Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[Syco21]

You are also assuming things too. Concidering this is completely fictional in this day and age civil war in the U.S.A. is not very possible. Even If this organized effort was to rebel and eventually all gather in one place (they would have to, to stand even a slight chance.) would it really be worth giving up your entire life as you know it, just to own an assault rifle?

 

I would think most people would be thinking "I need to go pick up more diapers at walmart and buy a lata at Star Bucks before dropping off my kids at school. Also have to remember to pick up my wife at work at 5pm" lol

 

The priority of owning an assault rifle would be the last thing most people would worry about in todays world.

 

We live in an age where the means of dependency are beyond what one person can or even a few can collectively conjure or provide themselves. It would be very hard for people to completely cut themselves off from society when even the average gun owner probably doesn't know how to construct or begin to design a basic electronic operational amplifier let alone script and write programs for software. There are way to many ways to dominate a civil rebelion without the means of fire arms today. Technology has advanced so far to the point the government would only have to wait things out...

 

Just look at how the North won during the American civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 and then imagine what could be done today. (drones alone would be effective enough if the idea was termination)

The civil war in the 1860s is hardly comparable to the hypothetical situation I have proposed. For one, it was a war with clearly drawn lines. The hypothetical I have put forth wouldn't be a war between states, it'd be a war between the states and the fed. One only has to look at a map of gun friendly states to see that these states outnumber the gun hating states. There wouldn't be clearly drawn lines either, it wouldn't be the north vs the south. There would be people in every state taking up arms against their oppressors. There would be states in the north and south rebelling against the fed.

 

And once again, gun confiscation wouldn't be the primary reason for violent rebellion, it would simply be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Americans everywhere are really getting fed up with the Fed. D.C. doesn't represent the interest of the people and everyday new rights violations are being perpetrated.

 

Aaaaaand...... it doesn't matter either way.

Then what is your point?

 

I think the point Ghogiel is trying to make is showing the statistics of Fatalities are already being projected seeing that recently there has been a huge stream of gun violence this year alone. Reguardless its just projected statistics.

 

It shows it might be very doubtful Fatalities realated to guns will ever decrease in America at its current projected rate if no action is to be done about this.

Suicides are irrelevant. Live accidents, homicides and justified somewhere around 12k, a number that is actually going down every year.

 

The difference is intent. A person with a leathal fire arm has a clear intent to cause murder when off in a shooting spree.

What's your point?

 

So are you suggesting a drunk driver has the intent to blow thru a stopsign and and t-boned another person driving just to kill them? and a random adult wandering into an elementary school with a high power assault rifle shot those twenty 6 and 7 year old kids by accident?

What's your point? Are you saying that a gun is only high powered/lethal when a person intends to use it for murder? So then a car is a high powered weapon when someone intends to use it for murder as well?

 

My language is to point out how deadly the weapons used were when this incident happened. 20 little children as well as 8 teachers were killed in a matter of less than 3mins at Sandy Hook. Only an assault rifle could do this kind of damage in such a short amount of time concidering how many times each of the poor little children were actually shot.

Really? Then the Sandy Hook shooting must not have happened, nor the V-Tech shooting, nor the UT-Clock Tower shooting, nor the Columbine shooting, nor the Pearl High School shooting, nor the Aurora Theater or Temple shootings, nor pretty much any other shooting in America. Why? Because none of those shootings involved assault rifles unless the assault rifles were carried by the police.

 

The Pearl High, Clock Tower and Columbine shootings used hunting rifles and shotguns. The V-Tech and Luby's massacres used handguns. The Sandy Hook shooting was either perpetrated with handguns or a semi automatic rifle commonly used for a multitude of purposes including but not limited to home defense, hunting and shooting sports.

 

Apparently the V-Tech killer did the impossible by executing the deadliest School SHOOTING in American history using a .22LR handgun, a feat deemed impossible by the Brady Bunch and our dear Colourwheel herself!

 

Because we are allowed to own firearms in this country:

 

This 12 year old girl was able to successfully protect herself from an intruder

This 10 year old boy was able to protect himself and his 8 year old sister from burglars.

This woman would have been raped.

This woman may have been shot/killed/raped and her rapist still free to rape more women

This woman would have been raped a second time, with her previously convicted serial rapist free to rape more women.

[colourwheel]

You are also assuming things too. Concidering this is completely fictional in this day and age civil war in the U.S.A. is not very possible. Even If this organized effort was to rebel and eventually all gather in one place (they would have to, to stand even a slight chance.) would it really be worth giving up your entire life as you know it, just to own an assault rifle?

 

I would think most people would be thinking "I need to go pick up more diapers at walmart and buy a lata at Star Bucks before dropping off my kids at school. Also have to remember to pick up my wife at work at 5pm" lol

 

The priority of owning an assault rifle would be the last thing most people would worry about in todays world.

 

We live in an age where the means of dependency are beyond what one person can or even a few can collectively conjure or provide themselves. It would be very hard for people to completely cut themselves off from society when even the average gun owner probably doesn't know how to construct or begin to design a basic electronic operational amplifier let alone script and write programs for software. There are way to many ways to dominate a civil rebelion without the means of fire arms today. Technology has advanced so far to the point the government would only have to wait things out...

 

Just look at how the North won during the American civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 and then imagine what could be done today. (drones alone would be effective enough if the idea was termination)

The civil war in the 1860s is hardly comparable to the hypothetical situation I have proposed. For one, it was a war with clearly drawn lines. The hypothetical I have put forth wouldn't be a war between states, it'd be a war between the states and the fed. One only has to look at a map of gun friendly states to see that these states outnumber the gun hating states. There wouldn't be clearly drawn lines either, it wouldn't be the north vs the south. There would be people in every state taking up arms against their oppressors. There would be states in the north and south rebelling against the fed.

 

And once again, gun confiscation wouldn't be the primary reason for violent rebellion, it would simply be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Americans everywhere are really getting fed up with the Fed. D.C. doesn't represent the interest of the people and everyday new rights violations are being perpetrated.

 

All I will say is "goodluck to this fictional rebelion" they will need it. lol

 

The difference is intent. A person with a leathal fire arm has a clear intent to cause murder when off in a shooting spree.

What's your point?

 

My point is a guns sole purpose is to inflict leathal injury. A car is not intended for leathal destruction. This is why I use the word "intent."

 

So are you suggesting a drunk driver has the intent to blow thru a stopsign and and t-boned another person driving just to kill them? and a random adult wandering into an elementary school with a high power assault rifle shot those twenty 6 and 7 year old kids by accident?

What's your point? Are you saying that a gun is only high powered/lethal when a person intends to use it for murder? So then a car is a high powered weapon when someone intends to use it for murder as well?

 

it is high powered and leathal when it can shoot a 6 year old child over a dozen times in a matter of a few seconds. and yes a car would be concidered a high powered weapon if someone "intends" to use it for murder. The differece though is a car is not made for the purpose to inflict leathal injury.

 

My language is to point out how deadly the weapons used were when this incident happened. 20 little children as well as 6 teachers were killed in a matter of less than 3mins at Sandy Hook. Only an assault rifle could do this kind of damage in such a short amount of time concidering how many times each of the poor little children were actually shot.

Really? Then the Sandy Hook shooting must not have happened, nor the V-Tech shooting, nor the UT-Clock Tower shooting, nor the Columbine shooting, nor the Pearl High School shooting, nor the Aurora Theater or Temple shootings, nor pretty much any other shooting in America. Why? Because none of those shootings involved assault rifles unless the assault rifles were carried by the police.

 

The Pearl High, Clock Tower and Columbine shootings used hunting rifles and shotguns. The V-Tech and Luby's massacres used handguns. The Sandy Hook shooting was either perpetrated with handguns or a semi automatic rifle commonly used for a multitude of purposes including but not limited to home defense, hunting and shooting sports.

 

Apparently the V-Tech killer did the impossible by executing the deadliest School SHOOTING in American history using a .22LR handgun, a feat deemed impossible by the Brady Bunch and our dear Colourwheel herself!

 

The V-Tech shooting began at 7:15 a.m., but Virginia Tech did not send the notification until 9:26 a.m. And, according to a letter the Education Department wrote to the school, that notification was insufficient because it did not say that the gunman was still at large or that a murder had been committed. After the notification, Mr. Cho shot 47 more people. By 9:50 a.m.

 

 

The Sandy Hook shooting only took less than 3 mins using a AR-15 modified to shoot automatically killing 26 people. (50 to 100 rounds some of the children were shot over a dozen times)

 

A .22LR handgun giving a person over two hours to kill 33 people impossible by the Brady Bunch and myself? :psyduck:

Edited December 30, 2012 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

The government passed an assault weapons ban back in the 90's. (Brady bill) Due to the way the legislation was written, (definition of an assault rifle) gun manufactures just altered how the weapons were produced slightly, and they were instantly legal. Again.

 

The polls and such indicating folks would be open to banning high-power rifles, and such, are rather suspect. I see nothing about how the polls are conducted, who is asked, or anything else for that matter. Cherry picking your respondents makes poll results come out the way you want them to. Sure, there are online petitions and such, that a couple hundred thousand folks have signed, but, that is barely over 1% of the population here. There are always knee-jerk reactions after incidents of this nature.

 

I would also point out, that the story seems to have changed..... The press is now whining about how dangerous assault rifles are, and they point at Sandy Hook, however, when this story originally broke, it was flatly stated in the article that the shooter used a pair of hand guns, and the assault rifle was left in the trunk of the car. They seem to be neglecting that inconvenient little tidbit now, to further their position that gun control, or assault weapon bans, will have any impact on these sorts of crimes, when in reality, they won't.

 

And the politicians? Yeah, the dems at the top, whom have always been anti-gun, are now shouting about gun-control-is-the-answer. This isn't anything new either. This is just typical political grand standing. They need to give the appearance of "doing something", even though they are well aware that: 1. It won't make any difference. And 2. It will never pass the republican controlled house. So long as it LOOKS like they are doing something, effective or not, that's all they really care about. Helps them get re-elected....

[ColdHeartonIce]

Israel has far worst problems to deal with than school shootings these days sadly

And as you did before you just try to wipe off the facts.

Yeah, they don't have a problem with school shootings because the teachers carry M16 rifles payed by the american taxpayer!

 

As for the shooting of the children, I would think you would have a bit more compassion about what happened if one of the children killed was your child that was shot with an assault rifle over a dozen times.

I know that no one can guaranty the savety of my child better than me, or even better the child himself. I don't would send him to a public school where his head gets filled with anti-freedom and anti-gun propaganda like i experienced during my schooldays.

I'am not that kind of big pussy who would cry the hole time infront of the next media camera who wanna sell my story for political gain. What i saw after the columbine shooting was even more shocking than the massacre itself, the parents who seriosly wanna tell you "You don't need a halfauto rifle with 30 round magazin for hunting", Wow seriosly dude? The 2nd isn't for hunting you poor fools.

 

Remember this young man from this fraudish micheal moore movie, the columbine victim? The guy in the wheelchair? Moore let it looked like Mark Taylor would support his demands for more gun controll when infact his own statements after the movie say the opposite.

Remember this dady from the little girl that was killed in the Giffords shooting? He said he wouldn't allow to use the death of his child for political gain for gun control.

Don't try to get me with that emotional crap. Blame the School they couldn't guaranty the students savety.

 

(And by the way moore never mentioned that two of the victims were shoot by the Police SWAT Team. Maybee he thinks that this wasn't important)

 

The chance of even a curious student incidentally getting their hands on the weapon could lead to even greater gun problems in schools if a teacher unitentionally neglects them.

University of Colorado students ALLOWED to carry concealed weapons to classes

If you don't trust the students just don't go there. As easy as that. But instead you try to teach them your expert opinion.

 

Just imagine the 1st news story to hit the press when a student accidently shoots and kills themself in school when a teacher happens to miss place their fire arms in the USA.

The only such story i remember was a police officer who

while he was teaching them they shouldn't get in contact with guns.

 

Also for someone who seems to not care about the Sandy Hook shooting you sure are participating actively in this forum thread.

You wanna cut my rights. You wanna cut my property. Thats because! Normaly i don't care at all what people talk about but as soon i by myself get in the crosshair i say No!

And i'am realy getting sick of these meaningless debates. Hell i don't think that this drug filled autist could kill all those people. And don't think also this red haired freak killed all the people in the cinema.

They don't even investigate these cases but they are realy fast to call for more gun control.

 

I don't need gun control, I want freedom.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ColdHeartonIce

[Ghogiel]

Ghogiel

The first is that it is the age old pro gun advocate statistic that is thrown around in the logical vein

Hey i don't need to debate this.

Bye then.

 

 

Aaaaaand...... it doesn't matter either way.

Then what is your point?

The point is that it doesn't matter how many people are killed by UFOs or fruitflies when you are discussing gun control.

 

 

This isn't anything new either. This is just typical political grand standing. They need to give the appearance of "doing something", even though they are well aware that: 1. It won't make any difference. And 2. It will never pass the republican controlled house. So long as it LOOKS like they are doing something, effective or not, that's all they really care about. Helps them get re-elected....

And that right there is why this this discussion is taking place.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Beriallord]

Syco21 makes a good point, there are plenty of cases where people were able to protect themselves from criminals because they had access to firearms. I know in my State, home invaders are highly likely to get shot and killed, so cases of home invasions are actually quite rare. In some blue states, like New York, if you shoot and kill a home invader you will be charged with murder, and if they live they can even sue you in civil court. Edited December 30, 2012 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

Syco21 makes a good point, there are plenty of cases where people were able to protect themselves from criminals because they had access to firearms. I know in my State, home invaders are highly likely to get shot and killed, so cases of home invasions are actually quite rare. In some blue states, like New York, if you shoot and kill a home invader you will be charged with murder, and if they live they can even sue you in civil court.

 

Yes Syco21 does make a good point, I can agree " sometimes" fire arms do save peoples lives. I have never been suggesting to completely abolish the 2nd amendment.

 

 

In Israel teachers are armed. In Israel nearly everyone is armed. Hear anything about school shootings from there? No, ofcourse not.

Israel has far worst problems to deal with than school shootings these days sadly.

And as you did before you just try to wipe off the facts.

Yeah, they don't have a problem with school shootings because the teachers carry M16 rifles payed by the american taxpayer!

 

Wiping off the facts? You have proof Israel doesn't have school shooting problems? Ever thought the reason why you don't hear many stories about school shooting in Isreal is because of the bigger problems they have to worry about these days?

 

March 6, 2008 Mercaz HaRav shooting - Alaa Abu Dhein, an Israeli Arabic yeshiva bus driver, entered the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva with guns blazing, killing eight and wounding seven, before being shot dead himself by a part-time student. This incident, as do many massacres in the Levant, soon took on racial and religious overtones, pitting Palestinians and Israeli Arabs against Jews.

 

Also for someone who seems to not care about the Sandy Hook shooting you sure are participating actively in this forum thread.

You wanna cut my rights. You wanna cut my property. Thats because! Normaly i don't care at all what people talk about but as soon i by myself get in the crosshair i say No!

And i'am realy getting sick of these meaningless debates. Hell i don't think that this drug filled autist could kill all those people. And don't think also this red haired freak killed all the people in the cinema.

They don't even investigate these cases but they are realy fast to call for more gun control.

 

I don't need gun control, I want freedom.

 

I think you focusing your anger at me is counter productive. I have no power to cut your rights or your property. If you have such a strong belief on this matter I would suggest you write a letter to your congressman.

 

I respect your views of not wanting gun control and wanting your freedom. Please respect my views on wanting gun reform.

Edited December 31, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

All I will say is "goodluck to this fictional rebelion" they will need it. lol

It's kind of irrelevant because the bill wont pass. It's just a likely scenario of what'll happen if it does.

 

My point is a guns sole purpose is to inflict leathal injury. A car is not intended for leathal destruction. This is why I use the word "intent."

My gun must be defective, it hasn't inflicted any lethal injury ever. Not even the few downs I have drawn down on people.

 

it is high powered and leathal when it can shoot a 6 year old child over a dozen times in a matter of a few seconds. and yes a car would be concidered a high powered weapon if someone "intends" to use it for murder. The differece though is a car is not made for the purpose to inflict leathal injury.

So then high powered is a meaningless buzz phrase that you use to conjure emotional responses designed to deflect from the core issue. Mkay

 

The V-Tech shooting began at 7:15 a.m., but Virginia Tech did not send the notification until 9:26 a.m. And, according to a letter the Education Department wrote to the school, that notification was insufficient because it did not say that the gunman was still at large or that a murder had been committed. After the notification, Mr. Cho shot 47 more people. By 9:50 a.m.

 

 

The Sandy Hook shooting only took less than 3 mins using a AR-15 modified to shoot automatically killing 26 people. (50 to 100 rounds some of the children were shot over a dozen times)

 

A .22LR handgun giving a person over two hours to kill 33 people impossible by the Brady Bunch and myself? :psyduck:

You just made an amazing argument for people to carry everywhere they go! Great job. I mean, if the VTech shooter was able to continue his spree for two whole hours, then that just proves the point we make that the police are useless when it comes to your safety. The best they can guarantee is to clean up the mess after the fact.

 

LMFAO @modified for full auto fire. Nope, nope and nope! Where the hell did you get that from? :laugh:

 

1. I haven't seen any report at all stating the weapon had been modified in anyway.

2. There are conflicting reports about whether he even used the rifle!

 

A .22LR being impossible to kill 33 people because it's not a "high powered assault rifle."

 

The point is that it doesn't matter how many people are killed by UFOs or fruitflies when you are discussing gun control.

It does matter because it shows that guns aren't not a serious threat to the public at large, there are far greater dangers than guns. Such as cars and accidents.

[Ghogiel]

It does matter because it shows that guns aren't not a serious threat to the public at large, there are far greater dangers than guns. Such as cars and accidents.

 

It shows you think logical fallacies help strengthen your argument.

[colourwheel]

@Syco21

 

I think you are missing the point about the V-Tech shooting. Someone with over two hours can easily kill a mass amount of people with just a hand gun.

 

I would also point out, that the story seems to have changed..... The press is now whining about how dangerous assault rifles are, and they point at Sandy Hook, however, when this story originally broke, it was flatly stated in the article that the shooter used a pair of hand guns, and the assault rifle was left in the trunk of the car.

 

LMFAO @modified for full auto fire. Nope, nope and nope! Where the hell did you get that from? :laugh:

 

Yes as more evidence is made public official reports do change.

 

As for the Sandy Hook Shooting only lasted a matter of less than 3 mins. Only an assault rifle could cause this much death and destruction in such a short amount of time. In Reality the event could have actaully took less time than what has been originally officially been reported, strongly suggesting the weapon he was using was modified to shoot fully automatic after extensive evaluation of the crime scene. The shooter could have unmodified the weapon before he put it in the trunk of his car then soon after taking his own life.

 

Depending on what stories you readup on or see on tv ongoing investigations can always change the facts to previous reports. Just because you read up on an artical or watched the news the facts will change until the investigations are completely conclusive.

 

The V-Tech shooting began at 7:15 a.m., but Virginia Tech did not send the notification until 9:26 a.m. And, according to a letter the Education Department wrote to the school, that notification was insufficient because it did not say that the gunman was still at large or that a murder had been committed. After the notification, Mr. Cho shot 47 more people. By 9:50 a.m.

 

 

The Sandy Hook shooting only took less than 3 mins using a AR-15 modified to shoot automatically killing 26 people. (50 to 100 rounds some of the children were shot over a dozen times)

 

A .22LR handgun giving a person over two hours to kill 33 people impossible by the Brady Bunch and myself? :psyduck:

You just made an amazing argument for people to carry everywhere they go! Great job. I mean, if the VTech shooter was able to continue his spree for two whole hours, then that just proves the point we make that the police are useless when it comes to your safety. The best they can guarantee is to clean up the mess after the fact.

 

I fail to see how I this equivalates to justifying people to carry a gun everywhere.

 

The same could be said this makes a great arguement to completely ban all fire arms in america too.

Edited December 31, 2012 by colourwheel