# So saddened by the news today.



## Sunny (Dec 14, 2012)

I shouldn't be shocked, I mean, it seems to be the trend for the USA! 

But, I can't help it. I cried for those children, for the parents, and for everyone that went through that shooting in Connecticut today. 

I know it's impossible to try and understand the thoughts of someone who isn't mentally all there, but I can't grasp how someone (even mentally sick) could aim a gun at such a small child, and just shoot them. What is wrong with people?! Did the guy really need to get all done up in his bullet proof vest? What did that prove? Were the kids going to retaliate by throwing crayons at him! 

Those children that were left a live, now have to live with what they went through, for the rest of their lives. It's so sick. They should be looking forward to Santa coming, not seeing their friends be shot dead behind their closed eyes every night they try to fall asleep! The fear they must have felt. 

I just am so saddened by it. I feel for all of those families. It's such a tragedy. 

And people are still arguing that just _anyone _should be allowed to carry a gun in the USA? Isn't just a no-brainer? NO MORE GUNS! We don't have shootings like this all the time, and that's likely because not just anyone is allowed to own one!


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 14, 2012)

You reap what you sow. The NRA can add another tick to their "Effective use of a gun scrap-book." While I have a great deal of sympathy for the parents and relatives of the dead I have none for greater America, they facilitate it, in many ways they encourage it.

How many of the children killed today are gun owners themselves, how many still feel it is their "Right" to carry a loaded gun on the offchance of being able to shoot someone?


----------



## moderan (Dec 14, 2012)

It isn't respectful of the victims of the tragedy to politicize the issue while it's still fresh. Yes, it's shameful...and must needs be corrected. But gun nuts on both sides of the argument should take a break.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 14, 2012)

The intention of the second amendment is that in case the government or any foreign power becomes aggressive towards the people of the United States that the citizens have some way of protecting themselves and their property.  Yes, school shootings happen in the US far more often than elsewhere in the world but that comes with greater gun access--the real problem is responsibility, meaning that many of these school shootings take place because parents or other "officials" don't heed warning signs in people who are likely to do these things.  Before all of you who aren't US citizens start pointing fingers take a look at the statistics for your own countries.  This is a worldwide phenomenon and not localized or contained within the US.

I have a gun.  I keep it up and out of the way of any children and it is kept well-cleaned and unloaded.  I have practiced with it and I'm not going to go around shooting children.

Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings &mdash; Infoplease.com

Also, I feel horrible for the families that have had to suffer today because of a mentally-ill person.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

these mass killings all have a single thing in common....and it's not guns. a recent killing spree of this sort was perpetrated
with arrows. although i'm not sure about this one yet, a common thread between the rest of them are the killer being on
psychotropic anti-depressant medication. these drugs are causing horrible unintended reactions in people, both suicidal
and homicidal.


----------



## Fin (Dec 14, 2012)

These shootings are becoming extremely common lately. It feels like there's another one every other week.

A shame, really.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 14, 2012)

moderan said:


> It isn't respectful of the victims of the tragedy to politicize the issue while it's still fresh. Yes, it's shameful...and must needs be corrected. But gun nuts on both sides of the argument should take a break.



When would it be a good time to discuss it? When Mitt Romney is running for president, when Sarah Palin is on the stump, when some lame-brain is firing off heavy machine guns & RPGs for fun in his back yard?

If you don't stress it now when will it be stressed - If you sell guns to loonies they will kill people with them, and as America does not bother to question whether or not the people who buy the guns are loonies or not, this sort of thing will keep happening several times a year. That old chestnut about it's not guns that kill people is hogwash, guns kill people because people pull the triggers, if they didn't have guns they would merely be waggling their fingers - STOP SELLING GUNS TO PEOPLE WHO WALK IN OFF THE STREET, STOP SELLING GUNS ON LINE. This is not political, it's common sense, and as I live in the UK it can't be political, it really isn't rocket science, if you want to stop people killing people with guns, stop selling guns to people. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has not got a genuine reason for owning a gun, but wants one, should immediately be disqualified from owning one.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 14, 2012)

I think this might need moved to the debate forum--that's where this is headed.


----------



## moderan (Dec 14, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> When would it be a good time to discuss it? When Mitt Romney is running for president, when Sarah Palin is on the stump, when some lame-brain is firing off heavy machine guns & RPGs for fun in his back yard?
> 
> If you don't stress it now when will it be stressed - If you sell guns to loonies they will kill people with them, and as America does not bother to question whether or not the people who buy the guns are loonies or not, this sort of thing will keep happening several times a year. That old chestnut about it's not guns that kill people is hogwash, guns kill people because people pull the triggers, if they didn't have guns they would merely be waggling their fingers - STOP SELLING GUNS TO PEOPLE WHO WALK IN OFF THE STREET, STOP SELLING GUNS ON LINE. This is not political, it's common sense, and as I live in the UK it can't be political, it really isn't rocket science, if you want to stop people killing people with guns, stop selling guns to people. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has not got a genuine reason for owning a gun, but wants one, should immediately be disqualified from owning one.


Perhaps when one can have an adult discussion without resorting to hyperbole and emotional appeal, relying on the facts of the matter.
I'd melt all guns to slag in a second if allowed to do so. But I'm not going to get all riled up for a discussion about it.


amsawtell said:


> I think this might need moved to the debate forum--that's where this is headed.


There's a gun control debate going on right now. There almost always is. It goes along with the god/not god debate and the other usual foolery.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> When would it be a good time to discuss it? When Mitt Romney is running for president, when Sarah Palin is on the stump, when some lame-brain is firing off heavy machine guns & RPGs for fun in his back yard?
> 
> If you don't stress it now when will it be stressed - If you sell guns to loonies they will kill people with them, and as America does not bother to question whether or not the people who buy the guns are loonies or not, this sort of thing will keep happening several times a year. That old chestnut about it's not guns that kill people is hogwash, guns kill people because people pull the triggers, if they didn't have guns they would merely be waggling their fingers - STOP SELLING GUNS TO PEOPLE WHO WALK IN OFF THE STREET, STOP SELLING GUNS ON LINE. This is not political, it's common sense, and as I live in the UK it can't be political, it really isn't rocket science, if you want to stop people killing people with guns, stop selling guns to people. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has not got a genuine reason for owning a gun, but wants one, should immediately be disqualified from owning one.



the general population in america has owned firearms for centuries. this is a recent phenomenon. you'll have to look elsewhere to point your
finger in the blame game, because the anti-gun stance simply doesn't make sense. especially given that all of these killing sprees have happened
in highly regulated gun-free zones.


----------



## Sam (Dec 14, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> Before all of you who aren't US citizens start pointing fingers take a look at the statistics for your own countries.  This is a worldwide phenomenon and not localized or contained within the US.



Really? Name me one school shooting which has taken place in the North or South of Ireland. Let me save you the trouble, because it's never happened. This is a country which had more bombings, IRA and British Army shootings, and violent acts over the last thirty years than most countries have in their lifetime. 

I mean no disrespect to the people who've died today, but 54 of the 76 shootings on that list you offered took place in America. I rest my case.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Really? Name me one school shooting which has taken place in the North or South of Ireland. Let me save you the trouble, because it's never happened. This is a country which had more bombings, IRA and British Army shootings, and violent acts over the last thirty years than most countries have in their lifetime.
> 
> I mean no disrespect to the people who've died today, but 54 of the 76 shootings on that list you offered took place in America. I rest my case.


so you're saying that if we ban guns, americans will just turn to dynamite and plastic explosives? and this is better?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 14, 2012)

Sunny said:


> And people are still arguing that just _anyone _should be allowed to carry a gun in the USA? Isn't just a no-brainer? NO MORE GUNS! We don't have shootings like this all the time, and that's likely because not just anyone is allowed to own one!



It's good to know that violence was non-existent before the invention of gunpowder.


----------



## Sam (Dec 14, 2012)

54 shootings in 16 years. That's all I'm going to say.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 14, 2012)

I never said the majority of those shootings weren't in the US.  I'm saying it's a world-wide phenomenon.  Stop pointing fingers at guns and try to understand that it is the mentality of the person behind the gun that is to blame, not the gun.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I never said the majority of those shootings weren't in the US.  I'm saying it's a world-wide phenomenon.  Stop pointing fingers at guns and try to understand that it is the mentality of the person behind the gun that is to blame, not the gun.


i guess these mass school killings don't just happen in america.....and oops....this one happened with a knife....

Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China - Courant.com


----------



## benluby (Dec 14, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> and as America does not bother to question whether or not the people who buy the guns are loonies or not,



Stopped reading at this line due to it displaying that you actually have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the steps required to get a firearm.


----------



## moderan (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Really? Name me one school shooting which has taken  place in the North or South of Ireland. Let me save you the trouble,  because it's never happened. This is a country which had more bombings,  IRA and British Army shootings, and violent acts over the last thirty  years than most countries have in their lifetime.
> 
> I mean no disrespect to the people who've died today, but 54 of the 76  shootings on that list you offered took place in America. I rest my  case.


So bombings and IRA/British Army shootings are better?  Aren't those murders too? What's your point, exactly? At what point is  homicide justifiable? Is it a matter of ideology? Necessity?
That's a pretty shaky moral high ground you're staking out, Sam.


Sam W said:


> 54 shootings in 16 years. That's all I'm going to say.


----------



## Sam (Dec 14, 2012)

moderan said:


> So bombings and IRA/British Army shootings are better?  Aren't those murders too? What's your point, exactly? At what point is  homicide justifiable? Is it a matter of ideology? Necessity?
> That's a pretty shaky moral high ground you're staking out, Sam.



Duane, the IRA didn't go into schools and kill children. Yes, there were unintentional and unavoidable casualties, but the majority of the killings in Northern Ireland were between the IRA and the British Army. I used that as a backdrop to the point I was trying to make; that Ireland has never had a school shooting, despite it being involved in one of the most violent conflicts in modern history.


----------



## moderan (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Duane, the IRA didn't go into schools and kill children. Yes, there were unintentional and unavoidable casualties, but the majority of the killings in Northern Ireland were between the IRA and the British Army. I used that as a backdrop to the point I was trying to make; that Ireland has never had a school shooting, despite it being involved in one of the most violent conflicts in modern history.


And again, so what? Armed violence is armed violence. Again, that's a pretty sick high horse you're riding. The issue is the treatment of the mentally ill. Violence, except in the case of immediate self-defense, is unjustifiable and is prima facie evidence of mental illness.
Your argument doesn't hold any more water than a square of cheesecloth. Yes, it's awful that the gunman went into a school and killed children. It's awful that anyone goes into anywhere and kills anyone.
Humans have not evolved socially commensurate with our technological accomplishments.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 14, 2012)

dale said:


> i guess these mass school killings don't just happen in america.....and oops....this one happened with a knife....
> 
> Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China - Courant.com



I'm not sure what you're trying to say that I didn't.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say that I didn't.


i know. i was simply adding to your comments as far as the post you were responding to.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 14, 2012)

Ah, sorry I was confused for a minute.  Maybe I'm spending too much time in the debate forum.


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> Ah, sorry I was confused for a minute.  Maybe I'm spending too much time in the debate forum.



yeah. once this thread gets moved to the debate forum, i'll have to ignore it. i've vowed to not return there.


----------



## cmshepard (Dec 14, 2012)

Shhh, shh. I'm not one to say too soon, but... Too soon. 

I feel bad for the people, I do. Should someone have done something? Yes, absolutely. I'm just glad the guy was a bad shot (3/60, I think) and no one else was hurt.


----------



## cmshepard (Dec 14, 2012)

Sorry, wrong shooting. The one I was referring to was the one in the mall. Where the guy only managed to hurt two or three, then himself. Not sure on the exact details, besides the number of shots and body armour.

Whether it's the new school shooting or the mall shooting, they're still bad. Thoughts are with them all, but something definitely needs to be done about the KIDS going to school with guns... Where are the parents?!


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 14, 2012)

Crime statistics when it comes to murder are way down.  Killing sprees like this happen almost daily in other parts of the world.  I'm not trying to take anything away from the deaths of the children or anyone in Connecticut, but as U.S. citizens we have become spoiled to the safety we are provided.  Law enforcement risks their lives everyday to keep murderers off the street, but they can't get them all.  Taking away a citizen's right to carry a gun and protect himself would not have changed this incident one bit.  Guns don't kill people, people with mental disorders do.


----------



## DuKane (Dec 14, 2012)

I often wonder if many of these atrocities would whither away if society choose to remember the names of the victims rather than that the perpetrator(s). 


Thoughts and condolences to those who lost loved ones.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Dec 14, 2012)

A terrible, terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families and parents of little ones, their precious lives taken away so young ...and for what?


----------



## benluby (Dec 14, 2012)

IanMGSmith said:


> A terrible, terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families and parents of little ones, their precious lives taken away so young ...and for what?



From what I'm hearing, another family dispute that some idiot decided to take to the workplace of their parent.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Dec 14, 2012)

benluby said:


> From what I'm hearing, another family dispute that some idiot decided to take to the workplace of their parent.



...so sad


----------



## dale (Dec 14, 2012)

the shooter was apparently autistic with a history of problems. i'd say psychoactive drugs were definitely a contributor.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 14, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It's good to know that violence was non-existent before the invention of gunpowder.


Well, there's no need to be facetious with me. I was just saying that I thought there would be less mass murders if there were fewer guns allowed.


----------



## Cran (Dec 14, 2012)

Wishing all strength to the families of those lost children and of the other victims. 

A sad and shocking time that does not deserve to be exploited for political point-scoring.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 14, 2012)




----------



## moderan (Dec 14, 2012)

Cran said:


> Wishing all strength to the families of those lost children and of the other victims.
> 
> A sad and shocking time that does not deserve to be exploited for political point-scoring.


Worth repeating.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 14, 2012)

Sunny said:


> View attachment 3737



Yes, let's ignore the fact of population density difference. Let's also ignore the fact that this isn't a thread on the debate forum that you're trying to sneak through to score political points.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 15, 2012)

Leyline said:


> Yes, let's ignore the fact of population density difference. Let's also ignore the fact that this isn't a thread on the debate forum that you're trying to sneak through to score political points.


I'm not trying to sneak anything (is there something to gain here? I don't know.). Am I trying to score political points? What the heck is that? *shrugs*

Besides, I only posted the picture because I thought the numbers were such a huge difference. Not that I wanted to "debate" anything. I don't like to debate much really, because I suck at arguing. And isn't that what debating is? To try and make everyone see things "your" way. 

Take it as you will. I know why I posted it, and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2012)

Pointing out American's problem with gun violence isn't a political statement, it's a statement of common sense.

I think it's good to talk about guns. Putting our heads in the sand like ostriches and saying, "I don't want to hear about it!" isn't going to help the obvious problem we have--one that does not seem to be going away.


----------



## Fats Velvet (Dec 15, 2012)

Guns kill people.  Making it easier for lunatics to acquire guns makes it easier for lunatics to kill people with guns.

That is not a political point.  This event is a tragedy, and I wonder how many more tragedies it will take before people stop politicizing gun control.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Not that I wanted to "debate" anything. I don't like to debate much really, because I suck at arguing. And isn't that what debating is? To try and make everyone see things "your" way.


The second sentence is blindingly obvious. And no-argument is a connected series of statements attempting to make a point. You're not trying to make people see things "your way", you're trying to convey your point of view. The difference between the two isn't subtle.
You're being disingenuous and hiding behind a facade of innocence.
Talking about the problems behind gun violence, or violence in general, isn't served by pro-or-con political views. That's just a cheap way to make a sorta valid point, without resorting to actual thought.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

We have an issue with violence in general, and claiming it is due to guns is to play ostrich.  One of the reasons we have such a problem is our legal system is too caring and gentle on those that perpetuate such crimes.  The biggest glaring issue on guns, that everyone seems to be unaware of, on the gun control fan side, is that psychological professionals do NOT have to report unstable and potentially dangerous patients who are on anti-psychotics to the proper authorities, and they quite simply lie on the application.
   Every mass killing we've had?  NONE of the firearms were legally obtained.  But the media has constantly ignored that fact and claimed they were.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

This is not about gun laws.  This is about an autistic 20 year old with mental problems was able to get his hands on three weapons including a semi-automatic one.  So this isn't about the law, its about someone who usurped the law.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

benluby said:


> We have an issue with violence in general, and  claiming it is due to guns is to play ostrich.  One of the reasons we  have such a problem is our legal system is too caring and gentle on  those that perpetuate such crimes.  The biggest glaring issue on guns,  that everyone seems to be unaware of, on the gun control fan side, is  that psychological professionals do NOT have to report unstable and  potentially dangerous patients who are on anti-psychotics to the proper  authorities, and they quite simply lie on the application.
> Every mass killing we've had?  NONE of the firearms were legally  obtained.  But the media has constantly ignored that fact and claimed  they were.


Unless you have proof, that last statement is so much folderol. I can walk two blocks, right now, and legally obtain a firearm and a concealed-weapon permit, and tote that weapon into the gin mill on the way back.
The reasons for rampant gun violence in the good old US of A are much larger than you're reporting.
There's a huge profit to be made on the manufacture and sales of weaponry. It certainly benefits the plutocracy to exercise that form of social Darwinism.
What kinda money does the NRA spend to keep it that way?
Why is it beneficial to imprison so many people?


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Unless you have proof, that last statement is so much folderol. I can walk two blocks, right now, and legally obtain a firearm and a concealed-weapon permit, and tote that weapon into the gin mill on the way back.
> The reasons for rampant gun violence in the good old US of A are much larger than you're reporting.
> There's a huge profit to be made on the manufacture and sales of weaponry. It certainly benefits the plutocracy to exercise that form of social Darwinism.
> What kinda money does the NRA spend to keep it that way?
> Why is it beneficial to imprison so many people?




It's a good thing you don't tote guns like words, people could get hurt, including yourself.  I live in one of the loosest gun control states of the U.S., and you have to take a conceal carry class before you get your permit.  You also have to be run through the system before you are allowed to take the gun home with you.  Please don't perpetuate an ideal that many people from other countries already believe, that the U.S. is full of gun toting cowboys.  If as many people carried weapons as you would like others to believe, there wouldn't be this many acts of random violence without someone pulling their own gun to defend themselves.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Unless you have proof, that last statement is so much folderol. I can walk two blocks, right now, and legally obtain a firearm and a concealed-weapon permit, and tote that weapon into the gin mill on the way back.
> The reasons for rampant gun violence in the good old US of A are much larger than you're reporting.
> There's a huge profit to be made on the manufacture and sales of weaponry. It certainly benefits the plutocracy to exercise that form of social Darwinism.
> What kinda money does the NRA spend to keep it that way?
> Why is it beneficial to imprison so many people?



Where did I say you couldn't LEGALLY obtain a firearm?  As for the carry & conceal that quickly, depends on what state you are in.  What I said that the media misreported, was that the Denver shooter and VT shooter legally obtained their firearms, which they didn't.  They committed fraud on the applications, because you are required to inform the seller if you're on anti-psychotics or under treatment for mental issues, which disqualifies purchasers.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

benluby said:


> Where did I say you couldn't LEGALLY obtain a firearm?  As for the carry & conceal that quickly, depends on what state you are in.  What I said that the media misreported, was that the Denver shooter and VT shooter legally obtained their firearms, which they didn't.  They committed fraud on the applications, because you are required to inform the seller if you're on anti-psychotics or under treatment for mental issues, which disqualifies purchasers.


Here:


> Every mass killing we've had?  NONE of the firearms were legally  obtained.  But the media has constantly ignored that fact and claimed  they were.





Lewdog said:


> It's a good thing you don't tote guns like words,  people could get hurt, including yourself.  I live in one of the loosest  gun control states of the U.S., and you have to take a conceal carry  class before you get your permit.  You also have to be run through the  system before you are allowed to take the gun home with you.  Please  don't perpetuate an ideal that many people from other countries already  believe, that the U.S. is full of gun toting cowboys.  If as many people  carried weapons as you would like others to believe, there wouldn't be  this many acts of random violence without someone pulling their own gun  to defend themselves.


I have such. I live in Arizona. The US IS full of gun-toting cowboys. I've lived all across the great land and they're everywhere. They believe it is part of their Second Amendment rights to procure and carry such, forgetting the part about control, and the intent, which was to have a standing militia to augment the armed forces.
Facts are facts.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> You're being disingenuous and hiding behind a facade of innocence.


I think a remark like that, should be saved up for someone who might actually know the kind of person that I am.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are hilarious.  You are one person, and I'm sorry, but I don't give you permission to talk for me.  Where I live in Kentucky there are a lot of people that own shotguns and rifles to hunt with, but it is not anything like the Wild West you are portraying it to be.  If you don't feel safe with the U. S. gun laws and your state's gun laws, feel free to move.  No one is holding you here.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Sunny said:


> I think a remark like that, should be saved up for someone who might actually know the kind of person that I am.


Nah. You wear your number on your sleeve.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then I'll show you what we're discussing.

Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally | TIME.com

One of the reputable sources.  Problem is, he was under psych treatment.

Under section 11B of the form 4473, and section 11.1f of the same document, mentally defective (psych treatments and meds, even pot disqualifies one).  But, and this I want to see changed, Doctors aren't required by law to report patients on anti-psychotics or considered a threat by them.  They literally force the ATF to rely on the honor system.
   Same situation with the VT shooter.  Was on meds, denied it on the form..no way to know if it was true, so they are forced to go by the honor system.  Get a restraining order or domestic violence charge, it pops up. But not being on some heavy duty anti psychotic meds.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Nah. You wear your number on your sleeve.



  Now you are telling people who wears the mark of the devil?  No wonder God didn't intervene earlier today, he was too busy thinking about what he would post about tonight on this site.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> You are hilarious.  You are one person, and I'm sorry, but I don't give you permission to talk for me.  Where I live in Kentucky there are a lot of people that own shotguns and rifles to hunt with, but it is not anything like the Wild West you are portraying it to be.  If you don't feel safe with the U. S. gun laws and your state's gun laws, feel free to move.  No one is holding you here.


I'm not talking _for you_. I'm barely talking _to you_. I _am_ expressing my opinions and inserting certain facts into the mix. I will withhold my own impressions of your observational acuity.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Nah. You wear your number on your sleeve.



As do you.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> Now you are telling people who wears the mark of the devil?  No wonder God didn't intervene earlier today, he was too busy thinking about what he would post about tonight on this site.


The mark of the devil? I hear there's an auction for clues later.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> I'm not talking _for you_. I'm barely talking _to you_. I _am_ expressing my opinions and inserting certain facts into the mix. I will withhold my own impressions of your observational acuity.




When you start saying the U.S. is full of gun toting cowboys, you need to make it clear its your point ov view and your opinion.  You have no factual knowledge to back that up, unless of course you have spent most of your life behind bars and dealing with law enforcement, then it might indeed be true.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

benluby said:


> Then I'll show you what we're discussing.
> 
> Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally | TIME.com
> 
> ...


That's one incident. You said that in _every single incident_ that held true.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> The mark of the devil? I hear there's an auction for clues later.



The mark of the devil can be anywhere, even on a chip that's been inserted.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> When you start saying the U.S. is full of gun toting cowboys, you need to make it clear its your point ov view and your opinion.  You have no factual knowledge to back that up, unless of course you have spent most of your life behind bars and dealing with law enforcement, then it might indeed be true.





> The US IS full of gun-toting cowboys. I've lived all across the great land and they're everywhere.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 15, 2012)

YOU think they are all over the U.S., but you have zero factual information to back that up with.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> Nah. You wear your number on your sleeve.


Kindness in it's purest form!


----------



## Leyline (Dec 15, 2012)

Do the stats on that idiotic pic, please. I'm not arguing for or against gun control.

I'm arguing against bad stats.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> As do you.


How seemly of you, Mr. Mentor. And so gallant!
Also inaccurate...but hey! So apt. Shall we now play "I'm rubber, you're glue"?



Lewdog said:


> YOU think they are all over the U.S., but you have zero factual information to back that up with.


I'm under no obligation to provide such data other than my observations. But here:Gun Sales In 2012 Set Record, FBI Data Indicates
The data says that gun sales are up in 2012.
You're fond of drawing erroneous conclusions out of bits of data. Extrapolate away.


Sunny said:


> Kindness in it's purest form!


That _was _being kind.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 15, 2012)

Sunny said:


> ...And people are still arguing that just _anyone _should be allowed to carry a gun in the USA? Isn't just a no-brainer? NO MORE GUNS! We don't have shootings like this all the time, and that's likely because not just anyone is allowed to own one!



I understand your grief and your desire to act. However, believe it or not, this isn't about gun control. It's about mental health issues and our (USA) problem with dealing with them. Our social attitude towards mental health is just plain backwards... We ostracize people who have serious problems, thus making the problems worse. We denigrate services that counselors, psychiatrists and other mental health workers provide to such an extent that few people will take advantage of them and, then, only under the most strained conditions. We don't even talk to people who seem to have problems, preferring to look the other way and not get involved.

Other countries have similar ratios of gun ownership, but don't have our problems with violence. There are plenty of reasons for that, but chiefly among them is a bad mental health care attitude present in the US and our preference to not "get involved" when someone appears to need mental health care.. until it's too late. There's also the problem of the public's perception of the economics of mental health care. Generally, they don't get it... in any fashion. Mental hospitals are geared towards two things - Keeping the completely incompetent and horribly deranged people locked up and releasing everyone else, at all costs, as soon as there is a reasonable excuse they can put down on paper. I know this as fact because I have worked in these hospitals. 

Our streets are filled with homeless people, largely due to our lack of concern for our own mental health care system. Our society is filled with people who should really have professional counseling because we, as a society, have brainwashed ourselves into thinking that mental health care is only for people who are already broken and no "well person" should or would consult such professionals.

That's the problem, in a nutshell. I know nothing about the guy who did this and haven't even read the articles being pushed out by the news agencies. But, I bet the signs were there. I bet that if someone knew this guy, they knew what he was capable of and knew that he had problems. But, the refused to acknowledge that and act on it. The man himself may have known, at some point in his life, that he had problems. But, he didn't seek help. And, if nobody knew this guy well enough to understand this, then what does that say for our own society? Should we accept that some virtually anonymous man, in that case, can go through life without any meaningful contact with other human beings? His mother is dead, I understand, and perhaps other relatives as well. Perhaps those are the only ones that really knew him? If so, that's sad. But, why didn't they act, if he couldn't act for himself? We might not know. If they did act, did our virtually non-existent mental health care system drop the ball? I don't know. But, it's a good bet that someone shirked their responsibility to the rest of society, given the results.

I grieve as well. But, stricter gun control is not going to solve this problem. This is the sort of problem that arises that doesn't have a perfect solution. I know that outrages our sensibilities. But, that's just how life is. What we have to do is act to mitigate the possibility of this happening in the future and that's not going to happen unless we work on the full spectrum of the problem. Here, most of that lies with our culture's attitudes towards mental health.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 15, 2012)

I honestly can't believe that people are still saying this type of thing has nothing to do with gun control laws. It seems pretty obvious that this is _exactly _where the root of the problem lies. Obviously mental health plays a large part in it, but if all a person has to do is tick the box that says "I'm not on heavy anti-psychotic mediaction" on their application, then that right there is a gun control law that obviously needs to be changed. You think a nutter who thinks nothing of gunning down strangers has any qualms about lying on a form? I don't know the whole process, but surely there must be more to it than that? 

Similarly, I'd suggest that every person who applied for a firearm has to give their consent for the permit granting organisation to contact their doctor to attain proof of mental stability. I think medical confidentiality laws can take a back seat in an issue like this where lives are potentially at stake. 

As I understand it, the second amendment about "bearing arms" is about making sure citizens can support the military and protect themselves if they need to. Not a US citizen, so not my area of expertise. Anyway, that reasoning seems to be a little outdated these days don't you think? Does anyone really believe a foreign aggressor could successfully invade the US, defeating the strongest military force in the history of mankind and making it necessary for the citizens to step up? If anyone managed to do that, I doubt very much civilians would make a difference. Would also be interesting to see facts and stats concerning incidents where someone's life _has _been saved by a civilian gunning down another one. 

Probably the biggest problem with the whole deal is that of money. Making and selling guns is doubtless enormously profitable. Sad to say, but I think in the end that's what the deciding factor will be.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 15, 2012)

A foreign aggressor?  No.  But a domestic one?  Yes.

As far as conceal carry permits go--it takes a week and the person applying has to pass a background check.  At least in the state of Missouri.  I know and trust my life to three men who have a conceal carry permit.  None have ever committed a major crime (jaywalking is a crime) and one is a former police officer.

I would agree that requiring a background check, including a check into a person's mental health would be wise for any purchase of a firearm.  But what about inherited firearms? Or other weapons? Also, it isn't uncommon for families that hunt to give gifts of firearms to their children. 

The first school shooting killer was a teenage girl, Brenda Ann Spencer" in the 1970s who killed elementary school children using a hunting rifle and scope her father gave her.  She was mentally unstable and was quoted as saying that her reason for the shootings was "I don't like Mondays."

So, yes better background checks would be ideal.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Dec 15, 2012)

I believe that proud and defiant gun ownership is a paranoid fetish, built on a foundation of fear and suspicion, and not any kind of patriotic love of our constitution.

I agree with those who say it's a human problem more than a gun control problem, but in light of the high number of people in our country who are mentally unstable, violently criminal, or just plain stupid, would it not be preferable to remove the thing that makes it simple for any one of these sort to annihilate large groups of people in mere minutes? I think we, as a people, can make it without guns.

Yes, yes, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. And to an extent, I think that is true. But less guns would make mass killings a _possibility_, something that could happen, maybe. The current proliferation and worship of gun rights make mass killings as of now a _probability_, an eventuality that will occur, and soon. I'd rather spend my vigilance on a possibility than wait solemnly for the next massacre I know is just around the bend. I want a reality where the gun violence is not just another fact of our sorry lives. I want shootings to be a fluke, not something you can run a betting pool on.


----------



## dale (Dec 15, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> I honestly can't believe that people are still saying this type of thing has nothing to do with gun control laws. It seems pretty obvious that this is _exactly _where the root of the problem lies. Obviously mental health plays a large part in it, but if all a person has to do is tick the box that says "I'm not on heavy anti-psychotic mediaction" on their application, then that right there is a gun control law that obviously needs to be changed. You think a nutter who thinks nothing of gunning down strangers has any qualms about lying on a form? I don't know the whole process, but surely there must be more to it than that?
> 
> Similarly, I'd suggest that every person who applied for a firearm has to give their consent for the permit granting organisation to contact their doctor to attain proof of mental stability. I think medical confidentiality laws can take a back seat in an issue like this where lives are potentially at stake.
> 
> ...


wrong. jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers had a deep paranoia of a "standing army". a government military was not the reason for the 2nd amendment.
the 2nd amendment was designed for the citizens to protect itself against a tyrannical government.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

dale said:


> wrong. jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers had a deep paranoia of a "standing army". a government military was not the reason for the 2nd amendment.
> the 2nd amendment was designed for the citizens to protect itself against a tyrannical government.




I can't remember which one said this, but I completely agree:  An armed populace is citizens.  A disarmed one is serfs.  

Personally, I'd rather be a citizen.


----------



## dale (Dec 15, 2012)

all this political gun control nonsense aside.....this woman, the principle, came forward and lunged at this nutcase, trying to bring him
down with her bare hands to protect the kids. he shot her. a mother of 5. truly heartbreaking. hopefully the school and town does something to
forever memorialize her name for this kind of selfless heroism.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 15, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> A foreign aggressor?  No.  But a domestic one?  Yes.





dale said:


> wrong. jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers had a deep paranoia of a "standing army". a government military was not the reason for the 2nd amendment.
> the 2nd amendment was designed for the citizens to protect itself against a tyrannical government.



If that was the reason for it, then I'd say my point still stands that it's an outdated concept. In any case, even if there was a tyrannical domestic government, it seems that one of the first things they would do would be to neutralise the populace's ability to rise up against them. I'd imagine a tyrannical government wouldn't think twice about banning all guns for private citizens.


----------



## dale (Dec 15, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> If that was the reason for it, then I'd say my point still stands that it's an outdated concept. In any case, even if there was a tyrannical domestic government, it seems that one of the first things they would do would be to neutralise the populace's ability to rise up against them. I'd imagine a tyrannical government wouldn't think twice about banning all guns for private citizens.



they think twice about it because it would cause a full scale civil war here. that's why they are taking them gradually.
america now has the most tyrannical government it's ever known. jefferson and his boys would have already been shooting
these politicians. believe that.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> If that was the reason for it, then I'd say my point still stands that it's an outdated concept. In any case, even if there was a tyrannical domestic government, it seems that one of the first things they would do would be to neutralise the populace's ability to rise up against them. I'd imagine a tyrannical government wouldn't think twice about banning all guns for private citizens.



Take a look at some of the countries that have removed the right to defend oneself.  That's what this actually boils down to, in a nutshell.  Suddenly, they have 'hate speech' laws, which, in effect, allow the government to determine what is and isn't acceptable speech.  
   They've tazed a blind man because their excuse was they thought it was a sword.  

Police use Taser on blind man, thinking his cane was samurai sword | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

   I think we need to require mental professionals to report their patients are on anti-psych meds.  That's the biggest loophole we currently have, and I agree that all states should require background checks, even at gun shows, and it could be arranged relatively easily.  
   But the rest of it?  Enforcement of current laws.  Not new ones.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

dale said:


> they think twice about it because it would cause a full scale civil war here. that's why they are taking them gradually.
> america now has the most tyrannical government it's ever known. jefferson and his boys would have already been shooting
> these politicians. believe that.



It's getting worse by the year, too.  They're just picking apart the rights one at a time, but they're offering more 'free' stuff, so the sheeple are complacent.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 15, 2012)

benluby said:


> Take a look at some of the countries that have removed the right to defend oneself.  That's what this actually boils down to, in a nutshell.  Suddenly, they have 'hate speech' laws, which, in effect, allow the government to determine what is and isn't acceptable speech.
> They've tazed a blind man because their excuse was they thought it was a sword.



I live in western Scotland where there is a huge focus on Protestant/Catholic sectarianism and some of the laws regarding what can and can't be said or sung at football games have just become silly. Don't know if you have the term "nanny state" in the US but that's how it's referred to by many here. But I don't see how that relates to what we're talking about. That didn't happen because we outlawed handguns for citizens. New laws were brought in in the UK after the Dunblane Massacre, a very similar thing to what happened yesterday. I remember the story about the police tazering the blind guy. Again though, I don't see the relevance. The police were idiots, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with guns.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 15, 2012)

dale said:


> they think twice about it because it would cause a full scale civil war here. that's why they are taking them gradually.
> america now has the most tyrannical government it's ever known. jefferson and his boys would have already been shooting
> these politicians. believe that.



Sorry dude, but I think you're being a bit dramatic with that one! You really think the current US government is more tyrannical than it's ever been? US citizens of any race or colour can now legally work wherever they want, sit where they want on buses, eat in whatever restaurants they choose and all have the same rights. I'm no history expert but I know that wasn't the case not so long ago.


----------



## dale (Dec 15, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> Sorry dude, but I think you're being a bit dramatic with that one! You really think the current US government is more tyrannical than it's ever been? US citizens of any race or colour can now legally work wherever they want, sit where they want on buses, eat in whatever restaurants they choose and all have the same rights. I'm no history expert but I know that wasn't the case not so long ago.



the key word here is "US citizens". at no time during american history have US citizens been so tyrannically exploited and controlled by an all-encompassing
federal government. the people you are giving your examples of weren't full US citizens during those times.


----------



## Brock (Dec 15, 2012)

moderan said:


> It isn't respectful of the victims of the tragedy to politicize the issue while it's still fresh. Yes, it's shameful...and must needs be corrected. But gun nuts on both sides of the argument should take a break.



I've been saying this exact same thing on facebook.  Soon as the news broke, people were on saying "now the government is going to take our guns," or "we need to do away with guns."  I'm a gun owner, and I don't want any part of the debate right now.  I have three daughters in grade school and I feel sick to my stomach -- period.  Give it a break for at least a few days, people.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 15, 2012)

dale said:


> the key word here is "US citizens". at no time during american history have US citizens been so tyrannically exploited and controlled by an all-encompassing
> federal government. the people you are giving your examples of weren't full US citizens during those times.



Really? Black people weren't classed as US citizens during the civil rights movement? If that's the case then it just proves my point. I'd say your government is in a better place now, wouldn't you think? Anyway we're getting off point here. If you really believe the US has a tyrannical government, you come across as being a bit spolied, and really need to get out more in my opinion. You can chose what religion, if any, you want to follow. You aren't persecuted by the government because of the colour of your skin. You have the right to freedom of speech. You think people living in places like Sudan or Somalia think the US has a tyrannical government? Why do you think so many people flee their home countries to make a new and better life in the US and the UK? It's because we have it sweet here.


----------



## dale (Dec 15, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> Really? Black people weren't classed as US citizens during the civil rights movement? If that's the case then it just proves my point. I'd say your government is in a better place now, wouldn't you think? Anyway we're getting off point here. If you really believe the US has a tyrannical government, you come across as being a bit spolied, and really need to get out more in my opinion. You can chose what religion, if any, you want to follow. You aren't persecuted by the government because of the colour of your skin. You have the right to freedom of speech. You think people living in places like Sudan or Somalia think the US has a tyrannical government? Why do you think so many people flee their home countries to make a new and better life in the US and the UK? It's because we have it sweet here.



it's getting worse by the day, because of this political corruption of the federal government. that's the point.
people nowadays flee to this country to exploit the entitlement mentality our government now has. immigrants used
to come here to embrace this country and its principles...now they just want a free ride on the chain gang. but anyway,
this talk is completely derailing the thread.


----------



## moderan (Dec 15, 2012)

Brock said:


> I've been saying this exact same thing on facebook.  Soon as the news broke, people were on saying "now the government is going to take our guns," or "we need to do away with guns."  I'm a gun owner, and I don't want any part of the debate right now.  I have three daughters in grade school and I feel sick to my stomach -- period.  Give it a break for at least a few days, people.


The other side of that debate also has a point though...they're saying if not now, then when-it will just get swept under the rug? In either case, some sort of action needs to take place, beyond a renewal of the assault weapons ban. But it's problematical-so many big money interests are involved in such a massive reform-the prison system, the psych eval system..all of that. It isn't gonna happen in a day, and it really is high time something workable got put in place.


----------



## Baron (Dec 15, 2012)

Please take the debate about gun control to the debates forum.  Also bear in mind that the site still has zero tolerance on flaming and there are no exceptions.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2012)

*moved my reply to Morkonan to the gun-control debate*


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 16, 2012)

Dave Watson said:


> ...As I understand it, the second amendment about "bearing arms" is about making sure citizens can support the military and protect themselves if they need to. ...



There are three principles behind the Second Amendment,...

Moved to: http://www.writingforums.com/debate/134235-gun-control-12.html


----------



## Cran (Dec 16, 2012)

Now that everyone has taken the opportunity to express their sadness over the horrific crime which stole 20 children from their families, this thread shall be closed as a mark of respect.


----------

