WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 48 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #**706** 12-18-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Exactly.

The scenario that you indicated is realistic and, if you could eliminate all handguns, including dads target shooting .45, your proposed solution would have merit to eliminate the very narrow scenario that you stated above.

I've certainly considered your idea and the idea itself is not reprehensible to me. Because you're unable to read what I post and process it, I'll say it again.........this time in bold:

I couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky's laws resulted in the elimination of all automatic handguns because in this state, I cannot legally carry one anyway.

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

hey, now you are talking instead of attacking, good move. Guess you got fed?

So what would be achievable in this society? armed teachers? pill boxes in the hallways?

Do you understand where I am going when I say that moves like that are moves just like the patriot act, and are a way to limit our rights dressed in protection for all?

What I advocate (and if you see the prior post, you see I don't believe such restrictions would happen, but it would be nice) is modification of a SINGLE right in the provisions of the 2nd amendment

the narrow scenario is the one where big groups of people are getting killed. If such a plan only worked in a narrow scope, it would still be something

Brian Carlton · #**707** 12-18-2012, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

How about the one where guns not in use are required to be stored in a certified gun safe? That might have stopped him.

I have no issue with any regulation that you want to pass.

Do you believe that the requirement would be adhered to by most of the population? In fact, the type of individual who would deliberately flaunt the law is exactly the type of individual who might have a relative or a child who would take that weapon............you know, the DB's of society?

JB3 · #**708** 12-18-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

this I find interesting, and its interesting in that you refuse to discuss something if you deem it unlikely. Ever heard of the idea of give them an inch and they take a mile?

The idea is ask for what you actually want, and compromise with something that everyone can deal with, but no one actually likes. The problem is that 2nd amendment folk don't want to even discuss it, and people like yourself don't think its worth even discussing apart from limited and weak resolutions like the 1000 yard rule, which are obviously worthless, but acceptable to the gun proponents.

Ask for a mile, and take an inch. I see no reason why a lively discussion about the mile couldn't be had, in both directions. Apparently, just because you can't carry a handgun, and people still get shot, you can't have any discussion on it.

All Ive been saying is what I want to see happen. Don't mistake that I recognize that what will actually happen, is nothing, or nothing effectual at least. On that, we agree, but our difference is that I don't use that knowledge in scathing attacks on any ideas.

Brian Carlton · #**709** 12-18-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

this I find interesting, and its interesting in that you refuse to discuss something if you deem it unlikely. Ever heard of the idea of give them an inch and they take a mile?

As an engineer, I do not behave in that manner. I do not ask for a mile when it is perfectly clear to me that the mile cannot be achieved. If an inch is achievable, I obtain the inch.

In your case, the mile is not achievable and the inch isn't worth the effort it takes to obtain it.

But, go right ahead and continue your BS. It is exactly that..........your mile solutions will never happen and your inch solutions on the supply side are less than worthless as far as a reduction in gun violence is concerned.

pj67coll · #**710** 12-18-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

So what would be achievable in this society? armed teachers?

Do you understand where I am going when I say that moves like that are moves just like the patriot act, and are a way to limit our rights dressed in protection for all?

In what way do you see an armed teacher as an infringement on your rights?

- Peter.

JB3 · #**711** 12-18-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

In what way do you see an armed teacher as an infringement on your rights?

- Peter.

the same way I see the patriot act. None of these armed teacher ideas individually are infringements, but what it does is set the stage for yet more restriction ideas, and greater control of general public under the guise of safety.
I see it as another step on the road to hell paved with good intentions.

Personally, lets say we do arm teachers, and lets say the next mass shooting, the teacher, writing on a math board, is shot anyway, along with his or her students without time to react, setting the stage for more and greater invasions of liberty and privacy in the name of defense of the children, until ultimately, we have maximum security prisons for schools, and once we do that, what public area do we armor next?

What personal freedom do we remove to make sure these public areas are not at risk? You see when im going?

These are steps towards a police state as an ultimate consequence

2ndly, I just don't find the idea realistically workable. If more people are harmed by their self defense guns in the home statistically than those that use them on intruders, how can we say the introducing large numbers of guns into schools would not result in a greater number of deaths by accident than mass shootings prevented?

MS Fowler · #**712** 12-18-2012, 12:43 PM

Most of those who favor big-government solutions for all problems want to be judged on their ( stated) intentions, and never on the results.
Restrictive guns laws are but one example. As Brian has continually pointed out CT already HAS among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Did those restrictions help? Evidence would suggest they did not. Whether they promoted an easy target is arguable, but laws did not stop the killing.
What evidence is there that laws stop bad behavior? Writing bad checks is illegal--and still people do it. Robbing banks is illegal, and still people do it. Identity theft is illegal, and people still do it. Public drunkenness and public urination are illegal, and people still do those things, too.
Sometimes laws do have the desired effect. Marijuana use is illegal, and always has been wherever I have lived, and for that reason, alone, I have refrained from it. But I am a law-abiding citizen. There are still people who use (illegally) Marijuana all over this country. Laws do not generally stop law-breakers from doing what they decide to do.
I wonder how much society would change if we erased all laws from the books--law abiding/ caring for others--like all of us here on PP--would continue to behave pretty much as we do. The law-breakers would continue to behave as they do.

Passing laws will not make bad people act like good people.

JamesDean · #**713** 12-18-2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

t
Personally, lets say we do arm teachers, and lets say the next mass shooting, the teacher, writing on a math board, is shot anyway, along with his or her students without time to react, setting the stage for more and greater invasions of liberty and privacy in the name of defense of the children, until ultimately, we have maximum security prisons for schools, and once we do that, what public area do we armor next?
?

What happens if the teacher goes off the rails and decides he/she's had enough of these stupid rotten brat kids?

What kind of learning environment is that for a kid? Hell what if a kid gets the idea to nab the gun and take care of some business?

How would this whole discussion look if Lamza (I think that was his name) didnt use a gun but rather used home built pipe bombs? Or a chemical he made from some household stuff or whatnot.

I'm not saying gun control/regulation is a bad/good thing I'm just saying even with laws/regulations..if this kid wanted to kill a bunch of people...he could have well found a way. Perhaps the gun was just the "easiest".

davidmash · #**714** 12-18-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yeah, legislation does a fine job of preventing people from possessing illegal items.

I do not think it is the legislation but the access control to an item. Not a lot of folks with land mines. Not a lot of folks with shoulder launched missiles or RPG's. I do not think that lack of these items has solely to do with laws against owning them as it does that there is limited access to the items in question.

In Texas I can sell a gun to anyone who walks up to me with an ID. Could be a fake ID as I cannot tell the difference. As long as I do not 'know' that the person is going to commit a vilent act or 'know' that the person is a criminal or ex-con .... I can sell the gun. No paper work, no federal back ground check ... nothing. Anything can be illegal but if access to the item is not restricted then the law becomes less effective.

JB3 · #**715** 12-18-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Most of those who favor big-government solutions for all problems want to be judged on their ( stated) intentions, and never on the results.
Restrictive guns laws are but one example. As Brian has continually pointed out CT already HAS among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Did those restrictions help? Evidence would suggest they did not. Whether they promoted an easy target is arguable, but laws did not stop the killing.
What evidence is there that laws stop bad behavior? Writing bad checks is illegal--and still people do it. Robbing banks is illegal, and still people do it. Identity theft is illegal, and people still do it. Public drunkenness and public urination are illegal, and people still do those things, too.
Sometimes laws do have the desired effect. Marijuana use is illegal, and always has been wherever I have lived, and for that reason, alone, I have refrained from it. But I am a law-abiding citizen. There are still people who use (illegally) Marijuana all over this country. Laws do not generally stop law-breakers from doing what they decide to do.
I wonder how much society would change if we erased all laws from the books--law abiding/ caring for others--like all of us here on PP--would continue to behave pretty much as we do. The law-breakers would continue to behave as they do.

Passing laws will not make bad people act like good people.

davidmash posted this way earlier in the thread, but its a comparison of gun crime in developed countries-

Gun Ownership: An International Comparison - Independent Voter Network

Just seems to me like gun control can actually work given sufficient ability to make the idea popular. Pretty unlikely in this country, but the facts of other countries speak for themselves.

retmil46 · #**716** 12-18-2012, 12:58 PM

Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -

In this tragedy, we've been assuming that the only response is to fight fire with fire - armed teachers, armed guards, etc, armed with similar lethal weapons to the attacker.

What about fighting fire with water?

There's been several advances in NONLETHAL weapons and methods, ostensibly for riot, crowd, and prison control, over the past decade or so.

Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.

Ideas?

davidmash · #**717** 12-18-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

My wife teaches at an elementary school. She is gun-safe and an excellent shot. She can put 4, .38 sp in a 5 inch circle at 15 paces as fast as she can pull the trigger (it's a 5 shot pistol. Hammer on an empty cyl). She would get fired for packing.

Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

I wonder what happens then the 5" target starts shooting back?

JamesDean · #**718** 12-18-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -

In this tragedy, we've been assuming that the only response is to fight fire with fire - armed teachers, armed guards, etc, armed with similar lethal weapons to the attacker.

What about fighting fire with water?

There's been several advances in NONLETHAL weapons and methods, ostensibly for riot, crowd, and prison control, over the past decade or so.

Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.

Ideas?

This is an interesting idea. I think I've seen some audio solutions that can incapacitate. What if the school was rigged up for that and in the event the entire school is incapacitated and the LEO' are called automatically?

What about some kind of knock-out gas?

davidmash · #**719** 12-18-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Time for complete firearm registration.
Possessing an unregistered weapon, serious consequences, prison time.
Having your weapon used in a crime by any person and you are on the hook as well.
Accidental shootings due to negligence revokes your right to own firearms.
Sales of unregistered weapons, huge prison time.

Exactly. This is what I suggested in the beginning of the thread. Also need to control the sales of guns. Title of the gun gets transferred to the new owner after a federal back ground check.

davidmash · #**720** 12-18-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Do you honestly think that registering the firearms would have kept this asshat from stealing his mother's guns, killing her and then killing everyone at the school?? "Oh, gee, I guess I really shouldn't kill anyone with those guns, they're registered". Does registering guns keep them from being operated by crazed lunatics?

A certified gun safe might have.