Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[korun]

I would point out that the Sandy Hook shooter was dead before the cops arrived.....

 

Police response times are not the best. Given the financial state of our economy, police and firefighters are the first to get layoffs. Even so, the BEST response time I have seen would still be a minimum of three minutes.... (and that's only because the cop shop is four blocks from the school....) a lot can happen in three minutes. Much better to have armed folks already on the scene.

 

No gun law is going to take guns out of the hands of folks that want to do this kind of thing. I don't quite get why folks think there is something magical about a law, that everyone automatically obeys it. I would point out that murder is illegal, yet it happens many times a day.... even in gun-free countries.....

 

As for the robber taking my gun away from me, and shooting me with it..... That's actually kind of funny. I think you watch too many martial arts movies..... about the time said robber even twitched toward me, I would be pulling the trigger...... so would most anyone else....

 

HeyYou, you're point of vue failed because you can't have 0 risk at all, even 100 people which where there had pull their gun, the guy probably die but with 1 or more people also., he was shooting at every one

Like Butii said, even you're prepared, you've may be have been a marine or else, have you ever kill ? at war ? are you ready to shoot someone? shooting marks or a deer is fun, i did it many times, became a national hero is fun too ....for a few days, then you're alone ^^

i've learned, too, how to disarm someone with a gun or a knife, nothing strange, if i'm at close range i have more chance than you have, this said i'm not mentally disturbed.......i think :D

 

Laws are made for normal people, they will obey, as you do, every day for any other law which rule your life in America, France, England, the one who don't, will get in trouble with the justice, it's how it works

@@

[sukeban]

I'd place slightly stricter requirements on who can buy firearms legally, but I'd allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons. What I mean by that is anyone charged with a violent misdemeanor, including assault, or some form of criminal threatening shouldn't be able to purchase firearms, including anyone who is criminally insane. That means some communication would need to be involved in government, to determine which people are not eligible to purchase firearms.

 

Laws that make people criminally liable for not securing their firearms from mental nuts who proceed to murder people, would encourage more people to secure their firearms.

 

I would be fine with banning firearms outright, but as that isn't really feasible at this point, I think that some of your proposals have good merit and make sense. I don't agree that folks should be able to buy fully automatic weapons (where do we draw the line on this--grenade launching attachments, shoulder-fired surface to air missiles, personal acquisition of drones?), but I do agree that placing the onus on gun owners to take responsibility for their guns would go a long way toward making sure that random guns aren't just laying about in homes, ready to be confiscated by the first disgruntled teenager that comes by them. I also agree with better connecting police databases with gun owners, allowing them to better screen people who have no business acquiring firearms in the first place.

 

Full gun control will never happen in America, because there are 10s of millions of people who simply won't give them up, including myself. They don't have the manpower or the resources to make millions give up their guns, and using the military to do that would be unconstitutional, and it would probably create divisions in government, as well as lots of cases of insubordination. I don't care if they are 10 sandy hook shootings in 1 year, I'd still be against them infringing on the second amendment. As Charlton Heston said, they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

As for the ones advocating full gun control, would you put your life on the line to volunteer to go knocking on doors asking law abiding citizens to relinquish their firearms? Only reason I'm asking this because I don't know many who would. I've asked several military veterans if they were ordered by government to confiscate firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens, would you follow orders? Every single one of them said no, and not just a maybe, it was an adamant no. And I know 2 who told me they would personally turn their guns on the ones ordering them to do it.

 

This, I fundamentally DO NOT understand. Why is it that "patriots" don't seem to hold such extreme views when it comes to infringing upon our other Constitutional rights, usually in the name of "safety" and counter-terrorism. Each year, we lose more liberties to warrantless wiretapping, domestic drone usage, rampant snooping on internet communications, prisoners held without trial, etc. Where is the level of outrage directed at these losses of liberty? Why do NSA men and women not "turn their guns on the ones ordering them" to snoop on their fellow Americans or the drone pilots on those ordering them to drop their payloads willy-nilly across the globe? These same folks probably won't think twice about launching a nuclear ICBM at Tehran or Beijing, yet they openly contemplate treason at the thought of losing their guns? This makes no sense whatsoever and seems to belie a profound lack of... perspective.

 

Are GUNS truly worthy of a civil war? I laugh to myself as I ask that question due to the absurdity of it all. I would also repeat what has been said before--that guns will not help you if the government wants you dead. There is no "Red Dawn" in 2012, and patriots are never going to fight off a foreign invasion, nor a domestic tyranny. If "worst came to worst" they would simply drop a bomb on your house or release anthrax or something. The only thing that would ever match a tyrannical government would be peaceful resistance, with the government shamed into submission (or, more likely, having troops desert their commanders) at the prospect of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their countrymen in cold blood. An opposing soldier's conscience is the best defense against an actual tyranny, as taking up arms will only make their killing you "legitimate" and imbue their mission with renewed purpose.

 

To think that owning guns will protect against tyranny is to fundamentally misunderstand what automated warfare is all about. A tyrannical government isn't going to be riding horses through the backroads of your local county, waiting for you to ambush them with your blunderbuss. Instead they're going to be cruising around in reactive-plating-clad tanks and calling in airstrikes on your house. They are going to be launching ballistic missiles from ships at sea. Likely, they wouldn't even have to risk a human pilot (and their conscience...) in the process, instead just dialing up the local drone. Your camo hunting outfit isn't going to save you either, not when you you're being tracked in like eight different spectrums from various satellites and the other drones in the area. As someone else said, they aren't going to be sending in bumbling Soviet conscripts or lazy Cuban volunteers--they are going to be sending in special ops guys to cut your throat while your sleep. There is no way to win against that trying to meet force with force. If the government ever became a despotism with the full support of the military: WE ARE BONED, full stop.

 

As with many other strange things, guns are increasingly becoming a white ethnic thing--specifically a rural, white ethnic thing. As per the National Exit Poll, rates of gun ownership have been decreasing for decades, yet those decreases have been limited only to those identified as Democrats and Independents. Rates amongst Republicans have remained constant over time, including the newest cohort of Republican voters. Gun ownership is lowest amongst younger Democratic voters, meaning that the gap between ownership between the parties will only increase over time. 22% of Democrats own guns versus 65% of Republicans. In 20 years, this will likely be 15% versus 60% and increasing until only one political party is armed. In other words, if the South ever wanted to "Rise Again!" it should wait a couple more years before making its move. Soon liberals will not have any weapons and hard-core conservatives will be able to go "All-In" in secession if that is what they truly want.

 

Increasingly, I wonder if that is not just the best solution for us all, with conservatives taking the South (minus Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) and Great Plains (plus Alaska). Liberals and Moderates take the coasts, the Rust Belt (minus Indiana), the Southwest (including Nevada and Colorado), and the North (including Montana but excluding the Dakotas). Southern territories would be contiguous, but the North would have to come to terms with Canada to connect their holdings. I say that more or less tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps one day, if we don't put our politics back in working order again, it will come to that. In the meantime, we can only hope to elect a Democratic House in 2014! >:D

Edited December 28, 2012 by sukeban

[HeyYou]

Personally, I don't see our politics, or politicians... EVER being in order again. Things have swung too far, both sides are far to entrenched in their positions, and there is too much money to be made NOT changing anything... for anyone to really do anything different. Which is why I won't give up my guns.... American society is headed for a fall. We may still be able to avoid it, but, Washington DC would have to make drastic changes to do so, and that doesn't seem to be even a remote possibility.... So, my best guess is five to ten years, and something "bad" is going to happen. At that point, it will be the folks with the guns that can actually hang on to what they have.... hopefully.

 

I would have absolutely zero hesitation about killing someone that was threatening me, or any of my family. (or even some of my friends....) I don't care to discuss if I have ever killed anyone.

[sukeban]

Personally, I don't see our politics, or politicians... EVER being in order again. Things have swung too far, both sides are far to entrenched in their positions, and there is too much money to be made NOT changing anything... for anyone to really do anything different. Which is why I won't give up my guns.... American society is headed for a fall. At that point, it will be the folks with the guns that can actually hang on to what they have.... hopefully.

 

I would have absolutely zero hesitation about killing someone that was threatening me, or any of my family.

 

I generally share that pessimism, that there is simply too much hay (and money!) to be made keeping things exactly the way they are.

 

So I can definitely feel you on that point--which is partially why I wasn't entirely joking talking about the (hopefully voluntary) dissolution of the "Two (or maybe more!) Americas" into smaller, more representative governments that can more accurately embody the aspirations and concerns of those living in their areas. I don't have any problem if folks in Texas want to carry fully automatic weapons in public... so long as I am not shackled to that same standard in California. Perhaps folks in Texas can handle those sorts of weapons without a problem, but I don't really want to take that chance around where I live. That would be where Federalism drags us down in the US, holding us all to the same standard even when we profoundly disagree.

 

Perhaps the US--like the old Soviet Union--is simply too large to be governed by one organization? Libertarians have loads of excellent points, but most of those points are unrealizable given the presence of the federal government and the governing requirements of maintaining such a large state. Perhaps the best solution would just be to dissolve and form unions with those states that most closely align with our own, allowing for the free exchange of populations whilst people sort themselves out? I definitely don't have any illusions about "American Exceptionalism" or swallow any myths about the Constitution being the infallible Word of the quasi-divine Founding Prophets. The Founders were just dudes--educated and wise dudes, but still dudes--and the Constitution was a product of its own time. It's a credit to the Founders that it has endured as long as it has, but I think it foolish to expect that it will provide guidance forever. Granted, it IS allowed to be changed, but in the present political environment that will absolutely never happen. Likely, the Founders would never have foreseen such an existential impasse, where we are unable to govern under the current rules but are unable to muster the political will to change them, consigning us to an inevitable crisis and decline in the meantime.

 

I ramble, of course, but I can see where--in the face of this--having guns might seem like a good insurance policy. I would still disagree about the need to own them, but nobody can argue with wanting to protect one's friends or family. Perhaps the best solution are smaller, more responsive states where we are free to ban--or carry--whatever we please?

[colourwheel]

The constitution says americans have the right to own guns to protect themself against foreing occupation, a tyrannical government and criminals. Thats it!. Thats whats written their and your opinion doesn't matter.

 

ColdHeartonIce let me remind you the 1st amendment in the constitution also protects the freedom of speech, everyones opinions are welcome and matter.

 

It is very interesting to see how other view this topic and where people stand on this issue.

 

I see the point people are making about banning certain weapons and making more restrictions will not completely stop people from acquiring them illegally. But in arguement of people will still be killed by guns no matter what laws and restrictions are made, most will agree limiting and restricting/and or banning will dramatically decrease such things as random shootings in a public elementary school using a weapons that could destory the lives of many in such a short amount of time. Another way to look at it is people will still get sick no matter what meds and cures are made yet just because people get sick reguardless doesn't mean we should stop trying to combat ourselves from illness. I would rather live in a world with less people being ill.

 

As for the 2nd amendment defending ourselves from a tyrant government with arms is a very good idea but times have changes. I feel there are many ways to defend ones self from an over ruling government without the need of fire arms. For one thing a tyrant government no matter how well armed the people of any nation are there would be more extreme ways these days any government tyrant or not could dominate a well armed rebeling nation. looking back at the american civil war The south was basically defeated by destroying their economy with counterfeit money, limiting their supplies and resources, and letting thier soldiers die from diseases and diarrhea. The idea that in this age a well armed public could even stand a chance against an uprising tyrant government with fire arms is a bit unrealistic today.

 

When Wayne LaPierre from the NRA gave a public anouncement this month on their views of what needed to be done after this tragic event at Sandy Hook, they suggested eveyrthing but guns were to blame for such tragedies. The NRA as ussually will hide behind the 2nd amendment and step all over all other constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and attacking the mentally disabled. Wayne LaPierre blamed Violent videogames and movies and other such entertainment that are widely protected by the 1st amendment. The idea that the only way he feels defending ones self from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun goes against traditional conservative belief when suggestion to have armed guards in every school in america as well which in my mind is ironic (conservative core beleifs highly stand for smaller government) because it's the conservative movement that is highly in support of the NRA.

 

I Honestly believe eventually there will be a point soon when people in legislative power will have to "amendment" the 2nd amendment. Looking at technology and how it has advanced the arms race since the 2nd amendment was made it won't be long till a hand gun could widely be made to have the destructive power of a nuclear blast and that would be a scary thing to see in the hands of the general public.

Edited December 28, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

ColdHeartonIce let me remind you the 1st amendment in the constitution also protects the freedom of speech' date=' everyones opinions are welcome and matter.[/quote']

If someone thinks that includes to call openly for subversion, thats incorrect. Every non-us citizen can be deported when hes calling to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

Also, a opinion and calling for the use of force up on others ain't the same. When someone calls for the ban of weapons, the consequence is that those who own, build or sell weapons are threatened with force to give them up.

 

As for the 2nd amendment defending ourselves from a tyrant government with arms is a very good idea but times have changes.

Okay if you think so just leave the US with all those gun nut hillbillies and move to China or Cuba, times have changed, tyrannical governments are a thing of the past, times have changed. Just go. Love it or leave it. If you don't like the idea of the general public owns weapons, there are so many countries on this planet where guns are banned for the public. When you think the general public is a giant baby who needs someone to take care and watch after him 24/7, than think so, But as soon you take actions and might it just be supporting tyrannical legislation, this is subversion. Go to UK, Australia, whatsoever. There are many english speaking places with gun bans so go and be happy there.

 

The NRA, The NRA, The NRA.... I can't hear this anymore! Most people can't name one gun lobbieng group than the NRA; because they saw them in Micheal Moores dead wrong movie.

[colourwheel]

ColdHeartonIce let me remind you the 1st amendment in the constitution also protects the freedom of speech' date=' everyones opinions are welcome and matter.[/quote']

If someone thinks that includes to call openly for subversion, thats incorrect.

 

Actually reguardless of openly calling for subversion of any constitutional rights is protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution.

 

Any amendments can be modified by subsequent amendments, hence the word "amendment". All it requires is new legislation to be made. And tyrannical government is not really the issue on hand especially concidering The USA is probably one of the greatest historical democracies of government. What makes America so great in my opinion is the fact the people can elect politicians into power to change or make new legislation.

Edited December 28, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

Actually reguardless of openly calling for subversion of any constitutional rights is protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution.

No, i can't also call for murder or robbery openly. Stays the same with subversion.

 

All it requires is new legislation to be made. And tyrannical government is not really the issue on hand especially concidering The USA is probably one of the greatest historical democracies of government.

The US ain't a democracy, they are a republic! So there is no legislation possible to abolish rights like the secound amendment. You didn't even get that but you wanna decide and judge over people who own guns and wanna tell them something about muskets and times have changed... Well thanks.

 

The 2nd Amendment is so logic in itself, that i'am shocked every time there is a debate about. Also, its so typical that the gun-ban party doesn't know stuff about America or its form of government. No, subversion is not protected under the 1st amendment, no, its not a freaky democracy its a republic. This isn't about, that wellfare moms and other punks can vote how you should live, its about everyones rights are protected and can't be abolished by anyone, regardless if its a majority opinion or legislation or wtf so ever.

See, people who don't know stuff can go to the ballot box and judge over your live and proberty. America is not about that, america was never ever about that.

[colourwheel]

Actually reguardless of openly calling for subversion of any constitutional rights is protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution.

No, i can't also call for murder or robbery openly. Stays the same with subversion.

 

Calling for murder or robbery openly is a little different than speaking your mind about wanting reform to constitutional rights. If I am wrong go ahead and call the authorities on me I am sure they would just laugh. Yet the constitution protects the freedom of speech, people can't go around calling out bloody murder and making bomb threats an such.

 

All it requires is new legislation to be made. And tyrannical government is not really the issue on hand especially concidering The USA is probably one of the greatest historical democracies of government.

The US ain't a democracy, they are a republic! So there is no legislation possible to abolish rights like the secound amendment. You didn't even get that but you wanna decide and judge over people who own guns and wanna tell them something about muskets and times have changed... Well thanks..

 

Yes, the USA is a republic but it is also a democracy too. Also legislation is "possible" to reform rights to any amendments in the constitution. Also where in this entire thread have I judge over people who own guns? This debate is about change to gun laws in america not passing judgement on gun owners. I myself own a Smith & Wesson.

Edited December 28, 2012 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

Yet the constitution protects the freedom of speech, people can't go around calling out bloody murder and making bomb threats an such.

And you calling for the abolishen of the secound amendment. Don't you people get it?

 

Yes, the USA is a republic but it is also a democracy too.

See, it are these moments who wanna let me get in some Ted Nugent style rant. When people who can go to the ballot box don't know stuff, don't know anything about America. No, its not "also a democracy", its a republic. You didn't even get that.

 

Just as i said, i'am shocked every time there is a debate about how less people are knowing. Gun control has been debated to death and in the end, i think i say this for the third time, its the position who wanna be left alone versus the position who wanna enforce law on people.

 

Hundret years ago it was legal for americans to own and use dynamite. Yeah, Red Dynamite Sticks made by DuPont for farming use. Blow up rocks or tree stumps on your farm, people didn't killed each other in mass shootings during this "wild west" time. Hell, people could even buy RPGs and LAWs for all i care.