WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 35 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #**511** 12-17-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

You must have missed one of my earlier posts where I gave a number of instances where things were stopped by someone else with a gun that wasn't a cop.

The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

source-
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

Botnst · #**512** 12-17-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

lets say everything was the same, except the mother had no firearms because she couldn't have them, at least no pistols or auto or semi auto rifles? How would this tragedy have played out?

what if all he could get his hands on was a bolt action .22?

Or a knife.

Botnst · #**513** 12-17-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

source-
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

Clearly the root-cause is men. They should be registered and controlled.

MagnumPI · #**514** 12-17-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

lets say everything was the same, except the mother had no firearms because she couldn't have them, at least no pistols or auto or semi auto rifles? How would this tragedy have played out?

what if all he could get his hands on was a bolt action .22?

Depends on his motives(which nobody knows). If his intent were to kill as many people as possible, then he would have changed the area and time. If just killing anyone, he would have probably taken a stance in hiding or atop a high building. All guesses, of course. But then, it's a pretty ridiculous question anyway. Maybe nothing would have happened. Maybe he would have used that bolt action to steal some TNT or hijack the school bus. Any ridiculous number of things could have happened.

Botnst · #**515** 12-17-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Hello, we do regulate the use of motor vehicles. People must pass a test to get a license. No reason not to do that with guns.

We regulate the public use of automobiles. You can legally drive your unregistered car all over your property.

Brian Carlton · #**516** 12-17-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

needlessly obnoxious, but I guess thats all you can be.

Me and my kind has been pushing for some modification of gun law since things like columbine. At the time, me and my kind said more school shootings would take place, lets do something about the gun laws in place.
Just in case you are unfamiliar with the concept of time, that was before the latest dozen tragedies, including this one.
I think a couple thousand reasonable plans have been proposed well before now, but every single one is apparently too much for those deeply wedded to their perceived 2nd amendment rights.

I think a lack of sufficient vision is demonstrated by someone who stands back and scoffs at any plan of any kind, and does nothing. Im not sure when proactive became the same as do nothing, but apparently for you, its a method that holds merit.

Shoulder fired missles? sure, thats a definite possibility, but as you state, its pretty hard to protect against that, so with your logic, because all methods of attack cannot be protected against, NO methods of attack should be protected against. Well, in the real world, that doesn't work.

Since you selectively quoted a fraction of my previous response to try to support your lame position, you'll get no further argument from me.

Your plan to restrict gun ownership will get minimal traction, if any, and no reduction in random violence committed against unarmed assembled groups will ever occur.

CT already has one of the strictest gun laws in the country, a fact for which you ignore conveniently. It had no effect whatsoever.

There were some excellent ideas presented on this thread by Peter and Dubya...........too bad you didn't read them.

Mike Murrell · #**517** 12-17-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Hello, we do regulate the use of motor vehicles. People must pass a test to get a license. No reason not to do that with guns.

Let's apply your logic to the gun issue.

Pass a test - drive a car - have a wreck/kill someone.

Pass a test - own a gun - shoot someone/they die

JB3 · #**518** 12-17-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

He would have found himself a dust cropper, SUV or some raisin.

When I go to a gun range and practice on targets that represent humans would I or any one here like to practice this in the real world, the answer is NO: so why would it be any different with video games?

id say storyline.

sounds weird, but thats the big difference I see. The ability to sink into the mentality of the game, the premise that bad guys are out the get you and you must shoot first and ask questions later. To most of us, entertainment, to some of us, suggestion.

Having said that, I see no way to alter these types of games without limiting free speech in ways, but I would not be against better age control on some types of games.

pj67coll · #**519** 12-17-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

He would have found himself a dust cropper, SUV or some raisin.

Not at all. He would just have taken a little bit longer to kill everyone is all.

- Peter.

Jorn · #**520** 12-17-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Not at all. He would just have taken a little bit longer to kill everyone is all.

- Peter.

Doubt it. Guns was what he was skilled in, trained by his future victim.

HuskyMan · #**521** 12-17-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

a lot of mental disorders appear in the mid to late 20s in people.

Of course, once we round up and suspend all personal freedoms of all US citizens in order to test them and do a brain scan, we might as well put in tracking devices, oh and tattoo their social security number in bar code form on their forehead.
The ones that fail the scan for whatever reason can now be forced labor to build infrastructure and other projects.

In order to protect even the modernization and minor modification of your 2nd amendment rights, you are willing to give up ALL your other rights pretty willingly for some reason. Does not strike me as the brightest idea. Another push for the police state.

while we are at it why not do this:

Wedlock (1991) - IMDb

JB3 · #**522** 12-17-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Since you selectively quoted a fraction of my previous response to try to support your lame position, you'll get no further argument from me.

Your plan to restrict gun ownership will get minimal traction, if any, and no reduction in random violence committed against unarmed assembled groups will ever occur.

CT already has one of the strictest gun laws in the country, a fact for which you ignore conveniently. It had no effect whatsoever.

There were some excellent ideas presented on this thread by Peter and Dubya...........too bad you didn't read them.

cowardly, but I guess that goes well with doing nothing. You don't treat other people with respect when talking to them, don't expect respect back, seems you shouldn't have so much trouble understanding that. You seem like a smart guy, and on other subjects we have agreed many times, but even a smart guy could do well to learn some manners. Why not try?

CT does have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, id be happy if they are tougher.

I quoted the first section sure, the rest was more obnoxious attacking and doing nothing.

I have read their ideas, and no, I don't think a police state is a good idea, sorry. Other of their points I agree with.

JB3 · #**523** 12-17-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

while we are at it why not do this:

Wedlock (1991) - IMDb

I was thinking soylent green.

Grind up the psychos, feed the masses

Ara T. · #**524** 12-17-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

While I'll give you the fact that there have always been angry young men, the escalation of violence in video games and Hollywood has helped desensitize many of these angry young men into not feeling what normal is. Have you seen the graphics of some of these games?? On our 1080p television, it looks like real life.

Do you have the same aversion to hunting? How about... youngsters joining the military where they are actually taught to kill and become marksmen (not to say that they arent taught other skills)? Violent, bone crunching sports like football and rugby? Where do you draw the line? Video games as training tools. Please.

JB3 · #**525** 12-17-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Depends on his motives(which nobody knows). If his intent were to kill as many people as possible, then he would have changed the area and time. If just killing anyone, he would have probably taken a stance in hiding or atop a high building. All guesses, of course. But then, it's a pretty ridiculous question anyway. Maybe nothing would have happened. Maybe he would have used that bolt action to steal some TNT or hijack the school bus. Any ridiculous number of things could have happened.

why ridiculous? The absence of the most destructive weapons he could find would have changed his behavior in some way. I think its completely plausible to consider that a weapon that was slower firing, with smaller or slower rounds would have made a big difference in the amount of damage hes done.
In other words, all those self defense weapons and rounds his mother stockpiled sure made a difference against the government she needed them to protect herself from.