Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[colourwheel]

@Colour

 

Eh, Most are dedicated to their firearms where its a natural habit to keep themselves safe as well as those around them.

 

I.E not pointing it at people or having the thing loaded during transport/storage, finger off the trigger and such.

 

If they are so dedicated they should embrace the idea i have proposed. If not they are not that serious about wanting to own a firearm.

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Flintlockecole]

@Colour

 

Eh, Most are dedicated to their firearms where its a natural habit to keep themselves safe as well as those around them.

 

I.E not pointing it at people or having the thing loaded during transport/storage, finger off the trigger and such.

 

If they are so dedicated they should embrace the idea i have proposed. If not they are not that serious about wanting to own a firearm.

 

A firearm is not a field of study. Mathematics is a field of study, Anthropology is a field of study, History is a field of study. Firearms can be used as an example in all of those but it is not a field of study.

 

I see firearms as a tool for hunting (and survival in certain cases) and a hobby whether if its plinking tin cans with a .22lr or hitting steel plates at one thousand yards.

 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00511/wdfw00511.pdf

 

Right there is a link to a Washington State Firearms Safety, The Law & You, Basic Safety, General Laws, And Regulations

 

And right here is something I pulled out of a book I had been given when I had to renew my licenses.

 

 

The evolution of firearms, major parts, types and actions

Basic firearms safety practices and ammunition types

Firearm action types and their operations

Safe handling and carry procedures

Operating firearm actions

Firing techniques and procedures

Care of non-restricted firearms

Responsibilities of the firearms owner/user

Safe storage, display, transportation and handling of non-restricted firearms

 

If that somehow does not meet satisfaction then I'm at a complete loss and to add to that I've been the victim of firearm misuse and I still advocate safe, legal and responsible ownership of firearms.

[Beriallord]

I've been guaranteed by my local Sheriff that the federal government will not be allowed to enforce firearms confiscations in this country. A lot of people in other countries don't realize that the local and State governments in the USA can tell the Federal government to take a hike. But the Federal government often uses funding as a leverage to keep them in check, but that doesn't always work.

 

I would rather my State and local government tell the Feds to take a hike, even if that meant no more federal funding for highways, and they had to bring toll roads back to cover the costs.

 

I can think of one such case, Sheriff Demeo, look him up on youtube, he stood against the Federal government over water rights of a citizen of his county, instead of siding with the Feds. The guy is a real patriot IMO. He threatened to arrest Federal officials, and they backed off. Cases like this make me think there is still some justice left in this country, and no the Federal government can't just do whatever they want.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

A firearm is not a field of study. Mathematics is a field of study, Anthropology is a field of study, History is a field of study. Firearms can be used as an example in all of those but it is not a field of study.

 

I see firearms as a tool for hunting (and survival in certain cases) and a hobby whether if its plinking tin cans with a .22lr or hitting steel plates at one thousand yards.

 

Why can't Firearms be a feild of study? Being able to use a firearm is a skill regaurdless if you call it just a hobby or not. Just like Electronic, it's a skill but can also be a hobby too. A person can always have more knowledge for any skill. and with something as so dangerous and deadly as a gun why shouldn't more requirements be needed to own and operate a firearm. I understand maybe you personally respect your weapons but you are just one person over millions of gun owners who you don't know if they have respect for theirs.

 

I would rather my State and local government tell the Feds to take a hike, even if that meant no more federal funding for highways, and they had to bring toll roads back to cover the costs.

 

It's Ironic some people think of the Federal government as being so evil and think in this day and age State governments are fine without Federal help. Sure you might think doing without Federal government funding to build roads people can live without but ever thought if something like hurricane sandy or hurricane katrina or any other huge force of nature was to suddenly come along to your state and completely destory everything and cause over $50,000,000,000 of damage? It would take decades for State and local government alone to get itself back on its feet to completely rebuild their towns. and this is assuming no other natural disasters would effect the rebuilding. We depend on the Federal government for so much more than just roads. The list would be too long to state reasons why we need Federal government in this day and age.

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

I will grant there are some places where I would not want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry carrying a weapon. Aircraft being right up there on the list. Air Marshals carry weapons with specific ammo, designed NOT to punch holes in an airplane fuselage..... (that would just be bad at 35,000 feet.....) However, for the most part, on the ground.... as I see it, the more folks with guns, the LESS likely you are to have some whacko going berserk and seeing how many folks he can kill before he turns his weapon on himself.

 

Requiring 4 years of study to own a firearm is, in my opinion, WAY over the top. In the military, I spent a couple days in classes, and on the range, and I was qualified to walk around with a fully automatic weapon, (to include light machine guns.....) and a host of other esoteric weaponry. (grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, etc.....) However, I was REQUIRED to spend at least 4 hours per month out on the range, (with each weapon I wanted to remain qualified with....) and expend a certain amount of ammo. (I didn't mind that at all. :) )

 

Current licensing here in michigan, to get a concealed carry permit, you attend an 8 hour class, to include some time on the range. You must have the weapon you propose to carry with you for the class. It IS possible to fail...... I would point out, that so far, NONE of the mass-shootings have involved someone that was LICENSED to carry a weapon. Most are folks that have some manner of mental issues..... or simply a grudge, and are not fully mature enough to quite understand just what it is they are doing.

 

Holding gun owners/retailers responsible for what happens is also a non-starter so far as I am concerned. We don't sue car manufacturers when a drunk driver kills an entire family.... we go after the person that was operating the car. Same should go for guns. Any lawyer that attempted to sue the dealership where some guy bought his car, and then later (perhaps years....) kills someone with it, would be laughed out of court. Not to mention that a significant percentage of sales (cars) are between private individuals.... I don't see that as really workable. Now, in the case of sandy hook.... where mom KNEW her child had issues, SHE should have had her weapons secured, and, if she hadn't already paid the ultimate price, I could see holding her at least partially responsible. At this point though, we don't know if she did or not... I don't recall reading anything about that..... (when my teenager was being truly awful, I exported ALL of my guns to a friends house..... even though I could secure them in my home, I thought it better that they were simply not around......)

 

If your weapon/car is stolen..... that is something that is generally beyond your control. Holding someone responsible for what someone else does with an object that they took from you illegally would probably fall under some flavor of unconstitutionality. I think you would have a hard time getting that thru congress. :)

 

I am still in favor of giving teachers/admin staff (including janitors....) the CHOICE to carry a weapon at school, and let it be KNOWN that it is indeed permitted. Had this been the case at Sandy Hook, odds are good that this particular event either would not have happened at all, or, the death toll would have been significantly less.

[korun]

i'm French , leaving in Canada sorry if i don't speak fluently english^^i've already answered few times, watched this post grow up and for sure Coldheart is a clown, man you must read back your post and what you've said^^!

then stop, really STOP to take Stalin or China, Serbia or Somalia why not, as an exemple, you are leaving in the United states of America, do you have ever take a plane to those country you're speaking about?!, do you really think your country can became a new Warzone, because of ethnic problems, or a elected président can became a tyranic dictator? you want more freedom? what a joke! you don't even know what to do with it .that's why they"re is rules/law, because you can't handle your freedom by yourselves.

the same for Israel, seriously, HeyYou, Israel is at war since they take over the place, it's a kind of country where a studient can carry a gun for his survey, now, because of your culture/roots, your response is to give firearms with training to people, who, may be and i'm pretty sure, will feel better if there is more cops instead, you know, they are trained and payed for this kind of job, you can't have 0 risk at all, if there is a shooting you will have dead people even you where there.

but ok, keep you're hand gun if you think to be able to save your world, i repeat again, IF you can't buy any gun, there is no Sandy hook shooting, a cute teacher won't go to ask a gang or anyone else to buy a gun

do you think that Canada, France or UK are really safe country? if so, you're out of your mind. you have your gang, we have ours, but as i know they kill each other with a purpose .... no? i've never seen a gang from Paris neighborood coming to the Champs Elysée and shooting everyone, same in Canada, but we are talking about guys mentally disturbed with a gun here right

on this 1st day of 2013 why do you want to keep this amendment the way it is ?

 

Happy new year to every one :)

[colourwheel]

I am still in favor of giving teachers/admin staff (including janitors....) the CHOICE to carry a weapon at school, and let it be KNOWN that it is indeed permitted. Had this been the case at Sandy Hook, odds are good that this particular event either would not have happened at all, or, the death toll would have been significantly less.

 

yet I respect your view on this I still have to strongly disagree this being the solution. For one thing the irony behind trusting teachers with firearms in schools yet not even trusting them to collectively bargain.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

 

I don't see this type of thing to carry well based on the hypocrisy already floating around this type of solution alone.

Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

@Korun: Banning guns simply isn't the answer. It won't work here. At all. Even suggesting that in congress would get you laughed out of the building. Even the democrats (anti-gun) are well aware of that.

 

+@Colourwheel: No, it isn't really a "solution", I am not sure there IS a 100% sure cure. But, it would at least, reduce the potential damage done.

 

The trouble with more police would still be response time. In these type of events, a LOT happens FAST. Even two or three minutes is enough time to wreak some pretty serious havok. Where children are concerned, SECONDS count. Armed guards on the scene would already be there, but then you run into the problem of cost..... Schools are already having financial troubles.... (and that could be it's own topic as well...) Trying to saddle them with yet another expense just wouldn't go over well. Some schools are friggin' HUGE, and would require a small army for 'adequate' coverage...... Simply letting the teachers carry doesn't cost anything. (aside from perhaps some more liability insurance coverage.....) And they are RIGHT there on the scene too..... Is it an ideal solution? Nope. I suspect though, that it is going to have to be at least a small part of any solution that we actually expect to work.

 

As for the Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... His major goal in curtailing collective bargaining is he thinks he can cut costs that way. Don't expect him to be real enthusiastic about transferring the money he thinks he is going to save into putting guards in schools.

Edited January 1, 2013 by HeyYou

[Syco21]

I will grant there are some places where I would not want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry carrying a weapon. Aircraft being right up there on the list. Air Marshals carry weapons with specific ammo, designed NOT to punch holes in an airplane fuselage..... (that would just be bad at 35,000 feet.....) However, for the most part, on the ground.... as I see it, the more folks with guns, the LESS likely you are to have some whacko going berserk and seeing how many folks he can kill before he turns his weapon on himself.

MythBusters on explosive decompression

 

MythBusters on explosive decompression again

 

It wont be a good thing for sure, but it wont destroy the plane either.

 

As for GFZ's being eliminated reducing the chances of someone going columbine: I don't know if it were lower those odds or not. But it will significantly increase the odds of one of the shooter's would be victims being armed and able to fight back.

 

As for training requirements: I don't support them, not to buy a gun and not to carry. I do, however, support adding gun safety and handling classes to public schools.

 

do you really think your country can became a new Warzone, because of ethnic problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-empty-police-car-shot-neighborhood-teen-killed-article-1.1059140

 

Wonder what'll happen when George Zimmerman is ultimately found not guilty by reason of justified homicide. :unsure:

 

or a elected président can became a tyranic dictator?

http://www.examiner.com/article/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab

 

http://occupykingstonca.ipage.com/occupywhig/2011/12/01/nypd-illegally-detained-around-100-ows-protesters-for-almost-three-hours-in-a-so-called-frozen-zone-outside-an-obama-fundraising-event/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/aurora-police-stop-handcu_n_1575009.html

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/ndaas_indefinite_detention_without_trial_returns/

 

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/27/yemen_3/

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/31/obama-fisa/

 

Should I continue?

 

you want more freedom? what a joke! you don't even know what to do with it .that's why they"re is rules/law, because you can't handle your freedom by yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

 

because of your culture/roots, your response is to give firearms with training to people, who, may be and i'm pretty sure, will feel better if there is more cops instead, you know, they are trained and payed for this kind of job, you can't have 0 risk at all, if there is a shooting you will have dead people even you where there.

I wont feel safe with more police, I'll feel more threatened.

 

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen

 

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8820624

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-police-shoot-and-kill-second-innocent-pet-dog-one-month

 

http://12160.info/video/police-shoot-and-kill-unarmed-man-in-custody-on-the-ground

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/2012/12/shooting-dogs-a-police-epidemic-dog-is-killed-in-hazel-crest/

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/man_fatally_shot_outside_bronx_bodega_34lCyvrg2IyzvA1HP913XI

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1#.UON2C3fK28w

 

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Lawyer-Cop-killed-innocent-man-take-3894199.php

 

http://www.infowars.com/hostage-escapes-motel-standoff-gets-shot-killed-by-police/

 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oxnard-police-admit-killing-innocent-man-3965953.php

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all

 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=euC&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=police+shoot+and+kill+innocent&oq=police+shoot+and+kill+innocent&gs_l=serp.3...42866.51442.0.51675.15.13.2.0.0.0.226.1137.11j1j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.9kU_mNyECMo

 

:unsure:

 

yet I respect your view on this I still have to strongly disagree this being the solution. For one thing the irony behind trusting teachers with firearms in schools yet not even trusting them to collectively bargain.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

 

I don't see this type of thing to carry well based on the hypocrisy already floating around this type of solution alone.

It's not an issue of trust, trust has nothing to do with the anti-union ideologies.

[colourwheel]

yet I respect your view on this I still have to strongly disagree this being the solution. For one thing the irony behind trusting teachers with firearms in schools yet not even trusting them to collectively bargain.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

 

I don't see this type of thing to carry well based on the hypocrisy already floating around this type of solution alone.

It's not an issue of trust, trust has nothing to do with the anti-union ideologies.

 

Never said it was an issue of trust, it's an issue of hypocrisy.

 

"Lets arm all these teachers in the schools that i am trying to get rid of in the 1st place." :laugh:

Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel