Connecticut School Shooting

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

While that video is interesting, it totally ignores the fact that a properly trained person with a gun is really the only way to stop these events once they are happening.

Having a policeman or fully trained and armed person on staff to respond to these events seems to make sense...?

Or take it another way, if the shooter had instead walked into a texas NRA meeting, do you think he would have done more or less damage? These psychopaths unfortunately aren't dumb... they all seem to intentionally target gun free zones to maximize their ability to cause harm.

Is your last para, a statement of support for less gun control?

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So because of the size of the ammunition it likely is designed for small game, and probably human conflict?

Seems like a logical choice for a civilian ban....

How about the fact the small calibre ammo was hollow point...ideal for small game you think?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is your last para, a statement of support for less gun control?

Not at all, I just think there has to be acknowledgement that firearms are really the only way to combat these instances.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

While that video is interesting, it totally ignores the fact that a properly trained person with a gun is really the only way to stop these events once they are happening.

Having a policeman or fully trained and armed person on staff to respond to these events seems to make sense...?

Or take it another way, if the shooter had instead walked into a texas NRA meeting, do you think he would have done more or less damage? These psychopaths unfortunately aren't dumb... they all seem to intentionally target gun free zones to maximize their ability to cause harm.

He likely would have done less, but I'd expect the combined casualties from a bunch of wannabe John Wayne's firing away would wind up in the same ball park.

[valo403]

The NY Post is even figuring it out, calling the 2nd Amendment obsolete

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-obsolete.html

[ernie]

Originally Posted by valo403

He likely would have done less, but I'd expect the combined casualties from a bunch of wannabe John Wayne's firing away would wind up in the same ball park.

Well that and most large convention centers are rapidly moving to no guns allowed (much to the NRAs horror) and there wouldn't be any guns present.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by fotze

As an aside, the vultures have appeared in the form of Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

People are skewering them on twitter, Jim Norton has 3 awesome tweets in succession.

Jim Norton ‏@JimNorton
@DrOz Can you help me please? I have a problem with my ###hole. It's been masquerading as TV doctor and that humiliates me. What can I do?

Jim Norton ‏@JimNorton
@DrOz and @DrPhil have done less to help the people of Newtown than Dr. Kevorkian, Dr Mengele, Dr. Detroit, Dr. Dre and Dr. Sholl's.

Jim Norton ‏@JimNorton
@DrOz The Newtown massacre wasn't a total loss; thankfully you were able to parlay it into a road trip for your ####ty show. #YouHelpNoOne

I listen to Little Jimmy, O and A everyday. Take them for what you will, but they are very smart and have made a lot of great points the last couple of days. And they are bang on when it comes to the Media and how they handle things like this.

[ernie]

Not sure this got posted but Cerberus is selling Bushmaster and the California Teachers pension fund managers are backing away from such investments.

"It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level," Cerberus Capital Management said in a statement.
Cerberus will hire advisers to carry out a sale of the company, and return the money to its investors, which include the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS).


The investment firm said it was not seeking to influence the debate on gun control but had decided to sell Freedom Group to protect the interests of its clients, which also include the pension plans of other municipal workers, endowments, institutions and individuals.



CalSTRS, which manages the pensions of California public schoolteachers, said Tuesday that its internal policies require it to consider the "social, human and environmental impacts" of where it invests its money.



"Moving forward CalSTRS will work to ensure that all of our investments are taking these very important criteria into consideration," CalSTRS said in a statement.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/news...html?hpt=hp_t2

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not at all, I just think there has to be acknowledgement that firearms are really the only way to combat these instances.

Could you imagine if people started firing back in a dark movie theatre in Denver? Do you not think that more people could have been hurt?

What happens if the first person to take out their gun to get the attacker is shot by another person packing because it is thought in the moment they are part of the first attack?

I would say the best way to combat easy killings is by removing these dangerous types of guns like he was using. I'm sorry but there is no way this kid would be able to find access to an assault rifle if it wasn't in his home. He wasn't living in the hood in Chicago, this was little town middle of nowhere.

I just don't understand how more guns would equal less deaths. Any stats to show this?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Could you imagine if people started firing back in a dark movie theatre in Denver? Do you not think that more people could have been hurt?

What happens if the first person to take out their gun to get the attacker is shot by another person packing because it is thought in the moment they are part of the first attack?

I would say the best way to combat easy killings is by removing these dangerous types of guns like he was using. I'm sorry but there is no way this kid would be able to find access to an assault rifle if it wasn't in his home. He wasn't living in the hood in Chicago, this was little town middle of nowhere.

I just don't understand how more guns would equal less deaths. Any stats to show this?

Nope, all stats show otherwise by all accounts. It blows my mind how gun enthusiasts always fail to look at that fact.

[Derek Sutton]

What about those on the fence here. There is no way to "round up" all the guns out there, so what is the realistic solution? That is what some pro gun lobbyists use as an argument. Saying since there are so many guns out in the public the best thing to do is to arm yourself to defend yourself.

[SeeBass]

Why do people forget about the four cops that were gunned down in a donut shop in Seattle a few years back.

4 armed and trained cops took out at a donut shop by one guy cause they never saw it coming.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The NRA has spoken. Hope they actually are serious about making some concessions.

Facing a fierce push for new restrictions on gun ownership in the tragedy’s aftermath, the group said it would hold "a major news conference" in Washington on Friday. It did not elaborate.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters—and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement emailed to reporters.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again," it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...-politics.html

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The NRA has spoken. Hope they actually are serious about making some concessions.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...-politics.html

They're making meaningful contibutions to make sure this never happens again?
Why am I not encouraged?
Pretty sure their idea of this is more guns.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The NRA has spoken. Hope they actually are serious about making some concessions.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...-politics.html

Free guns for everyone?

[puffnstuff]

I got my bet on setting up some sort of additional training for gun owners (in addition to more guns)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Free vests for kids with school logo? And military helmets too.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Or take it another way, if the shooter had instead walked into a texas NRA meeting, do you think he would have done more or less damage? These psychopaths unfortunately aren't dumb... they all seem to intentionally target gun free zones to maximize their ability to cause harm.

I would guess more. He would get about 4 or 5 guys right off the hop, and then 20 texans would have had their guns out, getting many people in the cross fire. It kinda depends on the size of the meeting. If it was one of those really big meetings, where they are chanting "Out of my cold, dead hands" I would suspect way more. 1000 people in the room, 1 gunman, 1000 heros all firing bullets. If you could get into the middle of the room, everyone might go down.

The whole reason these incidents can actually happen to the extent they do in the states is because of the outrageous number of guns they have down there.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

I got my bet on setting up some sort of additional training for gun owners (in addition to more guns)

I am actually going to bite my tongue on this until I hear what they have to say. I would not be surprised to see them actually come to the table with something of significant substance. All around me, people that were once pro-gun, are now starting to question that rationale.

Apparently, (and I did not catch the name as I heard it on the radio), a very prominent pro-gun congressman, or senator came out yesterday, and claimed they need to make sweeping changes. Any steps at this point, no matter how small is a good way to start. Once the wheels are in motion, I am confident they will see the light down there.

[Red Slinger]

I'm no gun expert and I've never even held one. Nor am I a lawyer or sociologist. So, the following thoughts are just my amateur observations.

Whenever the issue of gun control in the US is brought up it invokes a few of the same replies from pro-gun advocates:

1) Personal protection: The argument goes that if you make guns illegal that it only leaves criminals with guns. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

The statistics regarding the victims of deliberate gun violence show that it's much more common for criminal on criminal violence, ie. gangs. But if the numbers are correct it seems like the number of accidental deaths and suicides would likely drop dramatically if there was a ban on guns or a reduction in automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The common refrain of "guns don't kill, people do" is only partially true it seems. Maybe more accurately it should state "people with guns kill other criminals, and sometimes themselves and loved ones". Not as catchy, I'll admit.

There also seems to be enough evidence that suggests that guns kept in homes often don't serve the purpose of protection. How many homeowners have protected their family and thwarted a violent criminal actions versus the number of homeowners that have experienced an accidental tragedy due to having a handgun in the house for protection? Handguns serve no useful purpose, as far as I can tell, except as personal protection, which is questionable at best. They are intended for only one purpose and that is to shoot other humans.

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.

It appears that guns kept for protection by non-criminals actually cause much more violence and death than they prevent.

Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.

The article goes on to say that the level of homicides in the US during robberies and assaults are much higher due to the higher level of gun ownership.

...significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill...

2) Sport and recreation: Some people like shooting guns for fun. I've never done it myself but I know people that have and they really enjoy it. I have no issue with it at all. Why not just keep the guns secured safely at a firing range?

When it comes to hunting, usually a rifle or shotgun will do. Is there really a requirement to have a semi-automatic weapon with a cartridge of 30 bullets to shoot a deer?

3) The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution: There's a really interesting comparison to be made between the 1st and 2nd amendment.

2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By contrast, the first amendment has no qualification.

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a reason given for the right for the 2nd, but not for the 1st. It could be argued that that reason no longer exists and therefore the 2nd amendment is no longer valid.

Also, this concept of a well-regulated militia is alive and well in the US. It's called the National Guard. If an American wants to protect themselves from the threat of a tyrannical government they don't need to buy guns, a six-pack and their fishing buddies. All they need to do is join the National Guard.

Maybe I've naive about this issue because I don't have a gun and have never even held one. But it seems to me that when you have a weapon (handgun, assault rifle, etc.) that's primary purpose is that of shooting other people, you shouldn't be surprised when other people get shot with them. And if you want to prevent more people, but obviously not all people, from getting shot with these people-hunting tools than you remove them.

Apologies for the length.