingo!!! Exactly, if "what's his name didn't have access" not if everyone didn't have access.

Finally we agree on one thing.

[TypeO]

I only hope you or anyone you know doesn't have to "talk" their way out of a home invasion.

That's when I want a .45 to speak for me and my family.

(null)

[Leather Apron]

Americans with guns! It's the reason Russia never attacked us. (Watch 'The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!')

Now China may be a different story. All the more reason to arm everyone! :^)

Americans with guns is why Russia never attacked Canada in my humble opinion.

[fishhead]

Americans with guns is why Russia never attacked Canada in my humble opinion.

....I may have missed something.....why/when was Russia going to attack Canada?

[Reggie29]

Hopefully they are the correct steps which should deal with figuring out a profile for these types of offenders before they act, and not just more senseless feel good anti-gun laws which haven't worked, and which did not work in this instance.

Profiling is a good step but it would only work if and when ALL current and potential gun owners underwent a psychological evaluation.

What if legislation was passed through Congress and if any of you here took and failed an assessment and had your licence(s) cancelled and were ordered to surrender your guns, what would you do supposing that if you didn't co-operate it would be deemed a criminal act?

As for the criminals getting guns, they will always get them one way or another and certainly not via legal means just the same as vehicles that are stolen and used in crimes.

That would be impossible to stop completely.

[Babs]

Americans with guns is why Russia never attacked Canada in my humble opinion.

Hey! Leave us out of it

[Leather Apron]

....I may have missed something.....why/when was Russia going to attack Canada?

The great maple syrup famine of 1927

[Babs]

The great maple syrup famine of 1927

Well youse guys took all our comedians!

We'll let you keep 'The Beebs'. He's on the house.

[Stryder1978]

Shadecatcher,

"Bottom line if whatshisname in CT didn't have access to a gun last Friday, 27 people would most likely be alive today."

WRONG! For whatever reason this nut job was going to kill - either out of some revenge thing, wanting to be famous, being ostracized from society, mental issues, whatever. He PLANNED this, it wasn't a spur of the moment rage thing. IF he didn't have access to Mom's guns, he could have easily sat outside the school in an SUV, waited till the kids filled the street when school let out - and run them down....killing just as many as he did with the guns! He could have gone in with a machete and hacked them to bits like most were killed in Rwanda in 1994. Hell, he could have gone in with an aluminum bat and killed 20 kids!

I agree with Leather Apron that you live a sheltered life. I've been in war zones in the DRC, Indonesia and Myanmar to name a few. I have seen death close up and faced it myself on two occasions. So unless you are willing to provide meaningful solutions to the problem, I suggest you find another thread to chat on.

[fishhead]

The great maple syrup famine of 1927

oh yeah, forgot that one....

[Dandu]

Sorry leather, have been working all day and night so am way behind on this thread. I have an early day tomorrow so I have to get to bed, but I will answer your question as to whether I have ever used a gun.

I have used a gun only once that I can remember. A relative in California took me to a shooting range. I believe I fired a Ruger 9mm. Does that make sense? It was 15 years ago.

I hated every second of it. I didn't like holding a gun. I was constantly afraid of firing it accidentally. I also hated discharging it. The power of it didn't sit well with me. I was keenly aware that if I was holding something with the power to end a life. I didn't like that. Sorry if that makes me a wimp.

[TypeO]

Profiling is a good step but it would only work if and when ALL current and potential gun owners underwent a psychological evaluation.

What if legislation was passed through Congress and if any of you here took and failed an assessment and had your licence(s) cancelled and were ordered to surrender your guns, what would you do supposing that if you didn't co-operate it would be deemed a criminal act?

How would you feel about being required to submit your DNA to a national database of DNA in order to help prevent crime?

Would you be OK with that, or consider that an infringement on your privacy?

Just curious.

As for the criminals getting guns, they will always get them one way or another and certainly not via legal means just the same as vehicles that are stolen and used in crimes.

That would be impossible to stop completely.

This is the very essence of the flaw of increasing gun control laws.

Here you are entirely OK with increasing the difficulty for law-abiding citizens to own and keep their guns on the one hand, while acknowledging the futility of ever hoping to keep criminals from obtaining guns on the other.

Why are you (and others) OK with making it harder for lawful citizens to have guns while giving criminals free reign?

The prevailing sentiment seems to be "we need to go after all these nut-job gun owners, because criminals are going to get guns no matter what."

Everyone seems to dismiss the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners have no incidents whatsoever while focusing obsessively on the infinitesimal amount of misuse and crimes committed with their guns.

And the most incredible part of all is everyone is taking the lead on the knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy from an administration who gave thousands of FULL AUTOMATIC weapons - TRUE assault weapons - to illegal Mexican drug cartels that ended up being used in the murders of numerous innocent civilians as well as Border patrol agent Brian Terry.

It would seem the same people who are so gung-ho to go after guns are oddly silent on the Obama Administration's incredibly poor decision-making regarding who should be in possession of assault weapons.

[Sagittarius Rising]

Shadecatcher,

"Bottom line if whatshisname in CT didn't have access to a gun last Friday, 27 people would most likely be alive today."

WRONG! For whatever reason this nut job was going to kill - either out of some revenge thing, wanting to be famous, being ostracized from society, mental issues, whatever. He PLANNED this, it wasn't a spur of the moment rage thing. IF he didn't have access to Mom's guns, he could have easily sat outside the school in an SUV, waited till the kids filled the street when school let out - and run them down....killing just as many as he did with the guns! He could have gone in with a machete and hacked them to bits like most were killed in Rwanda in 1994. Hell, he could have gone in with an aluminum bat and killed 20 kids!

I agree with Leather Apron that you live a sheltered life. I've been in war zones in the DRC, Indonesia and Myanmar to name a few. I have seen death close up and faced it myself on two occasions. So unless you are willing to provide meaningful solutions to the problem, I suggest you find another thread to chat on.

Nice post, ignorant and fearful, but nice. I have one simple question for you if you can handle it: Tell me who outside of law enforcement and the military needs an assault rifle or an extended capacity magazine? Don't get me wrong, I am not against responsible gun ownership (I have a combat shotgun in my home for home defense), but assault weapons have no purpose except to kill humans in mass quantities, that is why they were developed for the military in the first place. Also, no one should be allowed to carry ANY weapon in public except law enforcement. Anyone who feels the need to carry in public is either suffering from paranoia or low self esteem from having a small dick and feeling the need to compensate.

I have not carried a weapon since leaving the service and I never will because I am a realist. If a shooting does occur and you have a gun the first instinct (which will override all others) is to run and seek cover. Your next instinct once you are aware of the situation is to gauge cover vs. vantage point to make a shot all while fully understanding that the dude with the gun probably has a death wish and is not afraid of you returning fire (unlike a rational person). So, in the best case scenario a highly trained person with combat experience may be able to take the guy down from a position of good sight and cover, otherwise you will probably hold your gun and piss your pants. It is a far different situation when you try to shoot at an live person shooting back at you vs. a paper target. Not to mention what happens when Johnny Law shows up and see's two (or more) people with guns. You know what happens then? Johnny Law shoot you too since he does not know who the perp is within a field of armed gunmen.

Assault weapons and extended capacity magazines must be outlawed. Gun shows must be outlawed. Mandatory 14 day waiting for ALL gun purchases should be the law of the land. Anyone with any history of mental illness should be prohibited from owning a weapon more dangerous than a marshmallow. That is a start...don't get me started on the proliferation of anti-depressant SSRI's, it is no coincidence that these mass shootings started when the industry started handing these drugs out like chiclets, and it is no coincidence that the two things ALL these shootings have in common is: anti-depressant overuse + assault rifles = mass murder.

[Reggie29]

How would you feel about being required to submit your DNA to a national database of DNA in order to help prevent crime?

Would you be OK with that, or consider that an infringement on your privacy?

Just curious.

This is the very essence of the flaw of increasing gun control laws.

Here you are entirely OK with increasing the difficulty for law-abiding citizens to own and keep their guns on the one hand, while acknowledging the futility of ever hoping to keep criminals from obtaining guns on the other.

Why are you (and others) OK with making it harder for lawful citizens to have guns while giving criminals free reign?

The prevailing sentiment seems to be "we need to go after all these nut-job gun owners, because criminals are going to get guns no matter what."

Everyone seems to dismiss the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners have no incidents whatsoever while focusing obsessively on the infinitesimal amount of misuse and crimes committed with their guns.

And the most incredible part of all is everyone is taking the lead on the knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy from an administration who gave thousands of FULL AUTOMATIC weapons - TRUE assault weapons - to illegal Mexican drug cartels that ended up being used in the murders of numerous innocent civilians as well as Border patrol agent Brian Terry.

It would seem the same people who are so gung-ho to go after guns are oddly silent on the Obama Administration's incredibly poor decision-making regarding who should be in possession of assault weapons.

How would you feel about being required to submit your DNA to a national database of DNA in order to help prevent crime?

Would you be OK with that, or consider that an infringement on your privacy?

Just curious.

Not at all, I have nothing to hide and I OBEY the law and my fingerprints and photo id are on file anyway.

This is the very essence of the flaw of increasing gun control laws.

Here you are entirely OK with increasing the difficulty for law-abiding citizens to own and keep their guns on the one hand, while acknowledging the futility of ever hoping to keep criminals from obtaining guns on the other.

Why are you (and others) OK with making it harder for lawful citizens to have guns while giving criminals free reign?

That's not what I said so don't twist my words or insult my intelligence. I have no problem with people defending their homes, family and property but only with them using "reasonable force" and having "just cause" and following "due process".

The only thing I'm concerned about is that no more children are senselessly murdered.

I'm OK with that, are you?

The prevailing sentiment seems to be "we need to go after all these nut-job gun owners, because criminals are going to get guns no matter what."

Why shouldn't every gun owner be subjected to psychological evaluation to sort out the "the nut jobs" from the sane? I would hope the majority of gun owners are rational people but until they are weeded out the good will be forever tarred with the same brush as the bad.

Things happen in life every day that can change a person's mental state.

If guns are kept securely they would be harder for criminals to get and if anyone is caught with a gun without the proper licence or in possession of illegal / smuggled guns, they should lock them up or execute them, with the sentence proportionate to the crime.

I'd be looking at Customs and other areas for illegal weapons, they still do that there, don't they?

Everyone seems to dismiss the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners have no incidents whatsoever while focusing obsessively on the infinitesimal amount of misuse and crimes committed with their guns.

If that's the case and you are "law abiding" and qualify for a licence then you've got nothing to worry about, have you?

We have to undergo an eye test before we can renew our driver's licence and they are talking about introducing knowledge and practical driving tests in the future, in the interest of road safety.

And the most incredible part of all is everyone is taking the lead on the knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy from an administration who gave thousands of FULL AUTOMATIC weapons - TRUE assault weapons - to illegal Mexican drug cartels that ended up being used in the murders of numerous innocent civilians as well as Border patrol agent Brian Terry.

The right to bear arms, you say?

Corruption is rife in all countries. In the last 48 hours several people were caught in a drug smuggling operation within our Customs Dept with a full blown investigation going on.

Also a few weeks ago a shitload of guns were stolen fron a Naval Base in Sydney.

How could that've happened?

Governments do stupid things at times particularly where "security" or "crime prevention" is involved and some of the tactics employed to bring things down are often beyond belief and cause collaterall damage of all kinds.

It would seem the same people who are so gung-ho to go after guns are oddly silent on the Obama Administration's incredibly poor decision-making regarding who should be in possession of assault weapons.

I would hope they take a steady approach when working out exactly what the restrictions will be, with all parties reaching logical and workable solutions.

As you Americans would say, write your Congressman.

[Leather Apron]

Nice post, ignorant and fearful, but nice. I have one simple question for you if you can handle it: Tell me who outside of law enforcement and the military needs an assault rifle or an extended capacity magazine? Don't get me wrong, I am not against responsible gun ownership (I have a combat shotgun in my home for home defense), but assault weapons have no purpose except to kill humans in mass quantities, that is why they were developed for the military in the first place. Also, no one should be allowed to carry ANY weapon in public except law enforcement. Anyone who feels the need to carry in public is either suffering from paranoia or low self esteem from having a small dick and feeling the need to compensate.

Alright, I'm your Huckleberry. That is if you can handle it?

So let's get this straight: You choose for your personal defense a 12 gauge combat shotgun. But you feel that another person who chooses a semi-automaitc rifle has no business using that to defend themselves. That their choice has no merit (says you) for whatever that person feels is their need, right? You are aware that your shotgun is not specifically designed or tuned for hunting little birds don't you? That the COMBAT MILITARY & POLICE type of weapon you use was first used by American soldiers as a 'trench gun' for it's extra lethal close range effectiveness in the trenches during WW1. You do know that don't you? In fact so lethal was the Winchester Model 1897 shotgun (what all modern combat shotguns are patterned after) that the German military made a formal request that the Americans not use it in the battle because of the inhumane and unnecessary pain it inflicted on it's human targets. That according to the German military.

Just wanted to get that little history in for your benefit just in case you didn't know. Just wanted everyone to understand what a combat shotgun is. And why it has been used by the police for many decades.( Although, many metropolitan police agencies have sought to limit their use due to liability claims from officers improperly discharging the weapon and causing injury and/or death beyond the weapon's manageable 25-30 yards effective range. A combat shotgun can be lethal up to about 100 yards; however, the spread pattern becomes far too wide and risks injury to unintended victims who may be beyond the subject target.)

Okay, so a typical 12 gauge combat shotgun uses #00 buckshot (has a spread pattern of about one inch for every yard). And a single #00 buckshot shell contains nine .32 cal pellets (those little balls that do all the damage when they hit someone). And since most combat shotguns can hold 9 rounds aka:8+1 (one in the chamber and 8 in the tube), That means that you have 81 projectiles in your standard MILITARY AND POLICE COMBAT SHOTGUN. Pretty lethal, but are you still following me?

So then let's just say for the sake of this discussion that some crazy man takes a shotgun like yours into-- well, let's say... a classroom full of 6 year old kids. And let's say that SOB decides to fire that MILITARY AND POLICE COMBAT SHOTGUN at a range of 10-15 feet in a 180 degree arcing pattern--- repeating his shots as he sweeps the room until all nine rounds (81 projectiles) have been discharged into his unsuspecting human targets in all of about 7 seconds or less.

Just what do you imagine the carnage would be?

What kind of imaginable terror that shotgun would do to innocent victims in the hands of a crazed madman? Maybe something similar to the scene in the library at Columbine? Yes, shotguns were among the weapons used at Columbine too. Are you getting my point?

Please don't dictate to anyone else that their choice of a civilian approved semi-automatic rifle is somehow more lethal than the MILITARY AND POLICE COMBAT SHOTGUN that you have deemed to be appropriate for your own personal desire. What gives you the right to make such an absurd assertion like that when you have decided to arm yourself to the teeth with a weapon which has just as much of a military history as the rifle you have falsely claimed is more lethal than a 12 gauge (probably magnum) pump shotgun loaded with #00 buckshot fired at point blank range into innocent defenseless children.

From my perspective your entire assertion is nothing but a fraud. Hope you can "handle" that?

edited for typos