DescentBB

yah, I'm sure this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind:
http://news.msn.com/us/shooting-reporte ... ?GT1=51501

how many fecking times do we have to read this stuff before we wake up?

It will continue to happen on a daily basis around the world. People just don't get it.

Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban didn't stop gun violence.

Before the (inevitable, I know) debate about gun control, can we at least wait for some real information?

All I'm seeing at the moment is that there is a dead shooter, and scattered reports of dead/injured victims (not clear yet).

I read 3 seriously injured. Don't know if adults or kids.

Now confirmed 2 adults dead. Check CNN.

CNN says 20 dead including children but CBS says 27 dead.

This is insane.

Unfortunately taking away guns wouldn't do much. Americans have this stupid ★■◆● mentality that leads to this crap. I'm not saying they're the only nation where this happens, but it seems to happen on much more regular basis here. When I was living in Japan you never heard about murders, rapes or shooting up schools.

It's sad that people think killing others is glorious. If you don't want to live, then do it yourself and leave innocent people alone.

Foil wrote:Before the (inevitable, I know) debate about gun control, can we at least wait for some real information?

All I'm seeing at the moment is that there is a dead shooter, and scattered reports of dead/injured victims (not clear yet).

minimum, 27 dead, including the principal and school psychologist, the shooter(a parent) and numerous ELEMENTARY school kids. It is time the US got serious about allowing the unfettered purchase of firearms without EXTREMELY stringent background checks. There is NO reason a person needs to get a gun the same day of purchase. There is no reason that a waiting period of 30 days shouldn't be mandatory. There is no reason a person needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for anything. There should be ZERO excuses for owners of firearms to not be made legally bound to store them securely,
and responsible for any theft outside of a locked steel gun case. Sure, the reasons for these tragedies are many and varied, almost all involve a level of mental instability on the part of the shooter. But, really, was THIS the intent of the 2nd Amendment? Would the founders even envision the need for a 2nd Amendment in a nation that had a standing army? Come on, folks, this is inexcusable, and fixable, to a great extent. When are we going to grow a national set of balls, politically, to slap down the cretins that keep forcing this crap to go unchecked. And, yes, I mean the NRA.

oh, and apparently, according to the Courant, at present an entire classroom full of kids is not accounted for, in addition to the known victims.

Whitewater wrote:Unfortunately taking away guns wouldn't do much.

really? You going to tell me some whackjob is going to kill a few dozen schoolkids with what? A knife, or perhaps a slingshot?

Americans have this stupid **** mentality that leads to this crap. I'm not saying they're the only nation where this happens, but it seems to happen on much more regular basis here. When I was living in Japan you never heard about murders, rapes or shooting up schools.

it's called fear and anxiety, and our 'free press' makes a fortune off of selling it to the masses, nightly. That, at minimum, leads to the idea that the best thing to do is arm oneself to the teeth, and not place stringent controls on the sale of guns. Thus, the mentally unstable can easily grab a gun, fast, and act, fast, to essentially crush the souls and happiness of dozens, if not hundreds of affected victims and families.

There are over 100 million guns in this country Slick. You can be all for gun control and it does not matter anymore. Like I've said time and time again, you might as well get used to this kind of ★■◆● happening because it's going to continue.

Damn, if only those little kids had been packing heat, maybe they could have stopped the shooters. So, in reality, it's the kids' fault.

valid point, Cob. And, irony noted on the last part......

callmeslick wrote:

Whitewater wrote:Unfortunately taking away guns wouldn't do much.

really? You going to tell me some whackjob is going to kill a few dozen schoolkids with what? A knife, or perhaps a slingshot?

Americans have this stupid **** mentality that leads to this crap. I'm not saying they're the only nation where this happens, but it seems to happen on much more regular basis here. When I was living in Japan you never heard about murders, rapes or shooting up schools.

it's called fear and anxiety, and our 'free press' makes a fortune off of selling it to the masses, nightly. That, at minimum, leads to the idea that the best thing to do is arm oneself to the teeth, and not place stringent controls on the sale of guns. Thus, the mentally unstable can easily grab a gun, fast, and act, fast, to essentially crush the souls and happiness of dozens, if not hundreds of affected victims and families.

They wont kill dozens, but they will still kill. The point is that stripping guns wont stop the shootings it will only limit the victims and that's not enough.

I bet the shooter was Wakeman...otherwise known as DaFineDood. He seemed a bit mentally unstable.

Reporters interviewing children after they witness mass murder. It's real hard to become a bigger piece of ★■◆● than that.

Just curious, what would have happened if all the teachers were armed? Would the deaths have been much smaller? Maybe the shooter would not have shown up at all?

Isaac wrote:Just curious, what would have happened if all the teachers were armed? Would the deaths have been much smaller? Maybe the shooter would not have shown up at all?

the usual BS that gets tossed up every time this sort of thing happens. It's a bogus question, unless, of course, you relish the idea of your 6 year old going to a school full of armed adults. As Cob made the case earlier, let's just arm the 8 year olds and be done with it. Moronic.

here's the problem set of words:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

now, any one wish to explain how the current reality adds to the security of anything? Given that all States have an organized police force and national Guard units, where does the need even exist for this Amendment? Yes, the commentary around our violent, scared society is valid. Yes, mayhem will always occur and exist. But, seriously, when the hell are we going to take common sense measures to control the madness? What, Slick, are you talking about, you may ask? I propose:

1. Mandatory 30 day waiting periods for firearm purchase, coupled with extensive background checks of mental health, financial security, criminal history.
2. Mandatory criminal sentences for--a)possession of ANY loaded auto or semi-auto weapon anywhere other than private property or regulated
shooting grounds(gun club, sportsman's club, etc)or,
b)transfer of a licensed firearm to anyone, at any time, for any reason,outside sporting use above.
3 Mandatory criminal sentence for evidence of any firearm not stored in a secure, regulated, locked gun case
4. Immediate cessation of all laws allowing for public carry of any firearm in a non-hunting situation
5. Immediate cessation of all concealed carry laws for all civilians

by 'mandatory criminal sentences', I mean like 10 years, first offense. Coupled with existing laws regarding commission of crimes with firearms, you will see folks going away for 10-30 years, and believe me, things will calm down. When gun owners start going away for 10 year bits because carelessly stored weapons get stolen from them, less morons will be leaving them free to be stolen(major source of street weaponry). Will my way fix all instances of outrageous acts? Of course not, but, dammit, it's time we started acting like a responsible society and not one politically beholden to a bunch of gun ownership zealots.

What I see is the rule followers not carrying guns and the rule breakers carrying them. More regulation only effects the law abiding citizen, making fewer normal people carry guns. The wackos will never let go of their guns. They don't give a ★■◆● about rules. Mandatory 30 day waiting periods? Not if I buy from Jim, down the street.

<shakes head>

This is exactly why I'm asking folks to wait on the gun-control posts.

We don't know anything about the guns in this case, whether they were obtained legally or illegally, whether the proper background checks (if any) were done, who they belong to, etc.

Isaac wrote:... Not if I buy from Jim, down the street.

then you, and Jim, are looking at 10 years in prison under my set of rules.

Foil wrote:<shakes head>

This is exactly why I'm asking folks to wait on the gun-control posts.

We don't know anything about the guns in this case, whether they were obtained legally or illegally, whether the proper background checks (if any) were done, who they belong to, etc.

that is exactly the point, Foil. It doesn't matter. The second amendment has been used to get us to an unconscionable reality. It's time to change it,
radically and severely.

callmeslick wrote:

Whitewater wrote:Unfortunately taking away guns wouldn't do much.

really? You going to tell me some whackjob is going to kill a few dozen schoolkids with what? A knife, or perhaps a slingshot?

"BEIJING (Reuters) - A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country."

Glad to see Slick that you are jumping on the liberal bandwagon where owning firearms causes this sort of mayhem. Perhaps we should find out why mass shooters do these sorts of things and learn to spot them.

That example really goes both ways in the gun-control argument:

• It shows that whackos and violence will happen, despite guns being tightly controlled
• It shows that the death toll from such violence is decreased when guns are not involved

callmeslick wrote:

There is NO reason a person needs to get a gun the same day of purchase. There is no reason that a waiting period of 30 days shouldn't be mandatory. There is no reason a person needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for anything.

And you're sure a assault rifle was used?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

There is NO reason a person needs to get a gun the same day of purchase. There is no reason that a waiting period of 30 days shouldn't be mandatory. There is no reason a person needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for anything.

And you're sure a assault rifle was used?

current info is two handguns and a semi auto 223, but time will tell. Doesn't in any way address my point,however. Just because this person didn't use one doesn't make it ok. NO ONE NEEDS A SEMI AUTO ASSAULT RIFLE. PERIOD.

woodchip wrote:
Glad to see Slick that you are jumping on the liberal bandwagon where owning firearms causes this sort of mayhem. Perhaps we should find out why mass shooters do these sorts of things and learn to spot them.

and while we're doing these studies, dozens more die? Pretty moronic solution. And, no, this ought not be 'liberal' or 'conservative', it's a matter of common sense, public good and general decency of civilization. We've tiptoed around the solutions under the guise of not riling up the gun lobby.
Enough, already.
Thanks, Foil for pointing out the obvious lesson from Woody's example. 'Slashed' and 'Dead' are far different outcomes. I'm sure there will be a couple dozen families in Connecticut with presents under the Christmas tree for little kids that will never be home again who get the difference. Sad to say, Woody doesn't seem to get it.

Ironically the shooter in the Portland incident stole his weapon. no gun control law could have stopped that.

CUDA wrote:Ironically the shooter in the Portland incident stole his weapon. no gun control law could have stopped that.

mine would. After enough gun owners do 10 years in prison for having carelessly stored guns stolen, watch those thefts drop.

Slick, while I can understand your dismay and high-charged emotions here, this is exactly why people like you should not set policy. Everything you say sounds good on the surface but the facts are always this. Gun bans lifted, crime goes down. Gun bans imposed, crime goes up. We live in a sick world but we still need to stay objective.

flip wrote:Slick, while I can understand your dismay and high-charged emotions here, this is exactly why people like you should not set policy. Everything you say sounds good on the surface but the facts are always this. Gun bans lifted, crime goes down. Gun bans imposed, crime goes up.

nonsense. Most of the world has far stricter laws, and far less violence. I don't know who's KoolAid you're drinking, but you are wrong.

We live in a sick world but we still need to stay objective.

we live in a sick culture, a violent culture, and objectivity tells me that gun control is only one of the issues we need to face up to. But, it is one.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:
Glad to see Slick that you are jumping on the liberal bandwagon where owning firearms causes this sort of mayhem. Perhaps we should find out why mass shooters do these sorts of things and learn to spot them.

and while we're doing these studies, dozens more die? Pretty moronic solution. And, no, this ought not be 'liberal' or 'conservative', it's a matter of common sense, public good and general decency of civilization. We've tiptoed around the solutions under the guise of not riling up the gun lobby.
Enough, already.

And after 50 years of mass murders what is true idiocy is that studies were never undertaken

callmeslick wrote:Thanks, Foil for pointing out the obvious lesson from Woody's example. 'Slashed' and 'Dead' are far different outcomes. I'm sure there will be a couple dozen families in Connecticut with presents under the Christmas tree for little kids that will never be home again who get the difference. Sad to say, Woody doesn't seem to get it.

I bet the parents of the 8 nurses Richard Speck killed felt the same way:

"Speck held the women in the house for hours, methodically leading them out of the room one by one, stabbing or strangling them to death, then finally raping and strangling his last victim, Gloria Davy"

I guess you and Foil don't seem to get it, mass murders are not always done with a assault rifle. Some people just fly airplanes into buildings.Oh and to gain control of the airplanes, what did the terrorist use? I suggest Slick you think a bit before posting as I'm beginning to think I'm debating a idiot.

Young white male. Again.

Or at least a young male.

callmeslick wrote:


we live in a sick culture, a violent culture, and objectivity tells me that gun control is only one of the issues we need to face up to. But, it is one.

Curious how in Michigan the legislature just passed a law where with a extra 9 hours of training. CCW holders will now be able to carry in schools and churches. Evidently our law makers are thankfully more objective than you Slick.

Slick, your spouting nonsense. Go find sources to back up your argument, then we'll discuss.

flip wrote:Slick, your spouting nonsense. Go find sources to back up your argument, then we'll discuss.

let's not look at nations in severe turmoil but compare apples to apples. From a Politifact analysis of an international report:
"The main area where the U.S. exceeds the firearm violence of other nations is in comparison to other affluent nations. Using the U.N. data, European nations -- even former eastern bloc countries -- typically have rates well below 1 per 100,000, or far less than one-third the frequency seen in the U.S. The pattern is similar in other advanced industrialized nations, such as Canada, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths."

nonsense, my ass.

I like the way you mishandle the truth. You do realize that the rate can go down while the actual number is increasing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

EDIT: I know this is unrealistic, but I actually think pro-gun ownership should not even engage in these debates. Asked and answered by the Supreme Court already.

Besides waiting periods do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or prevent heat of the moment killings.

flip wrote:I like the way you mishandle the truth. You do realize that the rate can go down while the actual number is increasing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

EDIT: I know this is unrealistic, but I actually think pro-gun ownership should not even engage in these debates. Asked and answered by the Supreme Court already.

huh? You make no sense whatsoever. Per capita rate is specifically to avoid sheer numbers, as that would make the US look terrible...we are larger than most of those other nations.

Slick , I'll just say one more time, people like you are not objective.