Cha

A Disgusting Event: Sandy Hook Elementary's Shooting

104 posts in this topic

Also, ybnrmalatall, if you insist on fighting with individuals take it to PM. You are derailing this thread with posts that are irrelevant to the topic at hand and serves as nothing more than a way for you to try and prove some misguided personal point. If this continues, you will be assigned additional warning points, which will push you that much closer to a ban.

I don't think he really cares at this point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yberwhateverthefuckyournameis, you have no business here. You are just trying to start a fight. Go back to /mlp/ if you must have something to do with ponies. You certainly aren't welcome here.

I'm going to be honest, I can actually find myself agreeing with MrK here (which doesn't happen often) insomuch as you are just becoming a nuisance and you need to be removed.

On topic, guns are a tool, the person who was behind them was the criminal, not the guns themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault rifle is a liberal term...

What was found was a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle (the civilian model of the M4 carbine, primarily used for sports hunting, lacks full auto or three round burst, therefore not an assault rifle). Also on the shooter was a 9mm Glock pistol and a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol. He also had access in the home, but didn't take .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. All three of these rifles, along with the .223-caliber Bushmaster indicate that either the mother (the father, someone in the family) was a hunter. The two pistols were most likely for either home or personal defense, since I know many hunters carry small sidearms in addition to hunting rifles.

Last I checked, even in countries with strict gun laws, rifles are allowed, especially for the use of hunting. Most gun laws only ban larger caliber or concealable weapons, which, in this case would of been the 9mm pistols. Both of which, however, were relatively weak (hence why reports say that a rifle was used).

I hope you mean "liberal" as in "open to interpretation" and not the political party or this is going to derail somewhat.

Either way I see, the news must have shown the wrong picture in that case. But I don't recall hearing the rifle being used? At least here they said it was left in the car and he went on to only use the hand pistols. Half automatic guns are lethal after all. What source said he used the rifle?

And well, by making counseled and automatic weaponry harder to get a hold of it would potentially make things more safe, especially if they ramped up the security towards younger people and family people. I think most school shootings are done with counseled guns and not hunting rifles at least, especially if it is a student that does it (which it seems to be most of the time, easy to get a gun past the teacher, not so much a giant rifle) so if there was a way to ensure no person under, say, 25 years could get a gun and even then had to take several classes to learn proper use, and also very importantly safe storage, it could help.

But I think we could all agree that the easiest thing to do at this point and that would also help immensely would be to improve on mental health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault rifle is a liberal term...

What was found was a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle (the civilian model of the M4 carbine, primarily used for sports hunting, lacks full auto or three round burst, therefore not an assault rifle). Also on the shooter was a 9mm Glock pistol and a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol. He also had access in the home, but didn't take .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. All three of these rifles, along with the .223-caliber Bushmaster indicate that either the mother (the father, someone in the family) was a hunter. The two pistols were most likely for either home or personal defense, since I know many hunters carry small sidearms in addition to hunting rifles.

Last I checked, even in countries with strict gun laws, rifles are allowed, especially for the use of hunting. Most gun laws only ban larger caliber or concealable weapons, which, in this case would of been the 9mm pistols. Both of which, however, were relatively weak (hence why reports say that a rifle was used).

I hope you mean "liberal" as in "open to interpretation" and not the political party or this is going to derail somewhat.

Either way I see, the news must have shown the wrong picture in that case. But I don't recall hearing the rifle being used? At least here they said it was left in the car and he went on to only use the hand pistols. Half automatic guns are lethal after all. What source said he used the rifle?

And well, by making counseled and automatic weaponry harder to get a hold of it would potentially make things more safe, especially if they ramped up the security towards younger people and family people. I think most school shootings are done with counseled guns and not hunting rifles at least, especially if it is a student that does it (which it seems to be most of the time, easy to get a gun past the teacher, not so much a giant rifle) so if there was a way to ensure no person under, say, 25 years could get a gun and even then had to take several classes to learn proper use, and also very importantly safe storage, it could help.

But I think we could all agree that the easiest thing to do at this point and that would also help immensely would be to improve on mental health.

Liberal, as in a term being thrown around loosely...

Also, he was carrying around three weapons on him according to reports, two handguns and a rifle, while most reports indicated that a rifle was most likely used to do the killings...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559395/conn-school-shooter-had-4-weapons/

Also, concealed weapons require special permits and automatic weapons are illegal to be sold except to special groups and military. As I said, the rifle he was carrying, although it /looks/ like an assault rifle, was only capable of firing single shots, hence, was not an assault rifle (which has the ability to fire in full auto or three round bursts). It's just media sensationalism...

In addition, at 18 a person can purchase a rifle or shotgun, but must be 21 to purchase handguns.

I don't see how arbitrary raises in age would fix issues of mass shootings, since most of the people going on shooting sprees are 20+ anyways. Yes, occasionally a student brings a gun to school, but that has been the rarity these days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible to implement effective gun control in a nation where the civilian population already collectively own more firearms than many nation's entire armies. New gun control laws would be effectively meaningless.

The most effective control they can use currently is ammunition control. Limiting the availability of ammunition may be the only way to reduce the availability of actual firepower.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be picketing the shooting and is claiming, "God sent the shooter".

For fucks sake, that's just disgusting.

As for my opinions on the shooting and it's relevance to gun control...

Gun control works like passwords on computers. They keep out law-abiders best. Criminals? Significantly less-so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymous actually hacked the WBC and released all it's personal information.

THose guys are heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be picketing the shooting and is claiming, "God sent the shooter".

For fucks sake, that's just disgusting.

As for my opinions on the shooting and it's relevance to gun control...

Gun control works like passwords on computers. They keep out law-abiders best. Criminals? Significantly less-so.

It's the WBC, they're doing this for attention. Sure, it's disgusting, but remember by acknowledging them you're giving them exactly what they want.

A friend of mine from CT told me that if they actually do go ahead with this, they're going to get a lot of trash thrown at them most likely. CT isn't a friendly state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be picketing the shooting and is claiming, "God sent the shooter".

For fucks sake, that's just disgusting.

As for my opinions on the shooting and it's relevance to gun control...

Gun control works like passwords on computers. They keep out law-abiders best. Criminals? Significantly less-so.

It's the WBC, they're doing this for attention. Sure, it's disgusting, but remember by acknowledging them you're giving them exactly what they want.

A friend of mine from CT told me that if they actually do go ahead with this, they're going to get a lot of trash thrown at them most likely. CT isn't a friendly state.

"Welcome to Connecticut, get your shit and get out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People, including children die every day, so.. :l

It's not that people don't die, it's that there is something wrong when someone can walk in and gun down 20+ innocent children.


I thought I'd share this as well, being directly relevant to most of us.

http://kotaku.com/59...erent-reactions

I hate to say this, but the shock and outrage really is due to it's infrequency here in the States (and other developed countries)...

Sadly, I never saw this same level of outrage when gunmen in the Middle East bomb schools, enter churches/mosques and open fire, etc etc etc... This kind of thing happens every day in some parts of the world, but people only care when it's local and all over the news...

Just saying... :\

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People, including children die every day, so.. :l

It's not that people don't die, it's that there is something wrong when someone can walk in and gun down 20+ innocent children.


I thought I'd share this as well, being directly relevant to most of us.

http://kotaku.com/59...erent-reactions

I hate to say this, but the shock and outrage really is due to it's infrequency here in the States (and other developed countries)...

Sadly, I never saw this same level of outrage when gunmen in the Middle East bomb schools, enter churches/mosques and open fire, etc etc etc... This kind of thing happens every day in some parts of the world, but people only care when it's local and all over the news...

Just saying... :\

Doesn't make it right, regardless of where it happens.

I agree that people only pay attention to their local news though, and the news of other countries isn't often reported locally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for the double post but I have something to say regarding The Day of Ceasefire.

Apparently mass effect has been accused for having something to do with the shooting. Obviously that's hogwash but do any of you feel that the temporary boycott of shooter games has something to do with saving face for gamers? I mean, it's very respectful of them to show their condolences but perhaps some people are only participating because they're sick of shooter games being seen as a bad influence on it's audience. I know, you guys obviously care about the children but I don't trust others as much.

Now, some other things..

Regarding the gun safety thing, the murderer had stolen these guns, so discussing the right to bare arms isn't really necessary because they were never his to begin with.

As for the autistic thing, he was untreated for whatever reason but that still doesn't mean he can go ahead and shoot people. The fact that he had a disorder really shouldn't mean anything and honestly, people are thinking way too much into this situation.

I feel I should also apologize for derailing the topic a bit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently mass effect has been accused for having something to do with the shooting.

Not the only time Mass Effect has been under fire from the media. The first time was back in 2008, when Fox News and psychologist Cooper Lawrence made horribly misinformed news reports about the sexual themes in the game based on an also horribly misinformed blog post from neoconservative blogger Kevin McCullough. To be honest though, from what I've played of the first (which isn't much) it isn't very violent or realistic (no reloading of weapons for example; guns have infinite ammo, but need to cool down after a lot of concentrated fire) and most of the gunfights in the game aren't really all that intense and, because there's no need to reload or pick up ammo, nothing like an actual firefight.
Obviously that's hogwash but do any of you feel that the temporary boycott of shooter games has something to do with saving face for gamers? I mean, it's very respectful of them to show their condolences but perhaps some people are only participating because they're sick of shooter games being seen as a bad influence on it's audience. I know, you guys obviously care about the children but I don't trust others as much.
I don't expect it to fully make people realize "Hey, maybe these "gamer" people aren't so bad after all" immediately, but it's just a small step towards achieving that. We all have to start somewhere, yes?
I feel I should also apologize for derailing the topic a bit.
I believe it's forgivable as you did provide some strong arguments for your POV on the whole thing. There are multiple sides to every story, but only one of them is absolutely right, and the only person that can give us his exact motivation for shooting up an elementary school out of all places is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel I should also apologize for derailing the topic a bit.

I believe it's forgivable as you did provide some strong arguments for your POV on the whole thing. There are multiple sides to every story, but only one of them is absolutely right, and the only person that can give us his exact motivation for shooting up an elementary school out of all places is dead.

that's really the big problem. no matter what evidence may turn up, or what someone says, it is all speculation. the dead cannot speak in their own defense, and the truth is lost in the darkness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun safety thing, the murderer had stolen these guns, so discussing the right to bare arms isn't really necessary because they were never his to begin with.

The problem though is that it seems his mother got the guns legally and he lived in the same house as her, so he stole it from her yes, but he would never have gotten them if she didn't own them legally first. I think it is necessary to discuss this.

Also I never understood why one needed something with lethal force to "protect yourself", that's just silly. Why not ban lethal bullet guns but allow people to bear tazers and guns who shoot tranquilizing darts (like they do with dangerous animals, just with a lower dose so you don't kill people of course)? That way you could have protection while also having a MUCH lower chance of accidentally killing someone, and if someone steals them from you they would be much easier to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stun guns are banned in Maine, New York, New Jersey, Rhode island, Hawaii, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

And I think tranquilizer darts are banned because there are more rapists then there are necrophiliacs. Probably tazers for the same reason. But I agree, these bans are quite silly. If they want to break the law with them, they will break the law to get them.

To own tranquilizer guns, you need to be able to properly handle tranquilizer which requires a class 2 narcotics license.

And make no mistake, tranquilizer darts need to be dosed to the milligram to work properly. Too little and it does nothing. too much and it kills them. I think they should keep tranquilizer darts where they are. in police hands. But un-ban tazers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun safety thing, the murderer had stolen these guns, so discussing the right to bare arms isn't really necessary because they were never his to begin with.

The problem though is that it seems his mother got the guns legally and he lived in the same house as her, so he stole it from her yes, but he would never have gotten them if she didn't own them legally first. I think it is necessary to discuss this.

Also I never understood why one needed something with lethal force to "protect yourself", that's just silly. Why not ban lethal bullet guns but allow people to bear tazers and guns who shoot tranquilizing darts (like they do with dangerous animals, just with a lower dose so you don't kill people of course)? That way you could have protection while also having a MUCH lower chance of accidentally killing someone, and if someone steals them from you they would be much easier to stop.

Yeah, and while she may be a law-abiding citizen, the boy was not, if he stole them.

I have never ONCE seen a criminal go "DAMN, these gun laws are killing me, man! Now I can't get a gun!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun safety thing, the murderer had stolen these guns, so discussing the right to bare arms isn't really necessary because they were never his to begin with.

The problem though is that it seems his mother got the guns legally and he lived in the same house as her, so he stole it from her yes, but he would never have gotten them if she didn't own them legally first. I think it is necessary to discuss this.

Also I never understood why one needed something with lethal force to "protect yourself", that's just silly. Why not ban lethal bullet guns but allow people to bear tazers and guns who shoot tranquilizing darts (like they do with dangerous animals, just with a lower dose so you don't kill people of course)? That way you could have protection while also having a MUCH lower chance of accidentally killing someone, and if someone steals them from you they would be much easier to stop.

Yeah, and while she may be a law-abiding citizen, the boy was not, if he stole them.

I have never ONCE seen a criminal go "DAMN, these gun laws are killing me, man! Now I can't get a gun!"

And if she hadn't had the guns to begin with those kids might have been alive. This guy didn't seem to be a master criminal with Mafia contacts, he was one with mental issues that probably snapped there and then and grabbed the guns he found there in the house. If she did not have those guns I think he would have used a knife instead, and that would have been so much easier to stop.

And again, why not tazers instead of guns for civilians? Less chance of random murder or accidental wounding, while still being protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun safety thing, the murderer had stolen these guns, so discussing the right to bare arms isn't really necessary because they were never his to begin with.

The problem though is that it seems his mother got the guns legally and he lived in the same house as her, so he stole it from her yes, but he would never have gotten them if she didn't own them legally first. I think it is necessary to discuss this.

Also I never understood why one needed something with lethal force to "protect yourself", that's just silly. Why not ban lethal bullet guns but allow people to bear tazers and guns who shoot tranquilizing darts (like they do with dangerous animals, just with a lower dose so you don't kill people of course)? That way you could have protection while also having a MUCH lower chance of accidentally killing someone, and if someone steals them from you they would be much easier to stop.

Yeah, and while she may be a law-abiding citizen, the boy was not, if he stole them.

I have never ONCE seen a criminal go "DAMN, these gun laws are killing me, man! Now I can't get a gun!"

And if she hadn't had the guns to begin with those kids might have been alive. This guy didn't seem to be a master criminal with Mafia contacts, he was one with mental issues that probably snapped there and then and grabbed the guns he found there in the house. If she did not have those guns I think he would have used a knife instead, and that would have been so much easier to stop.

And again, why not tazers instead of guns for civilians? Less chance of random murder or accidental wounding, while still being protected.

Because people want to know that if someone hurts them, they have the power to kill them. That's it. A tazer doesn't give you that kind of power. It's stupid, I know. But it's how people think.

That, and tazers are close range, except for police issued ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people want to know that if someone hurts them, they have the power to kill them. That's it. A tazer doesn't give you that kind of power. It's stupid, I know. But it's how people think.

That, and tazers are close range, except for police issued ones.

Well that's just disgusting then and only makes me feel it is even less necessary with guns all around. In a modern civilized society we really should be able to get out of the "killing" mindset more easily, I have said it before and will say it again, isn't what is supposed to make us superior to the wild animals that we should be able to control our instincts and use our brains instead?

And if people were to get tazers, maybe give long range ones to teacher and such in that case then but have normal people have normal "last resort usage only" tazers?

Edited by Nikki Lyra

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