It's just so very sad

[8893]

A dead child is awful regardless of how it happens. Stopping someone like Lanza is all but impossible. Preventing accidents is much easier than preventing homicides.

Wrong again. He was stopped. He had hundreds more rounds of ammunition and he stopped and killed himself when he heard the sirens of the first responders. If he didn't have ready access to a semi-automatic weapon with 30-round magazines he would have killed fewer children before they got to him. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you love these mass children-killing guns so much that you would rather strip people of cars before denying them access to these weapons?

 

[jleves]

A dead child is awful regardless of how it happens. Stopping someone like Lanza is all but impossible. Preventing accidents is much easier than preventing homicides.

This argument of doing only one thing and not another gets really old. We do tons of things and spend tons of money on preventing accidental deaths: child car seats, safety caps on pills and poisons, helmets for riding a bike, seat belts, air bags, gfi outlets, etc. etc.

There's no reason not to keep doing more things to help prevent accidents and we'll see new things all the time. But there's also no reason not to remove semi automatic weapons and 30 round clips as another, not instead of, change to protect both children and adults.

I agree that there was little if any chance of stopping this one kid - there's no reliable way to identify the next one to go off - but if he only had access to a couple of revolvers with 6 bullet capacity that he had to reload by hand one round at a time, it is very likely that at least some and possibly many of the 20 kids would be alive today. The fact that he stopped when he heard sirens makes it pretty obvious that slowing down his ability to put rounds on target would have reduced the carnage.

Anyone who argues that it's more important for people to have semi automatic handguns or semi automatic rifles than to save even one 6 year old child is beyond being reasoned with.

 

[minidarren]

This argument of doing only one thing and not another gets really old. We do tons of things and spend tons of money on preventing accidental deaths: child car seats, safety caps on pills and poisons, helmets for riding a bike, seat belts, air bags, gfi outlets, etc. etc.

There's no reason not to keep doing more things to help prevent accidents and we'll see new things all the time. But there's also no reason not to remove semi automatic weapons and 30 round clips as another, not instead of, change to protect both children and adults.

I agree that there was little if any chance of stopping this one kid - there's no reliable way to identify the next one to go off - but if he only had access to a couple of revolvers with 6 bullet capacity that he had to reload by hand one round at a time, it is very likely that at least some and possibly many of the 20 kids would be alive today. The fact that he stopped when he heard sirens makes it pretty obvious that slowing down his ability to put rounds on target would have reduced the carnage.

Anyone who argues that it's more important for people to have semi automatic handguns or semi automatic rifles than to save even one 6 year old child is beyond being reasoned with.

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

What I see happening is along the lines of what happened on the assault rifle ban. In 1994 (during the Clinton era) a ban was put in place on weapons produces after that date. This did not eliminate weapons produced before 1994. The ban expired after 10 years (during the Bush era) and has yet to be renewed. I could see a new ban being put into effect w/ possibly provisions including semi-auto hand guns. But it will only make a difference from this period onward. There will still be gun owners and there will still be death.

It is unlikely that any law will be passed during Obama's presidency. If a Republican is voted in as president in 2016 you may never see the law passed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[gibhunter]

The law to limit clips down to 20 from 30 has a chance, sadly I doubt it would make a difference. Changing such cartridge takes seconds and wouldn't have made a difference here.

They need:
1) Ban assault weapons - not gonna happen.
2) Have at least one, better two police officers at each school - most likely not gonna happen. It's on this week at some schools but it won't hold up for long because getting seat belt ticket revenue is more important.
3) Have free psychiatric care for people that need it. Obviously this guy was a highly intelligent psychopath but it may make a difference in some other cases.

CNN reported in their timeline that it took 20 minutes for cops to get to the school after the 911 call. That is unacceptable. With a police officer on premises, schools would have a deterrent in place and a first responder there that would have a small albeit a real chance of stopping a guy with an assault rifle. At least he could buy some time for backup. You can't seriously say that if the principal had an AR she could go and take this guy out. She would be fired for having a rifle in school in the first place. Then in case she had one you can't seriously think that a person who dedicated her life teaching little kids would have anything to do with an assault rifles.

I'm all for having rights to bear arms in self defense and to have hunting rifles. Assault rifles though have no business in civilians' hands.

 

[jleves]

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

There is such a huge problem with this idea. Either you are saying: 1) The semi automatic weapons used in this tragedy didn't increase the body count. I don't know how anyone could make that argument. 2) The people who want to own semi automatic weapons can't be reasoned with - in which case they shouldn't be allowed to own any weapons. 3) They actually do believe that owning semi automatic weapons is more important than even one 6 year old's life. If you have a different interpretation from one of those, let me know.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

The entire idea that a few messed up individuals who have killed hundreds does not necessitate that no person has automatic weapons is ludicrous. The fact that a few of the large group that wants to own such weapons have show without a doubt that the group does not have the ability to not kill innocent people with those weapons is the very reason that the entire group should not have them. It's a really fun argument to say 'it's only a few loonies that are doing it' but the fact is legal semi automatic weapons result in many innocent people being killed who wouldn't otherwise. As a group, as far as I'm concerned, they have lost the right to own those weapons.

The rest of your post is up for the future to decide. We'll see.

 

[minidarren]

The law to limit clips down to 20 from 30 has a chance, sadly I doubt it would make a difference. Changing such cartridge takes seconds and wouldn't have made a difference here.

They need:
1) Ban assault weapons - not gonna happen.
2) Have at least one, better two police officers at each school - most likely not gonna happen. It's on this week at some schools but it won't hold up for long because getting seat belt ticket revenue is more important.
3) Have free psychiatric care for people that need it. Obviously this guy was a highly intelligent psychopath but it may make a difference in some other cases.

CNN reported in their timeline that it took 20 minutes for cops to get to the school after the 911 call. That is unacceptable. With a police officer on premises, schools would have a deterrent in place and a first responder there that would have a small albeit a real chance of stopping a guy with an assault rifle. At least he could buy some time for backup. You can't seriously say that if the principal had an AR she could go and take this guy out. She would be fired for having a rifle in school in the first place. Then in case she had one you can't seriously think that a person who dedicated her life teaching little kids would have anything to do with an assault rifles.

I'm all for having rights to bear arms in self defense and to have hunting rifles. Assault rifles though have no business in civilians' hands.

The problem is that you believed the news. 20 minutes or arrive on scene? Lt Vance stated that the duration of the incident was 10 minutes. The incident was terminated when the gun man heard sirens and took his life. Something that he just should have done long before and left these innocent children out of it.

Someone said it best. If you were to have stopped listening to the news on Friday you would believe the shooters name was Ryan Lanza and that his mother was a teacher at SHES. You would believe that the father was dead in NJ. Early on in the story you would believe that only one person was dead and that a second shooter was found in the woods and was arrested.

The media did a piss poor job in reporting this incident. Being first came before any sense of reporting factual news. Get the story at all costs.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[8893]

Pretty well put by Scarbrough imo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I do not think that anyone would say that it is more important for people to have semi auto hand guns/rifles than to even save one 6 year old child. And your right that they are beyond to be reasoned with if their stance is any different. But semi automatic hand guns and rifles are not going anywhere. And the faster the anti-gun folk understand this the better off they will be.

The reason is simple. The actions of a few severely messed up individuals, who chose to use a gun as their weapon of choice, is not going to make it so that the millions of law abiding gun owners have to turn in their weapons. It is just not going to happen.

What I see happening is along the lines of what happened on the assault rifle ban. In 1994 (during the Clinton era) a ban was put in place on weapons produces after that date. This did not eliminate weapons produced before 1994. The ban expired after 10 years (during the Bush era) and has yet to be renewed. I could see a new ban being put into effect w/ possibly provisions including semi-auto hand guns. But it will only make a difference from this period onward. There will still be gun owners and there will still be death.

It is unlikely that any law will be passed during Obama's presidency. If a Republican is voted in as president in 2016 you may never see the law passed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I read this and I shake my head. This is the way you justify blocking any change. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? Why shouldn't they be banned? Why shouldn't all these guns be required to be turned in or face prosecution? Reimburse the owners and they can buy a hunting rifle if they desire. There is no justification for these weapons. They are reported to be good at killing police officers. What else are they good for? Playing Rambo at the shooting range? I don't accept the belief that there cannot be any change.

Perhaps we should have a right to buying bazooka or the modern day equivalent. We can play at Red Dawn scenarios and scream "Wolverines" while we shoot up cans or put holes in targets. Twenty dead children is a very good reason for us to grow up a little as a society and be willing to give up something that has no functional value except to make men feel a little more powerful.

 

[minidarren]

You have the right to believe what you want. Be stressed out over the gun laws and the rights of Americans to own them. I'll keep my AR's and hand guns. Because, they aren't going anywhere.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

There is such a huge problem with this idea. Either you are saying: 1) The semi automatic weapons used in this tragedy didn't increase the body count. I don't know how anyone could make that argument. 2) The people who want to own semi automatic weapons can't be reasoned with - in which case they shouldn't be allowed to own any weapons. 3) They actually do believe that owning semi automatic weapons is more important than even one 6 year old's life. If you have a different interpretation from one of those, let me know.



The entire idea that a few messed up individuals who have killed hundreds does not necessitate that no person has automatic weapons is ludicrous. The fact that a few of the large group that wants to own such weapons have show without a doubt that the group does not have the ability to not kill innocent people with those weapons is the very reason that the entire group should not have them. It's a really fun argument to say 'it's only a few loonies that are doing it' but the fact is legal semi automatic weapons result in many innocent people being killed who wouldn't otherwise. As a group, as far as I'm concerned, they have lost the right to own those weapons.

The rest of your post is up for the future to decide. We'll see.

The weapons used certainly did have an effect on the casualties that occurred. I believe that the same damage could have occurred by just using the two hand guns. However, I believe greater damage could have been done by using a shot gun w/ buck shot. Are we adding shot guns to the list of guns we want banned?

Its a broad stroke to say that people with assault rifles can't be reasoned with. I don't recall saying that. I simply stated that nothing is going to happen. Guns are not going away. Cooler heads understand civil liberties. I think we are going to see a push towards the mental health aspect of things. Obama made mention of it in his speech on Sunday night. I also believe that a push will be made to curtail the gaming/movie industry as well. The desensitization of society to gore and death is, IMO a greater threat than guns. Guns are just the tool of the crime. Remove guns and the tool may become a bomb, knife, chemical, or other object that is available. There will be some type of gun reform as well, but it won't be the banning of guns.

I don't believe the weapons that I own are worth any life, let alone that of a child. However, my weapons aren't killing anyone since they are locked up in my home.

If Lanza's mother knew she had a deranged child living in the home. It was her responsibility to either remove the child, remove the guns, or ensure that the child would never gain access to them. The details of what actually happened will come out in the investigation.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[8893]

And there you have it. Proof that they can't be reasoned with.

I think there are enough others who can be now though.

 

[minidarren]

And there you have it. Proof that they can't be reasoned with.

I think there are enough others who can be now though.

Very compelling argument. I recommend that the "others" that you speak of don't choose you as their spokes person.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[8893]

Very compelling argument. I recommend that the "others" that you speak of don't choose you as their spokes person.

I and many others here and elsewhere have made several very compelling arguments. You won't listen to them and never will, because you simply believe that the comfort that your mass assault weapons give you is worth more than the lives of innocent children. That is your choice. My point is to give up on people like you and realize that you are in the minority. Most thinking people on the planet--including this country--would make a different choice.

I am not one of the others; I've never seen the logic in allowing private citizens to own mass assault weapons and ammunition like this.

 

[minidarren]

The issue is you have no idea what you are talking about. What is a "mass assault rifle?" Here's some food for thought...

"Yet, statistics show, unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States. Of 12,664 murder victims last year, only 323 were killed with rifles, according to the FBI.

Both the Paducah, Ky., and Columbine, Colo., mass school killings occurred during the 10-year ban. In Paducah, the killer used a .22 caliber long rifle, 12 gauge pump-action shotgun and a Ruger MK II .22-caliber pistol.

In Columbine, the shooters used 99 explosive devices, a 12 gauge pump action shotgun. Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine, a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun.

In 2007, the Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock and Walther handgun to kill 32 and wounded 17.

More recently, AR-15s were used in the Colorado movie theater shooting, one last week in a Portland, Ore. mall and in the Newton elementary massacre."

Gun Sales Surge After Massacre, http://fxn.ws/UxbPZS - Sent via the FOX News Android App.

8% of homicides with a gun occur from the use of an assault rifle.

Just under 50% the deaths above occurred from the use of a rifle. And that number is assuming that every death came from the use of an assault rifle. Each individual carried multiple weapons.

The point being is that an assault rifle ban will NOT stop an incident like this from occurring. The worst school shooting in history, Virginia Tech, did not involve one assault rifle. A ban on assault weapons would have done nothing to save those 32 lives. And IMO an assault weapon would have done nothing to save the 27 souls that were lost Friday.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

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

 

[SubbaBub]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

Personal enjoyment, personal protection and home defense are poor arguments to make in this case and do not justify killing capacity of this magnitude being available to the general public. You may think your AR is protecting you. More likely, it's the law of large numbers pulling most of the weight.

If you're a hunter you need at most a mag capacity of three. Anything more is a waste.

I believe these high powered weapons are the modern equivalent to leisure suits, IROC cameros and gold neck chains. Status symbols for undersexed creeps.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[The Funster]

There is simply no credible rationale for long barreled, high capacity assault rifles to be available to the general citizenry. NONE.

 

[minidarren]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

Personal enjoyment, personal protection and home defense are poor arguments to make in this case and do not justify killing capacity of this magnitude being available to the general public. You may think your AR is protecting you. More likely, it's the law of large numbers pulling most of the weight.

If you're a hunter you need at most a mag capacity of three. Anything more is a waste.

I believe these high powered weapons are the modern equivalent to leisure suits, IROC cameros and gold neck chains. Status symbols for undersexed creeps.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens. The AR becomes a shot gun. The death toll is actually higher because of the round a shot gun can shoot. I proved to you that it doesn't matter what gun is used.

There are hunting rifles more powerful than these ARs. I believe that the magazine size is irrelevant as they can be changed in a second. He would have 10 three round magazines. You'd probably be upset to know that he could have had two 100 round drums.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[tzznandrew]

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The fact that you think he could have done the same exact amount of damage, just as easily, with a handgun with a small magazine as with an assault weapon with a large magazine, means we're at an impasse.

You clearly cannot be convinced otherwise--even if it means taking a position 99% of the country would find absurd--and you aren't going to convince me or others that assault weapons, or gun clips aren't at least part of the problem, and that banning them would help minimize these.

I'd like to do what they did in Australia. Ban assault weapons (and we can talk about how we define these--I'm open to that) and then pay people who have them to turn them in. Make it illegal to own, but give people a year to turn in. I'd also ban large clips.

It's work out just fine in Australia. People have lived there without assault bans, and they haven't all killed each other and started eating human flesh. Neither has the government come after them. (To be clear, I'm not saying that you, personally, are suggesting either of these: but some people have.) They haven't had a mass shooting in years since the Port Arthur massacre that made them change their law.

I'm okay with that.

 

[cohenzone]

The illogical spouting of stats about other things that wind up "killing" people as a defense to sane weapons control is mind-boggling. You can name cars, poisons. swimming pools, airplanes, even knives, and in addition to bombs, guns are the only one of them meant to create violence no matter how you slice it. That is their only real purpose, not so for knives, and target shooting is only a way to refine the violence skill. They were invented to cause rapid and fatal damage without having to be standing next to someone.

Golda Meir once said that Israel would have peace with Palestinians when they decided they love their children more than they hate us. The point of that in this discussion is that way too many people love their guns way too much because of one sentence in a 250 year old document.

 

[8893]

Minidarren, please keep posting your defense of private ownership of these weapons. The more people see how people like you have controlled this issue with lunacy, the more chance there is that the lunatic fringe like you will no longer be able to control it.

 

[tykurez]

Australia's 1996 Gun Reform: a Decade Without Mass Shootings

Frankly, I don't give a about your paper targets or the head hanging on your wall. This isn't the 1845 American frontier.

 

[Excalibur]

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens. The AR becomes a shot gun. The death toll is actually higher because of the round a shot gun can shoot. I proved to you that it doesn't matter what gun is used.

You are vastly over-estimating the spread effect of a shotgun round. Massively, in fact. Stop holding yourself out as an expert.

 

[minidarren]

I'll still have my guns. Keep on preaching about getting rid of them.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[homunculus]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

This.

This is not some underground black-market buyer, some character from a Guy Ritchie movie who's going to get access to the guns he needs however necessary. This was a suburban kid that liked video games. This happened because the guns were already there in his house. I say he's not even brave enough to walk into that school without the weapons he had available to him.