26 people were killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary

[Pontrelli]

Originally Posted by schoy

While your comment might make sense in a different context (e.g. parents' coddling spoiled brats), it makes absolutely no sense in this context (murderous killer amongst innocent, defenseless children). Either you're arguing for the sake of arguing or you're completely disassociated from the reality of the issue at hand.

Actually I see the merit of his argument, if I understood it correctly he was profiling the gunman and how he might have did what he did..my feeling is kids now adays are subjected to media overload and violence, they are comfortable and bored, and rarely engage their imagination..they have a bewidering amount of information to process, they often lose their innocence early..(10 is like the new 20), so some turn to drugs, become depressed, anxious etc..

The days of when kids were just kids..and played outside are over..now you have media zombied out children (video games, internet, chat room..on an on) when you add to that depression, anxiety or inabilty to adjust or "fit in"...they grow up and blow a gasket..then something unfortunate like this results..

Guns have been around for hundreds years yet this is a modern media era problem. Not a coincidence.

[schoy]

^ perhaps I misunderstood the intent of MPower's post, but he was responding to Team Plutonium's post #109. Nothing in post #109 would lead anyone to reasonably believe that TP was referring to the gunman; clearly TP was referring to the victims. And then the tone of MP's post seem to be essentially criticizing TP's position that our children are the "most important thing in the world" and that by prioritizing our kids, we loving parents are contributing to the scum of the world. And even then, the argument is likely flawed; I would think that children whose parents neglect them have a much higher probability of becoming mentally ill (and sociopathically so) than children whose parents are overprotective.

[silvergray545]

Originally Posted by Foodle

There are so many variables in this situation I don't know how you can make this claim. Maybe you should put a few more conditions on your BS statement

As a clear counter example, 10 children in the Dunblane massacre (extremely similar incident in the UK) were shot by a pistol and wounded but not killed. But maybe they weren't exactly 10 yards away or less.

Originally Posted by Litos

of course he hit every target - they described the killings as up close shots - he wasn't sniping kids from 50 yards.

Litos clearly supported my point with his post.

I can't believe I have to describe this to you in detail. I guess just to get it through your thick skull. As Litos stated, the killings were up close. Meaning he was able to shoot his "targets" exactly where he wanted to with little effort. Perfect shot placement = higher chance of fatality. I included an estimated distance from the shooter to his target in my previous post for a reason. In such a short distance and in a room that is completely closed from the elements, there is nothing that will stop or slow the bullet down. The faster the bullet travels = the more damage is done to its target upon impact.

Please remove "Ballistics Expert" from your resume. Call of Duty doesn't count.

Oh, and to counter your stupid ass "counter example"...I'm pretty sure you forgot to include one important fact from the Dunblane massacre. I'm not sure how this could have slipped your mind, but I'll post it for you. According to Wikipedia, 15 children were killed in that shooting. You didn't counter shit with that example.

Please don't respond to this. I don't want to keep arguing about whether a .223 round is more deadly to a 6 year old child or a full grown adult. This is just a waste of my time.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by Foodle

Link to studies please?

And this might be because the rate of gun-related injuries was already so low in those countries.

Nope.

Handgun releated gun-crime has sprialled out of control in the UK over the last 10 years, despite the total ban on all handguns after the Dunblane school shooting in 1996.

This article is from 2008, and it's not got any better since.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...every-day.html

[JoeyO]

Originally Posted by Foodle

Sorry, but blaming "the devil" or "evil" for this is a cheap cop out. He was a person. A very disturbed person that decided to do this terrible thing. But to say that there was some kind of metaphysical force that made him different from other people is simply unrealistic. Many many people have done very evil things in past (e.g., genocide all across the world). Under the right circumstances ordinary people can do evil things too. The capacity to do "evil" acts is a part of human nature. Some people with mental problems may be more prone to do them, but don't delude yourself, that your neighbor isn't capable of doing something evil.

It's just an expression. I'm not a religious person. Haven't been to church in over five years.

What I meant is there are mentally insane people, and then there are absolute evil people with no conscience. I feel the killer falls into the later category. Often in these type of tragedies people say the killer was a victim of his surroundings or he was mentally ill. That's not true all the time. Just like there are some really really good people in this world, likewise, there are some really really bad people in this world. People with no morals. People who enjoy inflicting pain on others. That's all I was saying, while venting.

[DiavelM3]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

My apologies for offending you. My post wasn't directed at you personally. I found myself thinking what what could possibly cause that kid to do such a horrible thing. Going back to the Aurora kid and the fact that most of these mass killings involve mentally unstable college age kids brought me to these thoughts. Your post was an innocent comment from a loving parent. I didn't intend to make it out to be anything more and didn't do a good enough job separating the two.



I believe this thread is about a deeply disturbed kid who chose to murder several innocent people, mostly children. Have i been mistaken? What i made is a general statement that could very well apply to the kid who took it upon himself to kill other innocent kids. It seems to me that it fits squarely in this thread. Prior to Friday, the perpetrator was also somebody's kid. He wasn't a murderous killer until Friday. There is no argument in my comment. It's a theory that could be at the root of these mass shootings.

I know it's a trying time and emotions are still running high, so i can see how you guys could misconstrue my comments.

Mpower, I get what you're saying and I agree

RIP to those who were lost in this tragedy

[e90dance]

Prayers go out to all of the victim's family...what a sad day...

[Foodle]

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Nope.

Handgun releated gun-crime has sprialled out of control in the UK over the last 10 years, despite the total ban on all handguns after the Dunblane school shooting in 1996.

This article is from 2008, and it's not got any better since.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...every-day.html

Nope. Learn to read. 4% rise in a year of gun related crimes (not deaths) is not "spiraling out if control".

Rate of gun death in the US is 9/100000. Rate in the UK is 36 times less at .25/100000.

[ChaneRZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/ind-man-47-gun...164928349.html

CEDAR LAKE, Ind. (AP) — A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by Foodle

Nope. Learn to read.

Pardon me for breathing.

Originally Posted by Foodle

4% rise in a year of gun related crimes (not deaths) is not "spiraling out if control".

It is for the UK.

Which was the point I was making. Despite the knee jerk reactions after just two serious events, and the media demonisation of anyone that has even the remotest interest in sport shooting (which is all it ever was in the UK) and as such the complete ban on all form of self loading rifle and any type of handgun.... the general public is less safe now that it was 30 years ago.

Guns arn't the problem, society of today is the problem.

Originally Posted by Foodle

Rate of gun death in the US is 9/100000. Rate in the UK is 36 times less at .25/100000.

Pointless comparison.

[EINSER M]

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

- Ronald Reagan

[Pontrelli]

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Guns arn't the problem, society of today is the problem.

+1

[Litos]

sorry guys, i had to post this. i'm just glad that the future of our country lies in the hands of this ballsy kid <3



http://news.yahoo.com/staffers-haile...083934401.html

Originally Posted by Yahoo

In a classroom, teacher Kaitlin Roig barricaded her 15 students into a tiny bathroom, pulled a bookshelf across the door and locked it. She told the kids to be "absolutely quiet."

"I said, 'There are bad guys out there now. We need to wait for the good guys,'" she told ABC News.

One student claimed to know karate. "It's OK. I'll lead the way out," the student said.

[Litos]

you can clearly see the innocense of these kids that were affected.

who in their right mind would think that karate chops and leg sweeps would stop a 20 year old with an AR-15 style weapon !?!?

it isn't about that though - it's the fact that the kid stepped up and took charge.

fucking kid will be a hero one day......i wish that kid nothing but good fortune and success.....love that kid......

[ChaneRZ]

I guess the mother trained her unstable son to be a good shoot. Lock your guns if you have someone "emo" / unstable mind living around your house.

[Chrisruf911]

I pray for the families affected by this tragedy. It's an absolutely horrific situation. I own several firearms of which a few are of the "assault rifle" type. I live in a smaller town just south of Louisville. I would estimate 80% of the homes here have at least one firearm present. Most are used for hunting but some are strictly self defense weapons. Since moving back three years ago I do not recall hearing of any gun related homicides. You would think with all the loose gun laws in Kentucky there would be more violence with guns. It just isn't the case. For people who support gun bans, this country has a 150+ year history of gun ownership. Guns change hands many times legally with no record of the transaction. Being so, our government has absolutely no way of tracking all the firearms in use. Short of a door to door sweep (which would be a bloodbath) there is no way to disarm our citizens. Stricter gun laws? Doesn't work. It didn't keep the multiple convicted felon who robbed me from having one which is why I feel the need to be armed.

[hks786]

IMO its wrong to have weapons so easily available to the public. It wouldnt make me feel safe having a gun under my pillow when I know the people who break into my house also have firearms and the element of surprise. At the end of the day if we can keep weapons out of criminal hands then we dont need to keep guns for protection.

Also, I think America can start to disarm criminals if they get troops out of foreign lands. The $3 billion that go to Israel for aid every year would also help.

[samchoi604]

I chuckle whenever I hear someone say they need firearms for self defense. How many of you ACTUALLY used a gun to protect yourself? How many of you so-called protectors have used a gun to protect the women and children during massacres at schools, malls, movie theaters?

FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinio...fer/index.html

I'm pretty sure that includes none of you on this forum. And, as very well stated above, your guns are useless when an armed intruder has the element of surprise.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

I chuckle whenever I hear someone say they need firearms for self defense. How many of you ACTUALLY used a gun to protect yourself? How many of you so-called protectors have used a gun to protect the women and children during massacres at schools, malls, movie theaters?

FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinio...fer/index.html






I'm pretty sure that includes none of you on this forum. And, as very well stated above, your guns are useless when an armed intruder has the element of surprise.

Here's a little fact for you buddy, you don't have to kill someone in order to use a gun for self defense!



The police carry guns, but guess what, the vast majority of police officers are able to use their guns to gain control over a violent situation without killing anyone, and the same goes for armed citizens (see videos below), how many people do you think the police kill a year? Does it mean that they do not need guns if the number is low? Your building a straw man argument here, guns are needed for protection the amount of people killed by guns does not accurately reflect the amount of lives saved by them, once again see the videos below, that stuff happens all of the time in the US!


There have been many, many,many, more than 213 incidents in which a firearm saved a life in this country, or thwarted a crime in that time period (at least thousands). The beauty of a firearm is that it often diffuses or ,neutralizes a situation, say a guy pulls a knife on you- at the mere sight of your gun the situation is typically over, and there is no need to even shoot, simply presenting it will diffuse the situation.

And yes I have used my gun in self defense before, I didn't have to shoot and I held off three attackers until the police arrived, my gun saved my life. It's like they say the police are only minutes away when you only have seconds to spare.

Why don't you tell some of these people in the video's below some of your opinions regarding firearms!

I could go on listing these all day, this kind of thing happens all of the time here, and I'm glad we have the ability to protect ourselves!

[ChaneRZ]

nice one man

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by hks786

if we can keep weapons out of criminal hands

This is the problem. That will never happen. Unfortunately, all more gun control will do is keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

Criminals don't care about the laws.

[MrRoboto]

Guns are an easy target when things like this happen but the problem is much bigger.