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

[bpt13]

Gun Contol doesn't mean eradication of guns. please people get that through your  head.

 

[lobotomybeats]

there's a REASON obama said nothing about guns in his speech during da CT funeral

Yeah, it's called tact. You should try it.

 

[wawawowee]

Mentally ill individual and nothing on whether he was on meds (yet plenty about guns)? I wonder why.

Like I've mentioned earlier;  how many drug ads are on TV/radio/the net and how many gun ads?

"Generation RX" is on Netflix. I watched it before what took place on Friday and it was a quality doc.

 

[phinsfan88]

Posted this in another thread, but I felt it should be said as well.



I don't support an all-out ban. That is a knee-jerk reaction and is downright ignorant. Felt the same way back in 2007, and still stand behind that today. Evil people will always find ways to do evil things. Unfortunately, that is just how we have been since the dawn of time. My argument is to inact further regulations and checks to limit those who carry. The mental health situation in our country is atrocious. And no one wants to hold accountability for their actions or lack thereof. Always wanting to blame their problems on someone else. 

This is somewhat off-topic, but there is a commercial that just astounds me everyday that I hear it on the radio. Something about AT&T's fast download/streaming speeds and some mom that doesn't want to pay attention to her kid so she sticks him in front of a tablet to watch a movie. To me, this is the definition of parenting today. I can't speak on parenting in-depth, as I don't know what it's like to have a child. But if you make the decision to have one, be a parent from day 1 to their 18th birthday. What is the average age of these people that have committed these acts? Parents need to get back to being parents and be present in their lives. If you see they are struggling, find the help they need.

Obviously, these are my personal opinions and do not encompass all of the problems and factors pertaining to these events in the last 4-5 years. But there is a growing trend, and I, for one, want to be a part of the solution, not the problem. I miss my friends dearly and really hope our nation's leaders finally get it together. I suggest checking out http://www.demandaplan.org/ or http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.

 

[superblytrife]

there's a REASON obama said nothing about guns in his speech during da CT funeral

Yeah, it's called tact. You should try it.

I'm sayin' though!  

I would like to think that ninja was just so wrapped up in his pro-gun stance that he just overlooked the possibility of President Obama having a little bit of common sense while speaking at the vigil of 27 people who got killed about 48 hours earlier.  But naw--dude is just really that dumb.  Obama should've made their vigil all about politics according to ninja.  

 

[ksteezy]

My dude Ninja is off....homie lives in his own planet, where he's NEVER EVER wrong.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

so why abide by any laws? pssh....da thirst to take away da 2nd amendment is so bad that ya would actually destroy da fabric of da constitution to do it. thats smart


da 2nd amendment is a protected right, like voting, like freedom of press, like freedom of religion, like freedom of expression. deal with it.


wanna feel protected? get your own gun, i sure as hell getting mine.

Its called change. Adapting with the times. You clearly have no interest in either of these concepts.


Freedom to kill should not be in the same conversation as freedom of religion, press, or speech.

our values shouldn't bends at da whims of every little disaster.

da freedom to bear arms is a fundamental right to da citizens of this country.

so if people say bad things about da president, whats next, change freedom of press and turn into a police state? nah b.

da constitution is etched in stone for da most part, and should be treated as such.

You don't know the history of the second amendment, ninja. It wasn't until the last 35 years that the Second Amendment garnered citizens the kind of freedoms with weapons that it does now.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

A sample of the text from the article linked above:

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’etat at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

I hope you, and everyone else in this thread, reads the entire article for a brief, general understanding of how second amendment rights have arrived to this point in our nation's history.

 

[Jordan8]

this **** was really ****** up i still cant believe this crap happened

 

[julesbeats]

Damn Edwin all those Jordans and no common sense...

 

[antbanks81]

illest I agree that this has been tough to follow. Even if I didn't have kids I would be hurting for those kids and their parents. I hate seeing so many young lives cut down so early. One of the little girls had just celebrated a birthday a few days before. My kids have gotten away with alot the past few days because I'm so thankful for them in the wake of this tragedy, and I'm fine with it

Tighter gun control won't stop anything. Guns will always be available to those that want them. Evil is going to be around. Until we get to a point where crime is predicted (some movie)all we can do is be better parents and people.

 

[pepperjackchees]

I'm hoping for change we can believe in, but nothing substantial is going to happen. Even Harry Reid, the democrat senate majority leader is backed by NRA money. NRA pockets and power are just stupid deep. 

Also, gun stores are THRIVING right now. All I can say is watch out for your life. 

 

[hongcouver604]

I thought this was an interesting article. Australia had a mass shooting back in 1996 and opted for stricter gun laws, it yielded positive results - steady decline every year in gun violence. There hasn't been one single mass shooting since then.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
TT_121217_sandyHookIconicImage
Read more from Slate's coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

 

[-Red-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

20 lives lost vs 20 wounded.
Pretty substantial difference.

Still missing the point.

There are really no words for this type of lunacy other than it is indicative of the approach of so many gun worshipers in general. Homie thought reality was one way and used that to support his position. He then found out reality was in direct contradiction to what he initially thought and then used this new, opposite scenario to also support his stance in the exact same manner. It doesn't matter to him what really happened because no matter what happened, he sees it as support for his position...

"Still missing the point," indeed...

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Lol at "whats the difference?" between 20 dead kids and 20 kids recovering from knife wounds...

 

[jjs07]

Lol at "whats the difference?" between 20 dead kids and 20 kids recovering from knife wounds...

I know, right? Must be ignoring the fact that those 20 kids who were stabbed will get to see their parents the next day.

 

[r0cs finest]

Lol at "whats the difference?" between 20 dead kids and 20 kids recovering from knife wounds...

I cant believe people are that smart 

 

[beh235]

Just came to peek in here and I see that "what's the difference?" comment, now I know why I avoided coming in here and will continue to do so, Peace.

 

[delete1234]

wow. what an idiot.

 

[rashi]

There are really no words for this type of lunacy other than it is indicative of the approach of so many gun worshipers in general. Homie thought reality was one way and used that to support his position. He then found out reality was in direct contradiction to what he initially thought and then used this new, opposite scenario to also support his stance in the exact same manner. It doesn't matter to him what really happened because no matter what happened, he sees it as support for his position...
"Still missing the point," indeed...

So I'll ask you, since nobody else has. Care to explain how more laws will discourage the intent to kill?

 

[senorroboto2k5]

IT WON'T. BUT IT WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR THOSE WITH THE INTENT TO KILL TO GET THE WEAPONS TO DO SO. THEY CAN STILL OBTAIN WEAPONS AND LITERALLY USE ANYTHING TO TRY AND COMMIT AN VIOLENT ACT BUT IT WILL BE HARDER. EVEN A LITTLE BIT HARDER MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. If you want to defend the right to own guns, then go ahead, but you gotta see the other side too.

 

[rashi]

IT WON'T. BUT IT WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR THOSE WITH THE INTENT TO KILL TO GET THE WEAPONS TO DO SO. THEY CAN STILL OBTAIN WEAPONS AND LITERALLY USE ANYTHING TO TRY AND COMMIT AN VIOLENT ACT BUT IT WILL BE HARDER. EVEN A LITTLE BIT HARDER MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. If you want to defend the right to own guns, then go ahead, but you gotta see the other side too.

So more gun laws would've prevented Timothy McVeigh? Muhammad Atta or any of the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

 

[-Red-]

There are really no words for this type of lunacy other than it is indicative of the approach of so many gun worshipers in general. Homie thought reality was one way and used that to support his position. He then found out reality was in direct contradiction to what he initially thought and then used this new, opposite scenario to also support his stance in the exact same manner. It doesn't matter to him what really happened because no matter what happened, he sees it as support for his position...
"Still missing the point," indeed...

So I'll ask you, since nobody else has. Care to explain how more laws will discourage the intent to kill?

Are you really this dense bro? More laws won't "discourage the intent to kill," but that's not the point. The point is that steps can be taken to hinder the ability of those with intent to commit mass murder from being able to do so so easily. As it stands now in this country, the desire to commit mass murder essentially equates to the ability to do so given the prevalence and availability of firearms. As evidenced by the events in China, the intent to commit mass murder does not inherently equate to the ability to do so. You're completely ignoring the vast difference in the outcomes of these two situations when this difference couldn't be more clear and of more importance...

 

[rashi]

Are you really this dense bro? More laws won't "discourage the intent to kill," but that's not the point. The point is that steps can be taken to hinder the ability of those with intent to commit mass murder from being able to do so so easily. As it stands now in this country, the desire to commit mass murder essentially equates to the ability to do so given the prevalence and availability of firearms. As evidenced by the events in China, the intent to commit mass murder does not inherently equate to the ability to do so. You're completely ignoring the vast difference in the outcomes of these two situations when this difference couldn't be more clear and of more importance...

More gun laws will make it harder to go on to Google and search "homemade bombs" to blow up an entire school? What next making it harder to find the individual products it takes to do so, right?

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Some people play the "slippery slope" card too far.

 

[rashi]

Some people play the "slippery slope" card too far.

No. I just don't understand why people think that mass killings will be ended with the regulation of guns. 3,000 people died on 9/11 when assault rifles were already banned. What excuse do ya'll have now?