Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[colourwheel]

Recently there was a shooting that killed 20 students at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown Connecticut in the U.S.A. There has been this issue politically in America recently whether or not if assult weapons and high capacity magizines for guns should be banned/or legislatively have major reform to because of such sickneing tragedies that resulted in contribution to the ease of access for these leathal devices. Not in conclusive to the mental health of individuals that commite such crimes but just the magnitude in the time to cause such devistation resulting in massive manslater. Normally even metally insane people couldn't cause as much damage in result of time to compair to what one could do in the same time with one in hand with a powerful weapon. Ussually before anything could get so extemely completely out of control an unarmed person could eventualy be stopped or considerably held back by just the human physical condition to cause massive devistation such as 20 lives.... Looking at it realistically it isn't as easy to kill 20 children in such a short amount of time without such powerful weapons, concidering the amount of actual assult damage done as well which is sickening to begin with. I understand the 2nd amendment but ideally this was made before even the idea of rapid firing firearms existed. In my opinion I feel the Second Amendment is a little out of date and need major reform. But It would be interesting to see how other feel about this issue.... let the debate begin...

[Nintii]

The moment I saw this I knew that the paw paw was going to hit the fan ... Pres. Obama is definitely going to try

and push something through, what it is or will entail I don't know but somethings coming down the pipeline you

can bet on it.

 

The counter arguement being ...

 

This is nothing new, because what about all the drive by shootings that take place all the time ... or does it just

matter when it happens to ................... ?

Edited December 21, 2012 by Nintii

[Arcadiast]

look, guns and gun control have been debated to death. I am not saying there is nothing to do about them but regarding the recent shooting there is a much more important question to ask:

 

How and Why would a 20 year young man go ahead and kill 7-8 year old kids?

 

The current debate is ridiculous, they say he had guns therefore he shot 20 kids. So in future we should be arresting and judging the guns and not the guy holding it because regarding to this logic, he is "innocent". How so? well if the reason he killed people was because he had access to guns than obviously he would not have killed anybody if he had no access to guns therefore he is innocent (the guns did it).

 

It takes more than just a gun to be able to shoot somebody, let alone little kids. I would rather shoot myself before shooting at kids. Why could he? Thats the important, primary question. Gun control is a secondary issue.

 

In Germany, where the gun control laws are very strict, you can read in newspapers regulary of a Dad killing his wife and children with an Axe! where is the "Axe-Control" debate?

[Lisnpuppy]

Since a gun debate was started just earlier in the month I am going to cut and paste what BBen said at the time...it applies now also.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

This has been debated here several times before. And usually degenerates into name calling and flaming by people from both sides -

 

Bben's debate rules

 

A good debate can be fun. Just remember that everyone is allowed their own opinion whether you agree or not. You do not have to agree. You do have to respect each others opinions.

 

Like any referee, The moderators (supposedly)have no interest in the outcome. Our job is to keep it fair - or as fair as We can. So, No hitting below the belt, no gouging, no head butting, no hair pulling. When we say break, break clean and step back. Any attack on the referees will be fatal.

 

Terms of engagement:

 

Stay on topic. trying to drag in some other topic as a part of your argument shows a lack of focus. And poor focus can hurt in a debate.

 

The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned.

 

If you don't really know anything about the subject, it's probably a good idea to refrain from posting until you do.It's no fun being caught in a crossfire.

 

If you cannot argue with respect for the opposite side, then don't argue. You will lose.

 

When you throw out a statement be prepared to back it up with documentation - You will be called on it.

 

Don't try to 'prove' anything with statistics - It will blow up in your face. The first thing I was taught in a graduate level statistic course was how to spin statistics to show whatever I wanted to show.

 

Don't expect to convince anyone that your side or your idea is right and theirs is wrong. Most people have already made up their minds and no amount of reason or logic will sway them.

 

These rules are very general and subject to change on my whim. Any suggestions for changes or additions are appreciated and may even be considered.

 

One last rule - Play nice - or else. :tongue:

 

Bben46, Moderator

[marharth]

Shootings happen a lot now days and no laws get changed.

 

 

So I don't think any new laws will be passed, for the better or for the worse.

[HeyYou]

Ok, depending on which story you read.... the Assault rifle that the fed is screaming about was either used in the shootings, or left in the car..... ABC news has it in the car......

 

So, was it, or was it not used in the shootings? If not, why the hue and cry to ban them? Just another knee-jerk reaction from our 'friends' in Washington.....

 

What folks don't seem to understand is, it doesn't matter what laws are passed. They can ban future sales of assault-style weapons, but, there are already millions in circulation. They could try and collect them up, but, that would cause more deaths than we saw at the school, as there are those that would most certainly NOT surrender them willingly. We already have a government that seems to think it is everyones nanny, when they start trying to disarm the citizenry, a fair few are going to see that as simply a power grab, and one more step towards a police state. Considering that history shows that disarming the citizens IS a first step toward totalitarianism......

 

So, lets run this up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes:

 

What if this school HADN'T been a gun-free zone? What if there were a few teachers/administrators that had been armed as well? Would the shooter have been quite so willing to walk in and start shooting at children, knowing their would be adults that would shoot BACK? Had he shown up, would the death toll have been higher, or lower, with armed staff? Would the teacher that rushed the shooter, instead of dying, been able to end his massacre right there with one well-placed shot?

 

Have a look at where most of these incidents have taken place. Gun-Free zones. Isn't it kinda interesting that where the shooter is assured of unarmed targets, the death toll is higher? Are we cutting our own throats here with denying folks the right to defend themselves? Regardless of where they happen to be?

 

Always remember: An armed society is a polite society.

[JimboUK]

I live in country where there are very strict gun controls, guess what? people still get shot, the difference is the law abiding can't shoot back. Whoever said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." is spot on. If it's not guns then it's knives, knife crime is epidemic in some areas here. Rather than banning firearms people should be asking what sort of society is it that turns out people capable of shooting children? there's something very wrong somewhere. Switzerland and Israel have very high rates of gun ownership yet this sort of thing is very rare, why?

 

Banning guns is treating one symptom rather than the disease, it's a cop out and it's lazy.

[Ghogiel]

there's something very wrong somewhere. Switzerland and Israel have very high rates of gun ownership yet this sort of thing is very rare, why?

Switzerland about 75% of it's homicides are committed with fire arms.

It just has very few murders full stop. It has more gun homicides per capita than the UK. The chances of you being murdered with a gun in the UK is significantly lower than Switzerland, well over 10 times less likely.

See here>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

Having said that, I spent time in switzerland when I was dating a swiss, strolling around any of the cities there at night, of which I did a fair bit of, I felt safe as. Safe as anywhere really.

 

Stroll around anywhere in the UK at night, OK yeah you probably about as unlikely to be shot compared to anywhere in the world apart from Japan or something, but I bet you will feel a hell of a lot more safer about getting your head kicked in there than the UK.

 

Anyway I don't know what they put in the water in Switzerland, but they are pretty chill on the street.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Ghogiel

[SSGB21]

What if this school HADN'T been a gun-free zone? What if there were a few teachers/administrators that had been armed as well? Would the shooter have been quite so willing to walk in and start shooting at children, knowing their would be adults that would shoot BACK? Had he shown up, would the death toll have been higher, or lower, with armed staff? Would the teacher that rushed the shooter, instead of dying, been able to end his massacre right there with one well-placed shot?

 

Have a look at where most of these incidents have taken place. Gun-Free zones. Isn't it kinda interesting that where the shooter is assured of unarmed targets, the death toll is higher? Are we cutting our own throats here with denying folks the right to defend themselves? Regardless of where they happen to be?

 

Always remember: An armed society is a polite society.

 

I'd like to politely disagree with this statement. I find it hard to understand this viewpoint. A huge number (I expect all) of British schools are 'Gun-Free Zones' and there are so few school shootings here that I don't feel that this arguement holds up. I don't believe that the shooter was mentaly stable, so I don't think that some armed people would have caused him to change his mind and not do this. Also, the fact that, from what I hear, it is so easy to obtain guns in the United States (and the fact that it is one of the relatively few developed countries that are like this to my knowledge) has more of an impact than having 'Gun-Free Zones'. I honestly think that it is time for America to change their gun laws. I understand the idea that it is still possible to get guns in Britain (I know, I've been on a shooting range several times), but it is more difficult. I honestly think that America's 'Gun Culture' is more to blame than having a school with unarmed people in it. A large amount of Britons are usually unarmed and I only know one person who actually owns a gun. I also don't believe that, as you put it: "An armed society is a polite society." As I said earlier, the majority of Britons are unarmed. I'll also leave a famous saying: "He who lives by the gun, dies by the gun." Statistics (that I have seen) show that armed people are more likely to be murdered than unarmed people.

But then again, I'm English and lived a very sheltered childhood, so what do I know about American gun crime?

[ColdHeartonIce]

I understand the 2nd amendment but ideally this was made before even the idea of rapid firing firearms existed.

That isn't and was never the point. It was always in spot that the people have acess to military weaponry.

 

It says "a well regulated militia" ... Ever heard of "british regulars" "regular troops" ? It doesn't mean regulated by government, it means armed like regular troops. Always remember, YOU are your first line of defence.

 

In my opinion I feel the Second Amendment is a little out of date and need major reform. But It would be interesting to see how other feel about this issue....

Then don't go to america and switzerland. Stay in your gun banning country and be happy about.

 

let the debate begin...

Yeah, debate this again and hear the gun grabbers false arguments and calls for tyranny once more.

 

The constitution says americans have the right to own guns to protect themself against foreing occupation, a tyrannical government and criminals. Thats it!.Thats whats written their and your opinion doesn't matter.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/United-states-bill-of-rights_1-630x670.jpg/220px-United-states-bill-of-rights_1-630x670.jpg

This is what makes america unique in a world 99% filled with tyranny. Love it or leave it.

Edited December 22, 2012 by ColdHeartonIce