Mass Elementry School Shooting, CT

[EmergencyFan97]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."--Anonymous.

[Sawdbuster]

+1 for 97

And like I said, outlawing guns won't do anything, except take away guns from the law abiding citizen. I i know that laws are stricter in Europe, and there is less crime, but it's not because of the gun laws that make the crime rates go down, it is the society. Everything over in the states is extremely high strung in comparison to rest of the world. I think it is because we are a super-power, not to say: 'WEAR SO DURN BETTAR TAN DEM OTTER PERSONS!' but I do know that the USA is everywhere and we impact almost every thing. So that is crime is up, because over here it is one constant race to the top, and you have to participate because if you lose, you are still higher than the people who don't try at all.

So, this is bad, and RIP, but, the USA needs to came the hell down.

PS the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to Protest at the school and at the funerals. as if this couldn't get any fucking worse.

[TheCadetForce]

+1 for 97

And like I said, outlawing guns won't do anything, except take away guns from the law abiding citizen. I i know that laws are stricter in Europe, and there is less crime, but it's not because of the gun laws that make the crime rates go down, it is the society. Everything over in the states is extremely high strung in comparison to rest of the world. I think it is because we are a super-power, not to say: 'WEAR SO DURN BETTAR TAN DEM OTTER PERSONS!' but I do know that the USA is everywhere and we impact almost every thing. So that is crime is up, because over here it is one constant race to the top, and you have to participate because if you lose, you are still higher than the people who don't try at all.

So, this is bad, and RIP, but, the USA needs to came the hell down.

PS the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to Protest at the school and at the funerals. as if this couldn't get any fucking worse.

I agree with your argument about gun laws, Outlawing guns will not help anybody.

Also the hacking group anonymous hacked Westboro Baptist Church when they found out they would protest. I believe they posted all their information or something.

One thing I think the USA needs to stop doing is plastering this guys face everywhere, it turns him into some sort of god for others like him.

[Zach1019]

I agree with your argument about gun laws, Outlawing guns will not help anybody.

Also the hacking group anonymous hacked Westboro Baptist Church when they found out they would protest. I believe they posted all their information or something.

One thing I think the USA needs to stop doing is plastering this guys face everywhere, it turns him into some sort of god for others like him.

I agree also. Taking our right away to bear arms is not good and won't do anything at all but make people mad and the crooks will still get guns either way. This is just really sad.

[AZNALUBMA]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."--Anonymous.

I think that most of these tragedies came from "normal" citizens, not from "outlaws"..am I wrong?

[Fred03]

Most of the people who commmit these mass shootings are just disturbed people not criminals with a criminal history. That is why background checks won't always work. In this case the shooter got the bushmaster (assult rifle) from his mother who legally owned it.

[matte31]

I think that most of these tragedies came from "normal" citizens, not from "outlaws"..am I wrong?

1+

It's not like you see some gangmembers walk into a school and start to shoot people. ( It may have happen in the past but you get the point ).

[Voodoo_Operator]

That is why background checks won't always work.

Background checks aren't (or at least shouldn't be) just about whether or not you have a criminal record. In Canada, you have to get two relatives or close friend to vouch for you before you can obtain a weapon. This is to add a safeguard in order to avoid that someone with mental issues (depression, schizophrenia, anger issues, etc) gets their hands on a firearm precisely for the wrong purposes and becomes a danger for themselves or others.

I've been doing a lot of thinking over the weekend and I thought I'd bring some of my thoughts to this debate... Bear in mind that I don't think guns should be totally outlawed - they're not in a lot of countries, including mine, yet most have stricter laws on the types of guns that can be owned and the conditions of said ownership, and do see a lot less gun violence - I'll let you judge if it's because of such laws or not. I'm just questioning the logic behind wanting to own a gun or not, laws notwithstanding.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."--Anonymous.

I usually stay cautious around anonymous quotes, and this one might as well come from the NRA. That quote is a fallacy. Law enforcement would still be armed, and they're professionals to whom it is best to leave dealing with criminals.

See, the most common argument I hear for possessing a firearm, outside of hunting, farming and hobbies, is home defence. People will say that having a gun at home makes them feel safe from threats. But what threats are we talking about exactly?

The main reason why someone would want to break into your house is to rob you of your goods. Now here's the thing - the most efficient way to rob you is to wait for a time when you're not home. You'll then have plenty of time to commit your crime. Any smart criminal (or "less dumb than average") knows that, so I'd say most robberies occur when you're not home. So in this case, your gun hasn't protected your property from anything. In fact, it becomes just another one of your goods - and an interesting one at that. Wondering how those illegal guns pop up? The ones with filed-off serial numbers? Ask those who used to have an armory at home then came back from a trip to find out that someone had broken in and made off with all their guns. The fact is, in countries where gun ownership isn't really common, illegal guns are also much less common because they can't be easily found - and thus are also more costly. Simple offer and demand. Of course there are other sources for illegal weapons, but theft still remains an important one.

But then what if the burglar breaks in while you're home, unknowingly or not? And plain old home invasions? The former is probably the most common of both occurrences and you're then dealing with a stupid criminal - and/or one who's completely tripping balls. If he's lucky or any good, you might not even notice he was there until you find your stuff missing the next morning - and then see the above paragraph to know what happens. If he's not, chances are you won't need to go Bruce Willis on him - just hearing a sound or seeing light might very well scare him off. So far, your gun hasn't been necessary. It's either too late to use it, or completely overkill (killing an unarmed man is cowardly, you should know that).

That leaves us with home invasions. Which the media and movies would have us believe is a common occurrence when really it is not. The thing is, they DO happen, but more often then not, they're not random. Think about it, they're extremely violent and planned-out operations - why target any house where there could be absolutely nothing valuable to steal? When you dig a little, you'll find that many home invasion victims are in fact criminals themselves - a lot of such invasions are drug-related. They can also happen when you go around bragging about how you don't trust banks and stashed 300k $ in your mattress - if you're so paranoid about banks, maybe you should also be paranoid about bragging about such things in public. But hey, suppose you do fall victim to a home invasion... and you've got a gun... good for you, right?

Thing is, since everyone in this country has a gun, criminals would be wise to carry a few themselves. And there will be at least two of them, if not three, to stage a home invasion. Three burly guys, armed, and probably high on something that fuels their aggressiveness. So you think you're just gonna go Rambo on them and dispatch them all in a matter of seconds? Yeah, right. A few years ago, there was a campaign in the UK to discourage people from carrying knives for protection. Because, guess what, people were more likely to be involved in a knife fight and get stabbed if they did. The same principle applies to guns.

So these three guys break into your house to rob you. They're completely out of their minds with adrenalin and probably cocaine or methamphetamines, looking to find and subdue everyone in the house. You hear noise and wake up in a jolt, dazed, confused caught off-guard, extremely stressed, and you grab your weapon. What do you think is the likely outcome when two people with firearms and deprived of rational thinking face each other? I'd say a gunfire exchange is pretty likely. Who gets shot first is a toss-up. But if you do manage to take out one of the guys, the other one(s) are going to be pretty pissed, and you and your family are probably toast (if you've got murder one on your hands anyway, might as well not leave any witnesses). And then there's the issue of stray bullets... who knows where or who they'll hit.

I'd really like to see what are the statistics for robberies foiled by an armed citizen VS robberies that ended up in injury or death for an armed citizen. Of course, if you're not armed and a home invasion does happen, you'll likely get roughed up, but if you don't try to pick a fight, you'll probably get to live through it. Just call the cops and let them do their jobs - chances are the idiots will be caught before long. We all know that being a police officers is one of the most dangerous jobs out there, and very few of us would be willing and/or capable of facing the risks they face everyday. So I don't understand how people think that in a stressful situation, they will suddenly master all the skills of a trained police officer and put themselves in the line of fire... that's just a recipe to end up dead IMO.

[Fred03]

A gun in a home is 12 times more likley to cause the death of a household member or welcome visitor than a intruder.-Southern Medical Journal.

I believe that in a home invasion situation the invaders would know who you are, what weapons you have and would likley be prepared for them. Home invasions are not random occurances, they are orginized by groups of criminals to serve a purpose. Therefore if you are a canidate for a home invasion you probably already know it. People in the witness protection program, drug dealers and gang members should worry about home invasions. Ordinary citizens should worry more about looking bothways before turning out in traffic.

[Newfoundking]

The problem with background checks and even vouching for ownership is that you won't always know enough about everyone to vouch for their sanity, or even their real character. Very few people in the world have another person who knows all of their deep and dark secrets, especially ones which could get them put in jail or other mental institutions, so they tend to hide those, and they do this well. "I was married to a XYZ for ten years and had no idea" In fact, most people will die with this stuff unknown unless they go down in a blaze of mess, and the police haul their life apart.

[EmergencyFan97]

Just a couple months ago, in a neighboring town, three men broke into a gun shop. The owner, who lived in a flat above the shop, heard the noise and went downstairs, armed with a rifle. Guess who ended up dead? Not the shop owner. Last I heard, two of the thugs died and one was in critical condition.

[Dyson]

Just weighing in, I have to agree with Voodoo on this, stricter gun control is the bottom line here.

To have laws that allow the average citizen to carry a deadly weapon is absurd. Leave weapons to the law enforcement professionals, I think the US invites these kind of attacks when you allow the use of firearms. I think the argument is very unbalanced. People claim that the use of firearms is needed to protect oneself, however fighting fire with fire does not seem a sensible idea.

I'm guessing you're all familiar with escalation theory, it's something that is applicable in all countries. In the UK, where I'm from, I do not agree with the right for average police officers not to be able to carry firearms, but to allow the average person to do so would never be allowed, it's immoral, as stated above this creates a militia citizen. Our escalation does see some gun crime, however because guns are extremely hard to come across gun crime is rare and only seen in extreme crimes, in which Tactical units are deployed. Whereas in the US where any average person could have the ability to shoot a police officer dead, the escalation leads to semi-automatics or full on assault rifles, the likes of which are very rare in a lot of gun controlled nations.

Personally I think it's absurd.

On a side note, I was appalled to read this...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/17/tennessee-pastor-mass-shootings-because-schools-teach-evolution-and-how-to-be-a-homo/

Just food for thought

x

[Sawdbuster]

In American, Patrolmen need their weapons to survive 'First on the scene, the last to leave' Patrolmen run into so much shit that is would be absurd for them to not carry guns. I bet there are sick people in the rest of the world, but like I said, the USA is running at a much higher speed. And you never can control everything. Officers are constantly ambushed, attacked, and put in danger. Our town is generally peaceful, but a cop died here in the 70s, we are a pass through town for a lot of hard drug dealers, and something like this event isn't too far off from what could happen here. Cops don't fight to be fair, this isn't boxing, they fight to win, and people tend to freeze while looking at a gun, doesn't even have to be out, holstered, still as intimidating. Plus, SWAT is like 45 min out for our town.

Look at this: [Cops Shootouts with Teens] And imagine how it would go if the officers were unarmed. More like this: 2 Auxiliary Officers Killed in the Line of Duty isn't it?

"If your ready for everything, you still aren't ready" And you can quote me on that.

[Dyson]

In American, Patrolmen need their weapons to survive 'First on the scene, the last to leave' Patrolmen run into so much shit that is would be absurd for them to not carry guns. I bet there are sick people in the rest of the world, but like I said, the USA is running at a much higher speed. And you never can control everything. Officers are constantly ambushed, attacked, and put in danger. Our town is generally peaceful, but a cop died here in the 70s, we are a pass through town for a lot of hard drug dealers, and something like this event isn't too far off from what could happen here. Cops don't fight to be fair, this isn't boxing, they fight to win, and people tend to freeze while looking at a gun, doesn't even have to be out, holstered, still as intimidating. Plus, SWAT is like 45 min out for our town.

Look at this: [Cops Shootouts with Teens] And imagine how it would go if the officers were unarmed. More like this: 2 Auxiliary Officers Killed in the Line of Duty isn't it?

"If your ready for everything, you still aren't ready" And you can quote me on that.

I agreed with you, guns should be for cops only.

Leave weapons to the law enforcement professionals...

But to allow the average citizen to own a gun is absurd.

[Voodoo_Operator]

Just a couple months ago, in a neighboring town, three men broke into a gun shop. The owner, who lived in a flat above the shop, heard the noise and went downstairs, armed with a rifle. Guess who ended up dead? Not the shop owner. Last I heard, two of the thugs died and one was in critical condition.

Your point being? The toss-up went on the owner's side this time. It could very well have been the other way around. Then again, a lot of information is missing from your statement... Were the robbers even armed? Did they attack/threaten the owner? Did he offer them a chance to surrender or did he take them out by surprise?

If the robbers were unarmed and unaware of his presence, the owner could have just called the cops. Considering the circumstances, I bet they would have gotten there pretty quick. Shooting an unarmed man, even more so if he's got his back turned, is pretty cowardly if you ask me.

[Zach1019]

Ok well we have our own opinion. Here's what I have to say about it. There's no reason why that guy ha to go shoot up an elementary school but I live in America and anyone who is not a felon is allowed to bear arms. That is they way the US constitution is written and it won't ever be changed. Any US citizen has a right to defend themselves. The kid who shot up the elementary school took his parents legally owned weapons and killed those innocent people. Taking our weapons away is not going to solve anything it will make it harder to defend ourselves from danger and people who want to hurt others. Now if the principal had a small hand gun or something under lock and key in her desk and the office knew about it and the kid was shot and killed by her none of this would've happened and ended the way it did. I don't think a principal will ever be allowed to have that kind of stuff in the school but things can be stopped by one simple good person trying to keep others safe. The police can never protect everyone at the same time. People need to be able to defend themselves and their family. That is just my opinion.

[Dyson]

Ok well we have our own opinion. Here's what I have to say about it. There's no reason why that guy ha to go shoot up an elementary school but I live in America and anyone who is not a felon is allowed to bear arms. That is they way the US constitution is written and it won't ever be changed. Any US citizen has a right to defend themselves. The kid who shot up the elementary school took his parents legally owned weapons and killed those innocent people. Taking out weapons away is not going to solve anything it will make it harder to defend ourselves from danger and people who want to hurt others. Now if the principal had a small hand gun or something under lock and key in her desk and the office knew about it and the kid was shot and killed by her none of this would've happened and ended the way it did. I don't think a principal will ever be allowed to have that kind of stuff in the school bit things can be stopped by one simple good person trying to keep others safe. The police can never protect everyone at the same time. People need to be able to defend themselves and their family. That is just my opinion.

A principle with a gun???? This is when discussing the right to bear arms gets stupid.

What do you need to defend yourselves from? People with guns? WHO WOULDN'T HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE if you outlawed firearms to citizens.

I personally think there's no argument.

[Zach1019]

Well we all have our own opinions and I just voiced mine. I didn't say anything to you about your post. But whatever ok done with this.

One thing. There are always going to be people who want to hurt other and take other people's things. That's why the citizens need to have something to protect themselves.

[Dyson]

Well we all have our own opinions and I just voiced mine. I didn't say anything to you about your post. But whatever ok done with this.

Yeah I don't mean to personally attack your post, but there's a lot of blind ignorance by Americans when it comes to this discussion, no offence of course.

People are too wrapped up in trying to keep firearms that they refuse to even consider the benefits of getting rid of them.

Just know that this will happen again with guns bought legally on innocent victims.

x

[Zach1019]

Yeah I don't mean to personally attack your post, but there's a lot of blind ignorance by Americans when it comes to this discussion, no offence of course.

People are too wrapped up in trying to keep firearms that they refuse to even consider the benefits of getting rid of them.

Just know that this will happen again with guns bought legally on innocent victims.

x

No I know Dyson it's all good and I understand what you point is and I just wanted to say what I think about the whole thing. There's no hard feeling between us.

[goog]

[Dyson]

Amen, even firearm death relative to the population, the US still claims top prize

[met police999]

Two quotes that relate to this

"Guns don't necessarily solve the problem you only have to look at the American experience,many colleges are lost without even drawing their gun"~Sir Hugh Orde the president of the association of chief police officers

"A car,bat,bottle,poison a gun are not the only weapon"~Anonymous

[Newfoundking]

First of all, that infographic cannot be trusted. I've seen three others with different statistics.

Secondly, the biggest problem I see is that guns are seen as the answer to the gun problem.

Quote one, I'm assuming you mean colleagues, and not colleges. If not, please explain this quote.

Quote two, again with the grammar, but looking at the effectiveness of each weapon. A car is made for transport, secondary use is a weapon. It can do a lot of damage easily. A bat is secondary as a weapon, but even up close, it takes a lot of effort and time to kill one person. Likewise with a bottle. Poison when weaponized (most poison has other uses) can be very effective, thus the prohibition. Guns are primarily a weapon and can kill many effortlessly

[Fred03]

"A car,bat,bottle,poison a gun are not the only weapon"~Anonymous

The only purpose for a gun is to kill someone.