Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Jethraw

School Shooting in Connecticut - At Least 27 Dead

Recommended Posts

Making guns illegal is not the answer to this or anything else, I'm still going to say that handguns below 0.4 caliber or something, single fire, and small magazines should be the only weapons that are legal to own. What's the gun that killed the majority of the people in the Batman shooting? A small machine gun with expanded drum if I remember correctly. What was the gun used here? semi automatic rifle (SIG sauer) and a 15 round glock 0.4 cal pistol. What were the guns used in the Virginia tech shooting? Two semi automatic handguns. Notice a pattern?

You don't know anything about firearms. For a start, SIG Sauer is the name of a company, not a model of a gun. That's like saying Toyota is a type of SUV.

 

You're an example of everything that's wrong with the anti-gun community. You think blanket bans will change something.

 

I don't believe that everywhere in the USA is dangerous enough for someone to justify owning a firearm, let alone carrying it on their person.

Maybe you don't believe so but people should have the right to defend themselves. You can call it paranoia, but paranoia isn't a crime.

 

The problem here is that there was nobody inside that school who could have defended the kids. That guy didn't need a gun, he could have walked in with a knife and started slitting throats and the end result would have been the same. He could have made pipe bombs and thrown them.

 

The largest school massacre in US history didn't involve a single gun. The deadliest act of terrorism in US history didn't involve one either. If guns are so easy to use, why didn't Timothy McVeigh just start shooting people?

 

 

Mass school shootings are the exception, not the rule. There is a gun problem in America, but it's not the legal weapons that are the problem. It's the illegal ones.

So apparently I have to know the name of guns to know what they are and what they do? I might not know the names of any guns or companies that produce guns because I don't own any but I know how they are operated. There is no reason why someone would need anything more than the handgun I stated should be allowed for civilian usage. A robber breaks in, and you are arguing that you need 15 rounds to stop him? I'm sure that 2 well aimed shots would do the trick.

 

Blanket bans will stop this kind of crime from happening on the scale that it does. if this man only had a small magazine and low cal handgun he took from his mother, I doubt that even 5 people would have been killed. I agree people have the right to defend themselves, but they don't need a light machine gun to do so.

 

Explosives not handled by someone who really knows what they are doing are not going to be effective, so if he had explosives only this attack would have probably resulted in no deaths. The Columbine killers used explosives and had guns, their bombs didn't work at all but their guns sure did. McVeigh was nothing like this killer, he actually knew how to cause damage with explosives as he graduated from a US Army combat engineering school and studied explosives. Using him as the example for how explosives cause damage is ridiculous as he is a clear outlier.

 

Illegal weapons are and will be a problem regardless of what happens, but why should we keep on producing legal weapons that are very similar to the illegal ones? All this is doing is giving the people who can't get illegal weapons because they don't have access to the markets legal weapons that can do pretty much the same amount of damage

 

I don't agree with a repeal of the second amendment either, as I agree with the purpose of Americans being able to form militias and own guns in general for self defense. I think that it should actually be used in a modern sense however, as it was conceived at a different century with completely different technology.

Edited by Clavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So apparently I have to know the name of guns to know what they are and what they do? I might not know the names of any guns or companies that produce guns because I don't own any but I know how they are operated.
No you don't. The mere fact that you think there's such a thing as 0.4 caliber is a testament to that.

 

There is no reason why someone would need anything more than the handgun I stated should be allowed for civilian usage. A robber breaks in, and you are arguing that you need 15 rounds to stop him? I'm sure that 2 well aimed shots would do the trick.

When your life is on the line and the assailant is armed, you might not have time to reload. On the flip side, limiting magazine size would only have forced the shooter to reload more often. It's not like anybody in there could have stopped him. It would merely have slowed him down.

 

Blanket bans will stop this kind of crime from happening on the scale that it does. if this man only had a small magazine and low cal handgun he took from his mother, I doubt that even 5 people would have been killed. I agree people have the right to defend themselves, but they don't need a light machine gun to do so.
You realize the caliber of a weapon isn't the only variable that determines its power? And that at point-blank range it doesn't matter what caliber the rounds are? You can shoot somebody with a .22, a 9x19mm or a .45 ACP and they'll be just as dead in all three cases.

 

I don't agree with a repeal of the second amendment either, as I agree with the purpose of Americans being able to form militias and own guns in general for self defense. I think that it should actually be used in a modern sense however, as it was conceived at a different century with completely different technology.
You are contradicting everything you said previously. Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 0.40 S&W.

Nobody refers to it as 0.4.

 

Let's not derail the discussion.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So apparently I have to know the name of guns to know what they are and what they do? I might not know the names of any guns or companies that produce guns because I don't own any but I know how they are operated.
No you don't. The mere fact that you think there's such a thing as 0.4 caliber is a testament to that.

last time I checked 0.4 is the same number as 0.40, 0.4 is a measurement. why is it necessary to add the zero to the end if it is simply a measurement, the zero is just to make it sound better probably. again I don't use guns but I know guns.

 

I don't agree with a repeal of the second amendment either, as I agree with the purpose of Americans being able to form militias and own guns in general for self defense. I think that it should actually be used in a modern sense however, as it was conceived at a different century with completely different technology.

You are contradicting everything you said previously.

the second amendment doesn't state that citizens are allowed to own any kind of specific gun, just the legal right to access firearms. What I am saying still is in line with it, unless you don't consider handguns to be firearms.

 

There is no reason why someone would need anything more than the handgun I stated should be allowed for civilian usage. A robber breaks in, and you are arguing that you need 15 rounds to stop him? I'm sure that 2 well aimed shots would do the trick.

When your life is on the line and the assailant is armed, you might not have time to reload. On the flip side, limiting magazine size would only have forced the shooter to reload more often. It's not like anybody in there could have stopped him. It would merely have slowed him down.

slowing him down would have caused less deaths obviously... less shots would have been fired. For self defense, someone would have to miss 6-10 times in order to have to reload, I don't get how you could do that at close range unless you aren't trained at all.

Edited by Clavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For self defense, someone would have to miss 6-8 times in order to have to reload, I don't get how you could do that at close range unless you aren't trained at all.

 

shooting in the wrong direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For self defense, someone would have to miss 6-10 times in order to have to reload, I don't get how you could do that at close range unless you aren't trained at all.

There's a huge difference between shooting in real life and shooting in a video game. :P

from 10 feet away max I don't get how someone would have such bad aim, even someone not trained at all and with bad aim could easily shoot the person 3 times if he/she gets 10 shots off at that range. Edited by Clavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For self defense, someone would have to miss 6-10 times in order to have to reload, I don't get how you could do that at close range unless you aren't trained at all.

There's a huge difference between shooting in real life and shooting in a video game. :P

from 10 feet away max I don't get how someone would have such bad aim, even someone not trained at all and with bad aim could easily shoot the person 3 times if he/she gets 10 shots off at that range.

Don't forget the fact that without the proper training you're likely panicking, probably not in the best control of your arms, and as such could certainly miss a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point I'll make: If guns are meant to protect civilians, why did no civilian defend the school with a gun?

Because it would have been illegal to bring one on school property.

 

Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point I'll make: If guns are meant to protect civilians, why did no civilian defend the school with a gun?

Because it would have been illegal to bring one on school property.

 

Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

They should have one in a glass case instead of an axe saying "Incase of emergency"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the shooter was mentally ill from a young age and didn't get the help he needed. Like the other shooter whose mother said she prayed he would kill himself when he was young.

 

It's just sad on so many levels when lives are lost. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point I'll make: If guns are meant to protect civilians, why did no civilian defend the school with a gun?

Because it would have been illegal to bring one on school property.

 

Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

That your entire argument is questionable, if guns are meant to defend from shootings; why is there not one at school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point I'll make: If guns are meant to protect civilians, why did no civilian defend the school with a gun?

Because it would have been illegal to bring one on school property.

 

Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

That your entire argument is questionable, if guns are meant to defend from shootings; why is there not one at school?

 

I think Theking is for armed guards at schools - or, at least, not against. Try to keep up with what your opponent's argument actually is, it'll help when trying to counter it.

 

 

Would I force schools to have armed guards? No. But if they want to have guards, by all means they should be allowed to do so. If nobody has a problem with armed guards in shopping malls, why shouldn't they be allowed in schools?

 

Edited by Mano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hearing a lot about gun control and not much about the appropriate means of treating mental illness.

 

I think mental illness has a lot more to do with this than the availability of guns. If there weren't guns, he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or a crossbow, or something. There was obviously something amiss with this guy's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hearing a lot about gun control and not much about the appropriate means of treating mental illness.

 

I think mental illness has a lot more to do with this than the availability of guns. If there weren't guns, he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or a crossbow, or something. There was obviously something amiss with this guy's mind.

Is it impossible to address both issues?

 

I don't get the "arm the teachers" argument. Are we supposed to become this self-policed state where the citizens are expected to defend themselves with firearms because the freedom to own guns in America is more important than the safety of its citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm hearing a lot about gun control and not much about the appropriate means of treating mental illness.

 

I think mental illness has a lot more to do with this than the availability of guns. If there weren't guns, he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or a crossbow, or something. There was obviously something amiss with this guy's mind.

Is it impossible to address both issues?

 

I don't get the "arm the teachers" argument. Are we supposed to become this self-policed state where the citizens are expected to defend themselves with firearms because the freedom to own guns in America is more important than the safety of its citizens?

I don't advocate for total self-policing. I'm a classical liberal, not a minarchist.

 

I don't think, however, that better-trained and more capable resource officers would be out of place in schools. My only real concern is that they seem to be used more as “drug war resources” rather than actually existing for the safety of the students.

 

I suppose, in short, I'm trying to find a way where we can ensure security without limiting freedom. I tend to adhere to "he who desires temporary security over liberty deserves neither."

Edited by Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hearing a lot about gun control and not much about the appropriate means of treating mental illness.

 

I think mental illness has a lot more to do with this than the availability of guns. If there weren't guns, he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or a crossbow, or something. There was obviously something amiss with this guy's mind.

 

Exactly. What the media isn't releasing is what mental illness he had. And what prescription drugs he was on. (if any) But that will never be known because we have to protect the drug companies at all costs right America?

 

 

I'm hearing a lot about gun control and not much about the appropriate means of treating mental illness.

 

I think mental illness has a lot more to do with this than the availability of guns. If there weren't guns, he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or a crossbow, or something. There was obviously something amiss with this guy's mind.

Is it impossible to address both issues?

 

I don't get the "arm the teachers" argument. Are we supposed to become this self-policed state where the citizens are expected to defend themselves with firearms because the freedom to own guns in America is more important than the safety of its citizens?

 

You contradicted yourself. Having more guns in people possession to protect themselves will prevent more lives from being lost than to wait 10-15 minutes for any kind of law enforcement to arrive. It's the most simple concept.

 

-

And I'm for private security in schools, just not government run security.

One point I'll make: If guns are meant to protect civilians, why did no civilian defend the school with a gun?

Because it would have been illegal to bring one on school property.

 

Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

That your entire argument is questionable, if guns are meant to defend from shootings; why is there not one at school?

 

Did you not read his response...? Or...

 

You do not need more guns, you need less guns. Less guns = Less Deaths. It is as simple as that. If no one had guns, no one could shoot anyone.

 

It would be perfect it if it worked that way, but unfortunately, it doesn't. Prohibition didn't work, and you can buy marijuana at any high school, so what makes you think banning guns will prevent people from acquiring them?

It may not completely wipe out their existence, but it will certainly reduce their numbers. That's one step closer to solving the problem.

 

But it didn't reduce marijuana's numbers. Or alcohol when prohibition was in effect for that.

 

Fun fact: Black market.

 

Point is, anything can be used as a weapon and used to cause the same destruction a gun can do.

 

Lol nope.

 

Giving everyone a gun is a fudgeing horrible solution and I wouldn't be surprised if that led to total anarchy in the US.

 

Because everyone who owns a gun is going to go out into the street and go on a rampage while other people are in possession of guns and would be willing to stop them. See? It makes sense, and will protect more lives.

 

Scenario: Man who owns gun, goes in the streets of Manhattan and goes on a shooting rampage.

 

There will be two outcomes:

 

1) He'll kill and injury a ton of people, and we will be waiting 5-10 minutes for a type of law enforcement to arrive.

 

2) Another citizen with a possession of a gun will man up, and shoot the killer down. Saving a bunch of lives who would have gotten killed if guns have been banned, or no one was in possession.

 

It's the most simple concept, and it's a wonder to me how anyone with a brain can be for a "Ban on guns." Prohibition did not work. This failure of a drug war currently, is not working.

 

edit:

 

And your "Lol nope" response, is wrong. I could make a molotov right now, go into a classroom full of students....throw it, and barricade the door. That is actually worse, than outright killing them because of the severe burns they may suffer for life if they happen to survive. There ARE actually worse weapons than guns you know.

 

It is just the society we live in. Guns aren't the problem. They are the solution. Mental illness is the problem and it is caused most likely from prescription drugs and other sources and it's not going to stop.

Edited by Ghostfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You contradicted yourself. Having more guns in people possession to protect themselves will prevent more lives from being lost than to wait 10-15 minutes for any kind of law enforcement to arrive. It's the most simple concept.

 

Then why is the likelihood of gun violence more likely in a household that owns a gun rather than one that does not? Seems that such a simple concept wouldn't have such conflicting data! :)

 

It is NOT the civilian's responsibility to shoot criminals. We are NOT a country of vigilantes, and I cannot fathom how anyone could reasonably argue that adding more civilians shooting guns would make a situation less violent. Increase security, look more into mental health issues, but jesus christ almighty, why isn't there yet a consensus that we need tighter restrictions on guns!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it didn't reduce marijuana's numbers. Or alcohol when prohibition was in effect for that. Fun fact: Black market.

Guns are much harder to process than alcohol or marijuana. You can't 'grow' a gun at home - and even if you did have the equipment, growing marijuana is relatively easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that the US have gotten so used to having the right to weapons that its too late to turn back, it's like it's bred into some of them now. I heard something on the news saying that the gun enthusiasts said they have the right to carry a weapon on themselves, when I was under the impression that an enthusiast would have guns locked away that they could take out to shoot targets or go hunting. Like In New Zealand we never have too much trouble changing gun laws because we've never had such freedom with them. I can imagine some people in the US going quite mental if they tried to change things too drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You contradicted yourself. Having more guns in people possession to protect themselves will prevent more lives from being lost than to wait 10-15 minutes for any kind of law enforcement to arrive. It's the most simple concept.

 

Then why is the likelihood of gun violence more likely in a household that owns a gun rather than one that does not? Seems that such a simple concept wouldn't have such conflicting data! :)

 

It is NOT the civilian's responsibility to shoot criminals. We are NOT a country of vigilantes, and I cannot fathom how anyone could reasonably argue that adding more civilians shooting guns would make a situation less violent. Increase security, look more into mental health issues, but jesus christ almighty, why isn't there yet a consensus that we need tighter restrictions on guns!?

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

 

-Benjamin Franklin

 

Refer to my post above your reply.

 

Scenario: Man who owns gun, goes in the streets of Manhattan and goes on a shooting rampage.

 

There will be two outcomes:

 

1) He'll kill and injury a ton of people, and we will be waiting 5-10 minutes for a type of law enforcement to arrive.

 

2) Another citizen with a possession of a gun will man up, and shoot the killer down. Saving a bunch of lives who would have gotten killed if guns have been banned, or no one was in possession.

 

"Increasing security"? Why don't we just live in a society where everyone is treated like they're apart of a prison. Why don't we have these guards strip search everyone constantly. Or administrate harmful rays through everyone's body to check them for any metal or weapons. Yeah, let's "increase security" everywhere instead of implementing my scenario so we can live in a martial law environment.

 

It is NOT the civilian's responsibility to shoot criminals.

 

I think it's my responsibility to ensure my safety of my family and myself.

 

Fact: If that teacher, or any kind of staff in that school had a firearm on them, there would have been less deaths. Same applies for that Arizona movie theater shooting, and every other shooting.

 

I suppose you just disagree completely whereas I disagree with you completely. But you cannot deny that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fudge this. Quoting a historical figure and leaving it at that is not debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fudge this. Quoting a historical figure and leaving it at that is not debating.

 

Isn't this Breaking News?

 

I cannot fathom how anyone could reasonably argue that adding more civilians shooting guns would make a situation less violent. Increase security, look more into mental health issues, but jesus christ almighty, why isn't there yet a consensus that we need tighter restrictions on guns!?

 

Maybe you should join the debate team with that wonderful argument. 10/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Increasing security"? Why don't we just live in a society where everyone is treated like they're apart of a prison. Why don't we have these guards strip search everyone constantly. Or administrate harmful rays through everyone's body to check them for any metal or weapons. Yeah, let's "increase security" everywhere instead of implementing my scenario so we can live in a martial law environment.
Nice strawman there, provide me with an example of a developed country, with gun control, where this scenario has taken place. Edited by error404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.