Thread: Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

So it's not a national tragedy if no one dies....Check. Merely maiming childeren is perfectly acceptable, no need to get rid of those wicked knives; b/c God knows if he wanted to he couldn't have slit their throats; only guns kill people in the lib world......fucking loons.

What happened in China, and the other area motown talked about are just a tragic; if only 1 or no one had died in CT, it's still tragic and I'd still weep, I'd still have come home and held my kids. I'd still worry about them at school. And ya know what; w/not one death the Pres and the Dems in wash would still be trying to pursue those gun bans; they are just using this to fullfill their want to strip more freedom from the US people.

That's is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I'd rather have a guy running around with a knife and try to murder people than a guy with a gun. What you'd preffer? Your kids being at the hospital because of a stab wound or have to burry your kid?

Ofcause it's a horrible tragedy no doubt about it, but there's a big different between killed people and injuried people.


... Fun how quiet the NRA have been the past days... Perhaps the politican would for once stop listening to the damn lobbyist and do the right thing.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

A Bushmaster AR-15, like the one pictures above, was on the weapons used...as I said early, I don't care about technical definitions...if you just want to argue what is and isn't an assault rifle under some old us law, go find someone else to play with...I don't have patience for that shit right now...

As for the percentage of murders committed...I don't care...0.1% is more than enough for me...I sick of these weapons being used to kill...no, slaughter in mass innocent people...

My point isn't to argue what is and isn't an assault rifle. In the same respect, if you're too emotionally wrapped up in your thoughts to have a rational discussion, then don't bother responding.


I've heard such things said as "my children are at risk", "you don't need these types of weapons unless you live in Syria", and "you don't need these weapons for self defense."

The first statement is bullshit. Our children are more at risk of getting struck by lightening, winning the lottery and much more at risk of dying in a car wreck. There is no need for sweeping gun bans, as some are calling for. The second statement, which was made by a senator, just proves the point of why the second amendment exists. It's as dumb of a statement ad I have heard. "Nobody needs guns unless they are in the midst of a civil war or need to protect themselves from their own government." The last statement completely overlooks the purpose of our right to bear arms. It is not for the intent of defending our homes, or hunting. It OS so the people can retain the same power or enough power to overthrow our government if we need to.

The outrage over this one incident is all emotional based. If people really cared about children dying then they wpupd focus on the many other ways that children senslessly die instead of instances like this.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

My point isn't to argue what is and isn't an assault rifle. In the same respect, if you're too emotionally wrapped up in your thoughts to have a rational discussion, then don't bother responding.


I've heard such things said as "my children are at risk", "you don't need these types of weapons unless you live in Syria", and "you don't need these weapons for self defense."

The first statement is bullshit. Our children are more at risk of getting struck by lightening, winning the lottery and much more at risk of dying in a car wreck. There is no need for sweeping gun bans, as some are calling for. The second statement, which was made by a senator, just proves the point of why the second amendment exists. It's as dumb of a statement ad I have heard. "Nobody needs guns unless they are in the midst of a civil war or need to protect themselves from their own government." The last statement completely overlooks the purpose of our right to bear arms. It is not for the intent of defending our homes, or hunting. It OS so the people can retain the same power or enough power to overthrow our government if we need to.

The outrage over this one incident is all emotional based. If people really cared about children dying then they wpupd focus on the many other ways that children senslessly die instead of instances like this.

Our government has tanks, jet airplanes, missiles and bombs...this idea that owning AR-15 vs a bolt action deer rifle is the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government or being forced to live under one is an illusion...you overthrow governments more through willpower then firepower...

One incident? No, think you mean this latest incident...

As for the rest, I am not going to defend or justify the comments of others...

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Our government has tanks, jet airplanes, missiles and bombs...this idea that owning AR-15 vs a bolt action deer rifle is the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government or being forced to live under one is an illusion...you overthrow governments more through willpower then firepower...

One incident? No, think you mean this latest incident...

As for the rest, I am not going to defend or justify the comments of others...

The latest almost non existent incident. We have more than 300 million people in the united states and every few years a handfull of people die in a school to some nutjob. Many more children die due to arson.... Yet we don't hear about it, nor do we hear about needing sweeping regulation.

The only difference is the sensationalism. If one truly wants to stop mass murders, then you don't start with assault rifles. Roughly 60% of mass murders are committed by means other than a firearm, and roughly 1% are committed with assault style rifles.

Like I said, there is a difference between calling for regulation, and calling for effective regulation.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

The latest almost non existent incident. We have more than 300 million people in the united states and every few years a handfull of people die in a school to some nutjob. Many more children die due to arson.... Yet we don't hear about it, nor do we hear about needing sweeping regulation.

The only difference is the sensationalism. If one truly wants to stop mass murders, then you don't start with assault rifles. Roughly 60% of mass murders are committed by means other than a firearm, and roughly 1% are committed with assault style rifles.

Like I said, there is a difference between calling for regulation, and calling for effective regulation.

Outlawing gasoline which can be used to start an arson fire is impractical...outlawing assault style weapon is completely doable...

Define "effective?" Do I think an assault weapon ban will fix this problem...will it completely stop these type of incident? No, I said that early...but if a ban on these weapons makes them harder to get and makes them less readily available, then that's effective enough for me...if this nutjob's mom had had a shotgun for "self defense" instead of AR-15, we would probably be talking about a lot less dead kids...

This isn't emotional; its engineering...these weapons are engineered, designed, build to kill other human brings effectively and efficiently...that's the difference between something like gas, cars or ATVs or any number of things can end up killing or hurting someone...

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Outlawing gasoline which can be used to start an arson fire is impractical...outlawing assault style weapon is completely doable...

Define "effective?" Do I think an assault weapon ban was fix this problem...will it completely stop these type of incident? No, I said that early...but if a ban on these weapons makes them harder to get and makes them less readily available, then that's effective enough for me...if this nutjob's mom had had a shotgun for "self defense" instead of AR-15, we would probably be talking about a few less dead kids...

This isn't emotional; its engineering...these weapons are engineered, designed, build to kill other human brings effectively and efficiently...that this the difference between something like gas, cars or ATVs or any number of things can end up killing or hurting someone...

Then why not an outright ban on all guns? Assault rifles account for approx one percent of homicides, while the remaining non assault weapons account for 40%.

So, in essence, you're willing to sacrifice a few kids lives for our mass transit system?

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Then why not an outright ban on all guns? Assault rifles account for approx one percent of homicides, while the remaining non assault weapons account for 40%.

Because the 2nd amendment precludes an outright ban...

So, in essence, you're willing to sacrifice a few kids lives for our mass transit system?

Once again, I am in no mood for smartasses right now...

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Because the 2nd amendment precludes an outright ban...



Once again, I am in no mood for smartasses right now...

You can view it as being a smartass, but it is what it is. You are completely ok with the loss of children's lives because it would harm our mass transit system to impose legislation to stop arson, yet you want to ban assault rifles simply because it would make you feel better eventhough the result would be neglegible.

This is what gets me. We have everyone pretending to be worried, but nobody actully thinking about effective ways to do things.

The debate stemming from this incident, while not new, does put a new perspective on a few issues.

1)School security - As a school board member, I've been through the gamut of scenario planning and risk assessments. One thing is for sure, if someone is determined enough, no amount of planning or personnel will prevent, entirely, an incident from happening. Given the budgetary problems all school systems face, the best any division can do is to get the best procedures in place to react to an event.

2)Gun bans, etc. - I'm all for people's rights, and I honestly don't understand the need for assault weapons outside of the military/law enforcement, and I also recognize that any ban doesn't remove existing weapons from the street, and I recognize that a murderer isn't going to be worried about breaking a gun ban. The truth is, guns for hunting makes sense, handguns a little less sense, and assault weapons no sense at all outside of "it's fun to shoot". Removal of existing guns is impractical. Black markets will exist if a ban is put in place (or at least a ton of "conversion kits" will flood the market). I don't own a gun currently, but I've fired literally thousands of rounds from every category of gun available. I see both sides of the issue.

Statistically, more crime is prevented by the use of guns than is committed. I'm pretty conflicted on the idea of bans, but think compromise is more attainable now than ever. We, as a country, should seek compromise.

3)Mental Health - This is the REAL lesson area to be taken from this event. The mental health system never really recovered from the mass closing of mental institutions in the early/mid eighties. Homeless populations grew exponentially, the number of jobs in the industry shrank - causing decreased numbers of students seeking that type of career, insurance companies capped and limited claims, and the nation began to marginalize the potential effects of untreated mental issues. And don't forget that PC attitudes and the ADA have caused us to include folks previously prevented from unfettered social interaction in every day life activities.

Heck, this kid was "diagnosed" by his mother with Asberger's syndrome when he was 15 or so. All indications are that he was beginning to show the signs of schitzophrenia, not Asbergers. But his "diagnosis" allowed him to stay at home, explained oddities in his behavior, and was more socially acceptable than to say he was "crazy". His mother told folks not to turn their backs on him, or leave him alone. I don't for a second believe that she didn't at least suspect the danger inherent in her child. Asberger's syndrome doesn't make it's hosts dangerous.

What we really need, as a society, is to allow doctors, teachers, caregivers, and parents to share information about children that show signs of mental illness and to address it at it's earliest stages. Not everyone can be treated effectively, but early intervention provides a context by which future actions can be measured in order to make the tough decisions about who to commit to a facility. We also need to have an insurance industry that accepts mental health as something that likely will have long term treatment and to make such treatments "covered".