27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School
- Thread starter bionicarm
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504571
Actually, its more likely that they would be sitting there, frozen in terror, for a few seconds before being able to have any type of response at all. Plenty of time for someone intent on doing harm to harm a lot of them.
You don't know 6 and 7 year old kids very well. If the teacher immediately yelled "RUN!", I guarantee you those kids wouldn't just sit there frozen in terror. Besides, it would be easier to escape from a guy swinging a knife by ducking under school desks, and even throwing stuff at him, than it would be doing the same with a .223 bullet flying at you at a rate of 3100 ft/sec.
I remember hearing about one boy that got out with his teacher who said "Don't worry Ms. SoAndSo. I know karate. If he comes at us, I'll take care of him."
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504571
Actually, its more likely that they would be sitting there, frozen in terror, for a few seconds before being able to have any type of response at all. Plenty of time for someone intent on doing harm to harm a lot of them.
You don't know 6 and 7 year old kids very well. If the teacher immediately yelled "RUN!", I guarantee you those kids wouldn't just sit there frozen in terror. Besides, it would be easier to escape from a guy swinging a knife by ducking under school desks, and even throwing stuff at him, than it would be doing the same with a .223 bullet flying at you at a rate of 3100 ft/sec.
I remember hearing about one boy that got out with his teacher who said "Don't worry Ms. SoAndSo. I know karate. If he comes at us, I'll take care of him."
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504576
But that would be against the law. Criminals would NEVER break the law now would they?
That's why gun bans don't work.
There's over 300 milion guns currently owned by American gun owners. You honestly think they could enact a law that stated that all those guns would have to immediately brought in to be destroyed? Talk about a revolution. The only thing they could do now is restrict who could purchase those types of weapons moving forward. They could restrict the sale of large magazines. They could go REAL far and restrict who could purchase semi-auto handguns with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. No one would be restricting your 2nd Amendment rights if they limited you to purchasing shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or six-round revolvers. Could you still kill a bunch of people in one setting with those weapons? Yes. But the number would be significantly lower.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504576
But that would be against the law. Criminals would NEVER break the law now would they?
That's why gun bans don't work.
There's over 300 milion guns currently owned by American gun owners. You honestly think they could enact a law that stated that all those guns would have to immediately brought in to be destroyed? Talk about a revolution. The only thing they could do now is restrict who could purchase those types of weapons moving forward. They could restrict the sale of large magazines. They could go REAL far and restrict who could purchase semi-auto handguns with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. No one would be restricting your 2nd Amendment rights if they limited you to purchasing shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or six-round revolvers. Could you still kill a bunch of people in one setting with those weapons? Yes. But the number would be significantly lower.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Do you honestly want me to go back a couple pages where you categorically stated if this kid had a knife, there still would've been 20 to 27 deaths?
Yes, go back and quote me on that...Because I never posted any such thing.
Yes, go back and quote me on that...Because I never posted any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504577
You don't know 6 and 7 year old kids very well. If the teacher immediately yelled "RUN!", I guarantee you those kids wouldn't just sit there frozen in terror. Besides, it would be easier to escape from a guy swinging a knife by ducking under school desks, and even throwing stuff at him, than it would be doing the same with a .223 bullet flying at you at a rate of 3100 ft/sec.
I remember hearing about one boy that got out with his teacher who said "Don't worry Ms. SoAndSo. I know karate. If he comes at us, I'll take care of him."
Ah yes, because something thrown by a 6 year old is such a danger...
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504577
You don't know 6 and 7 year old kids very well. If the teacher immediately yelled "RUN!", I guarantee you those kids wouldn't just sit there frozen in terror. Besides, it would be easier to escape from a guy swinging a knife by ducking under school desks, and even throwing stuff at him, than it would be doing the same with a .223 bullet flying at you at a rate of 3100 ft/sec.
I remember hearing about one boy that got out with his teacher who said "Don't worry Ms. SoAndSo. I know karate. If he comes at us, I'll take care of him."
Ah yes, because something thrown by a 6 year old is such a danger...
bionicarm
Active Member
Now you are changing the argument. I already linkled you to knife massacres at other schools.
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
Edited by Darthtang AW - Yesterday at 12:28 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504584
Yes, go back and quote me on that...Because I never posted any such thing.
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
Edited by Darthtang AW - Yesterday at 12:28 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504584
Yes, go back and quote me on that...Because I never posted any such thing.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504586
Ah yes, because something thrown by a 6 year old is such a danger...
It's called a distraction. That's all it takes to get out of the way. You think someone with a knife could be catching and stabbing kids when they have papers, books, rulers, glue, staplers, and who knows what else in the room being thrown at them by 20 or more "kids" at the same time?
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504586
Ah yes, because something thrown by a 6 year old is such a danger...
It's called a distraction. That's all it takes to get out of the way. You think someone with a knife could be catching and stabbing kids when they have papers, books, rulers, glue, staplers, and who knows what else in the room being thrown at them by 20 or more "kids" at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504588
It's called a distraction. That's all it takes to get out of the way. You think someone with a knife could be catching and stabbing kids when they have papers, books, rulers, glue, staplers, and who knows what else in the room being thrown at them by 20 or more "kids" at the same time?
I think that if someone were so disturbed to even be contemplating hurting a bunch of children then these little “distractions” wouldn’t make too much of a difference, regardless of whether he was using a gun, knife, baseball bat or anything else as a weapon.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504588
It's called a distraction. That's all it takes to get out of the way. You think someone with a knife could be catching and stabbing kids when they have papers, books, rulers, glue, staplers, and who knows what else in the room being thrown at them by 20 or more "kids" at the same time?
I think that if someone were so disturbed to even be contemplating hurting a bunch of children then these little “distractions” wouldn’t make too much of a difference, regardless of whether he was using a gun, knife, baseball bat or anything else as a weapon.
scsinet
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504573
Again, go research the statistics and findings in Australia after they imposed this type of ban. Even suicides went down like 57%. You are correct. As long as there's ANY type of firearm available, there's an opportunity to use that weapon in a criminal fashion, whether it's one or one hundred. But the difference with an assault weapon is it gives these mentally unstable people a larger sense of invulnerability. Would this kid even have attempted this suicide mission if all he had available to him was a couple of shotguns? If his goal was to make a name for himself, and leave this warped legacy behind, he may have said. "Naw, if all I can do is just kill 5 or 6, that won't make a big enough headline to justify doing it." There's just no logic behind any of it.
You are inadvertently revealing yourself here. This coward had an "assault weapon," which he used. However, he also had two handguns at his disposal. So, my question is, if we are talking about restricting assault weapons, why does your comparison jump down to shotguns? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like what you've accidentally revealed is where you really want this to end up, that being a ban of all guns that are not used for hunting, pretty much what they have in other countries.
That's what gun control opponents are driving at when they say slippery slope. They worry that people have hidden agendas, and that while they may be talking about assault weapons today, their goal is actually a whole lot more (whatever it may be).
As far as a larger sense of invulnerability, I'm sure that people got the same sense of invulnerability holding a revolutionary war musket when they were the highest technology available to them. Point is, if the intent is to grab the biggest, baddest weapon available, then the "invulnerability" argument is arbitrary because that will be gained with whatever the most advanced weapon is that people can get their hands on. To wit, in the hypothetical future, 100 years from now, when death beams have been invented and can wipe out a whole bunch of people with one squeeze of the trigger, we won't be talking about "assault weapons" anymore because they will be as ancient as guns that were once state of the art that are now stepped over in favor of something else.
Right now, most people do not have the means to get their hands on a fully automatic rifle. I'm sure if they could though, that would be the weapon they were to use, and our measly semi-autos would not be the weapon of choice. The question is, if those full auto weapons were as available as semi, would we have more of these incidents? That question can't be answered at this point.
However, we can answer a different question without looking any further than right here, we don't need to look at Australia. It's not a fair comparison because the pre-ban weapons ownership statistics are not the same, and there is no guarantee that a law we pass will be the same as Australia We can look at the results of the 10 year AWB from 1994 to 2004. Even the author of the bill could only go so far as to say that it reduced supply hence driving up prices. Numerous studies conducted on the ban found that the impact to crime was too small to even measure. Even the US government found the same thing.
My point is that taking action against so called "assault weapons" amounts to feel good politics. As I explained earlier, it gives us a level of resolve because we feel that we've "done something." But when after we "ban" them, and these atrocities continue to occur, we'll just want to ban another type of weapon... and another... and another, because, as I explained, we are not addressing the real issue.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504573
Again, go research the statistics and findings in Australia after they imposed this type of ban. Even suicides went down like 57%. You are correct. As long as there's ANY type of firearm available, there's an opportunity to use that weapon in a criminal fashion, whether it's one or one hundred. But the difference with an assault weapon is it gives these mentally unstable people a larger sense of invulnerability. Would this kid even have attempted this suicide mission if all he had available to him was a couple of shotguns? If his goal was to make a name for himself, and leave this warped legacy behind, he may have said. "Naw, if all I can do is just kill 5 or 6, that won't make a big enough headline to justify doing it." There's just no logic behind any of it.
You are inadvertently revealing yourself here. This coward had an "assault weapon," which he used. However, he also had two handguns at his disposal. So, my question is, if we are talking about restricting assault weapons, why does your comparison jump down to shotguns? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like what you've accidentally revealed is where you really want this to end up, that being a ban of all guns that are not used for hunting, pretty much what they have in other countries.
That's what gun control opponents are driving at when they say slippery slope. They worry that people have hidden agendas, and that while they may be talking about assault weapons today, their goal is actually a whole lot more (whatever it may be).
As far as a larger sense of invulnerability, I'm sure that people got the same sense of invulnerability holding a revolutionary war musket when they were the highest technology available to them. Point is, if the intent is to grab the biggest, baddest weapon available, then the "invulnerability" argument is arbitrary because that will be gained with whatever the most advanced weapon is that people can get their hands on. To wit, in the hypothetical future, 100 years from now, when death beams have been invented and can wipe out a whole bunch of people with one squeeze of the trigger, we won't be talking about "assault weapons" anymore because they will be as ancient as guns that were once state of the art that are now stepped over in favor of something else.
Right now, most people do not have the means to get their hands on a fully automatic rifle. I'm sure if they could though, that would be the weapon they were to use, and our measly semi-autos would not be the weapon of choice. The question is, if those full auto weapons were as available as semi, would we have more of these incidents? That question can't be answered at this point.
However, we can answer a different question without looking any further than right here, we don't need to look at Australia. It's not a fair comparison because the pre-ban weapons ownership statistics are not the same, and there is no guarantee that a law we pass will be the same as Australia We can look at the results of the 10 year AWB from 1994 to 2004. Even the author of the bill could only go so far as to say that it reduced supply hence driving up prices. Numerous studies conducted on the ban found that the impact to crime was too small to even measure. Even the US government found the same thing.
My point is that taking action against so called "assault weapons" amounts to feel good politics. As I explained earlier, it gives us a level of resolve because we feel that we've "done something." But when after we "ban" them, and these atrocities continue to occur, we'll just want to ban another type of weapon... and another... and another, because, as I explained, we are not addressing the real issue.
crimzy
Active Member
Just an FYI... I don't see that this has been addressed yet in this thread...
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504582
There's over 300 milion guns currently owned by American gun owners. You honestly think they could enact a law that stated that all those guns would have to immediately brought in to be destroyed? Talk about a revolution. The only thing they could do now is restrict who could purchase those types of weapons moving forward. They could restrict the sale of large magazines. They could go REAL far and restrict who could purchase semi-auto handguns with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. No one would be restricting your 2nd Amendment rights if they limited you to purchasing shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or six-round revolvers. Could you still kill a bunch of people in one setting with those weapons? Yes. But the number would be significantly lower.
The first amendment leads to many of those altercations that lead to deaths. Lets start banning words, after all it wouldn't restrict the right would it.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504582
There's over 300 milion guns currently owned by American gun owners. You honestly think they could enact a law that stated that all those guns would have to immediately brought in to be destroyed? Talk about a revolution. The only thing they could do now is restrict who could purchase those types of weapons moving forward. They could restrict the sale of large magazines. They could go REAL far and restrict who could purchase semi-auto handguns with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. No one would be restricting your 2nd Amendment rights if they limited you to purchasing shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or six-round revolvers. Could you still kill a bunch of people in one setting with those weapons? Yes. But the number would be significantly lower.
The first amendment leads to many of those altercations that lead to deaths. Lets start banning words, after all it wouldn't restrict the right would it.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Now you are changing the argument. I already linkled you to knife massacres at other schools.
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
Edited by Darthtang AW - Yesterday at 12:28 am
is that what you claimed I stated? 20-27 is not the same as "could have easily been 20". In fact my statement means it could have been 20...nothing about more than that...nothing about it being equal to....
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
Edited by Darthtang AW - Yesterday at 12:28 am
is that what you claimed I stated? 20-27 is not the same as "could have easily been 20". In fact my statement means it could have been 20...nothing about more than that...nothing about it being equal to....
darthtang aw
Active Member
Just an FYI... I don't see that this has been addressed yet in this thread...
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
Why is it when someone kills people with a gun, the gun does the killing, but when a person with a gun saves lives the person did the saving, not the gun........
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
Why is it when someone kills people with a gun, the gun does the killing, but when a person with a gun saves lives the person did the saving, not the gun........
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504594
You are inadvertently revealing yourself here. This coward had an "assault weapon," which he used. However, he also had two handguns at his disposal. So, my question is, if we are talking about restricting assault weapons, why does your comparison jump down to shotguns? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like what you've accidentally revealed is where you really want this to end up, that being a ban of all guns that are not used for hunting, pretty much what they have in other countries.
That's what gun control opponents are driving at when they say slippery slope. They worry that people have hidden agendas, and that while they may be talking about assault weapons today, their goal is actually a whole lot more (whatever it may be).
As far as a larger sense of invulnerability, I'm sure that people got the same sense of invulnerability holding a revolutionary war musket when they were the highest technology available to them. Point is, if the intent is to grab the biggest, baddest weapon available, then the "invulnerability" argument is arbitrary because that will be gained with whatever the most advanced weapon is that people can get their hands on. To wit, in the hypothetical future, 100 years from now, when death beams have been invented and can wipe out a whole bunch of people with one squeeze of the trigger, we won't be talking about "assault weapons" anymore because they will be as ancient as guns that were once state of the art that are now stepped over in favor of something else.
Right now, most people do not have the means to get their hands on a fully automatic rifle. I'm sure if they could though, that would be the weapon they were to use, and our measly semi-autos would not be the weapon of choice. The question is, if those full auto weapons were as available as semi, would we have more of these incidents? That question can't be answered at this point.
However, we can answer a different question without looking any further than right here, we don't need to look at Australia. It's not a fair comparison because the pre-ban weapons ownership statistics are not the same, and there is no guarantee that a law we pass will be the same as Australia We can look at the results of the 10 year AWB from 1994 to 2004. Even the author of the bill could only go so far as to say that it reduced supply hence driving up prices. Numerous studies conducted on the ban found that the impact to crime was too small to even measure. Even the US government found the same thing.
My point is that taking action against so called "assault weapons" amounts to feel good politics. As I explained earlier, it gives us a level of resolve because we feel that we've "done something." But when after we "ban" them, and these atrocities continue to occur, we'll just want to ban another type of weapon... and another... and another, because, as I explained, we are not addressing the real issue.
My point is simple. A shotgun has a lower probablity rate of killing a massive amount of people in a semi-confined area than a semi-automatic weapon that can hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition at any given time. Granted, if you had a sawed-off shotgun, your spread pattern would be greater, as well as if you were using 8-shot as opposed to buck shot. But you still maintain a larger death rate with the semi-auto weapon. Why is it that these last four or five incidents involved an assault weapon as the primary weapon? If someone can do the same carnage with a shotgun or semi-auto handgun, why not just use those instead? It has absolutely nothing to do with "feel good politics". It's plain math and statistics. An assault weapon can kill more people than any other weapon because of the volume of ammo, and the speed at which you can shoot it. In these scenarios, there's really not that must difference between a full auto and a semi auto. I can empty a 30-round mag in an AR-15 in 10-15 seconds. In full auto mode, I can cut that time down to 3 - 5 seconds. Are you going to say that 7 - 10 seconds is going to save more lives in a scenario such as what occurred in Newtown? Reducing the firepower will reduce the number of casualties in these massive shootings. Unless a total ban occurred, which any logical and rational person in this country knows would NEVER happen, you will continue to have incidents like this. However, that goes to say that even those may be reduced when these individuals may have second thoughts because they don't have that assault weapon firepower to give them that "invulnerabilty feeling".
How do you address this issue you speak? Where do you even begin? I explained to you how difficult it is to diagnose mental health issues. I explained how several "triggers" can set off even the most timid and mild-mannered person. This kid NEVER exhibited any violent tendencies in his 20 years of living. No one was ever threatened by this kid, no "alarms" were set off. If the mother had an inkling of perception that this kid had violent tendencies, do you honestly think she'd teach him to use these weapons she owned, and have them available for him to take anytime he wanted?
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504594
You are inadvertently revealing yourself here. This coward had an "assault weapon," which he used. However, he also had two handguns at his disposal. So, my question is, if we are talking about restricting assault weapons, why does your comparison jump down to shotguns? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like what you've accidentally revealed is where you really want this to end up, that being a ban of all guns that are not used for hunting, pretty much what they have in other countries.
That's what gun control opponents are driving at when they say slippery slope. They worry that people have hidden agendas, and that while they may be talking about assault weapons today, their goal is actually a whole lot more (whatever it may be).
As far as a larger sense of invulnerability, I'm sure that people got the same sense of invulnerability holding a revolutionary war musket when they were the highest technology available to them. Point is, if the intent is to grab the biggest, baddest weapon available, then the "invulnerability" argument is arbitrary because that will be gained with whatever the most advanced weapon is that people can get their hands on. To wit, in the hypothetical future, 100 years from now, when death beams have been invented and can wipe out a whole bunch of people with one squeeze of the trigger, we won't be talking about "assault weapons" anymore because they will be as ancient as guns that were once state of the art that are now stepped over in favor of something else.
Right now, most people do not have the means to get their hands on a fully automatic rifle. I'm sure if they could though, that would be the weapon they were to use, and our measly semi-autos would not be the weapon of choice. The question is, if those full auto weapons were as available as semi, would we have more of these incidents? That question can't be answered at this point.
However, we can answer a different question without looking any further than right here, we don't need to look at Australia. It's not a fair comparison because the pre-ban weapons ownership statistics are not the same, and there is no guarantee that a law we pass will be the same as Australia We can look at the results of the 10 year AWB from 1994 to 2004. Even the author of the bill could only go so far as to say that it reduced supply hence driving up prices. Numerous studies conducted on the ban found that the impact to crime was too small to even measure. Even the US government found the same thing.
My point is that taking action against so called "assault weapons" amounts to feel good politics. As I explained earlier, it gives us a level of resolve because we feel that we've "done something." But when after we "ban" them, and these atrocities continue to occur, we'll just want to ban another type of weapon... and another... and another, because, as I explained, we are not addressing the real issue.
My point is simple. A shotgun has a lower probablity rate of killing a massive amount of people in a semi-confined area than a semi-automatic weapon that can hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition at any given time. Granted, if you had a sawed-off shotgun, your spread pattern would be greater, as well as if you were using 8-shot as opposed to buck shot. But you still maintain a larger death rate with the semi-auto weapon. Why is it that these last four or five incidents involved an assault weapon as the primary weapon? If someone can do the same carnage with a shotgun or semi-auto handgun, why not just use those instead? It has absolutely nothing to do with "feel good politics". It's plain math and statistics. An assault weapon can kill more people than any other weapon because of the volume of ammo, and the speed at which you can shoot it. In these scenarios, there's really not that must difference between a full auto and a semi auto. I can empty a 30-round mag in an AR-15 in 10-15 seconds. In full auto mode, I can cut that time down to 3 - 5 seconds. Are you going to say that 7 - 10 seconds is going to save more lives in a scenario such as what occurred in Newtown? Reducing the firepower will reduce the number of casualties in these massive shootings. Unless a total ban occurred, which any logical and rational person in this country knows would NEVER happen, you will continue to have incidents like this. However, that goes to say that even those may be reduced when these individuals may have second thoughts because they don't have that assault weapon firepower to give them that "invulnerabilty feeling".
How do you address this issue you speak? Where do you even begin? I explained to you how difficult it is to diagnose mental health issues. I explained how several "triggers" can set off even the most timid and mild-mannered person. This kid NEVER exhibited any violent tendencies in his 20 years of living. No one was ever threatened by this kid, no "alarms" were set off. If the mother had an inkling of perception that this kid had violent tendencies, do you honestly think she'd teach him to use these weapons she owned, and have them available for him to take anytime he wanted?
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504596
Just an FYI... I don't see that this has been addressed yet in this thread...
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
Yes he was. And the person that shot him was an off-duty Bexar County Sheriff that was actually working at the theater. He was TRAINED for situations like this. This incident was more or less a domestic dispute between the assailant and his ex-girlfriend.
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504596
Just an FYI... I don't see that this has been addressed yet in this thread...
There was a movie theater shooter last night in San Antonio. The assailant shot into the theater and shot at police officers, however he was stopped by an off duty police officer who was able to shoot him 4 times, (and hopefully kill him). Thankfully for everybody, there was someone else present there with a gun besides the nutjob...
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/
Yes he was. And the person that shot him was an off-duty Bexar County Sheriff that was actually working at the theater. He was TRAINED for situations like this. This incident was more or less a domestic dispute between the assailant and his ex-girlfriend.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504600
The first amendment leads to many of those altercations that lead to deaths. Lets start banning words, after all it wouldn't restrict the right would it.
Man, do all you gun proponents get together and compare notes? I heard this EXACT same argument on another political thread I peruse from time to time. LMFAO.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504600
The first amendment leads to many of those altercations that lead to deaths. Lets start banning words, after all it wouldn't restrict the right would it.
Man, do all you gun proponents get together and compare notes? I heard this EXACT same argument on another political thread I peruse from time to time. LMFAO.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504602
is that what you claimed I stated? 20-27 is not the same as "could have easily been 20". In fact my statement means it could have been 20...nothing about more than that...nothing about it being equal to....
Brother. Nice back track. Now it's "Well I didn't state more than 20..." You're entire statement suggested this guy could've killed just as many kids with a single knife than what he did with a semi-auto weapon. I don't care which baseless number you want to use. It's totally perposterous and anyone with an inkling of common sense knows that.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504602
is that what you claimed I stated? 20-27 is not the same as "could have easily been 20". In fact my statement means it could have been 20...nothing about more than that...nothing about it being equal to....
Brother. Nice back track. Now it's "Well I didn't state more than 20..." You're entire statement suggested this guy could've killed just as many kids with a single knife than what he did with a semi-auto weapon. I don't care which baseless number you want to use. It's totally perposterous and anyone with an inkling of common sense knows that.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504603
Why is it when someone kills people with a gun, the gun does the killing, but when a person with a gun saves lives the person did the saving, not the gun........
The person killed an individual whose intent was to harm more innocent people. Our society recognizes authority, and they accept when that authority has to use excessive force to stop other innocent people from getting harmed. If the officer in this situation killed the assailant, it was a death caused by a gun. Someone is dead all the same.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504603
Why is it when someone kills people with a gun, the gun does the killing, but when a person with a gun saves lives the person did the saving, not the gun........
The person killed an individual whose intent was to harm more innocent people. Our society recognizes authority, and they accept when that authority has to use excessive force to stop other innocent people from getting harmed. If the officer in this situation killed the assailant, it was a death caused by a gun. Someone is dead all the same.
uneverno
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/140#post_3504531
Know anyone who has taught school for more than 25 years or so? They could explain it to you. Questioning authority isn't an issue. It's how you do it.
As a matter of fact, both my parents were career teachers and I spent a part of my life teaching as well.
I'm completely baffled as to what you're driving at.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/140#post_3504531
Know anyone who has taught school for more than 25 years or so? They could explain it to you. Questioning authority isn't an issue. It's how you do it.
As a matter of fact, both my parents were career teachers and I spent a part of my life teaching as well.
I'm completely baffled as to what you're driving at.
uneverno
Active Member
I had a discussion with a friend yesterday about the Newtown catastrophe.
He favors better mental health care, yet also believes that medications are part of the problem. I quite agree on both counts.
My preference was that more thorough background checks on gun sales would help as 40% of sales are not subject to any sort of background check. It's not an invalid counter-argument however, that criminals seldom purchase guns legally.
Yet another friend has proposed that we put armed guards in schools and made a convincing argument regarding the efficacy and how to ameliorate the cost.
These proposals have gotten me to thinking that all of the solutions, including my own, are merely bandaids attempting to cover the greater question, that being: What is wrong, at a core level, with our society that these crimes are almost uniquely American?
We must certainly try to prevent the problem, and that's no mean feat, but to ignore the underlying causes is a serious oversight. In the absence of that knowledge, how can we determine where regulation is to start and outright restriction is to end?
Part of the issue is that terms such as "regulation" and "restriction" are anathema to the "American" ideal.
Another part of the issue is that ours is a country born of violence and which tends to solve its problems violently. Our gut response to violence is either the act or the threat of greater violence, whether pharmaceutically or weaponalogically or simply through sheer macho indignance. We tend to escalate before we discuss. Act before we think. And we are particularly adept at absolving ourselves of crimes we accuse others of committing.
Further, the discussion of curtailing someone's (and I'm choosing an anthropomorphic term on purpose) profits, whether it be Smith and Wesson, GlaxoSmithKline, Raytheon, Monsanto, Chevron, McDonalds or our ever so cash receptive polititians, is taboo. The so called "free market" is not to be criticized.
These are the thought processes that we must examine. Which must be included in the discussion. In their absence, no proposed solution is any more than lip service.
He favors better mental health care, yet also believes that medications are part of the problem. I quite agree on both counts.
My preference was that more thorough background checks on gun sales would help as 40% of sales are not subject to any sort of background check. It's not an invalid counter-argument however, that criminals seldom purchase guns legally.
Yet another friend has proposed that we put armed guards in schools and made a convincing argument regarding the efficacy and how to ameliorate the cost.
These proposals have gotten me to thinking that all of the solutions, including my own, are merely bandaids attempting to cover the greater question, that being: What is wrong, at a core level, with our society that these crimes are almost uniquely American?
We must certainly try to prevent the problem, and that's no mean feat, but to ignore the underlying causes is a serious oversight. In the absence of that knowledge, how can we determine where regulation is to start and outright restriction is to end?
Part of the issue is that terms such as "regulation" and "restriction" are anathema to the "American" ideal.
Another part of the issue is that ours is a country born of violence and which tends to solve its problems violently. Our gut response to violence is either the act or the threat of greater violence, whether pharmaceutically or weaponalogically or simply through sheer macho indignance. We tend to escalate before we discuss. Act before we think. And we are particularly adept at absolving ourselves of crimes we accuse others of committing.
Further, the discussion of curtailing someone's (and I'm choosing an anthropomorphic term on purpose) profits, whether it be Smith and Wesson, GlaxoSmithKline, Raytheon, Monsanto, Chevron, McDonalds or our ever so cash receptive polititians, is taboo. The so called "free market" is not to be criticized.
These are the thought processes that we must examine. Which must be included in the discussion. In their absence, no proposed solution is any more than lip service.