Author Topic: CT school shooting  (Read 41158 times)

Weasels wake

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3013
    • View Profile
Re: Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #165 on: December 21, 2012, 06:12:19 PM »
Like I said, every month in my community a child is killed by a gun accident. I was waiting for the December event, and it happened last night - a 2-yr old got ahold of his Grandpa's shotgun and shot/killed himself. It wasnt some idiot, it was a upper class family. Last month it was a 3-yr old daughter of a highway patrolman.

So by your rationale that an accident occurred and a life was lost you suggest banning firearms?
No kidding, I just might have to stop reading this thread.

***walks away, shaking head at the lunacy***
It takes a quiver to do that.

TEX_SUP

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #166 on: December 21, 2012, 06:13:45 PM »

Your arms race has been tried in the US for a loooong time, and it has failed. Now time to try something else.



Once again you are wrong.

The percentage of Americans who own guns has steadily declined over the last several hundred years.  In the 1700 and 1800s almost everyone was agrarian and had weapons as a normal thing.  The industrial revolution saw a large movement from rural living to urban and now fewer people have guns.

These random massacres (unrelated to wars or disputes or feuds) are a relatively new phenomenon.  Truck bombs against Federal buildings and mass murders of little school kids are NOT occurring because of law abiding citizens who responsibly possess firearms.  

You are having a knee jerk reaction and focusing on the wrong people.

JeanG

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #167 on: December 21, 2012, 06:20:18 PM »
Gun ownership rates don't cause our homicide rate.


pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #168 on: December 21, 2012, 06:51:02 PM »
There are lots of differences between countries besides gun ownership.  If the U.S. has higher gun ownership rates and higher gun-related injuries or deaths, that's not proof that the ownership rates are causing the casualties.  I'm not saying that couldn't be true, just that it doesn't have to be true.

As an example of other factors, I've read that homogeneity of a country's population correlates with violence, crime, educational success, etc.  Basically, the more homogeneous the population, the fewer problems.  The theory is that it's a lot easier for similar groups of people to get along.  It makes sense anecdotally.  Countries like the Scandinavian ones are very homogeneous, while the U.S. is extremely diverse.  That could factor into gun violence.

The percentage of people living in large cities may also be a factor. 

The safety nets in place may be another factor.  It's probably more likely that somebody can be abjectly poor in the U.S. vs. a more socialized country like Sweden.  That may influence crime and gun crimes.

European countries are getting much more diverse populations over the last several years, and crime and violence seem to be increasing.  Look at the riots and violence in France and the U.K. involving immigrants.  Racial and other social issues that were quiet in those countries compared to the U.S. are becoming more divisive as the populations become more diverse.  Countries that compared favorable to the U.S. in regard to racial and economic issues aren't looking so great recently. 

The point is that you can't draw automatic conclusions from gun ownership and casualty figures.

tautologies

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1871
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #169 on: December 21, 2012, 07:15:11 PM »
There are lots of differences between countries besides gun ownership.  If the U.S. has higher gun ownership rates and higher gun-related injuries or deaths, that's not proof that the ownership rates are causing the casualties.  I'm not saying that couldn't be true, just that it doesn't have to be true.

As an example of other factors, I've read that homogeneity of a country's population correlates with violence, crime, educational success, etc.  Basically, the more homogeneous the population, the fewer problems.  The theory is that it's a lot easier for similar groups of people to get along.  It makes sense anecdotally.  Countries like the Scandinavian ones are very homogeneous, while the U.S. is extremely diverse.  That could factor into gun violence.

The percentage of people living in large cities may also be a factor. 

The safety nets in place may be another factor.  It's probably more likely that somebody can be abjectly poor in the U.S. vs. a more socialized country like Sweden.  That may influence crime and gun crimes.

European countries are getting much more diverse populations over the last several years, and crime and violence seem to be increasing.  Look at the riots and violence in France and the U.K. involving immigrants.  Racial and other social issues that were quiet in those countries compared to the U.S. are becoming more divisive as the populations become more diverse.  Countries that compared favorable to the U.S. in regard to racial and economic issues aren't looking so great recently. 

The point is that you can't draw automatic conclusions from gun ownership and casualty figures.
obviously I would agree there is no automatic conclusion, however, I find it so weird that everytime anyone even mentions anything about guns, then some people have this whole nutty reaction that seems absolutely unreasonable to me...where the argument becomes well how about cars, well how about people well how about this and that...and guns are not the cause. Even when kids have been mowed down by a machine gun. Then the argument becomes..let us put MORE guns into the situation. Btw if you estimate the cost of the proposal that NRA came up with...just a very superficial estimate would be 20 billion dollars a year cost to the feds....simply because people are not even willing to discuss how we could potentially make gun ownership safer for everyone. Not to mention that were actually armed guards at places like columbine...and you know effective that guard was...

It is pretty simple. Everyone agrees that it is a complex problem. Everyone agrees as far as I know that in this case it was a mix of one lunatic, and some guns. Well if you make it a little hard for the lunatic to get guns, then hey maybe..not 100% sure, but just maybe this would not have happened.

If the attitude is always to escalate problems then there will be no end...well it will but it will not be peaceful.

Now I am sure the next argument would be it is the person not the gun. That is bollocks. The same person without the gun is a lot less lethal. Still mad...and maybe he is able to concoct some other plot, but at least it wasn't a trivial matter to get those guns.


swordfish1227

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #170 on: December 21, 2012, 10:46:57 PM »
Maybe someone brought this up, maybe no one has.

And I want to preface this by saying that it was definitely a tragic event, however there are some questionable statements in the aftermath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo&sns=em

Now a couple of points that were not brought up by this video:

1. The weapon that they show police pulling out of the trunk is NOT an AR-15 because:

A: AR-15s have charging handles over the buffer tube. The gun in the video has a side charging handle
B: the cartridge ejected from the gun is much larger than a .223, and is green.
C: there are 4 more 12 gauge size cartridges on the holder on the stock.

The most likely candidate is a Benelli based semi auto 12 gauge shotgun(I used one today - very similar to what is seen in the video).

2. The medical examiner says that all of the wounds he knew of were caused by the long rifle(that was actually a shotgun and in the trunk). However the only way an ME can know exactly what weapon caused a bullet wound is if the round is still in the body. A .223(the bullet fired from the bushmaster rifle that they say was the weapon) will always be a through and through at the ranges we were dealing with inside the school. It's a small diameter bullet traveling very fast - it's not going to be stopped by flesh when shooting <10'(averaged sized classroom is 20x20, so that's a reasonable average range). The military has problems with these rounds over-penetrating at 100 yards.

Do I have any idea what all of this means? Not really. But those are obvious flaws in the stories that anyone with any gun knowledge can see just from the news coverage.

And what does this mean for me? I'm searching high and low for an AR-15 lower. Because pretty soon you won't be able to get one. Will I build it out now? Probably not. But I will be able to in the future because I will have bought in before the ban.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SUPerSwede

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #171 on: December 22, 2012, 02:44:23 AM »
Why would you want to?

swordfish1227

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #172 on: December 22, 2012, 04:12:40 AM »
Why would you want to?

Buy an AR? Target shooting and hog hunting.

One other interesting point about "assault weapons". There are weapons that won't be banned that are more ridiculous than the guns that will be. 2 examples:



Anyone know why this doesn't fall under the ban?

It's a shotgun. 10round magazine, removable mags, semi auto. But still a shotgun and therefore falls under a different category. Some states require a 5 found limiter in the mag, some don't. There was a 10rd mag for one on the shelf at academy last night.



This one has to fall under the ban, right? Nope. The buffer tube cannot accept a stock. Therefore it is a pistol and registered as such. Completely legal.

*(Based on the 1994 ban, which they will most likely replicate pretty closely for a new one)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oceanblueCT

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #173 on: December 22, 2012, 05:15:53 AM »
.... I don't like how this topic has divided the Aloha spirit here at the stand up zone... 

+1, although I recognize the need for healthy, respectful debate within a community. This is a sensitive, emotionally charged topic, and even the best of friends can seemingly get at each other's throats when representing opposing viewpoints.

There is clearly "something" here regarding the national gun debate...some may not view it as a problem, others clearly do. But if there wasn't some inkling of an opportunity to make things better, it wouldn't be worth talking about.

Happy holidays to everyone here at the SUZ!

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6443
    • View Profile
    • StandUpZone
    • Email
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #174 on: December 22, 2012, 07:44:07 AM »

.... I don't like how this topic has divided the Aloha spirit here at the stand up zone... 



Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #175 on: December 22, 2012, 09:15:39 AM »
Now that's funny ;D

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #176 on: December 22, 2012, 10:40:52 AM »
obviously I would agree there is no automatic conclusion, however, I find it so weird that everytime anyone even mentions anything about guns, then some people have this whole nutty reaction that seems absolutely unreasonable to me...where the argument becomes well how about cars, well how about people well how about this and that...and guns are not the cause. Even when kids have been mowed down by a machine gun. Then the argument becomes..let us put MORE guns into the situation. Btw if you estimate the cost of the proposal that NRA came up with...just a very superficial estimate would be 20 billion dollars a year cost to the feds....simply because people are not even willing to discuss how we could potentially make gun ownership safer for everyone. Not to mention that were actually armed guards at places like columbine...and you know effective that guard was...

It is pretty simple. Everyone agrees that it is a complex problem. Everyone agrees as far as I know that in this case it was a mix of one lunatic, and some guns. Well if you make it a little hard for the lunatic to get guns, then hey maybe..not 100% sure, but just maybe this would not have happened.

If the attitude is always to escalate problems then there will be no end...well it will but it will not be peaceful.

Now I am sure the next argument would be it is the person not the gun. That is bollocks. The same person without the gun is a lot less lethal. Still mad...and maybe he is able to concoct some other plot, but at least it wasn't a trivial matter to get those guns.

I would agree with you, except that your reaction is equally nutty.

"Kids mowed down by a machine gun"?  --Didn't happen. Call it hairsplitting all you like, but you chose the words for a purpose. So did others. Based on everything I've seen so far, my guess (and yes, it's just a guess) is that it was all pistols. There's a reason assault weapons are being blamed. I'm not sure what it is, it might just be a "better story".

It's bollocks that it's not the gun, it's the person?  -- Sorry, calling that wrong is totally nutty. Millions of people own guns who have never done anything with them but punch holes in targets. Even the "gun nuts".

I've long been in favor of much more restrictive licensing--of everything. Our licensing of drivers is simply insane. We put people on the highway that couldn't operate a bicycle safely. Driving two tons of metal, coming right at you in the opposite lane, yelling at the kids in the back seat while talking on a cell phone--or drunk.

People are permitted to hunt who have no clear understanding of the animals they hunt. Some get into the woods and shoot everything they see, just to watch it drop. The basic notions of gun safety, taking a shot only when a humane kill is possible, and proper care of game? Hardly there. You can take a hunter safety class online and get a license. You don't have to know anything, just do the tests. Some states don't even require that.

I've watched idiots at target ranges and impromptu shooting ranges handle guns in a manner that puts me back in the truck headed elsewhere. I've seen guns stored in a corner in households with kids, or sitting on a nightstand next to the bed. A criminal act in my estimation.

So yeah, better licensing, more education REQUIRED. Restrictions on ownership based on criminal or mental health requirements and gun handling and safety education requirements. Requirements for proper management and control of any number of dangerous things.  Yes. I'm right with you.

Running around in circles making misstatements--you're on your own. 
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

H2Oman

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1227
  • supcontender
    • View Profile
    • Californiastandup.com
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #177 on: December 22, 2012, 12:48:59 PM »
Do you own guns to hunt?
Do you own guns to target shoot?
Are your guns not considered assault weapons?

If so, great, lock them up when not in use and enjoy your hobby safely.

Do you own assault weapons?
Do you own a gun for "protection"?
Do you keep a gun within reach at your home or car?

If so, you should turn them in and help make the world a safer and kinder place.

greatdane

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1443
    • View Profile
    • Paddle Surf Northwest
    • Email
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #178 on: December 22, 2012, 01:15:14 PM »
"So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day...... "

I'd wager yes, if they were given the chance.  Female or not.  1950 called....
Dane...I realize that sounds sexist but its simply true. I'm not questioning the bravery of women. I'm questioning their ability to take down a guy with a gun....any gun. The average guy isn't going to be able to do much nevermind a women. Tell me something...your injured and trapped in a burning building. Would you prefer someone with the physicality of the average male to come pull you out or the average woman? I raised two girls to be independant self reliant women. I'm anything but sexist. Reality called.....
Bob, sorry, I read your statement to say that a woman wouldn't try to save her kids, not wether they were capable or not.  Obviously, having two daughters, you know what a human being will do to protect children... something that some folks without kids do not understand. 

On a side note, when my daughter was born, I sold all my guns & let my concealed weapons permit expire.  I feel my family is safer not having them in my house, even though they were in a safe.  But that's just me, and I respect responsible gun owners. 
Kialoa Paddles
Fibre Glas Fin Co
OnIt! Pro
Monster And Sea Clothing

TEX_SUP

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: CT school shooting
« Reply #179 on: December 22, 2012, 01:18:47 PM »

Now I am sure the next argument would be it is the person not the gun. That is bollocks. The same person without the gun is a lot less lethal. Still mad...and maybe he is able to concoct some other plot, but at least it wasn't a trivial matter to get those guns.


You are wrong again.  That anti-government nut job in Oklahoma blew up an entire building without using any guns.  He murdered 168 and wounded more than 500.  That is WAY more lethal and it was with a bomb he made in a garage out of stuff he bought at farm supply stores.

"Trivial matter to get those guns".....are you serious? This deranged lunatic MURDERED HIS OWN MOTHER!  That is not a trivial matter, it is a sign of complete disregard for laws and societal norms.  

You think another law would have prevented this?   He violated at least 30 laws during his spree. You are naive.

If you truly want to reduce the number of these tragedies you should concentrate on the deranged people.

If you are just scared of guns then lobby against them....but you aren't doing anything productive.  

Take Mothers Against Drunk Driving for instance.  They are smart and have law enforcement focus on the act, they don't try to ban cars.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal