• 12-14-2012, 03:16 PM
    Worf101
    And still this happens.....
    Facts: We have more guns in private hands than any nation in the world and any nation in history.

    We have on average 20 mass shootings in America every year.

    We have more people in prison than ANY nation on earth....

    And still we aren't "safe".

    I'm vet, I own guns, I believe in self defense. I'm not King, Ghandi or Jesus Christ... that being said, when some right-wing gun nut says in the next 24 hours (and believe me they will if they haven't already) that this could've been lessened or prevented IF MORE PEOPLE WERE ARMED my head's going to explode. Given the above facts, does any rational or sane person think that MORE weapons will help stem this bloody tide of mass-murder? I don't.

    Worf
  • 12-15-2012, 02:48 AM
    thekid
    In this country we can't seem to figure out how to differentiate between guns used for sport/hunting and guns designed with the basic purpose of killing people and often times lots of people......... Worf Site says I can't give you any greenies or I would for your post.
  • 12-15-2012, 06:54 AM
    LeRoy
    Ya, I own one firearm for home defense and while I used to (mid-90's) legally conceal carry in my home state of Texas I was always of the mindset of where can I go and carry because I have a right to survive etc....that was not a healthy state of mind for me to be in..always at the ready to be ready for action. I simply own one with the hope I will never ever have to use it on anyone-ever.

    A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment allows for citizens to own firearms separately from purposes of militia. Now, I never went to law school but in reading the 2nd amendment I would never come to the conclusion that Scalia did in review of the citizens right to bear arms.

    Personally, I would be greatly in favor of restricting/prohibiting the manufacturing and sale of most handguns and all assault style weapons (long guns/shotguns/handguns) that the general public has access to now.

    From my perspective of self-defense, I would be okay with handgun self defense firearms options: 22 cal, 22 WMR, .380 cal, .38 Cal, and .45 Cal. I would like to see all other handgun calibers that I have not listed simply not allowed for purchase by the general public.

    I am not a hunter so I really don't know how much long gun is enough for hunting deer. However, I don't think an AK-47 or AR-15 or Mini-14 and similar type weapons are really designed for hunting anything other than people. I'd really like to see these weapons abolished forever from the hands of the general public.

    Here is what really gets me....where is the voice of the police departments from around the nation with regard to firearms reduction/gun control? Why are P.D. silent on this topic?
  • 12-15-2012, 07:36 AM
    Mr Peabody
    The sad thing is not only are guns available that no one in their right mind would hunt with but you can buy one with out any background check in most places. You would think even the NRA would be in favor of guns being out of the hands of those who are known to be mentally unstable or already have a criminal record. You know some idiot is going to say, "if the teachers were armed". We all know from history no one wins in an arms race. We have had several recent high profile mass killings yet no one acts, not even to strengthen the laws that address the purchase of guns. In the old west most every one carried a gun, as society progressed that was done away with, it's interesting after all these years instead of continuing to progress society wants to regress back to every one toting a gun. When you see some of the stuff out on the internet from political parties having detaining camps of those who oppose to Obama going to declare martial law etc. it's scary to think those feeble enough to believe and/or create this stuff might have a gun.

    I will never understand what makes some one want to take their anger out on innocent lives and to do so on children who haven't even had a chance to live is tradgic beyond what I can describe.
  • 12-16-2012, 10:06 AM
    winston
    what do we say to the people of Newtown Connecticut
    after reading this clip, and browsing the site, all that I can say is "it makes me (Angry) to ask this question, why isn't politicians taking care of all these things that causes us so much pain!!?? A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

    there's a map in this link, that also gives us a wake up call on the mass murders and spree killings that happens in this country,
  • 12-16-2012, 04:14 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    The problem in this country is that we have so many issues, and tug of wars, most folks just cannot get their collective heads around all of the problems. We are ignorant about the motives of certain special interest and political groups, and blindly believe their marketing angles. The NRA has always used the 2nd amendment as a ruse to support the gun lobby and sales. That is their job. They have resisted any attempt to regulate guns in any sane way. Here is what I say - maybe we cannot touch guns, but we can touch the bullets they require to work. Maybe we can place limits to their access without touching the right to own the gun.

    We must start somewhere here. My confusion is how can you be pro-life, and still support a policy of no gun control, and all access? Money, money, MONEY.

    Personally I think politicians are more about the money than they are about the people they supposedly sent to represent. That goes for both sides of the political divide. And we Americans are complicit in this for not paying attention, not acting, and not holding the bums to our representation.
  • 12-16-2012, 10:49 PM
    Smokey
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    They have resisted any attempt to regulate guns in any sane way. Here is what I say - maybe we cannot touch guns, but we can touch the bullets they require to work. Maybe we can place limits to their access without touching the right to own the gun.

    That is briiliant http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/st...y-cool0020.gif
  • 12-17-2012, 06:23 AM
    ForeverAutumn
    As a Canadian, this whole gun control issue just boggles my mind. We have very strict laws regarding gun possession here. I don't know of anyplace that even sells guns, outside of sporting goods stores that specialize in hunting weapons.

    Here's my take. First of all I don't agree with this "right to bare arms" bull****. Sure, there are people who feel the need to carry a gun for protection and, of course, those who hunt. So, maybe there is a need to be able to purchase a hand gun or a rifle. But NOBODY has a personal need for a semi-automatic weapon.

    Frankly, legal or not, if someone wants a gun, they'll find a gun. We have our fair share of shootings here too. Even with strict gun laws, we are far from immune (although I think that the majority of our shootings are gang related and involve hand guns). But, if the news is to be believed, this killer's mother legally owned semi-automatic weapons. LEGALLY. That blows my mind.
  • 12-17-2012, 06:24 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    .... Here is what I say - maybe we cannot touch guns, but we can touch the bullets they require to work. Maybe we can place limits to their access without touching the right to own the gun. ....

    Aggh ... can't resist comment ...

    You won't have any better luck restricting ammo sales than gun sales. And if you could it wouldn't be effective. For every gun there is likely already a thousand rounds of ammo extent somewhere for it. I probably have 400-500 rounds right now for my Mini-14 -- more than adequate to perpetrate the likes of the Connecticut massacre. Hand-loading further complicates the issue.

    Seems to me that the USA has two, complementary problems. First, a "gun culture" where people feel they need and have a right to a gun for "personal protection" or any other purpose that occurs to them. Secondly, far too many guns, especially lethal quasi-military types that have no real application for hunting or target shooting.

    IMO the Second Amendment was never intended to entitle everybody to have a gun for "personal protection"; it was intended for the protection of the state, specifically against British invasion back then in 1792. The assumption was that a "well regulated", i.e. state-organized militia could be more easily raised against a foreign threat if citizens could provide their own firearm.
  • 12-17-2012, 06:50 AM
    ForeverAutumn
    Please read this article. It's a first hand account of a mother living with a mentally ill son. While access to guns is certaily a big part of the issue. This article illustrates how it's only a symptom of a larger problem...mental illness.

    The article is a bit long to post the whole thing here, so I'm just posting the link. It's worth reading.

    I Am Adam Lanza's Mother
  • 12-17-2012, 07:18 AM
    Hyfi
    Pretty tired of the issue being directed at Gun Ownership. 99.9% of gun owners are on the up and up and are not mentally ill. The problems of our society are more related to the declining family unit. Every time I hear these and similar stories, my first question is "Where is the father?"

    The mother in this case should never have allowed the mental kid to touch her guns.

    Violent video games where reset brings everyone back to life desensitized people from the realities of death and violence.

    Hollywood pumps out movie after movie of senseless violence, murder and mayhem which only desensitizes people.

    The news agencies give us around the clock coverage and keep showing and saying the same stuff which just gives whackos something to top.

    We all know the names of these sickos but not one name of the victims. The guy who did the Movie Theater killings should have just had a bullet to the head when he was apprehended. There is no rehabilitation for these people and we should not waste tax money on keeping them alive and well fed. Same should go for any other that does not take their own life.

    We should not make people get a license to get married, we should make them get a license to pro-create.
    We also should make it a bit harder to get divorced. Too many people get married with the thought of "oh well, if it doesn't work, we get divorced" Thats just great because it just creates more of the same single parent problems of neglect and proper guidance from both parents.

    This is not a Gun problem, it's a People problem. If guns were not available, these idiots would kill people with something else.

    I am a gun owner and have a permit to carry. the only rifle I own is a BB-Pellet gun but my handguns range from .25, .380, .40. .357. I rarely do carry...very rarely but it's my right and I am glad it is. I just recently found out, that anywhere outside of the city of Philly, I can carry in the open. If enough people carried in the open, the criminals would have to think twice about their actions. There are places in the US where this has curbed crime to a point.

    All that said, it is a sad time in our history and that we have so many mentally unstable children without a proper family unit or help when needed.
  • 12-17-2012, 07:43 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn View Post
    Please read this article. It's a first hand account of a mother living with a mentally ill son. While access to guns is certaily a big part of the issue. This article illustrates how it's only a symptom of a larger problem...mental illness.

    The article is a bit long to post the whole thing here, so I'm just posting the link. It's worth reading.

    I Am Adam Lanza's Mother

    That was a great article that illustrates fundamental issue around mental illness. The issue with the availability of guns in the USA is that facilitates the mentally lashing out in a particularly lethal way.

    That said, you have a much better chance of being killed by lightning strike than you do by a deranged mass killer.
  • 12-17-2012, 07:54 AM
    Feanor
    I'm a gun owner myself. Our gun laws here in Canada a far stricter than they are in the USA. Personally I feel they are too strict and too arbitrary in certain ways, however gun deaths have declined since stricter laws were enacted, especially suicides.

    The fact is that guns are more lethal weapons than other instruments. That is, an attempted murder or suicide with at gun is more likely to be successful than with, e.g., a knife.
  • 12-17-2012, 08:05 AM
    Hyfi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    I'm a gun owner myself. Our gun laws here in Canada a far stricter than they are in the USA. Personally I feel they are too strict and too arbitrary in certain ways, however gun deaths have declined since stricter laws were enacted, especially suicides.

    The fact is that guns are more lethal weapons than other instruments. That is, an attempted murder or suicide with at gun is more likely to be successful than with, e.g., a knife.

    Timothy McVey (or whatever his name was) was pretty successful with a large truck bomb and needed no handgun even thogh he was military and had them.
  • 12-17-2012, 08:50 AM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    The problems of our society are more related to the declining family unit. Every time I hear these and similar stories, my first question is "Where is the father?"

    Do you really believe that if this guy's father was around that this wouldn't have happened (and I don't know that his father wasn't around...I haven't heard much about his father)? With a divorce rate greater than 50%, there are millions of children from divorced families or with absentee parents. They don't go out and shoot people. I think that linking stories like this to the declining family is a stretch that has no validation.

    I don't believe that gun ownership itself is the problem. But I do believe that the types of guns that are legal to own in the US feed the problem. Would this guy have been able to kill 26 people so quickly and easily with a handgun?
  • 12-17-2012, 09:29 AM
    Hyfi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn View Post
    Do you really believe that if this guy's father was around that this wouldn't have happened (and I don't know that his father wasn't around...I haven't heard much about his father)? With a divorce rate greater than 50%, there are millions of children from divorced families or with absentee parents. They don't go out and shoot people. I think that linking stories like this to the declining family is a stretch that has no validation.

    I don't believe that gun ownership itself is the problem. But I do believe that the types of guns that are legal to own in the US feed the problem. Would this guy have been able to kill 26 people so quickly and easily with a handgun?

    For every broken family I can show you a messed up child. Whether or not they are messed up enough to kill is a different question. Maybe they don't shoot people but they get into other trouble.

    The main problem here is that the person who purchased the guns, did it correctly and jumped through all the hoops...BUT allowed the messed up son to get hold of them. If they were locked up as they should have been, we would not have had the ability to do what he did so puts the blame back on the parent/s.

    We will just have to disagree as to the decline in the family unit being an issue but everywhere I look I see news stories similar to this and almost always, there is no father to be talked about.

    The bottom line is that people should not get married and pump out children they are not going to raise properly along with all the people that pump them out without being married or even knowing who the father is.

    There have always been guns around and I know plenty of parents that have taught the children the proper respect. They don't have a problem following the rules.

    Keep in mind, he never used the rifle, only the handguns. Had the teachers been armed, the loss would have been much less.

    Another problem is that anyone can just willy nilly walk into any school without being questioned. I guess we need metal detectors everywhere.
  • 12-17-2012, 09:44 AM
    markw
    My take on this is simply this:

    The mother was a teacher. She's paid to deal with kids for a living. Do you mean to tell me she couldn't see that her kid was trouble waiting to happen? All reports coming in now is that the kid was, let's just say, a little "moody" and tended to avoid social situations, or was just a bit antisocial.

    Maybe, just maybe, you CAN judge some books by the cover, or at least read the dust jacket to see what's going on inside.

    Most people, particularly a trained professional like a teacher, might look at that as something to look into, no? Schools have psychologists on staff to look out for warning signs, no?

    Given that, hoccum Mommy Dearest didn't take greater care to keep her dangerous toys locked up where her precious progeny couldn't get at them?
  • 12-17-2012, 09:58 AM
    Hyfi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw View Post

    Given that, hoccum Mommy Dearest didn't take greater care to keep her dangerous toys locked up where her precious progeny couldn't get at them?

    Thats the bottom line here. If he could not get to them, he would not have been able to use them.

    That equals a Parenting problem, not a Gun problem
  • 12-17-2012, 03:12 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    They {NRA} have resisted any attempt to regulate guns in any sane way.

    Would you care to provide a specific example?


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    My confusion is how can you be pro-life, and still support a policy of no gun control, and all access?

    My confusion is to exactly who you refer who wants "no gun control". Who wants to dismantle the collection of federal laws of the Gun Control Act found in this 242 page document ?
  • 12-17-2012, 03:46 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    Thats the bottom line here. If he could not get to them, he would not have been able to use them.

    That equals a Parenting problem, not a Gun problem

    And if she couldn't own them, they might not have been there for him to get to.

    That equals a gun problem, not a parenting problem.
  • 12-17-2012, 04:12 PM
    JohnMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    For every broken family I can show you a messed up child. Whether or not they are messed up enough to kill is a different question. Maybe they don't shoot people but they get into other trouble.


    Bull****! I grew up in a one parent home and it was my father I had to overcome. Had he remained I would have been messed up. A bad parent is worse than no parent.

    The school did lock their doors at a certain time each day. He forced his way in and began shooting. If he did not have an assault rifle he probably could not have killed so many so quickly.
  • 12-17-2012, 04:16 PM
    JohnMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw View Post
    My take on this is simply this:

    The mother was a teacher. She's paid to deal with kids for a living.

    Given that, hoccum Mommy Dearest didn't take greater care to keep her dangerous toys locked up where her precious progeny couldn't get at them?


    The mother was not a teacher and that was early information that we now know was incorrect. She did not work at the school. Her son was home schooled but she did not work at the school or trained as a teacher.

    I would say Mommy Dearest paid for having those guns.
  • 12-17-2012, 04:38 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Has there been confirmation that the guns were not locked up? Or is this just an assumption because he was able to access them?
  • 12-17-2012, 04:56 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    Keep in mind, he never used the rifle, only the handguns.

    BTW, you're wrong about that. According to this article in today's USA today the primary weapon used was a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle - a semiautomatic assault rifle. The same weapon used in the D.C. Sniper shootings.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by USA Today
    In the school shooting, Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver said all 26 victims were hit multiple times, suffering "devastating" wounds, all apparently traced to the rifle.

    Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said Sunday that the shooter used "multiple" 30-round rifle magazines in the attack.

    ...

    "There's a reason why these types of weapons are useful for the military," Lowy said. "They have the capacity to massacre large numbers of human beings in a short amount of time. There is little or no use for these weapons for people who want to use them for self-protection or sport."


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    Had the teachers been armed, the loss would have been much less.

    Oh that's a good idea. Then the kids won't need to acquire their own guns to bring to school. They can just steal the teacher's gun.

    More guns is not the answer to having too many guns on the streets.
  • 12-17-2012, 06:36 PM
    markw
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn View Post
    Has there been confirmation that the guns were not locked up? Or is this just an assumption because he was able to access them?

    Locked or not, it's a truly cathrostrophic mistake on mom's part that he was able to access them at all. One she paid dearly for. ...as did many others.