Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[dondon151]

Where's my double standard, dondon?

- you criticize obama for not outright taking advantage of this event to advance his liberal political agenda

- you criticize liberals for taking advantage of this event to advance their political agendas

hmmmmmm

Also, here's an article for you. If I give you a chuckle, this one should have you on the floor rolling in laughter. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/

i don't understand the relevance here. are you trying to point out that there are conservative israeli nutjobs who are more delusional than you are? oh, i don't doubt that, but it doesn't matter if you're a macadamia or a pistachio - you're still a nut.

now don't get me wrong here. i think that the problem is deeper than gun control in the more general sense, but to insinuate that gun control will have no effect at all is baffling. what's particularly puzzling are people with this kind of mindset:

As a 16 year old high-schooler, I could contact a friend and have myself a new handgun before the week is out, for a couple hundred dollars. If one really wanted to, they'd have no problem simply walking into my school and massacring multitudes of people.

I don't believe gun regulations will stop anybody who really wants to commit a crime. The black market is readily accessible, and a criminal won't care about breaking the law.

this is not fucking china where counterfeit and other clandestine goods are sold in markets in broad daylight. if you are the street-wise 16 year old high schooler that you think you are, try obtaining a gun without anyone finding out. it boggles me to see people make this kind of assertion on nothing but shaky rhetoric. (by the way, burden of proof is on you to prove that obtaining a gun is easy: to shift the burden on me to prove the converse is an appeal to ignorance.)

Edited December 23, 2012 by HORSEBlRD

[Rehab]

I heard on NPR that some faith-based organizations held some events where they condemned gun violence and gun advocates, and may have mentioned organizing to lobby against them. That actually sounds like something approaching an interesting matchup, as far as typical U.S. politics goes.

[Anouleth]

- you criticize obama for not outright taking advantage of this event to advance his liberal political agenda

- you criticize liberals for taking advantage of this event to advance their political agendas

hmmmmmm

i don't understand the relevance here. are you trying to point out that there are conservative israeli nutjobs who are more delusional than you are? oh, i don't doubt that, but it doesn't matter if you're a macadamia or a pistachio - you're still a nut.

now don't get me wrong here. i think that the problem is deeper than gun control in the more general sense, but to insinuate that gun control will have no effect at all is baffling. what's particularly puzzling are people with this kind of mindset:

this is not fucking china where counterfeit and other clandestine goods are sold in markets in broad daylight. if you are the street-wise 16 year old high schooler that you think you are, try obtaining a gun without anyone finding out. it boggles me to see people make this kind of assertion on nothing but shaky rhetoric. (by the way, burden of proof is on you to prove that obtaining a gun is easy: to shift the burden on me to prove the converse is an appeal to ignorance.)

And yet, even in China, crazy people don't shoot up schools, they use knives instead. If guns are really so easy to get a hold of, and criminals can never be stopped from acquiring weapons so long as they have the will or imagination (the Green Lantern theory of gun proliferation), why do criminals in countries other than the US deliberately go out of their way to avoid using guns?

[redturtle806]

this is not fucking china where counterfeit and other clandestine goods are sold in markets in broad daylight. if you are the street-wise 16 year old high schooler that you think you are, try obtaining a gun without anyone finding out. it boggles me to see people make this kind of assertion on nothing but shaky rhetoric. (by the way, burden of proof is on you to prove that obtaining a gun is easy: to shift the burden on me to prove the converse is an appeal to ignorance.)

Dammit I didn't wanna post here again, but this statement is just plain wrong.

Well maybe not where you went to school, but they're aren't that really any harder to find than drugs or booze in most places. I had people who I had err previous business transactions with before try and sell me a gun every now in then back in high school. Hell one of my best friends had a couple (illegal) handguns just because his mom was single and they lived in a high crime area. Also I gaurentee that the transaction would be kept on the down low, people who sell guns typically don't go around telling others about their clientele. It's not shaky rhetoric, it's kinda how the real world works -.-

[dondon151]

Hell one of my best friends had a couple (illegal) handguns just because his mom was single and they lived in a high crime area.

illegal handguns? why not semi-automatic weapons? wouldn't they be more effective at self-defense in a high crime area?

Edited December 23, 2012 by HORSEBlRD

[redturtle806]

illegal handguns? why not semi-automatic weapons? wouldn't they be more effective at self-defense in a high crime area?

Most handguns are semi-automatic -.- Besides they're cheaper anyway

[Esau of Isaac]

illegal handguns? why not semi-automatic weapons? wouldn't they be more effective at self-defense in a high crime area?

You mean fully automatic. Even then however that's not entirely accurate. What may be good for self-defense in one situation can be bad in another. If you're referring to assault rifles, for example, I don't think they're an effective tool for defense just walking around. A pistol is obviously more concealable, wieldy, and easier to manage in public settings.

[Constable Reggie]

And yet, even in China, crazy people don't shoot up schools, they use knives instead. If guns are really so easy to get a hold of, and criminals can never be stopped from acquiring weapons so long as they have the will or imagination (the Green Lantern theory of gun proliferation), why do criminals in countries other than the US deliberately go out of their way to avoid using guns?

Rofl why bring up China at all, they're extremely strict about gun ownership to the point of the death penalty as punishment for selling, which I bet scares off a good majority of (illegal) sellers. Pretty sure the US would never go that far to stop the gun market.

[Excellen Browning]

Rofl why bring up China at all, they're extremely strict about gun ownership to the point of the death penalty as punishment for selling, which I bet scares off a good majority of (illegal) sellers. Pretty sure the US would never go that far to stop the gun market.

You're taking things completely out of their context. Death penalty is awarded for relatively minor offenses in China. (Seems to have to do with the legalist philosophy that has been or was at some significant point dominant in China) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_offences_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

[Constable Reggie]

How the hell is that putting it out of context? China's method of gun control is to employ draconian tactics. What else capital punishment is used for in China is irrelevant. China may have lower crime rates (keep in mind it's rising, however,), but at what cost. Bringing up China as an example of a country doing gun control right is ridiculous.

[Anouleth]

How the hell is that putting it out of context? China's method of gun control is to employ draconian tactics. What else capital punishment is used for in China is irrelevant. China may have lower crime rates (keep in mind it's rising, however,), but at what cost. Bringing up China as an example of a country doing gun control right is ridiculous.

dondon suggested it was a country where it's easy to acquire illegal firearms. If it's the case that illegal firearms are easy to acquire in China, why don't criminals there use them more often? I don't believe I mentioned China's gun control laws. I suppose it is rather churlish of me to second-guess dondon on this subject, since IIRC, he's of Chinese descent and possibly better-informed than me, but I feel it's important to get our facts correct.

If I wanted to bring up a country in which gun control works, I would not pick China. Many people here would not accept China's statistics on gun crime at face value, and China is in many respects a very different country to the United States. I would pick a country like Australia, or even my own country, which both initiated blanket handgun bans in 1996 (making it easy to gauge the effect of them), and are much more comparable to the United States than China is.

[Dandragon]

So you want a discussion on gun control laws and what the hell should be done about these kinds of things, then here is my two cents.

I, while being an American, do not own a gun and thank god for that. People can do things in a fit of rage that they will regret for the rest of their lives and if I had owned a gun, I would have probably done what this murderer did without any good reason. Does this mean that you are looking at the next mass murderer? No. It means if this was a spur of the moment decision, I can see where he was coming from. That being said, while I definitely want gun control to be limited, I'm not entirely sure this would change much. This is taking away a freedom that Americans will go ballistic about. Riots will be had if guns are taken away. And these shootings might still happen.

However, I say take away guns from Americans and see what happens. The 2nd amendment was made back when crime was probably a more common thing then now. Seeing what happened here, if Adam's mother hadn't owned guns, maybe he wouldn't of done this. Or maybe he just would have stabbed his mother with a knife, then attempt to go kill the kids at the school. There would have probably been far less casualties, but the fact remains, it would not have stopped. My school actually has police officers roaming the building in case stuff like this happens, but I don't think that would change anything.

Limiting guns is probably the best thing to be done in order to stop this thing from happening again. While it may not do much, it could stop some major killings and save lives, or at least slow the process down to a point where the murderer is stopped before he/she becomes one.

To all you people who are saying that the gun control shouldn't be more restricted: Wake up. Stop living in a world where you think faith and hope is gonna stop this.

To all you people who are saying that the gun control should be more restricted: Ask yourself. How much WILL it accomplish. There are more ways to kill than a gun.

To all you people who are telling me to move out of America and into a place that isn't run by idiots: Where? I'm hearing that everywhere, politicians are being complete fuckwads.

Edited December 23, 2012 by dandragon01

[redturtle806]

I, while being an American, do not own a gun and thank god for that. People can do things in a fit of rage that they will regret for the rest of their lives and if I had owned a gun, I would have probably done what this murderer did without any good reason. Does this mean that you are looking at the next mass murderer? No. It means if this was a spur of the moment decision, I can see where he was coming from. That being said, while I definitely want gun control to be limited, I'm not entirely sure this would change much. This is taking away a freedom that Americans will go ballistic about. Riots will be had if guns are taken away. And these shootings might still happen.

So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Makes sense.

I mean sure I get pissed off sometimes, but I'm not about to go shoot up a school. Also please don't try to create sympathy for the absolute piece of shit who murdered a bunch of children. There is no excuse for that whatsoever.

[Dandragon]

So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Makes sense.

I mean sure I get pissed off sometimes, but I'm not about to go shoot up a school. Also please don't try to create sympathy for the absolute piece of shit who murdered a bunch of children. There is no excuse for that whatsoever.

I'm not trying to give sympathy for him. That whole paragraph you quoted was there for the justification of restricted gun control. This has nothing to do with me, but rather the fact that if people are near any form of weaponry and are in a fit of rage, things will happen. So, keeping away said weapons can make stuff like that happen less, and less people will die.

And didn't you say you weren't going to post in this topic anymore?

[redturtle806]

People in a fit of rage will just do other things, such as build bombs out of fertilizer, even if all the guns magically vanished.

I tried to, but the amount of ignorance was too damn high. Alright, I'm out for real this time.

[Excellen Browning]

So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Makes sense.

Just because you refuse to see reality does not mean it is not there. The majority (as in, three quarters or so) of all homicides follows the pattern of two or more humans getting into an argument, the argument then turns into a verbal and/or physical fight, everybody gets angry and then one or more humans pulls a gun or weapon(but in America, that's most likely a gun) and shoots (comparatively, there's few cases in comparisons of people getting beaten to death) and it usually takes place in a social situation like a bar.

For the more simple minded folks, what this means is that most homicides are actually assaults that have gone too far. Murderers do not plan their murders, they just go to a bar, take their gun with them, get into a fight, pull their gun and shoot somebody(these statistics as well as general concealed weapon licensee crime statistics imply that these people do not have a concealed carry permit, yet still do it)(also, there's less murderers than victims, which implies shooting more than one person (perhaps as collateral) is not uncommon)

[Constable Reggie]

Where are you pulling these statistics from?

[Esau of Isaac]

Just because you refuse to see reality does not mean it is not there. The majority (as in, three quarters or so) of all homicides follows the pattern of two or more humans getting into an argument, the argument then turns into a verbal and/or physical fight, everybody gets angry and then one or more humans pulls a gun or weapon(but in America, that's most likely a gun) and shoots (comparatively, there's few cases in comparisons of people getting beaten to death) and it usually takes place in a social situation like a bar.

For the more simple minded folks, what this means is that most homicides are actually assaults that have gone too far. Murderers do not plan their murders, they just go to a bar, take their gun with them, get into a fight, pull their gun and shoot somebody(these statistics as well as general concealed weapon licensee crime statistics imply that these people do not have a concealed carry permit, yet still do it)(also, there's less murderers than victims, which implies shooting more than one person (perhaps as collateral) is not uncommon)

This doesn't rebut what he was saying, however. He asked, "So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns[?]" To which you basically seem to be saying, "Yes."

[Excellen Browning]

This doesn't rebut what he was saying, however. He asked, "So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns[?]" To which you basically seem to be saying, "Yes."

Hmm. If you really couldn't take the clue I'll spell it out for you. Humans get angry, this is fact of life. Humans tend to do "stupid" things when they are angry (also when they are drunk, horny and sad but I disgress). This is not so much "other people" but simple fact of life every single human has to deal with. We all do shit we regret, for various reasons. If you claim otherwise you lie to me and/or yourself, you're such a shut in you simply don't come into contact with others enough to make mistakes(which is a mistake in and of itself, but I digress once again) or you're a minor and such reflective ability is not to be expected of you.

[eclipse]

Hmm. If you really couldn't take the clue I'll spell it out for you. Humans get angry, this is fact of life. Humans tend to do "stupid" things when they are angry (also when they are drunk, horny and sad but I disgress). This is not so much "other people" but simple fact of life every single human has to deal with. We all do shit we regret, for various reasons. If you claim otherwise you lie to me and/or yourself, you're such a shut in you simply don't come into contact with others enough to make mistakes(which is a mistake in and of itself, but I digress once again) or you're a minor and such reflective ability is not to be expected of you.

While I do some things that I regret (like downing a lava flow on a full stomach), I don't think I'm going to physically assault someone out of anger, unless that person's trying to kill me/someone else. I have yet to lose my temper to the point where I stop thinking about consequences.

[Excellen Browning]

While I do some things that I regret (like downing a lava flow on a full stomach), I don't think I'm going to physically assault someone out of anger, unless that person's trying to kill me/someone else. I have yet to lose my temper to the point where I stop thinking about consequences.

But then again, you're no man.

[eclipse]

But then again, you're no man.

I'd say PEOPLE can be illogical and act on emotions. This doesn't apply to everyone - I'm sure there's men out there who can keep their cool, as well. How far this extends into the general populace remains to be seen.

[Esau of Isaac]

Hmm. If you really couldn't take the clue I'll spell it out for you. Humans get angry, this is fact of life. Humans tend to do "stupid" things when they are angry (also when they are drunk, horny and sad but I disgress). This is not so much "other people" but simple fact of life every single human has to deal with. We all do shit we regret, for various reasons. If you claim otherwise you lie to me and/or yourself, you're such a shut in you simply don't come into contact with others enough to make mistakes(which is a mistake in and of itself, but I digress once again) or you're a minor and such reflective ability is not to be expected of you.

The fact that people sometimes get angry doesn't excuse people that let their anger control them enough to cause harm to another person. Some people lose control and rape others but you can't act like it's something you should expect the majority of people to do, or even a sizable population. If that's the case then it's evidence of a much deeper problem than some overabundance of weaponry. If you were to ban weapons such as guns for that specific reason then you should probably ban anything that could possibly be used lethally. Which is a lot of things.

And you needn't spell anything out for me. I understood exactly what you said and was explaining why your post didn't do what it intended.

But then again, you're no man.

And thank god or she would be a murderous engine of destruction like all men out there.

Girl power.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Raven]

So because you can't control your temper; other people who can shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Makes sense.

Yes. Right now, the way I see it, many of these deaths - homicides, massacres and the like - are the price the USA must pay for allowing its people the right to bear arms. I believe those who want to keep the gun legislation as is are selfish and thoughtless, not to mention unwilling to change in an attempt to make a difference. The second amendment is responsible for hundreds, maybe even thousands of deaths in the USA, yet it seems a blind eye is turned towards this, and it took a massacre of six-seven year-olds for the government to finally fucking speak out on the subject. I may be ignorant to the ways of life where gun control is lax, but I feel much safer and less vulnerable for it. On that note, I definitely believe more guns to combat guns is not an appropriate, thought-out, logical response.

[dondon151]

dondon suggested it was a country where it's easy to acquire illegal firearms. If it's the case that illegal firearms are easy to acquire in China, why don't criminals there use them more often? I don't believe I mentioned China's gun control laws. I suppose it is rather churlish of me to second-guess dondon on this subject, since IIRC, he's of Chinese descent and possibly better-informed than me, but I feel it's important to get our facts correct.

sorry, i didn't literally mean that it's easy to acquire firearms in china - i was contrasting the difficulty of acquiring illegally acquiring guns in the US to the ease of illegally acquiring other materials in china (particularly when the law isn't enforced strongly), and government officials are significantly more open to bribery there than they are in the US.

as draconian as some chinese laws are, they are surprisingly effective and don't deserve the knee-jerk negative appraisals that they tend to receive. though their statistics on anything are dubious at best, and they don't prosecute all capital offenses equally (e.g., the possession or distribution of firearms is not very often considered as a capital offense), it's really impossible to argue that denying legal access to firearms does not correlate with a reduction in the number of gun homicides.

Edited December 24, 2012 by HORSEBlRD