School Shooting in Connecticut - At Least 27 Dead

[Phoenix Rider 220]

"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.

 

Yes, because banning weapons of war from being manufactured and sold to civilians is a perfect example of a military dictatorship.

 

Enough with this rubbish about the government taking away your freedoms. The fact is that there are loopholes in the US gun control policy which allows crazy people to get hold of machines of war. 2/5 weapons sold in the US are sold without a background check due to loopholes for gun shows, internet purchases, newspaper ads...etc. How is this right? Back in 05, the Justice Department estimated that 3,000 people a year manage to purchase weapons when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That is insane! A deranged psychopath can literally buy a gun from a secondary markets without going through a a single check. If these loopholes were abused to commit acts of terrorism, the entire country would be be in a frenzy and would shut them down and yet an majority of gun crimes committed in the US use guns bought from these markets. Can't both sides of argument see these instances as areas of common ground? A vast majority of NRA members and gun owners support stricter regulations and background checks for these markets. Why isn't there greater action to plug this loophole?

 

When the US banned undetectable plastic guns or armour piercing bullets or semi-automatics, there wasn't a swift draconian take over. All this rhetoric about the 2nd Amendment being used to resist the government is crazy talk by individuals who want to use armed force to unseat elected governments they don't like.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Phoenix Rider

[Sobend 915]

I don't want to downplay this event, but shooting rampages aren't the issue with gun control with fatal violence. It's mostly individual homicides. Probably in the entire United States at least 27 people (likely much more but I don't have any numbers) get murdered every week by handguns. How do you guys think we should fix that issue? Banning handguns/repealing the second amendment, in case you were wondering, is pretty much impossible right now.

[Mano 44]

I don't want to downplay this event, but shooting rampages aren't the issue with gun control with fatal violence. It's mostly individual homicides. Probably in the entire United States at least 27 people (likely much more but I don't have any numbers) get murdered every week by handguns. How do you guys think we should fix that issue? Banning handguns/repealing the second amendment, in case you were wondering, is pretty much impossible right now.

 

Actually, 27 is nearer the daily figure. America has roughly 10,000 homicides involving firearms a year,

[thepope1322 399]

undetectable plastic guns or armour piercing bullets or semi-automatics

undetectable plastic guns

 

:rofl: :rofl:

 

That is insane! A deranged psychopath can literally buy a gun from a secondary markets without going through a a single check.

Yeah, let's make black markets illegal. That'll show 'em!

 

Owning guns is not essential liberty. Restricting gun sales would not be temporary safety.

 

Yeah.

I don't think anyone is arguing against not selling weapons to crazy people and criminals; the problem is that 90% of gun control legislation is written by people who know nothing about firearms and as a result is largely ineffective.

 

I don't think you should let people carry an M60 around on the street, but banning guns because they have pistol grips doesn't do anything.

 

I'm fine with gun control if it's actually written by people who know what the fudge they're talking about.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by theking1322

[Phoenix Rider 220]

undetectable plastic guns or armour piercing bullets or semi-automatics

undetectable plastic guns

 

:rofl: :rofl:

 

That is insane! A deranged psychopath can literally buy a gun from a secondary markets without going through a a single check.

Yeah, let's make black markets illegal. That'll show 'em!

 

Yes, ignore the point of my post and post strawmen. Well done.

 

40% of arms sales in the US have little to no background checks involved. How is that not an issue? Licensed dealers are required to perform checks under the Brady Act but the law doesn’t apply to private sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet. It's estimated that 25% of sales in gun shows are done by private dealers with no license and many of the guns sold here were used in violent crimes. States with stricter regulations on these show have been shown have lower levels of illegal gun trafficking and gun related crimes.

 

Simple policy changes like requiring all transactions in these secondary markets to go through Brady style background checks will make a big difference and is supported by gun owners and law enforcement experts. We start the conversation on gun control on these issues were there is plenty of consensus on.

 

Oh and yeah...

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:H.R.4445:

 

I admit though, it's funny the way I phrased it. :P

Edited December 19, 2012 by Phoenix Rider

[Ghostfoot 15]

40% of arms sales in the US have little to no background checks involved. How is that not an issue?

 

Yes, I would say that is an issue and could possibly be addressed. I'd be in favor. And you're right in that regard. I'm commenting on your

Enough with this rubbish about the government taking away your freedoms.

because a majority of citizens (Are you even a US citizen?) are unaware on that issues.

 

With that being said, i'd agree with you in that area. But the fact is, no one has proven my scenarios wrong so far except for a silly argument of: "WE CAN'T BE A COUNTRY OF VIGILANTES."

 

These shooting usually happen in gun free zones.

 

Does that say anything to anybody? Get rid of this gun free nonsense. More privatized security for these schools (not government) and more people armed. Everywhere. No one in this forum, or in general can fight that argument. We would be 10x safer with more people armed.

[Phoenix Rider 220]

These shooting usually happen in gun free zones.

 

Does that say anything to anybody? Get rid of this gun free nonsense. More privatized security for these schools (not government) and more people armed. Everywhere. No one in this forum, or in general can fight that argument. We would be 10x safer with more people armed.

 

No, I'm perfectly in support of armed citizens being able to defend themselves and their loved ones if they pass through strict background checks to ensure they're psychological fit and have the skills to handle the weapons. That is where I feel we can have middle ground on the issue. Crime and gun violence will go down significantly if we just put in place specific policies like background checks on all arms sales. My rage is more focussed on those who cling to their automatics and dare the evil state to pry it from their cold, dead hands.

 

I would add though that I feel that one doesn't need semi-automatics to defend oneself. Pistols are more than capable of doing the job. I'm even willing to include shotguns and hunting rifles for use in hunting, sport and self-defence. I draw the line on automatics and semi-automatics and support a ban of the sale, import and production of these weapons.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Phoenix Rider

[Beret 92]

With that being said, i'd agree with you in that area. But the fact is, no one has proven my scenarios wrong so far except for a silly argument of: "WE CAN'T BE A COUNTRY OF VIGILANTES."

 

These shooting usually happen in gun free zones.

 

Does that say anything to anybody? Get rid of this gun free nonsense. More privatized security for these schools (not government) and more people armed. Everywhere. No one in this forum, or in general can fight that argument. We would be 10x safer with more people armed.

One word:

 

Africa.

 

Ethiopia.

[Stash 3]

One thing I don't understand, is that when a criminal/murderer commits an act like this, It's the pro gun society that is at fault and not the perpetrator himself.

 

Since when do we not hold the person committing the crime accountable?

 

We take away the right of honest and good citizens to defend themselves.

 

Although I do think people should go through a background check to purchase a weapon, I have had to do so for my firearm purchases.

 

And whoever owns a gun should teach the people in the household proper gun safety.

 

What it comes down to "at least for me" is when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

There is evil in this world, although some would not like to believe that. If the criminals are always able to obtain weapons, why should we not fight fire with fire?

 

You can't just "Ban" all assault weapons, there would still be many coming though the black market. Not to mention the weapons prior to before the ban.

 

Yes I love my guns. Nice hobby, good for survival and defense. "And Zombies" 'MURICA!

 

"Good lord, I'm a stereotypical conservative, how about that."

 

~Stash

Edited December 19, 2012 by Stash

[Arianna 749]

If the criminals are always able to obtain weapons, why should we not fight fire with fire?

Indeed! If his mother had weapons, she could have stopped...him...first...um.

 

We take away the right of honest and good citizens to defend themselves.

And because of those 'drunk driving' people who get into accidents, oh noes, they take away my right to drink alcohol! It's an outrage - why should I be denied my pint of sherry just because some people die hit by drunk drivers?! Edited December 19, 2012 by Arianna

[Stash 3]

If the criminals are always able to obtain weapons, why should we not fight fire with fire?

Indeed! If his mother had weapons, she could have stopped...him...first...um.

 

I highly doubt His mother expected her own son to murder her. Plus it would be quite difficult for her to shoot her own son.

 

I'm saying for either the school principal or teachers.

 

A sign that says "Gun Free Zone" will not stop anyone intending to do someone harm.

 

Someone properly trained with a gun could have stopped Him easily. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any loss of life, but surely if someone acted immediately there would be a lesser amount of victims.

 

No side is completely perfect. I just like the side which gives people a better chance. I wouldn't try to punch a guy with a gun.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Stash

[William Howard Taft 81]

These shooting usually happen in gun free zones.

 

Does that say anything to anybody? Get rid of this gun free nonsense. More privatized security for these schools (not government) and more people armed. Everywhere. No one in this forum, or in general can fight that argument. We would be 10x safer with more people armed.

No, I'm perfectly in support of armed citizens being able to defend themselves and their loved ones if they pass through strict background checks to ensure they're psychological fit and have the skills to handle the weapons. That is where I feel we can have middle ground on the issue. Crime and gun violence will go down significantly if we just put in place specific policies like background checks on all arms sales. My rage is more focussed on those who cling to their automatics and dare the evil state to pry it from their cold, dead hands.

 

I would add though that I feel that one doesn't need semi-automatics to defend oneself. Pistols are more than capable of doing the job. I'm even willing to include shotguns and hunting rifles for use in hunting, sport and self-defence. I draw the line on automatics and semi-automatics and support a ban of the sale, import and production of these weapons.

Really, I don't even like the idea of getting rid of semiautomatic rifles (though I agree on automatic rifles) for the simple reason that they are more commonly seen in the hands of trained, qualified enthusiasts. I think the ability to access a semiautomatic rifle should be more restricted, mind you, but I don't see the need to ban a type of weapon that is already really, really common in the US.

 

But, then again, I'm of the opinion that mandatory registration and background checks are the most important things. Banning firearms is detrimental to public safety in a country already running wild on gun ownership. If we don't know who has guns, a mass shooter could have a chance of slipping away from police, and that's a much scarier thought to me than just the threat of a mass shooter itself.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Thomas Jefferson

[Arianna 749]

Someone properly trained with a gun could have stopped Him easily.

...or could just have been the first target. Again, his mother was properly trained. Ok, it could have been difficult for her to shoot her own son, but if she would have allowed him to loot her armory (...or pantry) and run wild without trying to stop him in some way, you're making one great argument for taking away guns.

 

And before any comment is made about my post, I'd like to remind you that I live in a country with strict (and I mean strict as in "oh-noes-evil-fascist-european-socialicommies") gun control laws, and my former house had six legally licensed firearms in it.

 

Also, lilshu has a very good point. I have abstained from commenting on mental health-related issues, though, because I have no clue about how mental health is maintained in the US. If somebody's willing to tell me.. :P

Edited December 19, 2012 by Arianna

[Stash 3]

Someone properly trained with a gun could have stopped Him easily.

...or could just have been the first target. Again, his mother was properly trained. Ok, it could have been difficult for her to shoot her own son, but if she would have allowed him to loot her armory (...or pantry) and run wild without trying to stop him in some way, you're making one great argument for taking away guns.

 

And before any comment is made about my post, I'd like to remind you that I live in a country with strict (and I mean strict as in "oh-noes-evil-fascist-european-socialicommies") gun control laws, and my former house had six legally licensed firearms in it.

 

Also, lilshu has a very good point. I have abstained from commenting on mental health-related issues, though, because I have no clue about how mental health is maintained in the US. If somebody's willing to tell me.. :P

 

Glad to know that you are "or were" a gun owner. I also have three legally obtained fire-arms.

 

It would be hard for someone who had a concealed carry permit to be the first target. How would the perpetrator know? If someone randomly comes up to me and says, Oh hey! are you concealing a pistol? I will most definitely not tell them XD

 

If the criminal/murderer "Mentally unstable" person does not know "Who is carrying" How will the gun owner always be the first target?

 

And yes I understand that you have strict gun laws in your country. But what if our lawmakers impose some level of control unheard of?

 

Anyways I thank you for debating in a mature way, not all people do.

 

I always try to make my arguments in a logical way, and it just seems to me being able to defend ones self is logical.

[Arianna 749]

But what if our lawmakers impose some level of control unheard of?

Quick response because my dinner is burning: what if people go nuts and start shooting one another? These two scenarios are equally likely :P

[thepope1322 399]

I would add though that I feel that one doesn't need semi-automatics to defend oneself. Pistols are more than capable of doing the job. I'm even willing to include shotguns and hunting rifles for use in hunting, sport and self-defence. I draw the line on automatics and semi-automatics and support a ban of the sale, import and production of these weapons.

All modern pistols are semiautomatic.

 

And the potential to commit mass murder with a pistol is far greater than even with a semiautomatic rifle, for the simple reason that you cannot conceal a rifle. And really, the need to cycle the action between shots would not slow down a determined mass murderer, especially if there is nobody in the immediate vicinity to neutralize him.

 

I strongly disagree with banning semi-automatics.

[Sobend 915]

If you banned all semi automatics you would be banning most of the guns in America. (semi-automatic =/ assault weapons). Don't think banning nearly 300 million guns in one snap is the way to go.

 

This mostly has to do with who has the guns instead of the guns themselves. There's not much debate to why inner cities have higher firearm violence than the suburbs. If we repealed the second amendment, which will be impossible for at least the next 100 years, I'm not sure how much it would fix homicide/crime rates. But there is a deeper problem to this whole violence thing, and if we can somehow fix that then there will be no reason to ban guns. Banning guns is easier than fixing that obviously, but you get the idea.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Sobend

[thepope1322 399]

If you banned all semi automatics you would be banning most of the guns in America. (semi-automatic =/ assault weapons).

Even "assault weapon" is a weasel word used by the anti-gun people to refer to "any gun that looks scary".

 

 

These are the same weapon, the bottom one just has a bunch of plastic shizzle attached. The one on the bottom is classified as an assault weapon and is illegal to possess.

 

(don't make a point about the suppressor, it's purely aesthetic and non-functional)

 

The only similar definition is "assault rifle", which refers to weapons which can fire both semi- and fully-automatically and would therefore be illegal anyway.

Edited December 19, 2012 by theking1322

[Mano 44]

If you banned all semi automatics you would be banning most of the guns in America. (semi-automatic =/ assault weapons).

Even "assault weapon" is a weasel word used by the anti-gun people to refer to "any gun that looks scary".

 

 

These are the same weapon, the bottom one just has a bunch of plastic shizzle attached. The one on the bottom is classified as an assault weapon and is illegal to possess.

 

(don't make a point about the suppressor, it's purely aesthetic and non-functional)

 

The bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

[thepope1322 399]

bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

So does that make it more dangerous?

[O hai im KAMIL 539]

bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

So does that make it more dangerous?

 

Easier to shoot targets from afar, you can rest the bipod on a surface to give increased accuracy, magazine allows for more bullets to be fired without reloading.

[thepope1322 399]

Easier to shoot targets from afar, you can rest the bipod on a surface to give increased accuracy, magazine allows for more bullets to be fired without reloading.

Only an idiot would use a .22 for sniping.

 

How does it not make it more dangerous?

Let me rephrase that. "How does that justify banning it?"

Edited December 19, 2012 by theking1322

[Adam? 475]

bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

So does that make it more dangerous?

How does it not make it more dangerous?

muh second mendment

[thepope1322 399]

bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

So does that make it more dangerous?

How does it not make it more dangerous?

muh second mendment

Apply yourself

[Adam? 475]

bottom one also has a scope, stabilizing legs and a magazine, by the look of it.

So does that make it more dangerous?

How does it not make it more dangerous?

muh second mendment

Apply yourself

I've checked out. Lilshu has much greater endurance than I could ever hope to achieve.