Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[Syco21]

I had wrote a nice long post to Amycus in response to her points. But as I was putting on the finishing touches, the wind blew my power out and lost it all. So now I'm just going to go with short bullet points.

 

1. China is a terrible example for multiple reasons.

1a. China's news is heavily censored and wholly unreliable. Truth we don't know if there were any deaths or not.

1b. China has a long list of civil right's violations. Yeah, maybe they don't have rare massacres that used guns, they do have severe oppression. Which is precisely why a lot of gun owners own their guns.

1c. The civil rights movement was a nationwide rebellion, one that succeeded and one that included armed rebels(BPP).

 

2. About 40-50% of the population owns one or more of the 300,000,000+ guns in America.

2a. While the minority holds the majority of guns, do not underestimate the willingness of gun owners to arm their friends and family in an emergency.

2b. In the event of a nationwide gun grab, all that would happen is a huge bloodbath. The conflict would destroy the nation, ultimately leading to the US being dissolved.

 

3. You can already purchase all of those things.

3a. You can own upto 15 pounds of unenriched uranium.

3b. Grenade and rocket launchers are not prohibited and can be purchased.

3c. You can buy tanks in many countries, including the UK.

3d. You can also buy missile silos, including nuclear missile silos.

3e. You can buy warbirds(military aircraft), including fighter jets and even bombers.

3f. You can also buy grenades for those grenade launchers.

3g. You can buy howitzers and other cannons. You can't buy ammo for them, but you can make it.

3h. The world hasn't ended yet.

 

4. What restrictions do you wish to see?

 

5. You shouldn't listen to the media, they are often biased, uninformed and straight up lying.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

 

That is the media presenting you with biased, uninformed opinion. Not news. There is no such thing as a heat-seeking bullet. They also, in other interviews, make the claim that the rifle can shoot down an airplane. You can't, unless you're within spittin distance of the plane, it's going to be very hard if not impossible to hit the plane at all, let alone one of the tiny critical areas. But then if you're that close, might as well just through some teddy bears into the engines. Sure is a hell of a lot cheaper. Those rifles retail for around $10,000, the ammo costs $5 a round. There's a reason these rifles aren't used in crime. The VPC, as unreliable of a source they are, has a list of crimes that involved .50BMG rifles. Most of them are possession crimes, I saw one where someone actually used it to threaten a U.S. Marshall and few were they were fired... In Mexico. It's a small list that covers multiple decades.

 

The point, the people who buy these rifles tend to buy them for the same reason the rich buy super cars. They just want them in their collection.

 

This is why you shouldn't listen to gun control advocates(the ones on TV).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w8es6M_9HKk

 

They're full of s*** and don't know what they're talking about. If Bloomberg honestly didn't know he was mistaken, then he has no business proposing firearms based legislation. If he was straight lying, he has no business being a politician.

[HeyYou]

That's what you get when you let someone that doesn't have a clue try and tell you what needs to happen. This is typical in government. Bloomberg isn't the only one that doesn't have any idea whatsoever about guns in general. They just want to legislate something, call it 'good for the american people', so they can look like they are doing something, when in reality, they just make the situation worse.

[Beriallord]

Its not a gun problem, its a people problem. Just because a few crazy nuts want to shoot people, doesn't mean guns should be limited to law abiding citizens.

 

From what I heard, this Lanza guy had a developmental brain disorder, so its clearly the mother's fault for not securing those firearms. And some sources say the AR-15 wasn't used in the shooting, and was found in the trunk. It sorta makes sense, because pistols can do the job just fine indoors, and an assault rifle is more of a medium range weapon. A glock 19 has a 15 round magazine stock, but you can buy extended mags that hold 33 rounds, and I'd say the Sig Sauer pistol used also had a 15 round mag. 30 rounds with 2 pistols, or possibly more if he used an extended mag, and he also could have carried extra mags. Its sufficient enough to kill 27 people with point blank shots either way.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Beriallord

[ginnyfizz]

That's what you get when you let someone that doesn't have a clue try and tell you what needs to happen. This is typical in government. Bloomberg isn't the only one that doesn't have any idea whatsoever about guns in general. They just want to legislate something, call it 'good for the american people', so they can look like they are doing something, when in reality, they just make the situation worse.

 

That's exactly it, a knee-jerk response and trying to make themselves look good, look like they are action men. That's also precisely how we ended up with even tougher gun laws in Britain than the ones brought in during the 1920's. After a school shooting at Dunblane, handguns were so severely restricted that the only people who can now legitimately possess them are police firearms officers (our police are not routinely armed), service personnel, veterinary surgeons and licensed slaughtermen/women (horses are customarily shot with a pistol rather than a bolt gun.) It is very tough to get a firearms certificate for hunting rifles, and slightly less tough to get a shotgun licence. Of course, this means nothing at all to the bad guys who just get all kinds of guns illegally. And woe betide the householder who does get their 12 bore out of the cabinet in time to confront that burglar, you could lose your permit just for doing that and pointing it at the said burglar, let alone giving them both barrels.

 

Given that the perpetrator in the Sandy Hook tragedy was mentally unbalanced, can any USA citizens here comment on how much the mental state of a "gun permit applicant" is taken into consideration? As over here, it varies wildly.

[HeyYou]

That's what you get when you let someone that doesn't have a clue try and tell you what needs to happen. This is typical in government. Bloomberg isn't the only one that doesn't have any idea whatsoever about guns in general. They just want to legislate something, call it 'good for the american people', so they can look like they are doing something, when in reality, they just make the situation worse.

 

That's exactly it, a knee-jerk response and trying to make themselves look good, look like they are action men. That's also precisely how we ended up with even tougher gun laws in Britain than the ones brought in during the 1920's. After a school shooting at Dunblane, handguns were so severely restricted that the only people who can now legitimately possess them are police firearms officers (our police are not routinely armed), service personnel, veterinary surgeons and licensed slaughtermen/women (horses are customarily shot with a pistol rather than a bolt gun.) It is very tough to get a firearms certificate for hunting rifles, and slightly less tough to get a shotgun licence. Of course, this means nothing at all to the bad guys who just get all kinds of guns illegally. And woe betide the householder who does get their 12 bore out of the cabinet in time to confront that burglar, you could lose your permit just for doing that and pointing it at the said burglar, let alone giving them both barrels.

 

Given that the perpetrator in the Sandy Hook tragedy was mentally unbalanced, can any USA citizens here comment on how much the mental state of a "gun permit applicant" is taken into consideration? As over here, it varies wildly.

 

The fact that he was mentally unbalanced didn't come out until AFTER the shootings. He had no history of treatment for mental illness. Not that if he had, it would have mattered in any event, he used his mothers guns.

 

The Arizona shooter had quite the history of mental illness, and treatment for such, but, that information was never released to law enforcement to prevent him from buying a gun, due to 'privacy concerns'....... Nice huh?

 

The trouble is, we have so many different layers of bureaucracy, and none of them share information with the others, that even is someone had been committed to an institution for decades, so long as they were never convicted of a CRIME, they could walk in to any gun store, and buy whatever they want.

[Beriallord]

I live in an open carry state. That basically means I can walk around on the street with a pistol holstered, as long as its visible. But there isn't much of a need to do that. Even though its allowed, almost nobody does it.

[korun]

the big point here, is, WHEN a United State président will have balls to change the constitution against any gun'slover lobby? it's probably not that simple at all, but it looks weird, how many shooting in school or public area will be needed??

as Ginnyfizz says in England you can't have firearms, legally, it's really difficult,

the same in France, only the police enforcement have guns and as a citizen, you must have a shooting licence in a club, (which are rules by...the police :)) if you want a licence to bear firearms and a really GOOD reason for it ,the same in Canada

if you can't have a gun, you won't use it, right?? so go ahead ,

as somebody says in this post, guns don't do nothing , it's people, even they are mentaly disturbed, they have access to, so take it of the equation

to the one who's going to claim, that may be, an armed buddy around who will shoot at a killer and stop it .....huh Oo what kind of banana républic is this, you have laws and police to apply these go for it and stop to hidde yourself right behind a text which became totally obsolete today!

believe me, i love the US, but, sometimes, it's really a strange country

@@

Edited December 26, 2012 by korun

[amycus]

I had wrote a nice long post to Amycus in response to her points. But as I was putting on the finishing touches, the wind blew my power out and lost it all. So now I'm just going to go with short bullet points.

 

1. China is a terrible example for multiple reasons.

1a. China's news is heavily censored and wholly unreliable. Truth we don't know if there were any deaths or not.

1b. China has a long list of civil right's violations. Yeah, maybe they don't have rare massacres that used guns, they do have severe oppression. Which is precisely why a lot of gun owners own their guns.

1c. The civil rights movement was a nationwide rebellion, one that succeeded and one that included armed rebels(BPP).

 

2. About 40-50% of the population owns one or more of the 300,000,000+ guns in America.

2a. While the minority holds the majority of guns, do not underestimate the willingness of gun owners to arm their friends and family in an emergency.

2b. In the event of a nationwide gun grab, all that would happen is a huge bloodbath. The conflict would destroy the nation, ultimately leading to the US being dissolved.

 

3. You can already purchase all of those things.

3a. You can own upto 15 pounds of unenriched uranium.

3b. Grenade and rocket launchers are not prohibited and can be purchased.

3c. You can buy tanks in many countries, including the UK.

3d. You can also buy missile silos, including nuclear missile silos.

3e. You can buy warbirds(military aircraft), including fighter jets and even bombers.

3f. You can also buy grenades for those grenade launchers.

3g. You can buy howitzers and other cannons. You can't buy ammo for them, but you can make it.

3h. The world hasn't ended yet.

 

4. What restrictions do you wish to see?

 

5. You shouldn't listen to the media, they are often biased, uninformed and straight up lying.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

 

That is the media presenting you with biased, uninformed opinion. Not news. There is no such thing as a heat-seeking bullet. They also, in other interviews, make the claim that the rifle can shoot down an airplane. You can't, unless you're within spittin distance of the plane, it's going to be very hard if not impossible to hit the plane at all, let alone one of the tiny critical areas. But then if you're that close, might as well just through some teddy bears into the engines. Sure is a hell of a lot cheaper. Those rifles retail for around $10,000, the ammo costs $5 a round. There's a reason these rifles aren't used in crime. The VPC, as unreliable of a source they are, has a list of crimes that involved .50BMG rifles. Most of them are possession crimes, I saw one where someone actually used it to threaten a U.S. Marshall and few were they were fired... In Mexico. It's a small list that covers multiple decades.

 

The point, the people who buy these rifles tend to buy them for the same reason the rich buy super cars. They just want them in their collection.

 

This is why you shouldn't listen to gun control advocates(the ones on TV).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w8es6M_9HKk

 

They're full of s*** and don't know what they're talking about. If Bloomberg honestly didn't know he was mistaken, then he has no business proposing firearms based legislation. If he was straight lying, he has no business being a politician.

 

1) That news from China isn't very trustworthy I will admit, however my main point is still standing: A knife isn't nearly as deadly as a gun. It's easier for the victims to run away, or even overpower the attacker (not very likely with the kids in this case, but there where still some adults present). The NRA is today saying that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". Too bad that it will always be the "good guy" that has the disadvantage. The madman always have the advantage of the element of surprise, and he doesn't have to look before he shoots. Of course, this is pretty much just wishfulthinking in my case. While in my country I'm all for gun control, I'm quite aware that the situation in America is quite different from where I live, and that just banning all the guns is anything between impossible to insanity as it is now.

 

2) Like I have already said, I already know that the current situation is quite different in America. Thanks for the statistic though.

 

3) Um, yeah, this is probably the main point where we part paths. WHY exactly would the average american family need something like a grenade launcher to protect themselves? If you had been present during the Batman Cinema shooting filled with the innocent people closely packed together, would you have prefered to have a simple handgun or the grenade launcher? And that's my point, there is no need for any law abiding citizen that just want to defend himself, to have such weapons.

 

4) That's a tricky question, but my answer would be what's appropiate for the user. Assuming that you DON'T have any mass shooting planned in the near future, of course.

 

5)True, but that goes for both sides. I don't like choosing one extreme for the other. I do think that some gun control is needed, but exactly how harsh is another matter. I think that those who scream "ban ALL guns in america" are wrong, and I think that the NRA that scream "we need MORE guns" are wrong. Is that weird?

[HeyYou]

Lets dispel some rumors here....

 

First, the average american citizen may NOT own military grade weapons. This includes fully-automatic anything, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and cannons. (like you would find mounted on a tank, or artillery piece.) At least, not in FUNCTIONAL form. You can buy tanks on EBay, but, they have been de-militarized. The main gun is incapable of being fired, and the machine guns are generally non-firing replicas. I did see a 20mm anti-tank gun for sale at a gun shop once.... MANY years ago. The price tag was well in to 5 digits though, and the process for purchasing it was difficult, at best. Finding ammo for it would be darn near impossible. (on the legal market.)

 

Sure, if you have a Federal Firearms License, you can actually own these legally. (for the most part) But, that particular piece of paper is EXTREMELY difficult to come by. Getting a Top Secret security clearance is easier...... If the cops saw you walkin' around with ANY of the aforementioned weapons, they would most certainly want to have words with you..... (and it would probably start with "DROP IT!")

 

America IS an interesting place when it comes to firearm ownership. With the proper licensing, you can buy a friggin' minigun... (chain driven, multi-barrel weapon with a rate of fire north of a 100 rounds per SECOND...) Please don't mount it on your car/truck though.... the cops would be more likely just to shoot you on site, than utter a word of warning..... And of course, they also have a TRULY hefty price tag..... not something your average american will ever be able to afford. (think, more expensive than a fair few family cars.....)

 

Any attempt at a constitutional amendment to change our gun rights would pretty much assure that said politician would NEVER get elected to another public office. I.E. Political suicide. Extremely unlikely to ever happen. And not just because of the gun lobby.

 

Any attempt to disarm the public would result in utter failure, and MANY, MANY dead. Dissolution of the US would be a minor consequence in comparison.

[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.

 

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?

 

Alright, fine, I'll admit to a structured argument when I see one. Considering all of the facts that you have brought to this debate, tell me this: what do you believe we should do? Leave the law as it is, do absolutely nothing, and ignore incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting? I see your logic, and I agree to most of it (said parents should have been more responsible), but someone has to take some kind of action here. And no, I don't mean with a gun. All I want to see is a safer nation; that's it, that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking to take anyone's gun away. I'm not asking to sacrifice anything that would mean losing any freedoms we have today. All I'm saying is address these problems and solve this damn war between gun-lovers and those who'd rather see them put away. I admit, I don't have the answers, and I won't pretend that I do, but the law cannot stay the way it is today. It just can't; I don't see how it could.