WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 38 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #**556** 12-17-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Why wouldn't it happen? UK did it. Germany did it at one point. Australia's done it. North Korea, even pulled it off. And they're dirt floor broke!

Australia I think is the closest to us in terms of sheer number of firearms stockpiled, but they didn't ban them all, plus they don't have the 2nd amendment culture we have on top of that.

Its just not possible to do in this country, some kind of compromise is really the best that could happen. I use the opinions of this thread as an example.

Various people actually think its a workable idea to arm teachers ect and give them military training. I think thats totally impossible.

Brian Carlton · #**557** 12-17-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

That's the problem. Unless you have on on your person it's useless in a situation we are discussing. It would be like having police officers leave their guns in the car until they go and check out the situation and figure out if they need them or not. Ludicrous.

I used to carry a pistol on me for years before I left SA. It's no big deal frankly assuming you are responsible about it. The problem would be in finding the responsible people, and agreeing on weapon type and carrying method.

But then of course I'm sure there would still be such an outcry from much of the public that it could never happen anyway.

- Peter.

Not quite ludicrous.

It might take one minute to get to the lockbox and retrieve the weapon. That's sufficient time to save some folks.

Is it preferential to keeping a weapon on a person? Of course not. But, it might be a decent alternative for those who would revolt if they found out their teacher had a weapon on them while their kids were in class.

You cannot compare yourself to the average teacher or parent, sorry.

MagnumPI · #**558** 12-17-2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Australia I think is the closest to us in terms of sheer number of firearms stockpiled, but they didn't ban them all, plus they don't have the 2nd amendment culture we have on top of that.

Its just not possible to do in this country, some kind of compromise is really the best that could happen. I use the opinions of this thread as an example.

Various people actually think its a workable idea to arm teachers ect and give them military training. I think thats totally impossible.

And gold & silver are the only legal currencies. Come on, that's just defeatism. The 2nd amendment could still be active. You just have to be part of the military to own a gun. You're rights aren't infringed just regulated. The president can wage war for at least 90 days at a time without a declaration of war, I think we can find a way to ban guns. People don't like the income tax, but they pay it anyway. Nothing will happen, watch.

JB3 · #**559** 12-17-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Like I said, your mother is the one to coddle you, not I. Apparently, you're unable to take a good discussion without getting your feelings all hurt............your mother will help you with that.

If you really believe that I'm the mad internet hatter with no manners, you've really grown up in the dark. I've simply pointed out the errors in your ridiculous assertions which you continue to make.

So, you admit that he could kill plenty of people with a shotgun, but you assert that the number would have been reduced? You make two assumptions here:

1) That he cannot get an illegal handgun or semi-automatic rifle.

2) That he doesn't spend additional time in the facility killing people. AFAIK, he only spent about three minutes. He had a good ten minutes.

I conclude that your argument for a reduced body count due to the shotgun is weak, at best. You absolutely fail to reduce the number of incidents. You simply attempt to reduce the number of casualties. This fails to effectively solve the underlying problem.

Now, in your last paragraph, you reverse yourself and agree that tightening gun laws would not have any effect.

So, on the one hand, you want to tighten gun laws...........and on the opposite hand you agree that they won't have an effect, but you must do something so that's what you'll do.

Sorry, but I refer back to the original statements regarding what reactionary people will do when "something needs to be done of some kind".

see? even you can actually be more polite when you care to try, thankyou.

Yes, my point about seeing no effect in gun control for several generations has to do with the saturation of weapons in this country, not a form of hypocrisy, try and understand that.

Unless you broke down the door of every single persons home and searched out every hidden weapon, you would never get them all. My own grandmother at 90+ has no less than 4 totally unregistered firearms in her home, 3 from WW2, and one from the 19th century, some kind of scatter gun. And we are not a big gun owning family, though I have owned 3 or 4 black powder guns over the years.

My point with this is that there needs to be time for available guns to become scarcer, to fall into disrepair, to be collected, ect. I think that process would take several generations. That 100 year old scatter gun has been leaning against the wall in an attic the entire time, remnant of the farm the house originally was, and according to my grandmother, she fired it as recently as 1970.

However, even a blanket law of some kind WOULD make a difference in the firearm murders in the country, even if its eventually.

If all handguns were outlawed and required to be turned in, what about that 2 3rds of women killed by angry husbands during domestic disputes that would be less likely to be shot in a fit of passion?

Brian Carlton · #**560** 12-17-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

see? even you can actually be more polite when you care to try, thankyou.

Yes, my point about seeing no effect in gun control for several generations has to do with the saturation of weapons in this country, not a form of hypocrisy, try and understand that.

Unless you broke down the door of every single persons home and searched out every hidden weapon, you would never get them all. My own grandmother at 90+ has no less than 4 totally unregistered firearms in her home, 3 from WW2, and one from the 19th century, some kind of scatter gun. And we are not a big gun owning family, though I have owned 3 or 4 black powder guns over the years.

My point with this is that there needs to be time for available guns to become scarcer, to fall into disrepair, to be collected, ect. I think that process would take several generations. That 100 year old scatter gun has been leaning against the wall in an attic the entire time, remnant of the farm the house originally was, and according to my grandmother, she fired it as recently as 1970.

However, even a blanket law of some kind WOULD make a difference in the firearm murders in the country.

If all handguns were outlawed and required to be turned in, what about that 2 3rds of women killed by angry husbands during domestic disputes that would be less likely to be shot in a fit of passion?

I don't care to try..........and my "politeness" level to you is unchanged. Your perception or your backbone might have changed, however.

Your approach, if measured in generations, has merit for the specific type of domestic violence that you refer. Unfortunately, it fails for two specific reasons:

1) It would need to carry some significant strength whereby the number of legal weapons is significantly reduced throughout the country. As you know, under the current political climate, this is impossible.

2) It addresses the domestic violence with handguns that is quite prevalent in society today and seeks to reduce the casualties from that violence. It fails to address the random violence committed by one deranged individual who carefully planned an attack on a large group of sitting ducks.

Now, notice that the thread is all about the second paragraph, as noted above. It is not about the first paragraph.

Therefore, all I can suggest to you, is that you're right back where you started............no realistic plan to accomplish the goal..........and the need to "do something". Is that "polite" enough for you?

Dubyagee · #**561** 12-17-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

what about that 2 3rds of women killed by angry husbands during domestic disputes that would be less likely to be shot in a fit of passion?

Could you please cite an article or evidence of this repeated statement.

Brian Carlton · #**562** 12-17-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

Could you please cite an article or evidence of this repeated statement.

I believe the conclusion can be made that without the weapon, the husband cannot perform the shooting.

It's a valid argument.

t walgamuth · #**563** 12-17-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Those places were closing prior to Reagan's administration...nice try at making it a political problem, though.

Do you have a source for this?

ruchase · #**564** 12-17-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Arming schools, malls, theaters or what have you should be the last resort. By the time the person with a gun is in a school it is too late. The children are at risk.

I agree with you. The proposed solution is the very threat we are trying to prevent. What if an armed teacher loses their mind and turns against their students? Yes, there will be other armed teachers to take this individual out, but the first time this happens, the 'arm the teachers' strategy will be abandoned, and we'll be back to square one.

As a side note, the proposal to turn schools into fortresses is bound to have a negative psychological side-effect on the children by isolating them and creating a constant state of paranoia. The very freedoms we are seeking to protect by not revisiting gun controls will cause us to infringe upon all other freedoms, by locking down society and turning us into a state of fearful people.

Jorn · #**565** 12-17-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Not quite ludicrous.

It might take one minute to get to the lockbox and retrieve the weapon. That's sufficient time to save some folks.

I've worked this weekend with one of the most lethal guys in the country for his training DVD I shot for him. He trains the navy seals, CIA operatives, UFC fighters and such, he can kill or disarm any person before they even know he was there, armed or not doesn't make a difference. During the making of the DVD we had 20 different fighters most of them masters in multiple martial arts, some of them world champion fighters. Even those highly skilled and trained fighters were put off guard and confused by his speed, skill and presence of lethal force.

Do you really think a teacher can find the composter to find the keys, unlock the save when all this unexpected violence is going on around him or her and then on top of it aim at the gun man. The body shuts down when something like this happens and not many can recover fast enough to make a difference. Even highly trained individuals need time to get back in the grove, I've seen it this weekend.

And schools get burglarized all the time, I'm sure it will be even worse when there are guns to grab.

JB3 · #**566** 12-17-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I don't care to try..........and my "politeness" level to you is unchanged. Your perception or your backbone might have changed, however.

Your approach, if measured in generations, has merit for the specific type of domestic violence that you refer. Unfortunately, it fails for two specific reasons:

1) It would need to carry some significant strength whereby the number of legal weapons is significantly reduced throughout the country. As you know, under the current political climate, this is impossible.

2) It addresses the domestic violence with handguns that is quite prevalent in society today and seeks to reduce the casualties from that violence. It fails to address the random violence committed by one deranged individual who carefully planned an attack on a large group of sitting ducks.

Now, notice that the thread is all about the second paragraph, as noted above. It is not about the first paragraph.

Therefore, all I can suggest to you, is that you're right back where you started............no realistic plan to accomplish the goal..........and the need to "do something". Is that "polite" enough for you?

total restriction on handguns would certainly have an effect on mass shootings.

interesting statistics-

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

Most popular mass shooting weapon is the semiautomatic handgun, check out the statistics in the link. Yes, I know it upsets you that we could ban all handguns after the fact, but still, no handguns would force mass shooters to move to a much larger, and much more likely to be detected earlier weapon.
If someone has it in their head to kill a bunch of people with a gun, any time and any place they do it will be a surprise, and it will probably be successful. However, that does not mean that there might not be an improvement in the murder rates of the country as a by product.

I think its ridiculous for you to specify that we can only discuss ways to resolve mass shooting problems. Any legislation would have effect on all firearm crime, not just mass shootings.

quote- "Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed."

JB3 · #**567** 12-17-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

Could you please cite an article or evidence of this repeated statement.

posted a link to a study done already, can't remember the page, but it was recent. had to do with domestic violence and the firearm.

Here it is again- (It didn't hyperlink, so you will have to cut and paste) EDIT- worked that time

VPC - Facts on Firearms and Domestic Violence

Dubyagee · #**568** 12-17-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I believe the conclusion can be made that without the weapon, the husband cannot perform the shooting.

It's a valid argument.

Valid that a gun was used. I understand.

But would the murder/attack itself have been stopped without the gun? What if they were pushed out of windows? Would Anderson be the target?

barry12345 · #**569** 12-17-2012, 07:25 PM

Well the younger 20 year old fellow had been diagnosed with aspergers syndrome so I really tend to understand how he could do this act. There should have been concern and probably was about the excess lack of a normal emotional component present. Whoever did the original diagnosis perhaps should have graded it. No wonder the mother did not want to leave him alone.

Shooting her and the kids would bring forth absolutly no remorse in my opinion if he had survived. She made a terrible misteak by having guns in her house and taking him to a shooting range if she did.

It almost sounds like she did not really understand a severe aspergers case. As there are different degrees of the disorder. He had no practical future and may have been aware of this although he would not fathom what was missing or why. You can read about normal emotions and still not comprehend them if lacking in you.

The terrible thing to me is he shot all those kids and it meant nothing to him I believe to do it. Other than perhaps a form of revenge for other children making fun of him over the years perhaps. He may have mentally grouped all children together in general as the enemy.

Dubyagee · #**570** 12-17-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

posted a link to a study done already, can't remember the page, but it was recent. had to do with domestic violence and the firearm.

Here it is again- (It didn't hyperlink, so you will have to cut and paste) EDIT- worked that time

VPC - Facts on Firearms and Domestic Violence

So seventy five percent of fifty percent of 1342 cases in 2000. Got it.