School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Illestia]

lists? how are studies, books and newspaperarticles lists?

And yes, it is theoretically possible to own shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes. Obtaining such a license is an excrutiating process though as far as i am informed. Unless you are buddies with the Chief Officer of the Police (who is responsible for granting gun licenses)

There is no such think as a Chief Officer of the Police. Your lack of knowledge of even the basics regarding the structure of policing in the UK is very telling indeed. Let alone your "understanding" of what needs to be done to get a license.

Educate yourself and then come back.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing

"Chief officer of the Police" was a direct quote from the german wikipedia article on english hunting law.

And finally someone who is willing to inform. See, i am happy to get corrected when i am wrong (i haven't read it yet but i guess that is what you are trying to do). But if all i get is "errr. no" all i can do is state my sources and what i know. If those sources are wrong and noone cares to show me how and why it's not my fault. At least not in my opinion.

[Souseiseki]

hey y'all i noticed you're talking about guns and i hate that shit so i haven't been able to keep up entire but has anyone done a mini-writeup of the media coverage of the event thus far

so far as far as i can tell everyone though it was guy A and then went and e-lynched some random guy with the same name (and fox news, CBS, NBC etc. put his facebook picture up as being the killer) and now everyone thinks it was actually his brother guy B so everyone with the same name as A was getting fucked sideways for a day and the real A (please stand up) has basically 20 little kids murdered and half (most? all?) of his family killed and everyone thought it was him. it's been fucking ridiculous and no one has learned anything.

and then there's the whole "shoving cameras into crying kids faces and asking them to describe the bodies on national television" thing

I agree with you, but grammar is your friend.

It really isn't but a Peoples Grammar derail would be rather inappropriate~

[AiliailiA]

hey y'all i noticed you're talking about guns and i hate that shit so i haven't been able to keep up entire but has anyone done a mini-writeup of the media coverage of the event thus far

so far as far as i can tell everyone though it was guy A and then went and e-lynched some random guy with the same name (and fox news, CBS, NBC etc. put his facebook picture up as being the killer) and now everyone thinks it was actually his brother guy B so everyone with the same name as A was getting fucked sideways for a day and the real A (please stand up) has basically 20 little kids murdered and half (most? all?) of his family killed and everyone thought it was him. it's been fucking ridiculous and no one has learned anything.

and then there's the whole "shoving cameras into crying kids faces and asking them to describe the bodies on national television" thing

Yeah, well getting your news from television will just make you angry, confused, and lacking in facts. Turn the damn thing off.

[The UK in Exile]

a great many things suddenly started making sense.

Are you implying that i must be insane because i want that gun laws are reasonable and more importantly that, after a tradgedy, the focus is on the victims and the reasons for the crime (especially since understanding the reasons can help prevent future tradgedies) instead of the weapon of choice?

the gap between your perception of things and the reality of things is very large, how you want to describe that is up to you.

[Illestia]

And the other half of your assertion?

Gun ownership rates have not changed significantly. Those laws are extensively grandfathered.

Gun related crime and gun violence in Britain have risen with increased smuggling of weapons into the country (by trade routes, as every country has, but more particularly by the opening of the Channel Tunnel)

Your attempt to imply that tighter gun laws caused an increase in gun crime is entirely specious. Unless you have a source for that?

That and modern crims are more likely to discharge firearms...hence Operation Trident.

Actually what my point was is that harsher gun laws do not change anything for criminals. They neither cause nor deter crime.
Why? because a criminal breaks laws....

Take Germany ias an example. As estimated by Policeexperts the amount of illegal guns is about double the amount of legally owned guns in germany. So what exactly would harsher gun laws do to prevent a criminal from obtaining one?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

There is no such think as a Chief Officer of the Police. Your lack of knowledge of even the basics regarding the structure of policing in the UK is very telling indeed. Let alone your "understanding" of what needs to be done to get a license.

Educate yourself and then come back.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing

"Chief officer of the Police" was a direct quote from the german wikipedia article on english hunting law.

And finally someone who is willing to inform. See, i am happy to get corrected when i am wrong (i haven't read it yet but i guess that is what you are trying to do). But if all i get is "errr. no" all i can do is state my sources and what i know. If those sources are wrong and noone cares to show me how and why it's not my fault. At least not in my opinion.

Ok.fair enough...I thought you were English/American...

[Frisivisia]

That and modern crims are more likely to discharge firearms...hence Operation Trident.

Actually what my point was is that harsher gun laws do not change anything for criminals. They neither cause nor deter crime.
Why? because a criminal breaks laws....

Take Germany ias an example. As estimated by Policeexperts the amount of illegal guns is about double the amount of legally owned guns in germany. So what exactly would harsher gun laws do to prevent a criminal from obtaining one?

Where the hell do all these magical illegal guns that criminals can get so easily come from?

[Illestia]

Are you implying that i must be insane because i want that gun laws are reasonable and more importantly that, after a tradgedy, the focus is on the victims and the reasons for the crime (especially since understanding the reasons can help prevent future tradgedies) instead of the weapon of choice?

the gap between your perception of things and the reality of things is very large, how you want to describe that is up to you.

Please explain how there is a gap?
Yes, i was wrong about English Gun laws, i admit that. Now that someone actually cared to give me more then "err no"....

But i still dont see how the weapon is more important then the cause

[Illestia]

Actually what my point was is that harsher gun laws do not change anything for criminals. They neither cause nor deter crime.
Why? because a criminal breaks laws....

Take Germany ias an example. As estimated by Policeexperts the amount of illegal guns is about double the amount of legally owned guns in germany. So what exactly would harsher gun laws do to prevent a criminal from obtaining one?

Where the hell do all these magical illegal guns that criminals can get so easily come from?

These guns are mainly guns that have never been registered because they are remnants of ww2 and the downfall of the GDR.

[Virana]

hey y'all i noticed you're talking about guns and i hate that shit so i haven't been able to keep up entire but has anyone done a mini-writeup of the media coverage of the event thus far

so far as far as i can tell everyone though it was guy A and then went and e-lynched some random guy with the same name (and fox news, CBS, NBC etc. put his facebook picture up as being the killer) and now everyone thinks it was actually his brother guy B so everyone with the same name as A was getting fucked sideways for a day and the real A (please stand up) has basically 20 little kids murdered and half (most? all?) of his family killed and everyone thought it was him. it's been fucking ridiculous and no one has learned anything.

and then there's the whole "shoving cameras into crying kids faces and asking them to describe the bodies on national television" thing

Here's your mini-writeup of the coverage of the event:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/connecti ... index.html

No, the media misidentified the guy's brother as the shooter, since the brother (Ryan) was taped being arrested by police in New Jersey. But Ryan was just arrested for questioning, along with Adam's (the shooter) father. The mother was found dead in their house (they likely lived together, Adam and his mom) and the guns Adam used belonged to his mother, who was a teacher at the school.

Also, CNN reiterated after every, single, time they interviewed a kid (none of which were "crying"), that every child interviewed was done with their parent's permission, and that the parents were on the scene with the children. In fact, photographs and video from the scene was being blurred to block the childrens' faces in order to protect their privacy.

[Frisivisia]

Where the hell do all these magical illegal guns that criminals can get so easily come from?

These guns are mainly guns that have never been registered because they are remnants of ww2 and the downfall of the GDR.

I'm fairly certain that criminals would not be very effective with already-used, seventy-year-old guns with no ammo to speak of.

[The UK in Exile]

the gap between your perception of things and the reality of things is very large, how you want to describe that is up to you.

Please explain how there is a gap?
Yes, i was wrong about English Gun laws, i admit that. Now that someone actually cared to give me more then "err no"....

But i still dont see how the weapon is more important then the cause

the cause is people. given the choice between regulating people and regulating guns. guns seems more practical.

[AiliailiA]

That and modern crims are more likely to discharge firearms...hence Operation Trident.

Actually what my point was is that harsher gun laws do not change anything for criminals. They neither cause nor deter crime.
Why? because a criminal breaks laws....

Take Germany ias an example. As estimated by Policeexperts the amount of illegal guns is about double the amount of legally owned guns in germany. So what exactly would harsher gun laws do to prevent a criminal from obtaining one?

Germany is your example? They have very strict gun laws, and a low rate of gun crime.

The question to ask is "would laxer laws increase gun crime" ... to which the answer would obviously be yes ... not "would stricter laws decrease gun crime.

Sure, there is a point beyond which being more strict doesn't do any good. But that does not prove that gun control is bad, nor prove that it is pointless.

[AiliailiA]

Please explain how there is a gap?
Yes, i was wrong about English Gun laws, i admit that. Now that someone actually cared to give me more then "err no"....

But i still dont see how the weapon is more important then the cause

the cause is people. given the choice between regulating people and regulating guns. guns seems more practical.

Heh, yes. I'd rather argue it on principle but that practicality argument is good too.

[Souseiseki]

hey y'all i noticed you're talking about guns and i hate that shit so i haven't been able to keep up entire but has anyone done a mini-writeup of the media coverage of the event thus far

so far as far as i can tell everyone though it was guy A and then went and e-lynched some random guy with the same name (and fox news, CBS, NBC etc. put his facebook picture up as being the killer) and now everyone thinks it was actually his brother guy B so everyone with the same name as A was getting fucked sideways for a day and the real A (please stand up) has basically 20 little kids murdered and half (most? all?) of his family killed and everyone thought it was him. it's been fucking ridiculous and no one has learned anything.

and then there's the whole "shoving cameras into crying kids faces and asking them to describe the bodies on national television" thing

Here's your mini-writeup of the coverage of the event:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/connecti ... index.html

No, the media misidentified the guy's brother as the shooter, since the brother (Ryan) was taped being arrested by police in New Jersey. But Ryan was just arrested for questioning, along with Adam's (the shooter) father. The mother was found dead in their house (they likely lived together, Adam and his mom) and the guns Adam used belonged to his mother, who was a teacher at the school.

Also, CNN reiterated after every, single, time they interviewed a kid (none of which were "crying"), that every child interviewed was done with their parent's permission, and that the parents were on the scene with the children. In fact, photographs and video from the scene was being blurred to block the childrens' faces in order to protect their privacy.

thanks!!!

never saw CNN mentioned in relation to that actually. maybe they did a better job. still sounds like a shitty thing to do though tbh even if the parents say go ahead.

[THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES]

Because You never had the massive Weapon's freedom's we American's have, What happens when you Lose a basic right?

And maybe it's time that we in the US took a good hard look at that freedom and consider the price as it's practiced right now. Maybe we should consider that for too long the rancor from groups like the NRA have clouded the issue and turned that right into a monster in the process.

Perhaps, and I know I'm risking the wrath of every "strict constitutionalists" in the NSG, we now ask of people to demonstrate their competence to exercise that right in a more thorough fashion, and monitor it's exercise as well.

So republicans ate now "monsters"? Just because we support the right of law abiding citizens to own guns for protection and sport? What if I called the left monster for their stance on abortion? Just because I differ with them does not make them terrable people.

[Illestia]

These guns are mainly guns that have never been registered because they are remnants of ww2 and the downfall of the GDR.

I'm fairly certain that criminals would not be very effective with already-used, seventy-year-old guns with no ammo to speak of.

Criminals dont give a fuck whether the gun is used.
a 70 year old gun can very well be in good condition, depending on how it was stored
since when are 9mm luger rounds rare?

[Illestia]

Actually what my point was is that harsher gun laws do not change anything for criminals. They neither cause nor deter crime.
Why? because a criminal breaks laws....

Take Germany ias an example. As estimated by Policeexperts the amount of illegal guns is about double the amount of legally owned guns in germany. So what exactly would harsher gun laws do to prevent a criminal from obtaining one?

Germany is your example? They have very strict gun laws, and a low rate of gun crime.

The question to ask is "would laxer laws increase gun crime" ... to which the answer would obviously be yes ... not "would stricter laws decrease gun crime.



Sure, there is a point beyond which being more strict doesn't do any good. But that does not prove that gun control is bad, nor prove that it is pointless.

And where did i imply that gunlaws are pointless or bad?
I actually stated multiple times that i support reasonable gun control.
That still doesn't chnange the fact that guns are not the cause of masskillings.

[Chernoslavia]

Another interesting note on this gun and safety talk....number one massacre in the USA was caused by a bomb. and if we count foreign attacks...air planes.

And if we talk about killing in general. There's cars, cigarettes, drugs, the sun, diabetes caused by sugar.

Your point is people die so let's do nothing about it? If you notice all the other causes of death do other things like transportation or are consumed. Guns are designed to kill that's it. So do you want to live in a society that these tragedies occur frequently or regulate gun use.

Neither.

[Chernoslavia]

Not really, your gonna have to ban hundreds of common household items to achieve that, and thats something not even strict politicians will bother to consider.

Is it just me or do you respond cryptically to everyone?

So its agreed, you have no valid arguement.

[Ifreann]

Is it just me or do you respond cryptically to everyone?

So its agreed, you have no valid arguement.

You are an odd one...

[Mavorpen]

... ... America is not the U.K. Germany or Australia, It has at the moment 27 Basic right's everyone is entitled, And 10 that have been set in stone for Over 2 centuries, Speech, Bear Arm's, No Quartering of soldier's, Search and Seizure, Right of the Accused, Right to a Speedy Trial, Right to a fair trial, Cruel and unusual Punishment, A bunch of stuff, and Right of teh States.

What happen's when Any one of then is broken or done away with.

If you tighten gun laws, then you get a modern, functioning Western democracy without frequent school shootings.

When has that argument worked?

[Northern Dominus]

If you tighten gun laws, then you get a modern, functioning Western democracy without frequent school shootings.

When has that argument worked?

Not since the NRA became a thing I'd imagine.

[Illestia]

the cause is people. given the choice between regulating people and regulating guns. guns seems more practical.

Heh, yes. I'd rather argue it on principle but that practicality argument is good too.

So, following the same arguement i could say that fighting poverty or searching for a cure for aids is impractical and therefor laws need be made to restrict sex and whatever "practical" solution there is for poverty?

How does a strict gun law make mentally or neurologically sick people not commit crime?
does it impact their ability to get some basic ingredients from the local hardwarestore and supermarket and just bomb a school instead of shooting people?

[Mavorpen]

When has that argument worked?

Not since the NRA became a thing I'd imagine.

I mean in general, but yes. For example, healthcare.