Elementary School Shooting: Newtown, Connecticut. 28 confirmed dead, 18 were children

No one is saying ban all guns... But you'll still use the argument and say if we have ANY new and more strict gun laws we will become Libya.
 
frostythepoptart said:
it's a lot easier for Gadafi to be in power when the citizens can't fire back. It's not about the average u.s. citizen going to war with the entire U.S. army,

yeah the big bad U.S. can just run through whoever they want right so it spointless? tell that to vietnam

Stricter gun laws saving one life sounds like an awesome thing because who doesn't want to save a life.

But you can save lives by forcing everyone to drive a car that can't go over 70 (thats about the max speed limit anyway, banning alcohol so teens don't die, or how would you feel if your cell phone completely locked down when you entered a car, and wasn't functional until 5 minutes after turning it off. we could save lives by keeping people focused on the road but at what trade off to freedom)
Click to expand...

qfe.

personal responsibility and freedom go hand in hand. If you're limiting freedom, the level of personal responsibility will also be negatively affected imo. People will become increasingly dependent on govt regulation, which is a slippery slope. Perhaps we should look at why the shooter became the shooter and educate people about gun ownership etc. Switzerland is a good example. At the end of the day, just like everything else, the root cause of this is socio-economic in nature, though.
 
SuperAntigen said:
KanyeWest said:
just wondering was there any mention of a school police officer?

i remember back when i was in school we had a school officer and lockdown drills just in case

so when this stranger jumped the gate and wouldnt leave he was tazed and arrested with the quickness
Click to expand...

I don't recall there being a mention of a school officer, but given the neighborhood and the age group of the students within the school, an officer of the law within the school was probably overkill (no pun intended).

You encounter police officers within schools moreso in urban settings with higher crime rates. I'm from CT; at any given time there were 2 cops, minimum, patrolling my high school because I lived in a very urban city. All the project kids actually had my high school as their zone school, and with that comes project beef, so we needed the law enforcement.

In the suburbs, especially at the middle school level, there might not be an in-house officer, but there's usually a specific officer who is in charge of responding to any incident that may arise. On the high school level, at best, you'll likely have one officer who occasionally drops by to ensure things are ok.

But like I said, in a town like Newtown, at a school that caters to K through 5th grade, it's very unlikely to have an in-house officer.




...
Click to expand...
I only had a School Resource Officer in middle and high school, never in elementary . . . and even still the most they got is a taser because all they usually have to worry about is drugs or fights
 
The fear mongering in this thread is appalling. I can't believe people truly believe that a people armed to the teeth is the right answer for peace.
 
Can someone shoot the cliff on what has happened since day 1 of this?
Such as...

What happened with the brother and his ID?

The other dude that was arrested on site?

Heard about some dude in the woods?

Pics of the shooter ( I haven't seen any but that pic of dude in the baby blue polo looking all evil) I know we shouldn't a knowledge dude but I still wanna see him...

Also any other updates or stories

I haven't been following this because of finals

Thanks
 
Last edited:
AR Guy said:
But Columbine was the first school shooting to really garner tons of media attention. I mean hell, we still talk about to this day.
Click to expand...

although it shouldnt have been.

look up cleveland school massacre in 1989

maybe because the students werent white but asian that the news didnt care...

white dude in a bulletproof vest spraying up an elementary school in california with the ak 47 killing 5 kids and wounding 30 then commiting suicide.

was pretty cool that michael jackson came to visit the remaining students at the school in the aftermath..

whats truly sick about the shootings in connecticut was that he shot to kill and there werent any wounded just deaths...
 
TheNoGuy said:
People's desire to hunt and visit gun ranges should not be a higher priority than human life. If you don't agree with that I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...


You and I arent smart enough to know what is a priority in anyone's life other than your own.

My point is that stricter gun laws wouldnt have even helped in this case for what I stated in my previous post. He didnt buy the gun, he didnt buy the ammo. His law abiding mother did, the law was followed. He stole guns that werent registered to him, he transported firearms across State lines, both of which are against the law. So tell me where more laws wouldve helped in this situation? If someone is determined to do something like this, you think trivial laws are going to prevent them from doing things like this? No gun law on the planet wouldve prevented Timothy McVeigh from blowing up a building or stopped terrorists from hijacking planes with box cutters...BOX CUTTERS. What is to say that there was a limit on ammo. Lets say she didnt own an AR15, lets say she owned 5 Glocks instead, and he took those. Then what? Glocks are semi-automatic, just arent rifles? Limit them to a glorified 6 shooter?


Also, I can absolutely make the comparison to drugs. People love getting high, you're right, but it also creates a market...an illegal market. Which means what? Gangs are going to supply things that these people who love getting high want. Just like if you ban guns or ban weapons. There are 280 millions guns that are owned in this country, it is obvious that people in this country love their weapons, and considering the price of guns and ammo are going up, there is in an increase in demand. So make it illegal or put restrictions on it, what do you think is going to happen?
 
TeamJordan79 said:
frostythepoptart said:
it's a lot easier for Gadafi to be in power when the citizens can't fire back. It's not about the average u.s. citizen going to war with the entire U.S. army,

yeah the big bad U.S. can just run through whoever they want right so it spointless? tell that to vietnam

Stricter gun laws saving one life sounds like an awesome thing because who doesn't want to save a life.

But you can save lives by forcing everyone to drive a car that can't go over 70 (thats about the max speed limit anyway, banning alcohol so teens don't die, or how would you feel if your cell phone completely locked down when you entered a car, and wasn't functional until 5 minutes after turning it off. we could save lives by keeping people focused on the road but at what trade off to freedom)
Click to expand...

qfe.

personal responsibility and freedom go hand in hand. If you're limiting freedom, the level of personal responsibility will also be negatively affected imo. People will become increasingly dependent on govt regulation, which is a slippery slope. Perhaps we should look at why the shooter became the shooter and educate people about gun ownership etc. Switzerland is a good example. At the end of the day, just like everything else, the root cause of this is socio-economic in nature, though.
Click to expand...

@ Frosty

My point was that if the other branches of the government + the military support a presidential takeover of the country, an armed population is a non-factor. However, if a would-be dictator realizes the only people he'll be able to govern are corpses, he is more likely to accommodate the people by leaving things as they are.

The only reason the Egyptians were able to have a successful, bloodless revolution was because their armed forces remained neutral in the beginning and ended up supporting the people.
and following the referendum on the constitution that's going on right now, you'll see the country lean towards the side the military chooses to align with.

Tunisians were able to get rid of Ben Ali because they demonstrated that they were willing to die rather than live under his regime.

In Syria, what started as anti-government protests turned into a civil war that the regime is about to lose. Certainly, the Syrian rebellion didn't have that many weapons to start with, but that didn't keep them from acquiring more as it became clearer that El Asad wouldn't give up the power easily.

And the car analogy is flawed by the fact that the purpose of a car is to transport people/things from one point to another. Death in car crash is a consequence of operating vehicles under poor conditions. This is why DUI, unlicensed people, and people with certain medical conditions are banned from driving, The purpose of a gun is to kill. Self-defense is a by-product of using a gun.


@TeamJordan

I agree that personal responsibility and freedom go hand in hand, but I don't agree with the second part of your sentence (if you meant "people will be less responsible as a result of government intervention").
If the government has to step in to restrict gun ownership, it's because a significant number of those entrusted with the freedom to carry guns have proven themselves unable to maintain a minimum level of responsibility in the exercise of such rights. Most guns used illegally are usually acquired through straw purchases or licensed and corrupt arm dealers, and in cases of mass shootings like this one, the perpetrator usually purchases the guns legally, or they get them from someone who bought them legally and failed to keep them away from unauthorized users.

About Switzerland: they have no standing army, which is why every able-bodied male has to keep an army-issued rifle at home in case of emergency. They still need a permit to carry a weapon in public and it is weapon-specific. In the US, there's no need for militias when you have the largest and most expensive army in the world.
 
rashi said:
TheNoGuy said:
People's desire to hunt and visit gun ranges should not be a higher priority than human life. If you don't agree with that I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...


You and I arent smart enough to know what is a priority in anyone's life other than your own.

My point is that stricter gun laws wouldnt have even helped in this case for what I stated in my previous post. He didnt buy the gun, he didnt buy the ammo. His law abiding mother did, the law was followed. He stole guns that werent registered to him, he transported firearms across State lines, both of which are against the law. So tell me where more laws wouldve helped in this situation? If someone is determined to do something like this, you think trivial laws are going to prevent them from doing things like this? No gun law on the planet wouldve prevented Timothy McVeigh from blowing up a building or stopped terrorists from hijacking planes with box cutters...BOX CUTTERS. What is to say that there was a limit on ammo. Lets say she didnt own an AR15, lets say she owned 5 Glocks instead, and he took those. Then what? Glocks are semi-automatic, just arent rifles? Limit them to a glorified 6 shooter?


Also, I can absolutely make the comparison to drugs. People love getting high, you're right, but it also creates a market...an illegal market. Which means what? Gangs are going to supply things that these people who love getting high want. Just like if you ban guns or ban weapons. There are 280 millions guns that are owned in this country, it is obvious that people in this country love their weapons, and considering the price of guns and ammo are going up, there is in an increase in demand. So make it illegal or put restrictions on it, what do you think is going to happen?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so lets just do nothing and maintain the status quo.....because I guess this is just an inevitable reality we will have to deal with in America for the rest of our lives. :rolleyes
 
tired.gif
 even today it still hasnt sunk in yet
 
LyonBC1 said:
Yeah, so lets just do nothing and maintain the status quo.....because I guess this is just an inevitable reality we will have to deal with in America for the rest of our lives. :rolleyes
Click to expand...


This is your response? I just outlined the laws that were in place to prevent things like this from happening, and guess what they still did. So lets make more laws, and then there is and still things like this will happen and you response will be?...



A teacher in China stabbed 20 something children to death the other day. China has an absolute gun ban in that country.
 
Last edited:
rashi said:
This is your response? I just outlined the laws that were in place to prevent things like this from happening, and guess what they still did. So lets make more laws, and then there is and still things like this will happen and you response will be?...
A teacher in China stabbed 20 something children to death the other day. China has an absolute gun ban in that country.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

Nobody died. Which was a lot of people's argument for more gun control because they happened on the same day. Guy in Newton with assault rifle goes into a school, 20 kids end up dead. Guy in China goes into school with knife 20 kids end up stabbed/wounded, but no lives lost.
 
Last edited:
rashi said:
A teacher in China stabbed 20 something children to death the other day. China has an absolute gun ban in that country.
Click to expand...

First of all, your facts are wrong. No one died. Secondly, I keep seeing this brought up as a reason AGAINST stricter gun laws. I don't get that logic. He stabbed 20 people and none died. Had he been armed with guns people would have died.
 
Last edited:
lobotomybeats said:
rashi said:
A teacher in China stabbed 20 something children to death the other day. China has an absolute gun ban in that country.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing this brought up as a reason AGAINST stricter gun laws. I don't get that logic. He stabbed 20 people and none died. Had he been armed with guns people would have died.
Click to expand...
Exactly, anybody should know that you can cause more damage and kill more people at a faster rate with a gun that you can with a knife.  There's simply NO comparison to be made with these two examples.
 
malikdagoat said:
WRONG.
Nobody died. Which was a lot of people's argument for more gun control because they happened on the same day. Guy in Newton with assault rifle goes into a school, 20 kids end up dead. Guy in China goes into school with knife 20 kids end up stabbed/wounded, but no lives lost.
Click to expand...




My bad, 20 something kids were stabbed by someone. What difference does it make? It only further proves my point, that if someone is going to terrorize someone they are going to do it. The intent was the same. They don't need a gun. So what use of making more laws for a false sense of security?
 
Last edited:
its not the guns laws people

its raising your kids the right way!!!!

kids are not born crazy, kids are not born murders, kids are not born evil AT ALL!!!!

yes there are some kids who are born with brain problems or medical problems but even those kids in the ESE and special classes are not murders or crazy or evil! They are some of the most loving and out going kids you will come in contact with

this boils down to how you raise your kids bottom line!!!! no if ands or buts

these kids who the media calls crazy and have problems dont have no REAL mental problems at all

he knew how to wake up shoot mom go get a AR15 and bullet proof vest go get in the car drive to the school (meaning he had to follow simple traffic rules and laws) get to the school walk in certain place and shoot kids and teachers

a person who is truly crazy wouldnt be able to operate these things let alone drive a car without crashing

these kids are NOT crazy!!! THEY ARE THE SPOILED ONES!!!!

his mom probably gave him everything and let him have his way! She probably paid for any video game he wanted to keep him happy! Paid for his Xbox live fees, paid for the high speed internet, let him use her car, he probably demanded pizza while he sits at home and she probably ordered it then he probably got use to it then one day she said NO to something he flipped and got mad and she probably was out working late that day at the school comes home and he is going off and thats when she cuts off his xbox live and everything next thing you know he is heated like a 3 year old who couldnt have its way so he is like ima show her grabs a gun while shes sleep kills her by shooting her MULTIPLE times then says "YOU WANNA STAY AT WORK ALL NIGHT AND NOT COME HOME WITH WHAT I WANT" then thats when he heads to the school and kills them out of anger with his mom not letting him have his way and showing more attention to her job


these mass shootings with these so called computer nerds be the same case over and over and over and over

spank your kids! whoop them! if you dont believe in that punish them take away the TV, Games, nice clothes, computers, cell phone....im not talking about telling o you cant use this.....no take the TV out the room, cut the phone off

if they throw a fit which some kids will spank them then leave them in the room let em cry come back and tell them why you whooped em and why you spanked and talk to them calmly and show them why you love em. Then treat them with a nice meal right after talking to them......yes I said treat them.....my dad use to whoop me then talk to me about love and family and being successful then ask "what you want to eat ima go cook it" it put a smile on my face then after I got thru eating I would go to my room and as a kid I started to learn he is not whooping me to be a bad parent he loves me he spends time with me and actually lets me decided what dinner and dessert I want after I just got a whooping
 
rashi said:
My bad, 20 something kids were stabbed by someone. What difference does it make? It only further proves my point, that if someone is going to terrorize someone they are going to do it. They don't need a gun. So what use of making more laws for a false sense of security?
Click to expand...

View media item 174536
The "difference" is the 20 kids in China are alive...wounded, yes, but ALIVE. The 20 kids in Newtown are dead.

You can't possibly be that dense to not see the difference here.
 
rashi said:
My bad, 20 something kids were stabbed by someone. What difference does it make? It only further proves my point, that if someone is going to terrorize someone they are going to do it. The intent was the same. They don't need a gun. So what use of making more laws for a false sense of security?
Click to expand...

The difference is they are alive genius.

It's the picture perfect argument FOR gun control. It's scary that people could think this example shows why gun control wouldn't help
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom