School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Evidently you don't watch any youtube videos. Especially the homemade bombs. Oh here's one for ya. Get some hydrocholric acid and mix it with aluminium in a bottle, preferably glass. You've just made a frag grenade.

And that frag grenade is capable of the explosion you referenced?

Pearl Harbor was a foreign military invasion on our shores. So not really a valid point. And If a plane is bound from England to the USA, it doesn't prevent them from attacking. Further the perpetrators of the deeds all came into this country illegally through the mexican border. IF you want to secure this nation, deal with the actual issue. They got in.

What?

And cars? Really, safety improvements? You have seen a Smart car right?

You...uh...don't know much about cars, do you?

Restrict how? Its their damned lungs and its legal.

You don't know how cigarettes are restricted? Light up in the work place. Sell a pack to a kid. Read the side of the box.

Its illegal to smoke and do most drugs in the USA. They still do them.

And?

You have obviously never had a job working in the sun. Talk to some oil field workers, or farmers, etc. Got some family there who have had skin cancer.

I in fact do. We use sunscreen and wear hats. Because of the sun. When are you posting from? 1912?

And btw, we do try to do things about guns. I know you think that we don't know what we're talking about. Its actually illegal to have a gun on school property. VA Tech gun free zone. Shooting happened anyway. Elementary School gun free zone. Shooting happened anyway. Gabriel Giffords....cant have a gun within 2500 ft of a Congress Member. Shooting happened anyway.

Reality, People do try to control guns Fact: They Failed

So...if I'm understanding you right so far, if something is not 100% effective, it's not worth doing?

And instead of doing something differently.... we keep doing the same thing. Ask the English about gun control

You mean the English that have a comically smaller fraction of gun related deaths than we do?

....or even Chicago.

Why?

22 years, Gun Free Zone act of 1990 has been in effect. 60 shootings since that. 100% effective. Your eyes are brown.

That frag grenade will kill.

And youre what. They hijacked a plan with box knives.

You really dont know cars. Get back to me when you get in a wreck in the smart car.

You call that restriction? In fact, I actually can mention quite a few places you are allowed to smoke. They have smoke rooms. or you get to smoke outside. Oh, and those labels....what have they done? oh right....nothing..... I know smokers and they know the effects and just dont give a damn. And you know what.. I shouldn't give a damn what they do either because it doesn't effect me if I'm not around their smoking.

And on drugs. You realize nothing we have done stops them right?

And 1912...nope. I work for a hardware store with a lumberyard. Go talk to those people outside.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

I live in the real world. Where things happen that are truly evil. Talking of banning guns aren't going to help, especially when the shooting happened in a gun free zone.

The issue isn't that guns are there. Its that they aren't there. My mother is a teacher. I would feel better if my mother was Armed and able to protect herself and the children in her care.

Guess what I live in the real world too. A real world where 30+ people a day don't die from gun violence. A real world where 40% of guns aren't bought without a background check. Where a gun mania culture is so persuasive that your solution is to arm teachers in a class room. Or shock, schools are gun free zones!!! The US is saturated with weapons and these tragedies will continue to occur until people decide that their attitude to their gun fetish needs to change.

You obviously haven't heard about the gun control in chicago and their lovely little crime riddled city. or england and their gangs. lol.

[Emile Zola]

Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, the Supreme Court of 1939, and Mahatma Gandhi (Who is not even from the US whatsoever.) are not the leaders of the United States. They are just dead men from decades or centuries ago.

J.F.K., Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi killed by people with guns.

[Camicon]

Oh, and reported to Moderation for flaming. Calling someone else a nazi? Poor form.

Don't do this. A very bad idea.

Reporting someone for flaming me is a bad idea? Please, elaborate.

Quite clearly, Ullan called me a nazi. Nazi's, as most everyone should know, are racist facists. If he were to call me a racist, that in and of itself would be flaming. But to call me a nazi, a label with which the Holocaust is inextricably linked to? I don't see how that couldn't be construed as an insult, and thus flaming.

But this is off topic. Moderation thread is here. I'm open to TG's if you wish to contact me that way.

[Austrian Dalmatia]

I love how this starts up a debate on gun control when it was the work of a psychotic man...who stole his mother's licensed firearms.

[Cannot think of a name]

And that frag grenade is capable of the explosion you referenced?

What?

You...uh...don't know much about cars, do you?

You don't know how cigarettes are restricted? Light up in the work place. Sell a pack to a kid. Read the side of the box.

And?

I in fact do. We use sunscreen and wear hats. Because of the sun. When are you posting from? 1912?


So...if I'm understanding you right so far, if something is not 100% effective, it's not worth doing?

You mean the English that have a comically smaller fraction of gun related deaths than we do?

Why?

22 years, Gun Free Zone act of 1990 has been in effect. 60 shootings since that. 100% effective. Your eyes are brown.

My eyes are brown. Not sure what this or anything else here has to do with anything.

That frag grenade will kill.

Yes it will. But that's not where you started with this, is it?

And youre what. They hijacked a plan with box knives.

And after that we...?

You really dont know cars. Get back to me when you get in a wreck in the smart car.

Get back to me when you get in a wreck with a Pinto.

You call that restriction? In fact, I actually can mention quite a few places you are allowed to smoke. They have smoke rooms. or you get to smoke outside. Oh, and those labels....what have they done? oh right....nothing..... I know smokers and they know the effects and just dont give a damn. And you know what.. I shouldn't give a damn what they do either because it doesn't effect me if I'm not around their smoking.

And on drugs. You realize nothing we have done stops them right?

And 1912...nope. I work for a hardware store with a lumberyard. Go talk to those people outside.

I'm not talking to any of your friends, nor am I interested in gaining your permission to address you. You're flailing. Your examples sucked and now you're having to twist to try and keep them relevant.

[Gauntleted Fist]

I love how this starts up a debate on gun control when it was the work of a psychotic man...who stole his mother's licensed firearms.

Obviously a failure of gun control, you mean? Not sure what you're missing.

You have a TG, Camicon.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So my question is, how do we prevent these from happening in the future, without looking at gun control laws?

I'm just curious to hear some answers.

A much harder, but much more complicated and necessary discussion has to be had about how we view guns. We're not going to get the guns out of our culture, that ship sailed.

But it's this attitude about guns, their sacred nature...imagine if there was some thread about some speeder killing twenty kids on a bus doing a buck twenty on the freeway, and the first ten responses in the thread were, "Don't you dare tell us we can't drive fast! Anyone who blames driving fast for this is politicizing this tragic event!" How would we react? Would anyone respect those peoples opinions? Would anyone look at those people saying that with anything other than disgust? What kind of horrible person would rush to the defense of the speeder at a time like this? (1)

But that's what we do with guns every time. And then starts in the whole notion that the solution to the gun problem is more guns. If only there had been more guns there, it would have worked itself out. That guns are so magical they'll fix the problems that they create. That a gun has the ability to tell who is right and who is wrong, and our aim is always true. (2)

No one dies on battlefields because everyone has guns. The 'right' side always wins because guns know which one is which and only shoot true when the wielder is true, soldiers never accidentally shoot their own.

Guns are in our culture. Lots of people have them and most by a bunch manage to at worst only shoot themselves. The pheasant hunter, the gun range enthusiast, the collector, they're no more responsible for this on the face of it than I am for some jackanape who decides that I-80 is the autobahn. It's not the gun itself.

But, when we fall all over ourselves to make excuses for the gun, when we we create some sort of fantasy world where the gun makes bad people go away, when we look at the horrible things that guns make possible or make easier and we the first thing we think to do is try and shame anyone who questions the way we deal with guns in our culture...that's a problem. That's the problem. That we've made guns sacred, that we've given them a mythological status. (3)

Until we sort that out we'll never have a productive conversation about guns. Instead every time the next person takes a gun and uses it for what it was designed for we'll wring our hands over whether or not it's 'okay' to talk about guns our not and never do a damned thing except clear the way for the next one. (4)

1) If I may adopt your analogy, gun enthusiasts aren't rushing to the defense of the speeder. Nor are they even rushing to the defense of "going fast". What we do jump to defend is the ability of private people to own cars that have the capability of speeding. Because the fault of the crime is on the speeder, not the car that had the power to speed.

2) This is an important problem (especially on the internet). I hope to God that the pervasiveness of that attitude EXACTLY as you describe it is not nearly as common in everyday life as it is on the internet. However, there is an important point to be made here that may get confused with the "Moar Gunz!" attitude, and that being "Guns in good people's hands!". Obviously ANYBODY who is armed has the capacity to do more harm than good in a situation where using the weapon they are armed with is needed. That extends both to police officers, and even military personnel. These risks may be increased by civilians being the ones with them (though even then there is the argument that civilians who have the drive to obtan a CC permit oftentimes practice with their firearms more often than the police themselves, but ignoring that...) but the point remains the same. Guns have the unique capacity of being able to stop other people from long ranges and are what are used by the police themselves to deal with violent offenders.

3) Except the problem has a different side. The 'problem' has also saved lives. Whether the number 'saved' outweighs the cost is certainly a conversation worth having, but as no reliable statistics are available for any side, it's essentially an ideological debate more than a pragmatic or factual one.

4) You do raise an important point here. A large segment of people do hold a 'mythical' view of guns (though the majority of those whom you attribute to having a 'mythical' viewpoint likely/may simply have a healthy respect for their capabilities, but once again that's neither here nor there.) and regard them with near awe and an unhealthy FEAR rather than respect. They don't deal with them and their whole experience is built off of seeing them used by Bruce Willis and John Wayne, which isn't healthy by any means.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

oooooo....I'm going to have so much fun with this.

The law is flawed in principle and in practice. The Practice is to keep guns out. Well, if they practice fails so fantastically as to allow 60 school shootings since its becoming a law.....then it is flawed because the effect is nothing....oh btw...you should love this stat.

60 shootings in schools since the passing of the law.

chrome://newtabhttp//www.pcs.org/blog/item/how-many-school-shootings-since-1990/

Yeah, totally not flawed.

And the constitution is wrong? So you don't agree women should vote? Or that blacks should be free? Or that they should vote? Or that anyone above the age of 18 should vote? I understand absolutely then

You are not just a statist. You are a nazi.

Godwin? Godwin? Mike Godwin?

I already explained, the law doesn't work because it is not implemented widely enough. It would be like trying to ban peanuts in schools, but allowing them everywhere else. It doesn't work. It will never work. If you want to stop peanuts from getting into school, short of cavity searches for everyone that enters the building, you have to ensure that there is a peanut-free zone around the school. Around the city. In the state. In the adjacent states. In the country. Otherwise, they will be transported, they will find their way into the peanut-free zones, and those peanut-free zones will no longer be peanut-free. It is the same with guns.

Ban guns country wide, remove guns from public circulation, and the drop in firearm related crime will be both immediate and significant.

And you should know damn well that I was saying the constitution is wrong about firearms. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Oh, and reported to Moderation for flaming. Calling someone else a nazi? Poor form.

Absolutely. lol. Its what you are.

Further, you stated and I can quote you that you said the Constitution is wrong.

And moreso, you are wrong on the issue because the control will not be wide enough without total and complete control of the world. And I did point that out. Because in your view, narrow view, you see only the states as the issue. 74 people dying in mexico isnt a problem to us. Except when those drug cartels go, Oh well the whole USA is without weapons.

England made it near impossible to get a gun. Some kind got shot last week by a gang who shouldn't have a gun.

Gun control will never be wide enough. That's the problem. That's your flawed practice. Your principle is that it is misguided in the intent. You are trying to protect, in which you take away the guns from a people who do not wish for violence. You are a nazi. Shall I list the countries that disarm their people?

Communists countries. Fidel Castro. Stalin, The Soviet Bloc countries. Nazi Germany. Facist Italy. So yes, I have and I think know that you are a nazi.

And btw. The Constitution is right and will always be right because the Constitution moves forward through an Amendment process through which it can be changed for the times. obviously the 2nd amendment is not wrong

[Camicon]

Canada does not have similar firearm per capita rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

Holy shit, that is a fucktonne of guns.

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

[Greed and Death]

Holy shit, that is a fucktonne of guns.

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

We are attempting to get the non fire arm owning populace to self deport.

[Freelanderness]

Holy shit, that is a fucktonne of guns.

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

Yeah that makes zero sense. Lower weapon rates, address the role of violence in society and deal accordingly, and improve accessibility to health care, especially mental health.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Holy shit, that is a fucktonne of guns.

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

The argument goes "Increase the number of responsible people with guns and let them carry." not "Increase the number of firearms per capita."

Just FYI.

[Emile Zola]

You obviously haven't heard about the gun control in chicago and their lovely little crime riddled city. or england and their gangs. lol.

Crime is related to poverty and the south side of Chicago is poor. Guns exacerbate the problem by being so lethal. If anything it suggests to making gun regulation nationwide as opposed to just local. What is your point by England and their gangs? The UK has low gun deaths.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

22 years, Gun Free Zone act of 1990 has been in effect. 60 shootings since that. 100% effective. Your eyes are brown.

My eyes are brown. Not sure what this or anything else here has to do with anything.

That frag grenade will kill.

Yes it will. But that's not where you started with this, is it?

And youre what. They hijacked a plan with box knives.

And after that we...?

You really dont know cars. Get back to me when you get in a wreck in the smart car.

Get back to me when you get in a wreck with a Pinto.

You call that restriction? In fact, I actually can mention quite a few places you are allowed to smoke. They have smoke rooms. or you get to smoke outside. Oh, and those labels....what have they done? oh right....nothing..... I know smokers and they know the effects and just dont give a damn. And you know what.. I shouldn't give a damn what they do either because it doesn't effect me if I'm not around their smoking.

And on drugs. You realize nothing we have done stops them right?

And 1912...nope. I work for a hardware store with a lumberyard. Go talk to those people outside.

I'm not talking to any of your friends, nor am I interested in gaining your permission to address you. You're flailing. Your examples sucked and now you're having to twist to try and keep them relevant.

You stated, and I can quote that we cannot make bombs in the home now, whether you meant to blanketly state that or not.

We said no knives....and we started searching the citizens within our borders. Not terrorists. Our citizens who have commited no wrong. We have violated their 14th amendment rights in the name of safety. Shall I pull the quote from Thomas Jefferson on giving up liberties for safety?

Actually, you kinda sucked at the debate things. Nothing in your arguments have made any sense. Because you argue that our laws have worked 100%. Nope. In fact, the main one for which we can actually argue has failed. Gun free Zones. Now you can argue til you're blue in the face that they're right and do everything they're supposed to. Each time an incident will appear.


And one other thing.....Sweden had people gunned down by an extremist.

http//www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

Education helps and perhaps common sense.

The Brown eye comment is in reference to that you're full of shit. Which I understand you not knowing.

[Stovokor]

lol. So we recognize the flawed law, but instead of coming to a common sense solution we go to a further extreme. You do realize we do not own the world and cannot ban guns?

Further, the 2nd Amendment of the constitution very firmly states that we do have the right to bear and keep arms.

It was also written in a time where you needed 2 minutes to reload your single shot musket before firing it at the bear or wolf attacking your frontier home in the wilderness or at the redcoat crashing down your door.

2 minutes to reload? I'd hate to be that guy, 3 shots a minute was considered decent.

[Freelanderness]

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

The argument goes "Increase the number of responsible people with guns and let them carry." not "Increase the number of firearms per capita."

Just FYI.

Yeah but preventing the violence in the first place is still the most effective solution, because then there are 0 deaths, instead of "a few less than before".

I don't recall any case studies of someone armed stopping a mass shooter either.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

You obviously haven't heard about the gun control in chicago and their lovely little crime riddled city. or england and their gangs. lol.

Crime is related to poverty and the south side of Chicago is poor. Guns exacerbate the problem by being so lethal. If anything it suggests to making gun regulation nationwide as opposed to just local. What is your point by England and their gangs? The UK has low gun deaths.

Crime is still high in chicago is high. Gun Control in Chicago is High too. That's the opposite effect. JUST SAYING!

UK has a small population.

[Gauntleted Fist]

UK has a small population.

Not knowing how percentages work is apparently still a thing. Comparing death rates, the United Kingdom's gun homicide rate is incredibly lower when controlling for population in comparison to the US. Like...absurdly lower.

[Cannot think of a name]

1) If I may adopt your analogy, gun enthusiasts aren't rushing to the defense of the speeder. Nor are they even rushing to the defense of "going fast". What we do jump to defend is the ability of private people to own cars that have the capability of speeding. Because the fault of the crime is on the speeder, not the car that had the power to speed.

Is it really substantially different? If we try and split hairs and say it's not the speeding but the ability to speed how qualitatively different is it? If my first thought in this tragedy isn't for the people who lost their lives but instead for my Veyron (I may in fact have the polar opposite of a Veyron, but play along), is it really substantially less distasteful?

2) This is an important problem (especially on the internet). I hope to God that the pervasiveness of that attitude EXACTLY as you describe it is not nearly as common in everyday life as it is on the internet. However, there is an important point to be made here that may get confused with the "Moar Gunz!" attitude, and that being "Guns in good people's hands!". Obviously ANYBODY who is armed has the capacity to do more harm than good in a situation where using the weapon they are armed with is needed. That extends both to police officers, and even military personnel. These risks may be increased by civilians being the ones with them (though even then there is the argument that civilians who have the drive to obtan a CC permit oftentimes practice with their firearms more often than the police themselves, but ignoring that...) but the point remains the same. Guns have the unique capacity of being able to stop other people from long ranges and are what are used by the police themselves to deal with violent offenders.

Guns are weapons and they have an amazing capability to be weapons. They don't care who wields them. When we talk about guns stopping people, we're often talking about stopping other people with guns. That they mitigated the problem they created is not really a parade worthy event.

3) Except the problem has a different side. The 'problem' has also saved lives. Whether the number 'saved' outweighs the cost is certainly a conversation worth having, but as no reliable statistics are available for any side, it's essentially an ideological debate more than a pragmatic or factual one.

Again, the gun is often 'saving' people from a gun. And often the gun is simply killing its owner. It's not made of magic and we need to stop treating it as if it is.

4) You do raise an important point here. A large segment of people do hold a 'mythical' view of guns (though the majority of those whom you attribute to having a 'mythical' viewpoint likely/may simply have a healthy respect for their capabilities, but once again that's neither here nor there.) and regard them with near awe and an unhealthy FEAR rather than respect. They don't deal with them and their whole experience is built off of seeing them used by Bruce Willis and John Wayne, which isn't healthy by any means.

Is it really that unfounded in light of events like this? Are these killings, or the thousands every year mythology?

I say it again, the guns are not what I'm afraid of. It's what people think they do that frightens the hell out of me. Loving a gun isn't going to make that go away.

[Camicon]

Absolutely. lol. Its what you are.

Further, you stated and I can quote you that you said the Constitution is wrong.

And moreso, you are wrong on the issue because the control will not be wide enough without total and complete control of the world. And I did point that out. Because in your view, narrow view, you see only the states as the issue. 74 people dying in mexico isnt a problem to us. Except when those drug cartels go, Oh well the whole USA is without weapons.

England made it near impossible to get a gun. Some kind got shot last week by a gang who shouldn't have a gun.

Gun control will never be wide enough. That's the problem. That's your flawed practice. Your principle is that it is misguided in the intent. You are trying to protect, in which you take away the guns from a people who do not wish for violence. You are a nazi. Shall I list the countries that disarm their people?

Communists countries. Fidel Castro. Stalin, The Soviet Bloc countries. Nazi Germany. Facist Italy. So yes, I have and I think know that you are a nazi.

And btw. The Constitution is right and will always be right because the Constitution moves forward through an Amendment process through which it can be changed for the times. obviously the 2nd amendment is not wrong

I said the constitution was wrong, while talking about the constitution's current stance on firearm regulation. I don't know how any rationally minded person could construe that as a statement against enfranchisement of women, or equal rights for all people.

Funny, but England, Wales, Australia, Canada. They all have stricter firearm regulations than the USA, and they all have much lower homicide rates per capita, committed with firearms. The numbers are from '06, but still valid. Of those four countries, only the USA experienced more firearm-linked crime than knife/etcetera-linked crime, in 2006. And by a massive margin. Wales had a firearm homicide rate much lower than the USA.

So long as guns exist, they will kill people. But that does not mean steps should not be taken to limit the amount of damage they cause. You know some other countries that regulate firearms more heavily than the USA? Japan. Germany. France. Canada. The UK.

The constitution is not an infallible document, and on this issue, it is incorrect, inaccurate, and stuck in the past. It is wrong, plain and simple, and to act as though it is not is a major contributing factor to continued gun violence.

And some people think the solution, to lowering firearm related crimes in the USA, is by increasing the number of firearms per capita. My mind is full of fuck.

The argument goes "Increase the number of responsible people with guns and let them carry." not "Increase the number of firearms per capita."

Just FYI.

Responsible people have no trouble accessing firearms, as of this very moment. Why does the problem still exist? And why do countries like Britain, or Canada, with stricter firearm regulation, have less firearm-linked crime per capita? Why are there working models, that increased firearm regulations reduce firearm-linked crime, while the USA itself is a proof-positive model of the exact opposite?

Relaxing firearm regulations will increase the umber of firearms per capita, whether or not that was the intent when firearm regulations were relaxed.

When reality disagrees, opinions go out the window.

[Cannot think of a name]

My eyes are brown. Not sure what this or anything else here has to do with anything.

Yes it will. But that's not where you started with this, is it?

And after that we...?

Get back to me when you get in a wreck with a Pinto.

I'm not talking to any of your friends, nor am I interested in gaining your permission to address you. You're flailing. Your examples sucked and now you're having to twist to try and keep them relevant.

You stated, and I can quote that we cannot make bombs in the home now, whether you meant to blanketly state that or not.

We said no knives....and we started searching the citizens within our borders. Not terrorists. Our citizens who have commited no wrong. We have violated their 14th amendment rights in the name of safety. Shall I pull the quote from Thomas Jefferson on giving up liberties for safety?

Actually, you kinda sucked at the debate things. Nothing in your arguments have made any sense. Because you argue that our laws have worked 100%. Nope. In fact, the main one for which we can actually argue has failed. Gun free Zones. Now you can argue til you're blue in the face that they're right and do everything they're supposed to. Each time an incident will appear.


And one other thing.....Sweden had people gunned down by an extremist.

http//www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

Education helps and perhaps common sense.

The Brown eye comment is in reference to that you're full of shit. Which I understand you not knowing.

I have said almost none of the things you just attributed to me. Your comprehension is lacking. This is probably what led to the horrible, horrible examples you used.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

UK has a small population.

Not knowing how percentages work is apparently still a thing. Comparing death rates, the United Kingdom's gun homicide rate is incredibly lower when controlling for population in comparison to the US. Like...absurdly lower.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list

Being educated on this issue. I find it very disturbing that you seem to think that. The rate change between the US and England combined with Wales. is 2.9%

[The United Good]

[Emile Zola]

Crime is still high in chicago is high. Gun Control in Chicago is High too. That's the opposite effect. JUST SAYING!

UK has a small population.

How are the two related? Poverty and violence are correlated. Just because somewhere says they have gun control it doesn't it mean it is effectively enforced?

By any statistic the UK has significantly lower rates of gun violence and homicides. What is your point? Otherwise it betrays ignorance of statistics.