It's just so very sad | Page 14 | The Boneyard

It's just so very sad

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to have an discussion about gun control in general, then let's have it. But this going on and on about how dangerous assault rifles are is just showing how little some may know about them and the incidents that have taken place.

The issue is in the home. Parenting and families. If Lanza's mother knew he was ill then why was he not given help? If she tried to get him help but couldn't get it, then why was it not available? If help wasn't available and she knew her son was troubled than why were there guns in the house? There in lies the issue.

Its not attacked from one side. Removing guns from the great majority of those who are law abiding citizens does not resolve the problem. Removing guns from homes with mentally ill or sick individuals does. There needs to be systems in place to get these people the help they need. I don't know what that system is. I am not a mental health professional. Nor quit frankly am I a gun toting 2nd Amendment backer who screams of the need for weapons to protect us from the government. The Abrams tank that rolls over my home will reduce the guns I own to scrap metal.

I do believe that guns themselves do not kill people. Guns in the hands of unstable people kill people. If you remove guns, you will still have unstable people.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quite ironic that the 2nd amendment has been interpretted in such a way to provide protection against the Gov't. The Second amendment, if read in its complete context, serves to help and fight for the gov't.

The 4th Amendment guards against the gov't, not the 2nd.
 
I would like to present a some peer-reviewed studies published in notable journals dealing with gun ownership and its relationship to gun violence, specifically here in the United States. There is a strong positive correlation between murder and areas with high gun ownership, even when you remove other confounding factors such as poverty level.

analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953606004898

a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=206421
 
TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png
 
A history of gun laws and the NRA in the United States. Basically, the NRA changed in the 70s during Nixon, when conservatives realized that they could get people out to vote merely by threatening that people were going to lose their guns. I hate to quote so much, but it's a REALLY long read, and I tried to select only some of the more interesting stuff. Emphasis in bold is mine.

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times. For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.

...

In 1968, as Winkler relates, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., gave the issue new urgency. A revised Gun Control Act banned mail-order sales, restricted the purchase of guns by certain high-risk people (e.g., those with criminal records), and prohibited the importation of military-surplus firearms. That law, along with a great deal of subsequent law-and-order legislation, was intended to fight crime, control riots, and solve what was called, in the age of the Moynihan report, the “Negro problem.” The regulations that are part of these laws—firearms restrictions, mandatory-sentencing guidelines, abolition of parole, and the “war on drugs”—are now generally understood to be responsible for the dramatic rise in the U.S. incarceration rate.

The N.R.A. supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, with some qualms. Orth was quoted in American Rifleman as saying that although some elements of the legislation “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

...

In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. In 1975, the N.R.A. created a lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, headed by Harlon Bronson Carter, an award-winning marksman and a former chief of the U.S. Border Control. But then the N.R.A.’s leadership decided to back out of politics and move the organization’s headquarters to Colorado Springs, where a new recreational-shooting facility was to be built. Eighty members of the N.R.A.’s staff, including Carter, were ousted. In 1977, the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, usually held in Washington, was moved to Cincinnati, in protest of the city’s recent gun-control laws. Conservatives within the organization, led by Carter, staged what has come to be called the Cincinnati Revolt. The bylaws were rewritten and the old guard was pushed out. Instead of moving to Colorado, the N.R.A. stayed in D.C., where a new motto was displayed: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
...

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

...

“If you had asked, in 1968, will we have the right to do with guns in 2012 what we can do now, no one, on either side, would have believed you,” David Keene said.

Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all

It's a really long article, but a very very interesting read.
 
"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson
 
minidarren, It's a fact that you are a sissy and feel inadequate, this is the reason you clutch to your guns so tightly. Actually this is just my opinion, same as all the opinions you have made in this thread. Stop trying to play off your false arguments as if they are facts....you're entitled to your opinions just as I'm entitled to the opinion that you are a scared little wuss who feels inadequate.

Thanks for contributing.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
.-.
There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.
I guess I just don't buy that these guys were all that smart or adept or knowledgable about guns that they would do any of these things.

The only evidence we have is that they bought or stole legally purchased weapons. And the logic, seems to me, was: let me get a gun that allows me to shoot as fast as possible.

With that in mind, I wonder if their ideas wouldn't have been derailed after not having easy access.
 
With that in mind, I wonder if their ideas wouldn't have been derailed after not having easy access.

I believe that some of this is the issue. The guns were taken or stolen from legal owners. Legislation in CT does not exist in regards to the storage of weapons unless when dealing with a minor (<16 yoa). Make legal owners responsible for the weapons that the own. Make legislation that states these rifles must be disassembled or stored in a gun safe. They are not practical for home defense or self defense as I have said previously.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.

Nice breakdown on hand held weapons Charlie.

I have a simple point to make, that I can't hold in any longer.

An unloaded firearm, isn't much more dangerous than a baseball bat or golf club, or brass knuckles.

This horror, was closer to home to me, than, well too close. The details will be out from the professionals as soon as everything is complete. Right now, over the next few days, the focus is on burying the remains of TWENTY six year olds, and six adults charged with their care, that stepped in harms way for those children.

What the information will show, is that this maniac was armed with enough high velocity ammunition,on his person, unused at the time his body was identified, to do a hell of a lot more killing, than what was actually done. What was discharged, is slightly over 30 full magazines of that american made copy of an AK-47, were emptied at close range, most at point blank, in approximately 12-15 minutes, before the psychopath went to a handgun for his own head. Forensics people have been tracing every single round. Bullets fired from inside that school, for example, that went through, wood, glass, metal and have been pulled out of the cars in the parking lots, trees surrounding the school. Thankfully, none of those babies suffered. It was over fast.

Better mental health diagnosis and treatment will not prevent the existence of psychopaths, who choose to do murder. Stricter gun control laws, will not prevent people who want guns, from getting them. I believe in a person's right to arm themselves, for defensive purposes. Small calibre, single shot weapons. Hunting weapons. I do not believe that a civilian has the right to own weapons, like a Bushmaster, which are clearly for military and enforcment purposes. There is no need for a civilian to own weapons that are designed by military for efficient, large scale killing.

Ammunition though. Tracking, controlling ammunition is the key. Laws governing discharge of firearms, and tracking ammunition is the key. There needs to be a system in place, to prevent people from stockpiling what this maniac was able to stockpile, for his mother's weapons. Laws to govern tracking of all discharges of weapons, from licensed weapons owners, and purchases of ammunition, tracked to all licensed weapons owners. Starting with the ammunition manufactures, and ammunition importers.
 
Nice breakdown on hand held weapons Charlie.

I have a simple point to make, that I can't hold in any longer.

An unloaded firearm, isn't much more dangerous than a baseball bat or golf club, or brass knuckles.

This horror, was closer to home to me, than, well too close. The details will be out from the professionals as soon as everything is complete. Right now, over the next few days, the focus is on burying the remains of TWENTY six year olds, and six adults charged with their care, that stepped in harms way for those children.

What the information will show, is that this maniac was armed with enough high velocity ammunition,on his person, unused at the time his body was identified, to do a hell of a lot more killing, than what was actually done. What was discharged, is slightly over 30 full magazines of that american made copy of an AK-47, were emptied at close range, most at point blank, in approximately 12-15 minutes, before the psychopath went to a handgun for his own head. Forensics people have been tracing every single round. Bullets fired from inside that school, for example, that went through, wood, glass, metal and have been pulled out of the cars in the parking lots, trees surrounding the school. Thankfully, none of those babies suffered. It was over fast.

Better mental health diagnosis and treatment will not prevent the existence of psychopaths, who choose to do murder. Stricter gun control laws, will not prevent people who want guns, from getting them. I believe in a person's right to arm themselves, for defensive purposes. Small calibre, single shot weapons. Hunting weapons. I do not believe that a civilian has the right to own weapons, like a Bushmaster, which are clearly for military and enforcment purposes. There is no need for a civilian to own weapons that are designed by military for efficient, large scale killing.

Ammunition though. Tracking, controlling ammunition is the key. Laws governing discharge of firearms, and tracking ammunition is the key. There needs to be a system in place, to prevent people from stockpiling what this maniac was able to stockpile, for his mother's weapons. Laws to govern tracking of all discharges of weapons, from licensed weapons owners, and purchases of ammunition, tracked to all licensed weapons owners. Starting with the ammunition manufactures, and ammunition importers.

I think this is well written. However more needs to be done to fix our violent society. You remove the violence and the guns stop killing. I have no idea how, but someone has made these people think its okay for them to chose who lives and who dies.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Nice breakdown on hand held weapons Charlie.

I have a simple point to make, that I can't hold in any longer.

An unloaded firearm, isn't much more dangerous than a baseball bat or golf club, or brass knuckles.

This horror, was closer to home to me, than, well too close. The details will be out from the professionals as soon as everything is complete. Right now, over the next few days, the focus is on burying the remains of TWENTY six year olds, and six adults charged with their care, that stepped in harms way for those children.

What the information will show, is that this maniac was armed with enough high velocity ammunition,on his person, unused at the time his body was identified, to do a hell of a lot more killing, than what was actually done. What was discharged, is slightly over 30 full magazines of that american made copy of an AK-47, were emptied at close range, most at point blank, in approximately 12-15 minutes, before the psychopath went to a handgun for his own head. Forensics people have been tracing every single round. Bullets fired from inside that school, for example, that went through, wood, glass, metal and have been pulled out of the cars in the parking lots, trees surrounding the school. Thankfully, none of those babies suffered. It was over fast.

Better mental health diagnosis and treatment will not prevent the existence of psychopaths, who choose to do murder. Stricter gun control laws, will not prevent people who want guns, from getting them. I believe in a person's right to arm themselves, for defensive purposes. Small calibre, single shot weapons. Hunting weapons. I do not believe that a civilian has the right to own weapons, like a Bushmaster, which are clearly for military and enforcment purposes. There is no need for a civilian to own weapons that are designed by military for efficient, large scale killing.

Ammunition though. Tracking, controlling ammunition is the key. Laws governing discharge of firearms, and tracking ammunition is the key. There needs to be a system in place, to prevent people from stockpiling what this maniac was able to stockpile, for his mother's weapons. Laws to govern tracking of all discharges of weapons, from licensed weapons owners, and purchases of ammunition, tracked to all licensed weapons owners. Starting with the ammunition manufactures, and ammunition importers.

I agree with you on just about every point.

Although, I believe stricter gun control laws can still help. We have to at least make it a bit more difficult for people to get them. You say that it won't prevent people who want them from getting them, but we need to at least try. A black market is still a limited market.

It's CRAZY to me that people can, for example, go to a gun show and show a driver's license and walk out with whatever they wanted, provided they have enough cash. No background checks or waiting necessary. I'm also sure that loose gun control laws and gun shows are where a lot of today's illegal guns come from, via straw purchases. The only way we can do this is probably to make private/person-to-person sales of firearms illegal. If a person wants to sell a gun, they can only do so at licensed and registered dealers and the sale must be reported.
 
First: I am a gun owner, have been since I was 21 and will continue to be until they take them away.

I consider myself to be fairly right leaning when it comes to politic, but I can't see any argument for the need to have any large calibur weapons available to public. My brother is a veteran, paid his due- and owns an AR-15. I don't know why any man would ever need that, even in home defense.

Its a joke but Chris Rock was right, and Carl hit the nail on the head. Control the ammo, make bullets expensive and easy to track and I bet we see a decrease.

But one thing no one is talking about because it seems so far fetched is the impact of media on these sickos. Look at the stats posted here, its startling how quickly "public mass killings" (4 deaths or more in a public setting) have ramped up since the late 90's. Guns haven't become more available, and they certainly aren't any better. I would like to hope people aren't getting worse, I bet these sicko's have always been around. Healthcare for mentally ill people isnt getting worse, despite what manysay, it certainly isn't perfect- but nothing is and we need to work on it.

So why are they going up so rapidly? I am starting to believe the media coverage ... nonstop pictures, information, videos of these people are constantly run make these sickos believe they are famous, immortalized even when they do something like this. These people aren't ok in the head, and ever since McVeigh I feel like these balloon knots get this idea rather then go and kill themselves in their room, be a story for a day- they go and do something as awful as this.

Just think about it, everyone here can name McVeigh, but how many of you can name the pilot that landed the plane in the Hudson River saving all those lives a year ago? It hurts me on the inside.
 
.-.
I agree with you on just about every point.

Although, I believe stricter gun control laws can still help. We have to at least make it a bit more difficult for people to get them. You say that it won't prevent people who want them from getting them, but we need to at least try. A black market is still a limited market.

It's CRAZY to me that people can, for example, go to a gun show and show a driver's license and walk out with whatever they wanted, provided they have enough cash. No background checks or waiting necessary. I'm also sure that loose gun control laws and gun shows are where a lot of today's illegal guns come from, via straw purchases. The only way we can do this is probably to make private/person-to-person sales of firearms illegal. If a person wants to sell a gun, they can only do so at licensed and registered dealers and the sale must be reported.

I agree that it is crazy as well. I think those are some of the changes that we will see.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
When you've read all of my posts [I have] it should be clear [it's not] that my stance has not been to do nothing. Quite frankly its been the exact opposite. I have put forth a mixture of gun control and other systems to help reduce these events from occurring.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Care to backtrack any further?
 
There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.

Are you proposing we COMPLETELY BAN ALL FIREARMS???

If so I support your plan fully. Charlie Brown for President.
 
There is another side of this, aside from the fact that an unloaded weapon is not nearly as deadly as a loaded one. The truth is, that a semi-automatic hunting rifle, or the sig sauer, can unload the same amount of ammunition in the same short amount of time, that the bushmaster can. A short barrel, or hand gun, is actually more accurate and effective in close quarters, than a long barrel rifle. But regardless of the type of gun, if the gun is not loaded with ammunition, it's not effective. I believe the proper approach to gaining "control" of guns, is through the ammunition.

But the other side, of the gun, from the ammunition, is the hands that hold it. In many foreign countries, europe, people are allowed to own firearms, including high power weapons. It's not so much a right, as it is a priviledge - but that's essentially semantics. The key difference, is that to maintain legal ownership of a firearm, medical screening and clearance is a pre-requisite, and that means screening of the entire household, and also includes mandatory regulations about maintaining lockers, and limitations on ammunition, all of which are subject to inspection and big time penalties. Connecticut has some of the most restricted gun laws in the country, and every weapon used on Friday, was a legal owned weapon in teh state. TO my knowledge, there are 42 states, which have essentially no regulations for gun ownership, aside from the equivalent of obtaining a driver's license. There is no doubt that gun ownership laws need to be more strict nationwide. But it must be done properly.

THe first step, is requiring medical screening, properly trained medical screening (not your family doctor signing an out of work slip) but properly trained psychologic evaluation of the entire household where the weapon will be stored.
 
So... this happened:

Utah sixth grader placed .22-caliber handgun to classmate’s head after 'encouraged by his PARENTS to carry a gun after Sandy Hook’
Police say an 11-year-old boy pulled a .22-caliber handgun on an elementary school classmate on Monday after his parents allegedly encouraged him to carry it for protection after last week's shooting in Connecticut.

Sixth grader Isabel Rios said that it was during morning recess at West Kearns Elementary outside of Salt Lake City that the boy placed the unloaded gun to her and her friend's head. Its ammunition was found in his backpack.

‘I told him I was going to tell, but he said, "If you tell, I'm going to kill you,"’ Isabel told KSL.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ate-s-head-parents-encouraged-protection.html
 
.-.
Also from this article on Fox News: :eek:

Some parents were not satisfied with the school's response.

"There was no lockdown. No one was called. Nothing was done. And then we had to hear it from our kids," said John Klaus, a father of a student at the school.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/1...nloaded-gun-in-class-reportedly-says-parents/

The parents learned about it from either the news that evening, or the kids told them. That's a very irresponsible way for the school to handle the situation. If i was a parent there, I would be PISSED.
 
Let's arm our teachers!

Where shall we have them keep the weapon? Perhaps a holster? A high shelf? A locked drawer in the desk next to their apple?
 
From the Article - "g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93."

If I remember correctly the highjackers didnt have guns - they had box cutters...

You are going to be called a bunch of nasty words for posting realistic stuff like that in here.
 
.-.
Disagree. I would feel thankful that my kid wasn't shot.

And then ridiculously angry and stupid parents for sending their 6th grader to school with a gun. It was a poorly thought out, dangerous decision on their part, and it endangered all the children's lives in that school.

Yes. I'd be pissed. And anger isn't always petty.
 
And that proves what about what weapons should be available for self defense and/or just what weapons are really available to arm US militiamen against the might of our government?
It proves knives can be deadly too. So we should ban them too, I guess.
 
It proves knives can be deadly too. So we should ban them too, I guess.
The slippery slope argument is fun, because it works both ways.

Why shouldn't civilians have access to nuclear weapons?
 
T
It proves knives can be deadly too. So we should ban them too, I guess.

Typical in extremis silliness. You know damn well that a gun capable of shooting real ammo is meant to have one purpose and that is to be an instrument of violence. Not so for many types of knives and yesh i know you can hurt someone with a paring knife And you should also know if you are sane that a private person does not need a military weapon and that no restriction will result in you losing your hunting rifle or your handy dandy hand gun. Bang bang.
 
Controlling mass killings and stopping people from killing are two separate issues. Limits on clip size and tighter licensing regs hope to minimize mass killings.

The problem with the mental illness angle is this simple: Omar Thornton killed 8 at the Hartford Beer Distributors in 2010. What was his 'motive'? Omar filled hmself up on racial lit about the poor oppressed black man, got himself caught stealing (which was his right to do as a poor, oppressed minority), and then went ballistic as the poor victim of racism and injustice. \

Should Omar's racist victimization literature be banned as it encourages anti-social violence and literally makes young men morally insane and incapable of personal responsibility? Should the readers of that crap be labeled as insane and disturbed?
 
Just when I think UConn is having a great day, I look at this thread.

I don't have a problem with guns. The size of the bullet is important in this issue as well. But I think the real issue here is the removal of the mental institutions. I know they got a bad rap from the 50's and 60's, but the fact of the matter is that they kept pyscho's off the streets. Majority of these mass killings are committed by absolute nut-jobs. If these people are in mental institutions where they can make an attempt at recovery, then these killings will decrease.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,368
Messages
4,568,442
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom