27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/20#post_3504178
Those are purchased within state. Different scenario and highly probable for criminals to easily obtain a gun this way. My point is this...That AR platform rifle is banned in that area and the states surrounding. How did his mom "legally purchase" that rifle? She couldn't have.
She could've bought the thing in Texas, and took it back home with her. Who knows. Unless she's caught with the thing, no one would ever know she had it. Last time I checked, we don't have "border stops" at each of our states borders. I could buy an AR at my local gun show, box it up, take it to my local UPS, tell them it's bike parts, and ship the thing to anyone I want in the 50 states. If I got caught, could I get prosecuted? Probably so. But someone wanting to commit a crime could care less.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/20#post_3504179
And another slant. All of these mass shooting individuals are so obviously persons with severe mental illness. Every last one them. Perhaps that should be addressed rather than jumping to depriving everyone of their right to have a gun.
Between 70s-80s most of the country's mental institutions were closed down and the mentally ill were tossed in the streets to fend for themselves. Right now, the only way you get into a mental institution is if you are an obvious threat to yourself or others. If a family wants to check their ill relative into a secure hospital it is impossible unless the person has actually done something, or admits that they plan to do something. And even then, they are only in the hospital for a few days or, at most, a couple of weeks. After they are out, then it is up to them to continue treatment, or not. And the reality is that most severely ill persons will not continue treatment, particularly if they are on their own without a strong family presence.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that mental health is the issue, not lack of gun control.
Is there some legal mandate that states someone who is clincally "mentally ill" has to be registered as such like you would a sex offender? Patient/doctor privilege states the doctor has no legal right to report it. Where is it written in the 2nd Amendment that someoone with a screw loose doesn't have the right to purchase a gun? I know a guy whose bi-polar and borderline schitzophrenic, and he has at least three guns, including an AK-47. Did he purchase them before being diagnosed with his condition? Does that even matter? He hasn't broken any laws that I'm aware of, so could the authorities take his weapons away simply because he has the potential over going "Columbine" somewhere?

 

[bionicarm]

http://cybersmithblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/connecticut-ct-gun-laws-in-plain.html
I didn't go searching Connecticut laws regarding "assault rifles", but based on this guy's perception, a Bushmaster is legal to own in CT, as well as several other types of AR's as long as they aren't "automatic" or "selective fire" capable.

 

[reefraff]

I went to the state law, that guy has it right. Just saw a report that says the guy left the rifle in the car and just used the two handguns. At this point I don't know that it's true

 

[2quills]

Tragic story. But seriously, a ban on assault riffles? How could anybody think that this going to stop anybody with this kind of mental stability from wreaking havoc if they snap or make a conscious decision to go off on the world? Or guns period for that matter? Heck, I know I feel safer in the thought that there are some real law biding citizens floating around who carry and might be willing to act if one should ever find themselves in some kind of terrible event like this.
When was the last time someone went off like this in texas? Was it Whitman, who held himself up in the bell tower at the university of texas back in 1966 who killed 13 people and wounded something like 32 others? I don't think he had an assault rifle but look at the damage he did.
There is an interesting dynamic in all this though. And that is the fact that his spree started off at home with him shooting his mother in the back of the head.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504188
Tragic story. But seriously, a ban on assault riffles? How could anybody think that this going to stop anybody with this kind of mental stability from wreaking havoc if they snap or make a conscious decision to go off on the world? Or guns period for that matter? Heck, I know I feel safer in the thought that there are some real law biding citizens floating around who carry and might be willing to act if one should ever find themselves in some kind of terrible event like this.
When was the last time someone went off like this in texas? Was it Whitman, who held himself up in the bell tower at the university of texas back in 1966 who killed 13 people and wounded something like 32 others? I don't think he had an assault rifle but look at the damage he did.
There is an interesting dynamic in all this though. And that is the fact that his spree started off at home with him shooting his mother in the back of the head.
It's won't stop it, but it could remove one factor in these multiple shootings of innocent people. Define "law abiding citizens". Misdemeanor offenses would make someone not suitable to own weapons? I've beat this dog to death too many times on this forum. There's no LOGICAL reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto weapon with the capability of holding a clip with 30 or more rounds. You can justify it with the normal responses - "Because the 2nd Amendment says I can", "Because I use it for sport or target practice", "Because I use it for hunting". But the fact is, most of these people buy them for some superiority complex. I went to a gun show this last weekend, and on every single table you have 6 or 7 flavors of AR-15's. Very few single-action or bolt action. Some in camo, some even in pink (gotta make it "women" friendly). There's were a couple of booths selling the things with SILENCERS on them (Please tell me the viable application for that device. Guess you can shoot an intruder without them even knowing what hit them?) You had your "build your own AR-15 from scratch" dealers where you could select which parts you wanted for that custom model. One guy was selling all these gun manuals that gave step-by-step instructions on how to disassemble and reassemble your model of weapon. Then I see this manual with an AR-15 on it. Opened it up, and it had detailed instructions on how to modify the lower receiver to disable the "semi-automatic feature" of the weapon. I've seen these before on the Internet, so I can only assume it's legal to provide the instructions as long as you don't provide the assistance to perform the steps themselves. Bottom line is these gun dealers are "glorifying" these weapons just to improve gun sales. They don't care if the people they are selling them to have a clue how to properly operate the weapon, or what their intentions are for using it.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504197
It's won't stop it, but it could remove one factor in these multiple shootings of innocent people. Define "law abiding citizens". Misdemeanor offenses would make someone not suitable to own weapons? I've beat this dog to death too many times on this forum. There's no LOGICAL reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto weapon with the capability of holding a clip with 30 or more rounds. You can justify it with the normal responses - "Because the 2nd Amendment says I can", "Because I use it for sport or target practice", "Because I use it for hunting". But the fact is, most of these people buy them for some superiority complex. I went to a gun show this last weekend, and on every single table you have 6 or 7 flavors of AR-15's. Very few single-action or bolt action. Some in camo, some even in pink (gotta make it "women" friendly). There's were a couple of booths selling the things with SILENCERS on them (Please tell me the viable application for that device. Guess you can shoot an intruder without them even knowing what hit them?) You had your "build your own AR-15 from scratch" dealers where you could select which parts you wanted for that custom model. One guy was selling all these gun manuals that gave step-by-step instructions on how to disassemble and reassemble your model of weapon. Then I see this manual with an AR-15 on it. Opened it up, and it had detailed instructions on how to modify the lower receiver to disable the "semi-automatic feature" of the weapon. I've seen these before on the Internet, so I can only assume it's legal to provide the instructions as long as you don't provide the assistance to perform the steps themselves. Bottom line is these gun dealers are "glorifying" these weapons just to improve gun sales. They don't care if the people they are selling them to have a clue how to properly operate the weapon, or what their intentions are for using it.
No need to beat this topic up again and again. We all know how we feel about those things. There are no simple answers and no one can rationalize something to another who cares not to hear it.

 

[littledynam1te]

In sc u have to be 21 to by guns
It's not even the assault rifle tht he used he had it in his car he used two pistols
If u take away guns the only ones how will have them are the evil

 

[littledynam1te]

*who have them
Pray for those families

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLEDYNAM1TE http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504200
In sc u have to be 21 to by guns
It's not even the assault rifle tht he used he had it in his car he used two pistols
If u take away guns the only ones how will have them are the evil
Precisely.
Events like this are tragic. But you can't predict every time someone is going to do something like this. And each time something like this happens it terrorizes people. Makes them afraid to send their kids to school, fly in a plane or drive across a bridge. Each time a terrible event happens people start talking about taking just a little more of our freedoms away. And each time they do we let them win.

 

[darthtang aw]

I read a news story also today about a similr Incident in china. A man killed and injured over thirty school children at a school. He did it with a knife. The man was mentally unstable as well. There in lies the issue.

 

[darthtang aw]

I It's won't stop it, but it could remove one factor in these multiple shootings of innocent people.  Define "law abiding citizens".  Misdemeanor offenses would make someone not suitable to own weapons?  I've beat this dog to death too many times on this forum.  There's no LOGICAL reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto weapon with the capability of holding a clip with 30 or more rounds.  You can justify it with the normal responses  - "Because the 2nd Amendment says I can", "Because I use it for sport or target practice",  "Because I use it for hunting".  But the fact is, most of these people buy them for some superiority complex.  I went to a gun show this last weekend, and on every single table you have 6 or 7 flavors of AR-15's.  Very few single-action or bolt action.  Some in camo, some even in pink (gotta make it "women" friendly).  There's were a couple of booths selling the things with SILENCERS on them (Please tell me the viable application for that device.  Guess you can shoot an intruder without them even knowing what hit them?)  You had your "build your own AR-15 from scratch" dealers where you could select which parts you wanted for that custom model.  One guy was selling all these gun manuals that gave step-by-step instructions on how to disassemble and reassemble your model of weapon.  Then I see this manual with an AR-15 on it.  Opened it up, and it had detailed instructions on how to modify the lower receiver to disable the "semi-automatic feature" of the weapon.  I've seen these before on the Internet, so I can only assume it's legal to provide the instructions as long as you don't provide the assistance to perform the steps themselves.  Bottom line is these gun dealers are "glorifying" these weapons just to improve gun sales.  They don't care if the people they are selling them to have a clue how to properly operate the weapon, or what their intentions are for using it.
I call bull crap. I have been to several gun shows this summer and not once saw this " manual" you speak of and a lot of the dealers are from Texas.

 

[beth]

That was the point I made above. Do the acts of a dangerously unstable person result in restricting more rights for all citizens? The solution or attempts at a solution needs to be on that issue, and not just the easy way out---restricting the rights of all citizens.

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/20#post_3504179
And another slant. All of these mass shooting individuals are so obviously persons with severe mental illness. Every last one them. Perhaps that should be addressed rather than jumping to depriving everyone of their right to have a gun.
Between 70s-80s most of the country's mental institutions were closed down and the mentally ill were tossed in the streets to fend for themselves. Right now, the only way you get into a mental institution is if you are an obvious threat to yourself or others. If a family wants to check their ill relative into a secure hospital it is impossible unless the person has actually done something, or admits that they plan to do something. And even then, they are only in the hospital for a few days or, at most, a couple of weeks. After they are out, then it is up to them to continue treatment, or not. And the reality is that most severely ill persons will not continue treatment, particularly if they are on their own without a strong family presence.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that mental health is the issue, not lack of gun control.

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school#post_3504137
That's an asinine argument and you know it. Assault rifle serve one SOLE PURPOSE, which is to KILL. Let me repeat that for all you thick headed dummies who want to make the "well if we ban assault rifles we might as well ban... blah blah blah, because they kill too". The SOLE PURPOSE of an assault rifle is to KILL. MURDER. DEATH. END OF LIFE. Whatever words you would like to use.
Anyone who tries to defend the right to walk into a gun store and buy one of these, I really have a hard time breathing the same air as you. It's sick. Period.
Your argument is asinine....Again you want to infringe on good peoples rights and choices as to what they own.....As Reef pointed out why build cars that go 140mph, better yet why not totally ban alcohol and close up all the bars and such.....Kill way more innocent people as well.....We infringe on others, because a few totally lack respect for human life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school#post_3504126
Just watching this story on ABC. Some 24-year old maniac takes four weapons into an Elementary school and kills at least 27 people, including children. Cloumbine at a younger scale. I'm sure we'll hear from the gun advocates that there's nothing that could be done to keep this from happening. So you tell me - What's the answer? At what point do we have to make a decision over gun rights, and the rights of innocent citizens? Does the future force every single school in this country having to spend billions of dollars to put their institutions in "lock-down mode"? Spend insurmountable amounts of money to hire independent armed security guards? Metal detectors? Lock the schools down like prisons? Sorry. Hiding behind the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership when innocent children are needlessly killed is beyond reproach.
Normally I'd side with you at time bionicarm, but you want to infringe on mine and a bunch of other gun owners because of actions like this.....I feel for all the innocent involved, but must say my personal weapon has saved my little a$$ from being a statistic.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school#post_3504133
From what I have been reading, there was at least one assault rifle involved. Is there ANY reason that all, and I mean ALL assault rifles have not been banned? Trying to defend this is pointless, but let's see it...
Why should normal; rational people be punished or held accountable for a few whacks as Reef pointed out.....You might not feel a need to personal own a weapon like that , but if I chose to why should my "free choice" be hindered because of idiots.....
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school#post_3504135
You gotta be a special kind of twisted to do something like this. Would it make you feel better if he had firebombed the classroom instead? We have a whack job problem in this country.

 

[reefraff]

You can get a manual on line that will tell you how to build a nuclear bomb. Getting the parts is a wee bit hard. Same thing with modifying a Semi to full auto. You need a special bolt among other things, try to find one of those rascals. It isn't something you can run up on a lathe in your back yard.
And it's a moot point now anyway. It turns out he used the two handguns so I guess we'll be banning them now?

 

[dragonzim]

You can get a manual on line that will tell you how to build a nuclear bomb. Getting the parts is a wee bit hard. Same thing with modifying a Semi to full auto. You need a special bolt among other things, try to find one of those rascals. It isn't something you can run up on a lathe in your back yard.
And it's a moot point now anyway. It turns out he used the two handguns so I guess we'll be banning them now?
Yup, the rifle was never taken out of the car. 2 handguns which were legally owned by this guys mother were used in the shooting. The question is though why this kid had access to his mothers weapons when even his own brother says that he was mentally disturbed. This is not a gun control issue, it is a mental health issue.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504207
I I call bull crap. I have been to several gun shows this summer and not once saw this " manual" you speak of and a lot of the dealers are from Texas.
I could care less if you believe it or not. Maybe you weren't looking for it? Would you like me to find you a copy online? I guess you also never saw an AR-15 sitting on a fancy stand with these very impressive optics and a gray-colored cylinder on the end of the barrel, with the dealer having this nice sign with the word SILENCER in big bold capital words either. Please provide me your expert opinion on why any gun purchaser would need this device. Shoot those pesky varmits in their backyard without alarming the neighbors? I'm SURE you can come up with a rational answer for this one.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504214
You can get a manual on line that will tell you how to build a nuclear bomb. Getting the parts is a wee bit hard. Same thing with modifying a Semi to full auto. You need a special bolt among other things, try to find one of those rascals. It isn't something you can run up on a lathe in your back yard.
And it's a moot point now anyway. It turns out he used the two handguns so I guess we'll be banning them now?
Go buy the manual. Trust me, there are no special parts to turn that weapon into a full auto. Go find you a diagram of the lower receiver and get back to me.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504213
Your argument is asinine....Again you want to infringe on good peoples rights and choices as to what they own.....As Reef pointed out why build cars that go 140mph, better yet why not totally ban alcohol and close up all the bars and such.....Kill way more innocent people as well.....We infringe on others, because a few totally lack respect for human life.
Normally I'd side with you at time bionicarm, but you want to infringe on mine and a bunch of other gun owners because of actions like this.....I feel for all the innocent involved, but must say my personal weapon has saved my little a$$ from being a statistic.....
Why should normal; rational people be punished or held accountable for a few whacks as Reef pointed out.....You might not feel a need to personal own a weapon like that , but if I chose to why should my "free choice" be hindered because of idiots.....

Quit citing NRA diatribe. Cars, bats, sticks, pick one... THEIR PRIMARY PURPOSE ISN'T INTENDED TO KILL WHATEVER IS ON THE OTHER END OF THAT DEVICE. THAT'S WHAT GUNS ARE FOR. So you think if this guy were to have driven his car at 120MPH directly into that school, 27 people would be dead today? You think that he could have bludgened 27 people with just a baseball bat before someone would've picked up a large item and started swinging back at him? You think he could've managed to run through a school with just a knife and successfully killed 27 people before someone tackled or simply hit him upside the head with multiple items from a distance he couldn't cut them with the knife?
You call it "infringing your rights to gun ownership". I call it, let's just keep it status quo, and simply wait for the next carnage to occur. And if that carnage involves one of your loved one's, then you can just say "Oh well. As sad as it is, it's just something we can't control. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And it just so happened this person killed someone I love. Think I'll drive down to the gun range and pop of a few clips in my AR-15 to honor my loved one's death."