27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Once again, we focus on the guns. Many have decided for all of us that these weapons that were used are useless for any lawful purpose, and choose to trivialize the lawful use of these weapons for the purposes of making their point.
I don't think this is a gun control issue. Here is my issue... although the weapon everyone seems to be an "expert" on, the AR-15 civilian variant (semi-automatic) is a relatively new weapon, semi-automatic rifles have been around decades. The surplus military market flooded private ownership with the M1-Garand, a semi-automatic rifle that fired rounds a lot bigger than the .223/5.56 (the most common caliber for the AR-15 platform) after WWII.
Given that semi-automatic weapons have been around for so long, why are these horrible shootings happening only in the last few decades? Sure, there have alwasy been this sort of thing happening, but nowhere near the frequency. GUNS PREDATE THE PROBLEM, so what is the ROOT CAUSE?
In today's society of the insatiable need for instant gratification, we rush to conclusions and "measures" so that we can feel good knowing that we've "done something." The gun is the means, not the cause. If we take away guns without understanding and addressing why people are in the frame of mind to do this sort of thing in the first place, then we haven't really addressed the cause, only the symptom. In other words, we get so hung up on gun control each time a tragedy like this occurs, we forget that perhaps the answers are no so simple. Instead, we rush into things like gun control, and in the end, the only ones who get hurt at the ones who never would have committed such an act in the first place. Every freedom has value and deserves to be cherished, even if you do not choose to partake in a particular freedom.
So I submit to those here on this thread, just assuming for the moment that this is not a gun control issue, then what is it?
I don't have answers, but I have opinions. The people who commit these acts are almost always young. These are a generation of individuals who have been raised to believe that everyone is special, everyone is a winner. There are no ugly people, there are no poor people, everyone gets a fair shake, a fair go. Their parents want to protect them from the realities of life, leaving them completely unprepared for it. The world is fair, the world should change for YOU, and if anything you perceive is unfair, kick up a stink until you've been "righted." Trophies for all, ribbons for everyone. The world owes you. No losers, only winners. Then, when these people grow up and get slammed in the face with the truth, they can't handle it, and go bezerk.
That said, the fact of the matter is that any conclusion right now is premature and distracts us from what we really need to do. Take a pause, step back, and get facts. This happened only a few days ago. It is far too early to understand what caused this, and what could have prevented it. Right now, we need to understand, while at the same time pray for those affected.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504546
Once again, we focus on the guns. Many have decided for all of us that these weapons that were used are useless for any lawful purpose, and choose to trivialize the lawful use of these weapons for the purposes of making their point.
I don't think this is a gun control issue. Here is my issue... although the weapon everyone seems to be an "expert" on, the AR-15 civilian variant (semi-automatic) is a relatively new weapon, semi-automatic rifles have been around decades. The surplus military market flooded private ownership with the M1-Garand, a semi-automatic rifle that fired rounds a lot bigger than the .223/5.56 (the most common caliber for the AR-15 platform) after WWII.
Given that semi-automatic weapons have been around for so long, why are these horrible shootings happening only in the last few decades? Sure, there have alwasy been this sort of thing happening, but nowhere near the frequency. GUNS PREDATE THE PROBLEM, so what is the ROOT CAUSE?
In today's society of the insatiable need for instant gratification, we rush to conclusions and "measures" so that we can feel good knowing that we've "done something." The gun is the means, not the cause. If we take away guns without understanding and addressing why people are in the frame of mind to do this sort of thing in the first place, then we haven't really addressed the cause, only the symptom. In other words, we get so hung up on gun control each time a tragedy like this occurs, we forget that perhaps the answers are no so simple. Instead, we rush into things like gun control, and in the end, the only ones who get hurt at the ones who never would have committed such an act in the first place. Every freedom has value and deserves to be cherished, even if you do not choose to partake in a particular freedom.
So I submit to those here on this thread, just assuming for the moment that this is not a gun control issue, then what is it?
I don't have answers, but I have opinions. The people who commit these acts are almost always young. These are a generation of individuals who have been raised to believe that everyone is special, everyone is a winner. There are no ugly people, there are no poor people, everyone gets a fair shake, a fair go. Their parents want to protect them from the realities of life, leaving them completely unprepared for it. The world is fair, the world should change for YOU, and if anything you perceive is unfair, kick up a stink until you've been "righted." Trophies for all, ribbons for everyone. The world owes you. No losers, only winners. Then, when these people grow up and get slammed in the face with the truth, they can't handle it, and go bezerk.
That said, the fact of the matter is that any conclusion right now is premature and distracts us from what we really need to do. Take a pause, step back, and get facts. This happened only a few days ago. It is far too early to understand what caused this, and what could have prevented it. Right now, we need to understand, while at the same time pray for those affected.
The reports so far show that this individual did have some form of "mental" issues, that being Asperger Syndrome, or Autism. However, anyone that knew this kid stated that he never exhibited any violent tendencies, and he was more of a loner and anti-social. He had no criminal record, he had no run-in's with the law. His favorite pastime was playing Dance Dance Revolution. People that new his mother stated she was very protective of her son, and would do anything she could to make his life as normal as possible. She touted he was very intelligent, and she was in the process of getting him enrolled into a college to get him to be more productive in his life. Money wasn't an issue. When she got divorced, the settlement included annual alimony payments of around $300,000/year. She was an avid gun shooter, and she had taken her son to the gun range multiple times to try and get him interested in the sport and use it as a form of bonding. So if this kid wasn't showing any of the standard signs of being "mentally unstable", how do you address that factor? Start requiring mandatory mental tests for anyone under the age of 27? Put anyone who exhibits any tendencies of violence and rage on some national "Potential Mass Shooter" list?
Here's a thought. Let's require a Mental Exam for anyone wanting to purchase any form of semi-auto weapon. Require a one month waiting period to evaluate any individual wanting to purchase a weapon capable of firing more than 5 rounds in one magazine. Have every single assault-type weapon registered and available for tracking via GPS. Restrict the use of 30-round or larger magazines to shooting and gun ranges. Want to play Rambo and unload 400 rounds of ammo in 5 minutes? No problem. Go to a gun range that offers those magazines, check the magazine out, shoot all you want, check them back in. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state what type of weapons you're allowed to own. It just grants you the right to own a 'firearm'. The Founding Fathers never imagined that gun technology would advance to the point where a normal civilian would have access to a weapon that could create such carnage in such a short amount of time. That wasn't the intent of the law. Gun fanatics have simply skewed that defintion to allow them to stockpile any and all availble weaponry known to man. There's no logical reason to own an assault weapon. None. You can try rationalizing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that fewer lives would be lost if these types of weapons weren't available. A NATO 5.56mm shell coming out of an AR-15 has 3 times the velocity and 5 times the Energy than a 9mm shell coming out of a standard semi-auto pistol. The damage incurred by that bullet is twice as fatal. A person familiar with the operation of an Ar-15 can shoot an avergae of 2-3 rounds per second out of a 30-round magazine before having to reload, which only takes another 5-10 seconds to do. A 9mm handgun has a maximum 17-1 capacity, and can be fired at approximately the same rate. However, that's half the capacity of the AR magazine. So yea, you can rationalize again that you can still kill a lot of people with a 9mm, but as someone has stated, if it saves only ONE life, that's should be enough justification to take that element out of the picture.
There's one major difference between this Newtown incident and previous melee's. This one involved multiple CHILDREN, most no older than 7 years old. Some may say "What's the difference?" Sorry, but there's a MAJOR difference when innocent small children are murdered needlessly and for no apparent reason. That's why you'll likely see some form of gun control legislation move forward in the first session next year.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504549
Here's a thought. Let's require a Mental Exam for anyone wanting to purchase any form of semi-auto weapon. Require a one month waiting period to evaluate any individual wanting to purchase a weapon capable of firing more than 5 rounds in one magazine. Have every single assault-type weapon registered and available for tracking via GPS. Restrict the use of 30-round or larger magazines to shooting and gun ranges. Want to play Rambo and unload 400 rounds of ammo in 5 minutes? No problem. Go to a gun range that offers those magazines, check the magazine out, shoot all you want, check them back in. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state what type of weapons you're allowed to own. It just grants you the right to own a 'firearm'. The Founding Fathers never imagined that gun technology would advance to the point where a normal civilian would have access to a weapon that could create such carnage in such a short amount of time. That wasn't the intent of the law. Gun fanatics have simply skewed that defintion to allow them to stockpile any and all availble weaponry known to man. There's no logical reason to own an assault weapon. None. You can try rationalizing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that fewer lives would be lost if these types of weapons weren't available. A NATO 5.56mm shell coming out of an AR-15 has 3 times the velocity and 5 times the Energy than a 9mm shell coming out of a standard semi-auto pistol. The damage incurred by that bullet is twice as fatal. A person familiar with the operation of an Ar-15 can shoot an avergae of 2-3 rounds per second out of a 30-round magazine before having to reload, which only takes another 5-10 seconds to do. A 9mm handgun has a maximum 17-1 capacity, and can be fired at approximately the same rate. However, that's half the capacity of the AR magazine. So yea, you can rationalize again that you can still kill a lot of people with a 9mm, but as someone has stated, if it saves only ONE life, that's should be enough justification to take that element out of the picture.
This last nut case incident was not a nut with a legal gun...the weapon was his mother's, a perfectly sane indivdual (also murdered)...the nut was her son. So even if a law was passed to make sure the unstable can't purchase the weapon, it won't make a shred of difference. The GPS thing isn't a bad idea, and I think we also have the ability to be able to tell if said weapon was fired that an instant message woulld show of where, and what time it happened...even better, if said weapon could be shut down via satellite if it is unauthorized to be fired, so an attack can be stopped instantly when it's realized a problem has been detected. Well that won't help you if you decided to battle your own government, and lets face it...the bad guys would find a way to override the safety feature...LOL...I watch way too many SiFi movies.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504549
The reports so far show that this individual did have some form of "mental" issues, that being Asperger Syndrome, or Autism. However, anyone that knew this kid stated that he never exhibited any violent tendencies, and he was more of a loner and anti-social. He had no criminal record, he had no run-in's with the law. His favorite pastime was playing Dance Dance Revolution. People that new his mother stated she was very protective of her son, and would do anything she could to make his life as normal as possible. She touted he was very intelligent, and she was in the process of getting him enrolled into a college to get him to be more productive in his life. Money wasn't an issue. When she got divorced, the settlement included annual alimony payments of around $300,000/year. She was an avid gun shooter, and she had taken her son to the gun range multiple times to try and get him interested in the sport and use it as a form of bonding. So if this kid wasn't showing any of the standard signs of being "mentally unstable", how do you address that factor? Start requiring mandatory mental tests for anyone under the age of 27? Put anyone who exhibits any tendencies of violence and rage on some national "Potential Mass Shooter" list?
Here's a thought. Let's require a Mental Exam for anyone wanting to purchase any form of semi-auto weapon. Require a one month waiting period to evaluate any individual wanting to purchase a weapon capable of firing more than 5 rounds in one magazine. Have every single assault-type weapon registered and available for tracking via GPS. Restrict the use of 30-round or larger magazines to shooting and gun ranges. Want to play Rambo and unload 400 rounds of ammo in 5 minutes? No problem. Go to a gun range that offers those magazines, check the magazine out, shoot all you want, check them back in. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state what type of weapons you're allowed to own. It just grants you the right to own a 'firearm'. The Founding Fathers never imagined that gun technology would advance to the point where a normal civilian would have access to a weapon that could create such carnage in such a short amount of time. That wasn't the intent of the law. Gun fanatics have simply skewed that defintion to allow them to stockpile any and all availble weaponry known to man. There's no logical reason to own an assault weapon. None. You can try rationalizing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that fewer lives would be lost if these types of weapons weren't available. A NATO 5.56mm shell coming out of an AR-15 has 3 times the velocity and 5 times the Energy than a 9mm shell coming out of a standard semi-auto pistol. The damage incurred by that bullet is twice as fatal. A person familiar with the operation of an Ar-15 can shoot an avergae of 2-3 rounds per second out of a 30-round magazine before having to reload, which only takes another 5-10 seconds to do. A 9mm handgun has a maximum 17-1 capacity, and can be fired at approximately the same rate. However, that's half the capacity of the AR magazine. So yea, you can rationalize again that you can still kill a lot of people with a 9mm, but as someone has stated, if it saves only ONE life, that's should be enough justification to take that element out of the picture.
There's one major difference between this Newtown incident and previous melee's. This one involved multiple CHILDREN, most no older than 7 years old. Some may say "What's the difference?" Sorry, but there's a MAJOR difference when innocent small children are murdered needlessly and for no apparent reason. That's why you'll likely see some form of gun control legislation move forward in the first session next year.
You should educate yourself before claiming others misrepresent the intent of the 2nd amendment.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
I can't see how any of the countermeasures suggested here would have prevented this tragedy. The guns were not legally his, so he wouldn't have even taken a mental exam if one were given. I think the electronic stuff is, as admitted, more science fiction than science.
Again though, we are focusing on the TOOL. We have to stop being so hung up on the guns.
Why are we not focusing on the WHY instead of the HOW?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504555
I can't see how any of the countermeasures suggested here would have prevented this tragedy. The guns were not legally his, so he wouldn't have even taken a mental exam if one were given. I think the electronic stuff is, as admitted, more science fiction than science.
Again though, we are focusing on the TOOL. We have to stop being so hung up on the guns.
Why are we not focusing on the WHY instead of the HOW?
The focus is on guns is because that was the medium used to cause this carnage. I went round and round with Darth about changing the scenario from this guy having a Bushmaster, to just having a large knife. He still thinks the same amount of people would die, relating it to some goofball incident in China. Any rational person knows that's improbable if not completely wrong. It's that TOOL's availability that increases the death rate during these incidents.
Who knows why? Again, this kid never exhinited any violent tendencies. Who knows why someone "snaps" and goes on a rampage like this. How do you prevent it? It's impossible.
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504551
This last nut case incident was not a nut with a legal gun...the weapon was his mother's, a perfectly sane indivdual (also murdered)...the nut was her son. So even if a law was passed to make sure the unstable can't purchase the weapon, it won't make a shred of difference. The GPS thing isn't a bad idea, and I think we also have the ability to be able to tell if said weapon was fired that an instant message woulld show of where, and what time it happened...even better, if said weapon could be shut down via satellite if it is unauthorized to be fired, so an attack can be stopped instantly when it's realized a problem has been detected. Well that won't help you if you decided to battle your own government, and lets face it...the bad guys would find a way to override the safety feature...LOL...I watch way too many SiFi movies.
That is some serious big brother stuff right there...
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
The focus is on guns is because that was the medium used to cause this carnage.  I went round and round with Darth about changing the scenario from this guy having a Bushmaster, to just having a large knife.  He still thinks the same amount of people would die, relating it to some goofball incident in China.  Any rational person knows that's improbable if not completely wrong.  It's that TOOL's availability that increases the death rate during these incidents.
Who knows why?  Again, this kid never exhinited any violent tendencies.  Who knows why someone "snaps" and goes on a rampage like this.  How do you prevent it?  It's impossible.
Learn to flipping read you illiterate moron. I never claimed it would be the same death rate. I also didn't post ONE "goofball" incident. That link linked to no less than 10 incidents in a year involving a knife, mass death, and schools.
You know, the hypocracy about this whole thing is dumbfounding. You claim it is in the interest of saving lives....But you truly have no interest in saving lives. Otherwise you would call for vehicle interlocks and or governors in all vehicles. This would save far more lines than a complete civilian gun ban would. But no...your rational points to a type of gun. Fine do it. Bring back the old assault weapons ban. It wont stop these actions from happening again. It didn't then, why should it now.? It isn't and never has been about saving lives...it is politics, plain and simple.
As I stated, I am done with this conversation. If you are going to reference what I said, do it correctly so you don't look like an ignorant ass.
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504558
The focus is on guns is because that was the medium used to cause this carnage. I went round and round with Darth about changing the scenario from this guy having a Bushmaster, to just having a large knife. He still thinks the same amount of people would die, relating it to some goofball incident in China. Any rational person knows that's improbable if not completely wrong. It's that TOOL's availability that increases the death rate during these incidents.
I think manypeople would disagree with you. I shudder to think about this, but if some nut ran into a kindergarten class with the intention of killing everyone in there with a knife, its VERY probably that the carnage would be just as bad as if he had a semi auto gun. Think about it, there is most likely 1 adult per class with what, 20-25 kids? There is probably a 95% chance that the adult in a kindergarten class is a woman who would be more easily overpowered by an attacker.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504558
The focus is on guns is because that was the medium used to cause this carnage.
Wrong. Guns did not cause this carnage. It may have been fair to say "the focus is on guns because that was the medium that was used" or something along those lines.
Semantics perhaps? No, the difference is key.
The difference beween guns causing it and guns being used is the reason why I believe people in your position have it wrong. With all due respect, you are looking for an easy thing to blame it on, and nothing is easier to blame something on than an inanimate object. I'm sorry to revive one of the oldest cliches here, but guns do not kill people, people do. Guns aren't what killed those kids. This piece of human waste killed those kids. If you took the guns away from this guy, it wouldn't have changed the fact that he wanted to kill those kids. Those kids may still be alive, or maybe not. We'll never know.
The other piece of flawed logic is to somehow think that there are different degrees of killing. If he had walked into that classroom with a single shot sporting shotgun and killed just ONE innocent 6 year old kid who had done nothing to harm him, would have have been any less of a tragedy? Many people might say yes, but I say no. As I said earlier, life has immeasurable value. You can't compare something that is immeasurable to something else that is immeasurable. The problem is bigger and wider than just a shooting. There is a problem with society, a problem with behaviors and attitudes, a pandemic. The shootings are a symptom of that. But we don't want to think about the pandemic... no... that's too hard. What can we do that's easier... I know, let's ban the guns! I can't think of why anyone who needs them anyway! How is this not going to solve the problem?!?!?!?
If you want gun control, if you want to ban the "assault weapons," fine. That's your opinion, and you have a right to it, but don't think for a second that anything will be truly solved by it. The best that can happen is that the cause gets hidden away, so we don't have to think about it anymore.
Quote:
How do you prevent it? It's impossible.
Yeah, you're right. So why bother trying, right?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Banning assault weapons wouldn't have changed this incident. He had two 9mm handguns. At that range the kids would be just as dead as if they were hit with a 223.
So today it's "Assault Weapons" Tomorrow it will be all Semi Autos. Pretty soon 0bama will have the whole country like his beloved ghetto. Everyone on government assistance and afraid to leave their homes because the gangs have all the guns. But by God he will feel better about being him.
My kind of town, Chicago is, My kind of town...... Criminals shooting up the streets CHICAGO! Bum panhandling everyone he meets, CHICAGO! My kind of town.....
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504560
Learn to flipping read you illiterate moron. I never claimed it would be the same death rate. I also didn't post ONE "goofball" incident. That link linked to no less than 10 incidents in a year involving a knife, mass death, and schools.
You know, the hypocracy about this whole thing is dumbfounding. You claim it is in the interest of saving lives....But you truly have no interest in saving lives. Otherwise you would call for vehicle interlocks and or governors in all vehicles. This would save far more lines than a complete civilian gun ban would. But no...your rational points to a type of gun. Fine do it. Bring back the old assault weapons ban. It wont stop these actions from happening again. It didn't then, why should it now.? It isn't and never has been about saving lives...it is politics, plain and simple.
As I stated, I am done with this conversation. If you are going to reference what I said, do it correctly so you don't look like an ignorant ass.
Nice pompous response. 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? Talk about moronic and hypocritical. Go look at the statistics in Australia after their gun ban. I showed you the simple math on why an automobile could be construed as more deadly than a gun. Please tell me these 27 individuals would be dead today if all that kid had to use as a "deadly weapon" was a Forf F-150, a Louisville Slugger, or even a machete. You can't. All you want to do is justify some logic of why you should be allowed to own a weapon that its PRIMARY purpose is to be used for killing and fighting in war-like scenarios. You're honestly going to say that Colt and all these offshoot assault weapon manufacturers created this technology with the intent to sell it off to the civilian public. No, it's intial purpose was a viable weapon for our armed forces. It wasn't until the mid-70's, when we were done with Nam did the public start getting infatuated with this type of weapon. I know this because when my brother first started his gun shop, he didn't even stock anything considered to be an assault weapon. Nowadays you go to a gun show, and that's all you see..
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504561
I think manypeople would disagree with you. I shudder to think about this, but if some nut ran into a kindergarten class with the intention of killing everyone in there with a knife, its VERY probably that the carnage would be just as bad as if he had a semi auto gun. Think about it, there is most likely 1 adult per class with what, 20-25 kids? There is probably a 95% chance that the adult in a kindergarten class is a woman who would be more easily overpowered by an attacker.
It has nothing to do with overpowering the guy. It's simple logic. Some maniac opens the door with a knife in his hands, you think those kids are just going to sit there. waiting their turn to get sliced? They'd scatter like rats in all different directions. He may get 2 or 3, but 20? I read the average bullet wounds each of these kids had was between 5 and 11. Scattering and running would do know good when it came to bullets flying at an average of 30 in 10 - 15 seconds.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504564
Banning assault weapons wouldn't have changed this incident. He had two 9mm handguns. At that range the kids would be just as dead as if they were hit with a 223.
So today it's "Assault Weapons" Tomorrow it will be all Semi Autos. Pretty soon 0bama will have the whole country like his beloved ghetto. Everyone on government assistance and afraid to leave their homes because the gangs have all the guns. But by God he will feel better about being him.
My kind of town, Chicago is, My kind of town...... Criminals shooting up the streets CHICAGO! Bum panhandling everyone he meets, CHICAGO! My kind of town.....
Always the extremist. He would've probably only been able to shoot one at a time if his intention was to reload after every clip. The accuracy of shooting a hand gun isn't close as shooting a long rifle, even in a small proximity. Who knows if the head count would've been any different. But if even one life were saved, that's good enough for me.
Where are all the gangsta's going to get their weapons? Most of these teenage punks get their weapons by breaking into gun owner houses like yours and stealing them. Is there some special black market dealership group running around this country selling illegal and unregistered guns? No, they're called your local gun shows that are held twice a month in virtually every major city in this country. You fill out some two page document, wait 20 minutes or so, and you're out the door with your Bushmaster, AK47, or Tec-9. What, these people aren't "responsible gun owners"?
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504566
It has nothing to do with overpowering the guy. It's simple logic. Some maniac opens the door with a knife in his hands, you think those kids are just going to sit there. waiting their turn to get sliced? They'd scatter like rats in all different directions. He may get 2 or 3, but 20? I read the average bullet wounds each of these kids had was between 5 and 11. Scattering and running would do know good when it came to bullets flying at an average of 30 in 10 - 15 seconds.
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.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504569
Always the extremist. He would've probably only been able to shoot one at a time if his intention was to reload after every clip. The accuracy of shooting a hand gun isn't close as shooting a long rifle, even in a small proximity. Who knows if the head count would've been any different. But if even one life were saved, that's good enough for me.
Where are all the gangsta's going to get their weapons? Most of these teenage punks get their weapons by breaking into gun owner houses like yours and stealing them. Is there some special black market dealership group running around this country selling illegal and unregistered guns? No, they're called your local gun shows that are held twice a month in virtually every major city in this country. You fill out some two page document, wait 20 minutes or so, and you're out the door with your Bushmaster, AK47, or Tec-9. What, these people aren't "responsible gun owners"?
In something the size of a class room the rifle would be more difficult to use than the hand gun for most people. 15 rounds in each gun. They are quicker to change the clip and he gets the same 30 rounds off he did with the rifle before having to reload.
Gangstas aren't getting guns from houses like mine. My guns are legal here. Hand guns and Assault weapons look a likes are banned in cook county and the State of Illinois requires a background check if you buy at a gun show. So where all those fabulous young men getting all the guns?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504562
Wrong. Guns did not cause this carnage. It may have been fair to say "the focus is on guns because that was the medium that was used" or something along those lines.
Semantics perhaps? No, the difference is key.
The difference beween guns causing it and guns being used is the reason why I believe people in your position have it wrong. With all due respect, you are looking for an easy thing to blame it on, and nothing is easier to blame something on than an inanimate object. I'm sorry to revive one of the oldest cliches here, but guns do not kill people, people do. Guns aren't what killed those kids. This piece of human waste killed those kids. If you took the guns away from this guy, it wouldn't have changed the fact that he wanted to kill those kids. Those kids may still be alive, or maybe not. We'll never know.
The other piece of flawed logic is to somehow think that there are different degrees of killing. If he had walked into that classroom with a single shot sporting shotgun and killed just ONE innocent 6 year old kid who had done nothing to harm him, would have have been any less of a tragedy? Many people might say yes, but I say no. As I said earlier, life has immeasurable value. You can't compare something that is immeasurable to something else that is immeasurable. The problem is bigger and wider than just a shooting. There is a problem with society, a problem with behaviors and attitudes, a pandemic. The shootings are a symptom of that. But we don't want to think about the pandemic... no... that's too hard. What can we do that's easier... I know, let's ban the guns! I can't think of why anyone who needs them anyway! How is this not going to solve the problem?!?!?!?
If you want gun control, if you want to ban the "assault weapons," fine. That's your opinion, and you have a right to it, but don't think for a second that anything will be truly solved by it. The best that can happen is that the cause gets hidden away, so we don't have to think about it anymore.
Yeah, you're right. So why bother trying, right?
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.
Mental illness is one of the most difficult "diseases" that you can diagnose. There's just no simple test to perform to determine whose sane, and who has a wire loose that makes them capable of doing something like this. So how do you resolve it? You have 270 million people walking around this country. At any point in time, something traumatic in their life can occur, and spurn the desire to cause harm on anything or anyone around them. A death in the familiy, a loss of a job, a breakup from a girlfriend or boyfriend, failing a school class, losing a bunch of money.... Any and all of these scenarios can be the catalyst to cause a normal mild-mannered individual to go ballistic. There could be some warning signs, but how do you determine which one's are nothing more than a 'temporary meltdown' to one's that would lead someone to go out and obtain some cache of weapons to perform this type of haenous act? Why is it that guns seem to be the major 'weapon of choice' for these events? Accessibility of the guns, the ammo, the ease of use, and knowing the type of damage these "tools" can inflict on their targets and victims.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/160#post_3504572
In something the size of a class room the rifle would be more difficult to use than the hand gun for most people. 15 rounds in each gun. They are quicker to change the clip and he gets the same 30 rounds off he did with the rifle before having to reload.
Gangstas aren't getting guns from houses like mine. My guns are legal here. Hand guns and Assault weapons look a likes are banned in cook county and the State of Illinois requires a background check if you buy at a gun show. So where all those fabulous young men getting all the guns?
Ohio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top