Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[HeyYou]

I have found that those that grew up in a severely gun-restricted environment have a completely different attitude towards guns, than those that did not. For the most part, Europeans will find the American penchant toward gun ownership hard to fathom... simply because they have never been allowed such freedom. That's a carryover from the feudal days, when the lord of the castle didn't WANT the peasants armed, as they might decide a new lord was in order.... That is PRECISELY the reason the founding fathers wrote in to our constitution that citizens would maintain that right, to protect us from an overbearing government.

[Keanumoreira]

I agree with the operator that perhaps a reform is in order. I'm not saying take away the right to bear arms outright, but certainly, some restrictions are needed. Arming the population against a tyrannical government to defend individual freedoms may look good on paper (and I'm alluding to the Constitution here) but obviously, there are going to be more than someone's fair share of complications. After all, defending freedom also means arming evil, like in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting. You can't just give someone a gun and expect them to uphold the morals ideal in today's society. There's always going to be a sociopath, an enraged radical, or perhaps a racist who believes in taking matters into their own hands. We need responsible citizens who have the respect and intellect to wield such weapons, knowing that it's just as easy to take a life away as it is to preserve one, and I firmly believe that a law is in order to reflect that. If nothing is done to improve upon the flaws of the Second Amendment, then incidents like this are going to continue to happen.

[Keanumoreira]

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?

 

It's a lot easier than you think it is. If you've heard of Walmart, a popular retail corporation here in the U.S, some have gun counters. I've seen full gun exchanges in other places as well. It's as easy as grocery shopping, and to me, that raises a red flag.

[ColdHeartonIce]

For the most part, Europeans will find the American penchant toward gun ownership hard to fathom... simply because they have never been allowed such freedom.

No it ain't that simple.

 

Imagine you would get told by the media and radical leftwing teachers the hole time "Guns are bad, guns are bad, guns are bad, guns kill, guns kill, guns kill, they are just good in the hand of the government to make sure we get our free stuff from the rich".

Europa is total socialism and thats the very same reason europeans left this place and became americans.

And i see the reactions among the european people over that "Psycho on psychopharmical drugs kills children" case how ... how dumb and retarted and illiterate grown up people speak about the right to own guns.

"oh i'am a pacifist and i'am against guns"

- Hey and who should make sure i can't by a gun?

" Well the government should "

- Yeah by using force and violence you pacifist...

" Well i'am against violence and guns are violent mkay."

- Great you are against violence, sure i can bang your wife?

 

Realy i hate the gun debate for one big reason: There is no debate about freedom. But the forbidder fraction trys it again, and again, and again.

[Ghogiel]

If nothing is done to improve upon the flaws of the Second Amendment, then incidents like this are going to continue to happen.

Incidents like this are probably going to happen no matter what you do. If you could arm the victims, in this case 7 year old kids and teachers, and allow them to carry guns, would that create a situation where s*** like this wouldn't happen? imo unlikely. Nor would trying to stuff the cat back into the bag prevent people going postal.

[ColdHeartonIce]

After all, defending freedom also means arming evil, like in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Total wrong.

 

1. You don't arm anyone, you let them arm themself.

2. Not one gun store sould this Hook Shooter a gun because he behaved like a scizo madman.

3. All the "reform", the Backgroundcheks and wainting periods didn't worked when his momy bought the guns.

 

 

Get in your head that there are more people dieing by car accidents and more children drown in swimming pools than get killed by madman shooters.

And even with the risk that there would be a madman from time to time killing people, i can live with that.

 

 

There's always going to be a sociopath, an enraged radical, or perhaps a racist who believes in taking matters into their own hands.

AND WHO MADE THE FIRST GUN LAWS?!?!?! The Klan! The Klan made the first gun laws to detain freed slaves from getting guns.

 

Are you children or what? What do you think would be a bigger problem for a racist madman? Gun laws or armed negros? There is a tip: He doesn't care for the "i'am not allowed to kill people" law.

[Syco21]

 

Are you children or what? What do you think would be a bigger problem for a racist madman? Gun laws or armed negros? There is a tip: He doesn't care for the "i'am not allowed to kill people" law.

I Am Very Pro Rights, As In The Right To Own Weapons. but IThink You Should Take A Few Breaths. You seem Emotional. I Mean You No Disrespect NOr Insult, I Just Don't Wanna See This Topic Get Locked.

[ginnyfizz]

Yes although I would agree with him on many points, vis a vis the rights of US citizens to own weapons, and with you too Syco21, the points need to be made more calmly.

 

You only have to look what has happened in the 20th century, and indeed the 21st, in Europe to see where a disarmed populace gets you. Like genocide. I have seen an interview with a Jewish American this weekend who was a gun owner and gave that precise reason. Up until the 1920's Britain had gun laws that made the USA's look wimpish. Despite the very liberal gun laws, there was no huge rate of gun crime, and that certainly wasn't the reason that things were tightened up. The reason that they were tightened up is one that should give you the shivers and was precisely what the Second Amendment was promulgated to protect against. Britain tightened gun laws to prevent the peasants from revolting like they had just done in Russia, dear me, we couldn't have that old chap. In other words, so that they could have no means of protecting themselves against tyranny and taking up arms against overbearing government. And guess what...now we are sleepwalking to tyranny. And as jim_uk referred, we do STILL have a lot of gun crime in places like London, Shottingham and Manchester, as it is mostly only the bad guys who have guns. If you happen to be one of the few legal gun owners, we don't have a castle law, so woe betide you if you blast that would be burglar/murderer/rapist. You MUST let them rob/murder/rape you, so that the police don't have to get off their bums and do anything about it, which they do if you shoot the crims...

[james234]

i hope just because this accident the goverment didn't make another ass-ault weapon ban. that ban will probably increase crime. name it, gun trafficking, terrorism and other gun related crime. imagine if we were in a city with a high crime rate and we surrounded by a bunch of armed thug. what are we going to do? me? i'll fight back if i have a weapon. but oh, there's a gun law that prohibit civilian to own a gun. i can't do nothing except for pray to god or wait for someone to save me. my live could be lost. and if police didn't found the murderer? i die worthless. so a gun law should exist but not very strict like the ass-ault weapon ban. i really hate that ban and i hope goverment don't issuing it again forever.

[ColdHeartonIce]

I Am Very Pro Rights, As In The Right To Own Weapons. but IThink You Should Take A Few Breaths. You seem Emotional. I Mean You No Disrespect NOr Insult, I Just Don't Wanna See This Topic Get Locked.

You see i'am someone that knows how tyranny taste. And it tastes rotten.

 

The basic positions by this debate are "I wanna be left alone" vs. "i wanna get into your life and tell you what to do". And the worst thing is that the Gun-ban fraction hast realy no idea what they are talking about. If that wouldn't be so they wouldn't with the gun-ban fraction but with the pro-gun fraction.

 

In countries with total gun bans people even go postal with kitchen knifes. In china people stab children in daycare with knifes and no one in the western press talkes about. Instead the red chinese calling for a gun ban in the US.

How many of the 11.000 firearms dead in the US where normal people who got shot by a madman? Many of them where criminals murdered by other criminals. Even in Gang Shootouts they use nearly non assault weapons. They use mostly pistols, fullauto SMG and in rare cases fullauto assault rifles, but these are allready illegal and that showes us that law can't work.

And than this leftwing rats wanna tell you "hey the people don't need military weapons" when the Militia in the secound amendment was allways military grade. The Militia isn't a paramilitary organisation, it is a military organisation. People don't know nothing about americas gun culture but think they are experts because they have seen bowling for columbine once.

 

How can you realize all those things and didn't go mad when people trie to tell you the exact opposit and also wanna enforce tyrannical laws on you.

 

If you do not live in the US and think the american didn't need guns, just STFU and keep your nose out other peoples business. If you live in the US and think americans didn't need guns, don't buy one or move. Go to a country with strikt gun laws.