School shooting in CT

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Paroxetine Samurai, Dec 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous Member

    I think the removal of the sorts of weapons that make killing extremely easy for batshit crazy wouldn't be a bad thing.

    No one, yet has offered a reason FOR having assault weapons in the hands of the general public.

    And please, we all know the sorts of weapons I'm talking about so cut the crap.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    Agree. The screaming fear that arrives whenever gun control is proposed is because "gun control" equals "gun ban"in some minds. The gun lobby screams "u no take away gunz". Just to be clear, gun control HAS to happen. But banning guns will simply not fly in the US. Guns are part of our constitution. I understand why this discussion compares us to other gun-free countries, and why good people believe that guns should be banned here. It will not happen.
    There should be ban on automatics, there should be a limit to the # of guns one person can own ( and yes there can be collectors but their collections should require permitting and investigation.
    In this case there were multiple guns in the home not secured, and an emotionally ill child taught to use those guns. This is beyond stupidity. This is what needs regulation and enforcement.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    What are your crimes?
  4. Anonymous Member

    This is total bullshit. Pediatricians want gun bans because the deaths of children due to gun violence. The Brady bill was by the families of injured and dead. Painting these people as 'fraidy cats is ridiculous.
  5. vaLLarrr Member

    I say keep your six shooters and Remingtons if it makes you feel like a man, but fully auto armor penetrating submachine guns mean you are probably taking the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit too seriously.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. anonymous612 Member

    I like how the pro-gun crowd screeches about how they need their guns in order to fend off tyrannical governments as if there was even the teensiest chance they could actually hold off the US military with their wee little civilian-grade rifle anyway.

    Claiming you need guns in order to prevent a government dictatorship is an invalid argument, because even the best guns you could possibly have access to would not suffice. Therefore, the only possible valid uses left are hunting, recreation, and self-defense, none of which require the sheer level of firepower you actually have access to. Therefore, gun control. We should draw the line at basic hunting rifles and general self-defense handguns. Nothing else is necessary in civilian hands.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    You're thinking like an American again. Go tell it to the Afghans.
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  9. anonymous612 Member

    Re: bolded, uh...yeah. Because this thread is about an American state and American gun control laws. American gun control laws affect Afghanistan how, exactly? What part of this thread, whose title contains CONNECTICUT, was it ever even the slightest bit unclear we were talking about America?

    American civilians do not need high-powered weaponry to fight Afghanistan's hypothetical dictatorship because American civilians do not live in Afghanistan, and reside under American law, not Afghan law.

    Therefore, I repeat. Anything beyond basic hunting rifles and general self-defense handguns is unnecessary for AMERICAN CIVILIANS.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    No, the facts says not.

    Anecdotal example:

    The Chinese guy who went on an attempted school killing spree on the same day - with a knife instead of a gun - injured a number of people but killed nobody.

    Statistical example:

    The UK and the US are similar in many ways. Same violent movies, same satanic rock music, pretty similar culture, history of violence, very similar foreign policy.

    Yet the murder rate in the UK is 1.2, compared to 4.2 in the USA (that's homicide deaths per 100,000 people).


    The key difference is the gun control laws. That, and we drive on the other side of the road in the UK. The former is more likely to be relevant than the latter.

    (Although if changing to the other side of the road would reduce the number of mass murders then frankly I think it would be worth a try).

    Yes, I would. I don't believe you. I don't believe that there are as many, or as serious, mass killing sprees with knives (or other weapons) as there are with guns. Show me the dox.

    It's true that Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun. It's also true that Anders Breikik did, despite Norway's stricter gun control laws.

    If the argument of gun control advocates were that gun control would prevent all murders, then those facts would be relevant.

    But that is not the argument that's being made, so "but killings will still happen!" is something of a straw man argument.

    Sensible gun control laws in the USA could reduce the number of homicides. We can see this from other country comparisons. Surely a reduction in homicides is worth having.

    I can't understand the argument that if a change in the law doesn't prevent all murders - which of course, nothing can - then it isn't worth doing.

    The data doesn't support that theory. See above.

    Graylandertagger, there's this thing called Godwin's Law - maybe you've heard of it.

    Comparing gun control advocates to murderous dictators just makes you look silly.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    American lives > Afghani lives, right?
  12. Anonymous Member

    It is easily demonstrated that modern day American military with all its lasers and satellites and robots can be roundly spanked by a bunch of dudes with guns of far less capability which is a response to your point:

    Afghanistan is a fine and encouraging example of exactly that.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  13. Yeah. Figured people would've thought my last post was kinda cheesy in all honesty. I just don't like when people call gun owners scared little people that should instead just give into confiskations.
  14. Anonymous Member

    "This documentary effectively shatters gun control myths and fallacies. Owning a firearm is not a privilege – it’s a basic right. In fact, it’s the basic right to protect yourself and your loved ones.
    Throughout History, there has been a disturbing pattern: sooner or later (often sooner than later), disarmed populations become the hapless victims of tyrannical governments and criminals.
    The right to own a weapon is one that is usually conquered in the aftermath of centuries of suffering and genocide.
    Today, we tend to forget that. Yet, the last 100 odd years were undoubtedly the most brutal of all, in what concerns organized violence against deliberately disarmed populations."
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Anonymous Member

    Well, aside from hunters (a different type of coward), if you weren't scared, you wouldn't need a gun.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    Mods please consider adding an automatic soundtrack for this thread.
  17. anonymous612 Member

    The fact that you don't realize the drastic and exponential difference in firepower between the Taliban and American civilians both worries and amuses me. Unless rocket launchers and tanks were legalized for personal use and nobody told me? Because you know, our enemies in Afghanistan had those. Afghan militants =/= Ewoks with spears and rocks.

    You are an idiot, see above.

    When the thread is about Americans? Yes, in terms of relevance to the discussion.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    So what you're saying is, American civilians need access to rocket launchers and tanks to be certain they can fend off an attack if the government goes rogue?
  19. Anonymous Member

    You need to wake the fuck up. The government has already killed Americans, and it's foreign policy is getting plenty more killed. The first revolution was fought over much less.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Every thread on WWP is now about Afghanistan.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. anonymous612 Member

    What I'm saying is, American civilians by virtue of being civilians will never be able to fend off an attack if the government goes rogue, so allowing mass murders to go on because you don't want to regulate guns because you think you need them (in order to fend off an attack if the government goes rogue) is irresponsible and lacks a basic understanding of logic.

    Let me put it another way.

    Revolutionary War. The British had guns and horses. And the Colonies had guns and horses.

    Modern day. The US military has aircraft carriers, fighter jets, nuclear missiles, rocket launchers, the most developed and advanced firearms in the world, and yes, horses and bayonets, not to mention almost complete control over this country's access to and use of the internet. And American citizens have...some stripped-down non-military-grade guns, Molotov cocktails, and like a dagger or whatever. And that crazy guy down the road thinks he can make a bomb out of a box of dry macaroni.

    Yeah, tell me again how your guns are going to help you fend off the government? Do you really think you'd be allowed even the guns you are allowed now if they were actually a threat to the government?
  22. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, but can you find it on a map? LOL
  23. Anonymous Member

    The government seems terrified of anyone with so much as an Internet connection and a camera.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Keep telling yourself this. I'm sure it will be an effective talisman.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    I agree that I hadn't done all of my homework and that I misidentified clip vs magazine. Saying that I and a group of people who don't favor banning handguns and do favor banning assault weapons doesn't exist is flat out wrong.

    According to a survey by ABC/Washington Post 71% of those polled do not favor a ban on hand guns but 59% favor a ban on high capacity ammunition clips. (guess other people call them that instead of magazines. Nice to know I am not the only one making that "error") 52% of those polled support the banning of semi automatic hand guns. Here is the link to the results and the graphics so that you know I have done my homework.
    I think we've cover the hand gun and clip, er umm excuse me, magazine issue. BTW, the question about the clips was regarding ones that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

    K, now to the people who support a ban on assault weapons

    Add this to the poll above and it appears that 71% polled oppose a ban on handguns and 60% polled support laws limiting the sale of automatic weapons.

    That is my non existent group.

    I'll go back to doing my homework now so that I am better prepared for my crusade. BTW, chances are looking pretty good that there will be increased regulation and at least some sort of ban. No dox for that, just a hunch.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    Interesting polls are interesting. Thank you, Anon.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Just for comparison, here's how gun licensing works in the UK:

  28. Anonymous Member

    The trouble here is Americans' mental health, and the fact that not enough attention is being paid to this. Gun control is a not a bad idea, but it's closing the barn door after the horse has long departed; plus, those of us who do retain history in memory know what prohibition inevitably causes.
  29. Anonymous Member

    That was from:

    And this is what the police say:
    so even if the USA were to switch to a UK-style licensing system (which seems quite unlikely), the "from my cold dead hands" crowd could keep their rifles and shotguns.
  30. Anonymous Member

  31. anonymous612 Member

    How is mental health relevant to this case?
  32. Anonymous Member

    The shooters mental health has been in question, which isn't a huge stretch considering mentally healthy people don't go round shooting small children. The media has been reporting he is autistic, but that has not been proven. and is irrelevant even if he was. He has been reported by others as being "not mentally stable" but as of yet there has been no definitive evidence that he had an ongoing diagnosed mental disorder. An uncle or some other family member said that he was not able to feel pain, as in if you stick a needle in his arm he won't feel it. Speculation, all of it unproven. The media has been particularly lazy with the fact checking on this one.
  33. Anonymous Member

    It's a central issue in this case.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. anonymous612 Member

    It's been claimed he had Asperger's Syndrome. There is nothing about Asperger's that makes you murder children. And in the grand scheme of things, it's a remarkably mild condition. There are OCD-style compulsive disorders far more severe and life-altering.

    Only if it caused it. I reiterate. There is nothing about Asperger's that makes you go kill children. Therefore, if this unsubstantiated claim is actually accurate, it's irrelevant. You might as well claim that he liked anime so Sailor Moon fans are prone to killing sprees.

    So again, how is the mental health field related?

    I find it academically interesting how hard people find it to just accept that someone did a bad thing because they were a bad person. So much effort put into rationalizing...
  35. Anonymous Member

    Mental healthcare in Afghanistan is also lacking. Coincidence?
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    weapons are part of rights, hence inalienable, hence all this talk about restricting gun ownership fails on a fundamental fact that they are RIGHTS not permissions.

    The basic fact is the reason the second amendment is in the constitution is the FF knew where the biggest threat comes from.

    And to those arguing that weapons won't help against modern armies, you really did miss the point of Vietnam.

    and finally
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  37. eddieVroom Member

    Here's a fine bit of kookery:

  38. Anonymous Member

    TM;DW (too moonbatty, didn't watch)
    Obama is an unrepentant child murderer.
    If he wasn't, he would have called the troops and drones home in 2008.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Says you. Saying it doesn't make it so. It being written in the US Constitution doesn't make it an immutable moral law.

    Most of us outside the USA do not consider the ownership of weapons to be a human right.

    You won't find it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    or the European Convention on Human Rights

    Most non-lunatics inside the USA do not consider that the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" gives the citizenry a right to own weapons of whatever type they choose - even the NRA does not try to extend this principle to include nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I don't know how they feel about tanks, artillery, missiles, warships, etc.

    So it's a case of: where do you draw the line?

    Some people (myself included) think that it would be a good idea if the US were to exclude the type of weapons which make it very easy to kill a lot of people very quickly.

    PS you're right about Vietnam.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Anonymous Member

    Mr. Gene Rosen, a psychologist in CT, is an absolutely beautiful man with a solid heart.
    (kids ran to his house, and he comforted them.)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins