Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[Keanumoreira]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

 

2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[HeyYou]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

 

2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society.

 

Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play.

 

Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records.

 

There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed.

 

Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh?

 

Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither.

Edited December 24, 2012 by HeyYou

[Syco21]

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.

Magazine capacity doesn't change anything, neither does caliber size. The VTech massacre proved this. With a .22LR and a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds, the highly touted magical number that will reduce gun deaths in a mass shooting, managed to achieve the deadliest school shooting in American history.

 

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....

He's a prohibited person, which means he can not legally purchase weapons in the U.S., he tried and was denied. So he stole the guns. Gun control doesn't work. Apparently neither do those latest anti-depressants, which turn people into maniacs. What this country needs is healthcare reform, not gun control. It actually needs less gun control, but we'll come back to that later.

 

As for the bit about an unarmed person not being able to kill 20 people...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29#March_2010

 

Deadliest school massacre in American history was perpetrated using explosives, not guns. It is fully possible to create powerful explosives with crap you can buy at whatever England has for a Wal-Mart. It is incredibly easy to create explosives, incendiaries and chemical weapons using even house hold items.

 

Hell, you can create thermite with nails and soda cans.

 

 

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.

Damn right, if anyone thinks they're going to mosey on through my front door with intent to steal my handgun, they've got another thing comin, all they're going to leave with is some extra holes and added weight.

 

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.

All it took was one armed man to stop Luke Woodham from carrying on with his killing spree at a second school. The armed gentleman didn't even have to shoot Woodham, all it took was for Woodham to stare down the barrel of the gentleman's handgun. Woodham was about unstable as they come, prior to the school shooting, he brutally murdered his own mother.

 

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'.

It's not easy to obtain a gun in America. You have to fill out paper work and pass a background check. There are exceptions, no paper work and no background check for private sales. But there are strict rules regulating those sales. If you even so much as suspect that the buyer might be a prohibited person, then you're on the hook if you sell them a gun.

 

There's paper work but no background checks in some states at Federal Firearms Licensed dealers(FFL) if you have a state issued carry permit. But these can't be passed out either. The state has to meet all the requirements set out by the fed, the state also has to allow it, some don't and others don't meet the requirements.

 

Back to gun control and why we should have less of it:

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Armed citizens have saved lives in numerous shootings. Armed students provided cover fire along side police officers allowing a police officer and two deputized citizens the opportunity to kill Charles Whitman. An armed educator prevented a second shooting at a Junior High by capturing Luke Woodham using his handgun. There are many, many more I can't remember right now.

[Syco21]

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

Sometimes, unfortunately, reform really does only come at the barrel of a gun. The last successful armed rebellion in America was in 1946. That's right. Nineteen. Forty. Six.

 

Look it up, it's called the Battle of Athens.

[Keanumoreira]

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

 

 

 

 

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

 

2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society.

 

Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play.

 

Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records.

 

There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed.

 

Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh?

 

Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither.

 

I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer.

[Keanumoreira]

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

Sometimes, unfortunately, reform really does only come at the barrel of a gun. The last successful armed rebellion in America was in 1946. That's right. Nineteen. Forty. Six.

 

Look it up, it's called the Battle of Athens.

 

That's dandy and all, but reform can be achieved in other ways too. The pen is mightier than the sword.

[Syco21]

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

Sometimes, unfortunately, reform really does only come at the barrel of a gun. The last successful armed rebellion in America was in 1946. That's right. Nineteen. Forty. Six.

 

Look it up, it's called the Battle of Athens.

 

That's dandy and all, but reform can be achieved in other ways too. The pen is mightier than the sword.

You really should study your opponents position before responding.

 

At citizen request, the U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action. The wealthy Cantrell family (supporters of the Democrats' New Deal policies in the 1932 Presidential elections) essentially ruled the county. Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, then was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944, while his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff.^[1][2] A state law enacted in 1941 had reduced local political opposition by reducing the number of voting precincts from 23 to 12 and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven (including four "Cantrell men").

 

returning [WWII] veterans resolved to challenge Cantrell's political control by fielding their own nonpartisan candidates and working for a fraud-free election.

 

Combat veteran Knox Henry stood as candidate for sheriff in opposition to Cantrell.^[1] In advertisements and speeches the GI candidates promised an honest ballot count and reform of county government. At a rally, a GI speaker said,

 

“ The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.^[/url]

Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. There were a number of conflicts before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when deputy CM Wise shot and wounded a black man who was trying to vote.^[3]

 

As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and removed them to the jail.

 

Some snippets from the Wiki article. It's a short article and had you read it as I suggested, you would know that your little comment about pens would have been easily tossed aside. Because as you can see, the feds investigated the claims of corruption three times but never took any action, the people did everything they could change things through the system, but their efforts were constantly blocked. It wasn't until the election, when the Sheriff's office made it painfully clear they weren't going to let anyone challenge their power that the veterans armed themselves and went to battle.

 

So no, the pen isn't always mightier than the sword and yes, armed insurrection is sometimes necessitated.

 

Now I said this was the last successful armed rebellion, what I meant and should have said was that it was the last successful armed insurrection. Afterall, the civil rights movement was a rebellion and they were armed.

 

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/bpp/wsa/black%20panthers%202-28-69.jpg

[ColdHeartonIce]

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

Who decides which citizen is dangerous and which ones not? The Government? The most dangerous organisation in the history of men?

Hey i don't want raining days on a weekend, but they come from time to time. If you wanna save streets, carry a firearm and stop mad gunman if you get confronted with such an situation. The government can't protect you in such a case anyway, the government can just make laws enforced on everyone else.

 

I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone.

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind.

 

I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties.

Doubletalk.

"Hey Mr. Gun sales man i wanna buy a fullautomatic 308 assault rifle" Normaly he would say "Here is what i got, choose the product you wanna buy" Win-Win Situation.

With your kind of doublethink he would say "I'am sorry my good sir, i can't sell this kind of firearms because in other case i would go to jail." So if you get it somewhere else, maybee from some mafia type by trade because capitalism rocks and makes everything possible, and the cops find out you store it under your bed they would raid your home. Probably shoot one of your family members, throw CS gas grenades into the room where the little ones sleep, taser you and than drag you to jail. When you resist against that act of theft by government, you get shoot at the scene.

 

 

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".

 

Afterall, the civil rights movement was a rebellion and they were armed.

Hell, even Ghandi was total for the right of keep and bear arms for resistance and self defence.

Black Panther Party bringing their firearms to a demonstration? Love it! What do you think is more impressiv for a tyrannical government? Here is my voice, or here is my gun? The BPP was a good thing before they got infiltrated and highjacked.

[HeyYou]

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

 

 

 

 

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

 

2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society.

 

Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play.

 

Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records.

 

There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed.

 

Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh?

 

Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither.

 

I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer.

 

You have stated you think the laws need to change. I have put forth my position that changing the laws will have zero affect. Let me reiterate:

 

Most of the shooters have been folks with no criminal history, or history of treatment for mental instability.

 

A fair few of the shooters did not use their own weapons, but, weapons they STOLE from someone else, be it a parent, or sibling.

 

Most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Places where the shooters KNOW no one else will be carrying.

 

I will grant that the Arizona shooter (the Giffords incident) DID indeed have a history of mental illness, but, due to privacy concerns, none of that was shared with law enforcement of any variety, to prevent him from purchasing his own weapon. (which he then used to kill several people......)

 

So far, from what I am seeing, changing ANY laws won't have any affect whatsoever on the availability of weapons to someone that wants to commit suicide by seeing how many folks he can take with him..... On the other hand, it appears that armed citizens, including teachers..... have, in fact, stopped the shooter, and significantly reduced the potential casualty count, on multiple occasions. Do you see my logic here?

[amycus]

As a non-american living in a country with quite strict gun control laws, I'm normally very anti-gun myself. Sure, guns don't kill people, people do - but guns sure makes it one whole lot easier, in more than one way when you can just kill someone instantly by pulling a trigger. There was actually a recent incident at a school in China very similar to this one, only that the madman only had a knife. The result? 23 wounded, 0 killed. ( http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/24/world/asia/china-school-knife-attack/ ). You think he would have gone with a knife if it was just as easy to obtain a gun as it was in america?

 

HOWEVER, at the same time I realize that the situation is quite a lot different than in america than it is here (or any other nation that already has strict gun control laws since long ago), since almost the whole population there appears to own a gun. If the US governemnt just outlawed all guns overnight I will admit that I agree with the argument that it will be the law abiding citicens that will suffer for it. Maybe it would have a positive effect in the long run, but I doubt that people want to risk the safety of their loved ones for the sake of predicted statistics 200 years from now on...

 

That being said, I don't think you need to change one extreme over the other. Those of you who are against any form of gun control, would you feel safer on the streets if other military equipment like grenade launchers, tanks, uranium, etc? There has to be a limit somewhere. So while I don't think that just banning all guns is the answer, I do think that some heavy restrictions on WHAT KIND of weapons you can buy is severly needed.

 

Of course, I'm not from america like I said, I have never even been there, so I'm aware that my judgement of the situation is quite clouded here since I only know about what I read in the news. I don't know how much it differs from state to state, etc. It's just my opinion from what I know as an "outsider".