School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

depends where you are I guess. I've never had an annual physical.

It is not about stripping one rights...its making sure that one is competent to bear a weapon. I thought you were able to read between the lines regarding my restrict comment...sorry. Let me add the following - restrict ownership from someone who failed an evaluation.

Its about minimizing the risk of someone going into a school/work place and killing people. Why are you seemingly so dead set against that?

Because you really don't seem to be. You seem to be looking to minimize someone going into a school/workplace WITH A GUN and killing people. I'm more interested in making sure the sick get the care they need so innocent people don't suffer for it. I feel the same way about the uninsured man with the undiagnosed heart condition driving next to my kid's school bus. Or the chicken farmer with the sniffles sneezing on the back of my neck in the Taco Bell line.

For me, this is about preventing and curing disease; preferably before it spreads.

You obviously missed this bit -

Ok...if they are not intertwined then why bother? They have to be intertwined...otherwise how do you restrict?

Why does everybody need one? The cost would be prohibitive. If you want to own something that could harm another perhaps might be a guide to applying evaluations. Actually I quite like the idea applied to car drivers as well coming to think of it.

Where something obviously only refers to guns.

I think you are done here.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

'Less Able'? SO he kills 5 with a knife instead? I'd rather work on preventing the incident than limit the body count.



Yes, defense against they tyranny of government is one possibility. But it isn't the only one. Again, as the Whiskey Rebellion shows, a large group of violent insurrectionists can do a lot of damage before the government can intervene. That's why the militia exists. That's why it's to our benefit as a country to allow our citizens to train with firearms.

Why is the Whiskey Rebellion relevant today? If a violent insurrection rose up, the military could respond 10x faster than they could in the late 1700s in the middle of frontier Pennsylvania.

Sure, an armed militia could probably help for a few hours before the government gets there, but in all reality what are the odds a rebellion would rise up? If it did happen, it definitely wouldn't be out of the blue. The government would have prepared for it.

And what if it's part of the military doing the rebelling? ...bah. Enough with the 'what ifs'. The Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution because a public that knows how to use firearms is more able to defend their liberty than a public that doesn't.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Because you really don't seem to be. You seem to be looking to minimize someone going into a school/workplace WITH A GUN and killing people. I'm more interested in making sure the sick get the care they need so innocent people don't suffer for it. I feel the same way about the uninsured man with the undiagnosed heart condition driving next to my kid's school bus. Or the chicken farmer with the sniffles sneezing on the back of my neck in the Taco Bell line.

For me, this is about preventing and curing disease; preferably before it spreads.

You obviously missed this bit -

Ok...if they are not intertwined then why bother? They have to be intertwined...otherwise how do you restrict?

Why does everybody need one? The cost would be prohibitive. If you want to own something that could harm another perhaps might be a guide to applying evaluations. Actually I quite like the idea applied to car drivers as well coming to think of it.

Where something obviously only refers to guns.

I think you are done here.

Well, I'm not looking to convince you or to debate the issue. I'm looking for understanding. I want to be sure I understand your position and I want to be sure you understand mine. I'm actually fairly comfortable that you understand mine now. But I'm not sure I understand yours.

I'm still getting an impression from you that you think restricting gun ownership will prevent incidents like the one in Newtown CT. You seem to see psychiatric evaluations as a means to restrict gun ownership and not as a means to prevent the incidents themselves.

Is this accurate?

[AiliailiA]

At least its over, we shall mourn those who died :*^(

But shouldn't we always, when something bad happens, think of how to prevent a similarly bad thing happening again?

"At least it's over" is not enough.

[Chetssaland]

Why is the Whiskey Rebellion relevant today? If a violent insurrection rose up, the military could respond 10x faster than they could in the late 1700s in the middle of frontier Pennsylvania.

Sure, an armed militia could probably help for a few hours before the government gets there, but in all reality what are the odds a rebellion would rise up? If it did happen, it definitely wouldn't be out of the blue. The government would have prepared for it.

And what if it's part of the military doing the rebelling? ...bah. Enough with the 'what ifs'. The Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution because a public that knows how to use firearms is more able to defend their liberty than a public that doesn't.

I don't support banning guns, but the whole 'defending our rights and liberties,' or even worse, the classic armed home invasion scenario, are poor defenses. If you like guns, you like guns. Hunting and shooting are both pretty common hobbies, and I have no problem with them. But, to the best of our abilities, we need to make sure the guns don't get in the wrong hands.

[Ifreann]

At least its over, we shall mourn those who died :*^(

But shouldn't we always, when something bad happens, think of how to prevent a similarly bad thing happening again?

"At least it's over" is not enough.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? It isn't over. People like the gunman in this incident, people who we can all agree should not be allowed near guns, still have access to guns. It could happen again in a few months, a few weeks, tomorrow, right now.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

You obviously missed this bit -



Where something obviously only refers to guns.

I think you are done here.

Well, I'm not looking to convince you or to debate the issue. I'm looking for understanding. I want to be sure I understand your position and I want to be sure you understand mine. I'm actually fairly comfortable that you understand mine now. But I'm not sure I understand yours.

I'm still getting an impression from you that you think restricting gun ownership will prevent incidents like the one in Newtown CT. You seem to see psychiatric evaluations as a means to restrict gun ownership and not as a means to prevent the incidents themselves.

Is this accurate?

there are other areas that can be explored...from making ammo very expensive (and making home manufacturing highly illegal) to having yearly checks on gun owners and their weapons (storage etc) to restricting firearms to non semi automatic weapons, remove all vestiges of firearm militarization (sorry but why do you need a AR15 lookalike to go hunting?)...hell even make pistols and revolvers illegal. Illegal ownership carrying a hefty sentence...say ten years...or fifteen.

there is no one single solution is my point but a range of measures need to looked at.

[Khodoristan]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

[Risottia]

This has nothing to do with gun control, its about a lunatic who killed his mother for the gun, father, and 25 other people.

And the fact that the lunatic was able to get access to firearms.
Nothing to do with regulations about firearms. Sure.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well, I'm not looking to convince you or to debate the issue. I'm looking for understanding. I want to be sure I understand your position and I want to be sure you understand mine. I'm actually fairly comfortable that you understand mine now. But I'm not sure I understand yours.

I'm still getting an impression from you that you think restricting gun ownership will prevent incidents like the one in Newtown CT. You seem to see psychiatric evaluations as a means to restrict gun ownership and not as a means to prevent the incidents themselves.

Is this accurate?

there are other areas that can be explored...from making ammo very expensive (and making home manufacturing highly illegal) to having yearly checks on gun owners and their weapons (storage etc) to restricting firearms to non semi automatic weapons, remove all vestiges of firearm militarization (sorry but why do you need a AR15 lookalike to go hunting?)...hell even make pistols and revolvers illegal. Illegal ownership carrying a hefty sentence...say ten years...or fifteen.

there is no one single solution is my point but a range of measures need to looked at.

NO

[Ifreann]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Eight years ago, when the even actually happened. Duh.

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

Because they stopped reporting on something that happened eight years ago?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

there was a huge amount of coverage of that.

there are other areas that can be explored...from making ammo very expensive (and making home manufacturing highly illegal) to having yearly checks on gun owners and their weapons (storage etc) to restricting firearms to non semi automatic weapons, remove all vestiges of firearm militarization (sorry but why do you need a AR15 lookalike to go hunting?)...hell even make pistols and revolvers illegal. Illegal ownership carrying a hefty sentence...say ten years...or fifteen.

there is no one single solution is my point but a range of measures need to looked at.

NO

booo fucking hoo.

[Chetssaland]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

There was coverage for that. Plenty.

We should be more upset with the fact that several outlets, if not most of them, identified the killer as his brother rather than the actual killer. They care more about being first than being right.

[Wikkiwallana]

This has nothing to do with gun control, its about a lunatic who killed his mother for the gun, father, and 25 other people.

And the fact that the lunatic was able to get access to firearms.
Nothing to do with regulations about firearms. Sure.

To be fair, they were his parents' guns, not his. I'm for licensing, but I don't really see how it would have helped in this particular case.

[Risottia]

And the fact that the lunatic was able to get access to firearms.
Nothing to do with regulations about firearms. Sure.

To be fair, they were his parents' guns, not his. I'm for licensing, but I don't really see how it would have helped in this particular case.

Dunno about your place, but here in Italy, if a mentally unstable person lives in your house, you aren't allowed to store firearms at home.

[Conserative Morality]

And the fact that the lunatic was able to get access to firearms.
Nothing to do with regulations about firearms. Sure.

NH has a lower rate of gun homicide than most European countries, and yet some of the laxest gun laws here in the States. Whatever the problem is, it cannot be boiled down to 'Gun control vs. Gun freedom'.

[Moruo]

It isnt about gun control, the Connecticut shooting that is. It is the fact that 27 were KILLED, as in they are no longer living, not that we need to bar lunatics from owning guns. Half of you dont even understand those were his mothers guns, whom he killed as well. Its a shame that people are mourning through what is supposed to be the happiest time of the year, and your telling me that people shouldnt be allowed to have guns. It doesnt matter if he shot them, stabbed them, or blew them up, they are dead, and thats that. This has nothing to do with gun control, its about a lunatic who killed his mother for the gun, father, and 25 other people.

even if its the guns of his mother we should ban guns...
if he took a knife the people could better defend themselves...if youre ennemy got a gun you got a small chance to survive...
guns are just there to kill people and we should ban them...
and using guns for sports is just silly
↑my opinion

[Northern Dominus]

You obviously missed this bit -



Where something obviously only refers to guns.

I think you are done here.

Well, I'm not looking to convince you or to debate the issue. I'm looking for understanding. I want to be sure I understand your position and I want to be sure you understand mine. I'm actually fairly comfortable that you understand mine now. But I'm not sure I understand yours.

I'm still getting an impression from you that you think restricting gun ownership will prevent incidents like the one in Newtown CT. You seem to see psychiatric evaluations as a means to restrict gun ownership and not as a means to prevent the incidents themselves.

Is this accurate?

We ask people to undergo extensive testing and evaluation in order to operate a motor vehicle, an device that while not directly intended to make the act of killing easier, can easily be used to kill if mishandled.

Without denying the average citizen the right to own a basic firerarm like a pistol, shotgun, or non-automatic rifle, why is there no requirement for the same or even more stringent testing and education when a person wants to own a device which is indeed designed to make the act of killing nearly effortless to the average person?

Moreover, without denying the 2nd Amendment to citizens, these steps could be implemented, potentially.

First, make background checks for every single sale of firearms, whether it be through a shop or through private individuals, be predicated upon passing a stringent background check, one that examines not only criminal history but also looks for diagnosed or treated psychological and behavioral issues as well.

Second, every license to carry a weapon should be predicated upon passing a firearms safety, operations, and maintenance course. This course would also include extensive gun safety techniques such as the use of quality trigger locks, storing the ammunition in a separate location from the firearm, or even disabling the decocking lever or a spring. Also, the physical and moral ramifications of pulling a weapon and shooting another person would be taught, especially of one gets it wrong.

Annual competence testing would also be a good thing to have as well. Just because a person passed the test once doesn't mean they're continually able or pass it again.

Finally, make the penalties for failing to perform any of the above acts and having the firearm in question used to murder another person result in the guilty party be automatically held liable for being an accessory to murder as well as forfeiture of their assets.

You still have your right to own and bear arms, but now you have a system in place that ensures that all who own weapons are not only accounted for but held to the same standard, and penalized accordingly when they do not comply to that standard for owning a deliberately lethal device.

[Wikkiwallana]

To be fair, they were his parents' guns, not his. I'm for licensing, but I don't really see how it would have helped in this particular case.

Dunno about your place, but here in Italy, if a mentally unstable person lives in your house, you aren't allowed to store firearms at home.

Now that's an interesting law. I kinda like it, but I'm thinking it would certainly violate the Second Amendment. And since large groups of our voting populace would require a massive internal debate to choose between the Second Amendment and the Second Coming, I'm not seeing it happening anytime soon.

[Vitius]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

First of all, that was eight years ago. And there was media coverage.

The flaw behind that argument is the same behind wondering why the American media doesn't strongly report on car bombings in, say, Pakistan. There is a relevancy factor. Tragic as it is, the massacres in Russia and the example in Pakistan do not have a profound affect on Americans. There's only so much the media, at least large sources like ABC, CBS and NBC may cover in a day.

[Des-Bal]

even if its the guns of his mother we should ban guns...
if he took a knife the people could better defend themselves...if youre ennemy got a gun you got a small chance to survive...
guns are just there to kill people and we should ban them...
and using guns for sports is just silly
↑my opinion

In my experience anyone who can't be bothered to reach for the shift key or learn the intricacies of ellipses doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. I've yet to be proven wrong.

[Brisbane Ring]

There will always be depressed; aggressive young people looking to make their mark on the world. No matter how bloody it may be. The real fact is that people like this exist all over the world; but in the USA they are able to acquire the means to cause deadly harm before their angst dissipates with maturity, resulting in tragic loss of life.

The fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms was designed to ensure that the USA could defend its right to keep people as property; steal Indian land and remain a state independent of European rule in an era were they had no national army, reloading took over a minute, most shots wounded rather than out right killed and it was impossible to shot anything accurately beyond 40m. The American public need to realise that allowing people to acquire semi and fully automatic weapons without professional reasons (farm varmints, police etc) is not going to end well and such school shootings are doomed to repeat themselves.

[Des-Bal]

When someone is so profoundly disturbed that their only goal has become killing other human beings you aren't going to prevent them from doing it. You can stop them but only after the fact. That's a scary idea, we'd rather be violated by TSA agents than confront that reality. The problem is that a deeply disturbed man did something awful not that he had access to guns.

[Diopolis]

And the fact that the lunatic was able to get access to firearms.
Nothing to do with regulations about firearms. Sure.

NH has a lower rate of gun homicide than most European countries, and yet some of the laxest gun laws here in the States. Whatever the problem is, it cannot be boiled down to 'Gun control vs. Gun freedom'.

Urbanization and poverty rates are the two biggest influences on crime. Anything else is minor and not really worth pursuing.

[Esternial]

Beslan. 2004. Chechen terrorists lay siege to a Russian elementary school on the first day of classes. Three days later, after intense negotiations, Russian special forces enter the school after a series of of explosions, and a fierce gun battle ensues. When the dust settles and the fires are extinguished, 334 children are among the 385 dead.

Where was the media coverage for that?

Sickening, the shitpile we call media.

First of all, that was eight years ago. And there was media coverage.

The flaw behind that argument is the same behind wondering why the American media doesn't strongly report on car bombings in, say, Pakistan. There is a relevancy factor. Tragic as it is, the massacres in Russia and the example in Pakistan do not have a profound affect on Americans. There's only so much the media, at least large sources like ABC, CBS and NBC may cover in a day.

Plus, if I'm to take a few American politicians' words for truth, America is trying to be a beacon of hope and an example in this world.

Setting a bad example. *nods*