[quote]Severiano wrote:
Horrible thing that went down.
So, it was pistols that killed all the children, and the AR15 was in the trunk of the vehicle…
[/quote]
No.
The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance
And the wounds varied from 3 shots to 11 shots per victim, the last I read. As sad as this is, there is another sad fact, that some of the funerals will be closed casket.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.[/quote]
Why leave a violent thug the possibility of living?
[/quote]
I don’t know, but some people claim to value life more than me which is why I had to ask. Support for death penalty is at a record low in the US.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This shooting is just too perfect for gun-control advocates. Kids killed = maximum emotional response. Stolen legally-owned guns = nobody should have guns because they could be stolen and used for mass killing. Mother was concerned about financial and societal collapse = prepper conspiracy nuts’ kids go postal.
.223, .223, .223, .223 even though the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the vehicle. Shooter was wearing a mask and was not witnessed shooting himself. Multiple shooters reported initially by eyewitnesses, but only one in the official report.
Shooter had a nervous medical condition that inhibited pain response. Same medical condition also adversely affects motor function, yet he was able to fire a weapon so well that he managed to kill 26/27 (with a pistol!!), and the one injured was probably a ricochet (she was shot in the foot). We have trained/experienced LEO and Mil that couldn’t pull that off and you’re telling me a 20yo nerd did it?
Lanza’s dad and Holmes’ dad are both set to testify in the LIBOR scandal… Holmes’ case looks the same way with the multiple shooters initially reported, wearing the same black tactical getup, apparent mental disorder, etc…
Every bit of this stinks.[/quote]
[/quote]
Err…didn’t see that one.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This shooting is just too perfect for gun-control advocates. Kids killed = maximum emotional response. Stolen legally-owned guns = nobody should have guns because they could be stolen and used for mass killing. Mother was concerned about financial and societal collapse = prepper conspiracy nuts’ kids go postal.
.223, .223, .223, .223 even though the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the vehicle. Shooter was wearing a mask and was not witnessed shooting himself. Multiple shooters reported initially by eyewitnesses, but only one in the official report.
Shooter had a nervous medical condition that inhibited pain response. Same medical condition also adversely affects motor function, yet he was able to fire a weapon so well that he managed to kill 26/27 (with a pistol!!), and the one injured was probably a ricochet (she was shot in the foot). We have trained/experienced LEO and Mil that couldn’t pull that off and you’re telling me a 20yo nerd did it?
Lanza’s dad and Holmes’ dad are both set to testify in the LIBOR scandal… Holmes’ case looks the same way with the multiple shooters initially reported, wearing the same black tactical getup, apparent mental disorder, etc…
Every bit of this stinks.[/quote]
[/quote]
There’s no evidence that Robert Holmes is testifying about LIBOR to anyone. This rumor goes back at least 3 months that I remember.
Also, there’s no reason to think that Peter Lanza had anything to do with LIBOR either.
According to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, between 120,000 and 130,000 guns were sold on the Saturday after the shooting.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This shooting is just too perfect for gun-control advocates. Kids killed = maximum emotional response. Stolen legally-owned guns = nobody should have guns because they could be stolen and used for mass killing. Mother was concerned about financial and societal collapse = prepper conspiracy nuts’ kids go postal.
.223, .223, .223, .223 even though the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the vehicle. Shooter was wearing a mask and was not witnessed shooting himself. Multiple shooters reported initially by eyewitnesses, but only one in the official report.
Shooter had a nervous medical condition that inhibited pain response. Same medical condition also adversely affects motor function, yet he was able to fire a weapon so well that he managed to kill 26/27 (with a pistol!!), and the one injured was probably a ricochet (she was shot in the foot). We have trained/experienced LEO and Mil that couldn’t pull that off and you’re telling me a 20yo nerd did it?
Lanza’s dad and Holmes’ dad are both set to testify in the LIBOR scandal… Holmes’ case looks the same way with the multiple shooters initially reported, wearing the same black tactical getup, apparent mental disorder, etc…
Every bit of this stinks.[/quote]
[/quote]
There’s no evidence that Robert Holmes is testifying about LIBOR to anyone. This rumor goes back at least 3 months that I remember.
Also, there’s no reason to think that Peter Lanza had anything to do with LIBOR either.
[/quote]
Or any reason to think that trained assassins wouldn’t just cap a witness and disappear; rather, they would stage a shooting in a grade school killing 30 kids to “cover their tracks” and frame a patsy.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t know, but some people claim to value life more than me which is why I had to ask. Support for death penalty is at a record low in the US.[/quote]
I am also against the death penalty but I would not hesitate to take out a violent thug whilst in a violent act especially to save lives.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t know, but some people claim to value life more than me which is why I had to ask. Support for death penalty is at a record low in the US.[/quote]
I am also against the death penalty but I would not hesitate to take out a violent thug whilst in a violent act especially to save lives.[/quote]
But… would you take out someone you overheard in a conversation you were not part of like 57 year old “Lester” did at his barber shop?
“Lester” overheard “makes me want to murder the suspect” by someone talking about the elementary school killer. “Lester” has a guilty conscience and says “You want to murder me?” “Lester” then walked out to his sedan, retrieved a loaded Smith & Wesson 9 mm pistol and fired three times in the customer’s direction. You can’t make this stuff up and I see it weekly.
READ THESE STORIES & TALK WITH A VARIED GROUP OF FRIENDS & UNDERSTAND HOW MEDIA SEEKS TO CONTROLS US. WHAT A TIME WE LIVE IN.
**GALLUP POLL
Americans want focus on MENTAL HEALTH, POLICE, VIDEO VIOLENCE rather than more gun laws. Hollywood and the elite media ignore this and focus on their slanted manipulated data.
LIBERAL CNN POLL*********************************
Bare Majority “NOW” Supports More GUN RESTRICTIONS
WALMART SELLS OUT OF AMMO & GUNS
LIBERAL CNN MONEY.com************************************
Gun Industry Faces Slump
BULLET PROOF BACKPACK & KIDS BODY ARMOR SALES SOAR
DEMOCRAT URGES CITIZENS TO “TURN IN YOUR GUNS”
HARRY REID CARRIED A GUN EVERY PLACE HE WENT
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
But… would you take out someone you overheard in a conversation you were not part of like 57 year old “Lester” did at his barber shop?
“Lester” overheard “makes me want to murder the suspect” by someone talking about the elementary school killer. “Lester” has a guilty conscience and says “You want to murder me?” “Lester” then walked out to his sedan, retrieved a loaded Smith & Wesson 9 mm pistol and fired three times in the customer’s direction. You can’t make this stuff up and I see it weekly.
Wow, but I thought criminals were not supposed to have guns?
Huh…
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA ? ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.[/quote]
Why leave a violent thug the possibility of living?
[/quote]
I don’t know, but some people claim to value life more than me which is why I had to ask. Support for death penalty is at a record low in the US.[/quote]
A bill was put on the ballot here in California to undo the Death Penalty, it failed miserably.
Apparently even the tree huggers want the Death Penalty.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.[/quote]
What REASONABLE scenario can you imagine that would cause you to advance this unicorn prognostication?
Can you point to a single instance in history where this Diminished Reason Utopia has existed?[/quote]
Harsh language.
Yes, Push from now on, people can just curse at their attacker, maybe throw some bath salts at them. But never will you be allowed to protect thyself from being taken off the map of planet Earth.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.
In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.
Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.
[/quote]
These are platitudes. They don’t address the simple fact that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving. We have a collective interest in barring them from doing so. A driver’s test and license issuance are the best shot we’ve got at that.
What exactly is the alternative? I mean in specific terms, not “well we become stronger individuals and test ourselves.”
It’s on issues like this one that small-government advocates stumble over themselves. There are serious problems with the size and arm-length of the United States government. Driver’s tests aint one of em.[/quote]
It is a platitude when viewed through your platitudinous reading and comprehension.
I am not against driving tests and it was never my intention to address a solution. I have said here I do not have a solution. How presumptuous of me to express my opinion only if I am going to solve the problem.
Or rather my solution is only to make sure I do not become part of the problem.
Self-reliance; self-confidence, awareness and exercise of civic responsibility:
The government cannot give me that.
I am against RELIANCE on INSTITUTIONALIZED tests. Not so much the tests themselves.
Big government people are a stumbling block to everybody because you foster dependency on the state and not the self.
On a subsequent post I pointed out that the even with the government tests we have now “They don’t address the simple fact that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving.”. still.
My solution is to grow a conscience and to make sure I am not a lethal weapon when I am driving.
If you think that I am stumbling over myself because I don’t have a solution to save the sheep from the “serious problems” created by an overly dependent and weak society, you are madly mistaken.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.
In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.
Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.
[/quote]
These are platitudes. They don’t address the simple fact that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving. We have a collective interest in barring them from doing so. A driver’s test and license issuance are the best shot we’ve got at that.
What exactly is the alternative? I mean in specific terms, not “well we become stronger individuals and test ourselves.”
It’s on issues like this one that small-government advocates stumble over themselves. There are serious problems with the size and arm-length of the United States government. Driver’s tests aint one of em.[/quote]
It is a platitude when viewed through your platitudinous reading and comprehension.
I am not against driving tests and it was never my intention to address a solution. I have said here I do not have a solution. How presumptuous of me to express my opinion only if I am going to solve the problem.
Or rather my solution is only to make sure I do not become part of the problem.
Self-reliance; self-confidence, awareness and exercise of civic responsibility:
The government cannot give me that.
I am against RELIANCE on INSTITUTIONALIZED tests. Not so much the tests themselves.
Big government people are a stumbling block to everybody because you foster dependency on the state and not the self.
On a subsequent post I pointed out that the even with the government tests we have now “They don’t address the simple fact that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving.”. still.
My solution is to grow a conscience and to make sure I am not a lethal weapon when I am driving.
If you think that I am stumbling over myself because I don’t have a solution to save the sheep from the “serious problems” created by an overly dependent and weak society, you are madly mistaken.
[/quote]
I took your post to be in agreement with the notion, expressed just before it, that no one has the right to issue driver’s licenses and tests. It’s still unclear to me whether or not you believe this (what exactly is being “against reliance on tests”? How is that manifested as a tangible policy? Does it is fact entail the elimination of the driver’s test? And how exactly does the DMV figure in any way into the trite line about big government fostering dependency?), but if I was mistaken, my apologies.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I took your post to be in agreement with the notion, expressed just before it, that no one has the right to issue driver’s licenses and tests. It’s still unclear to me whether or not you believe this (what exactly is being “against reliance on tests”? How is that manifested as a tangible policy? Does it is fact entail the elimination of the driver’s test? And how exactly does the DMV figure in any way into the trite line about big government fostering dependency?), but if I was mistaken, my apologies.[/quote]
Ah, yes.
I can see how that happened.
This was the notion expressed before my post:
“I also don’t believe anyone has the right to make me take a driver’s test or have I.D. to prove who I am, etc.”
Government is not part of my belief system.
The government having or not having a right to make me take a test is a non-issue for me.
If a person has a sense of personal and by extension civic responsibility, taking a test and/or making sure one is capable of driving or doing anything in society so as not to harm others occurs naturally.
If I know I am capable then an institution requiring me to take a test to prove my word is not going to be a problem per se.
I am not relying on the institution to give me confidence as a driver. Passing the test does not give me confidence neither does it qualify me to drive a car: I qualify myself.
The government does have the right to issue a driver’s license because the “people” ie, the majority has put that right into their hands.
The government doe not have the right to make me do anything against my will.
If I don’t want to take the test I can stay out of the system and pay for taxi drivers, etc…
I believe government represents authority.
It is greatly needed for those that do not know their own authority and who do not know how to exercise their free will for personal good and the good of others.
If you don’t know the proper use of your free will then you need to be told how to live and there are those who need to be controlled. There are also those who need to rely on something outside themselves.
When you live your life by principles you don’t have to follow rules: rules are met naturally.
And I am sorry but if I wanted to write tangible policies to solve the world problems I would not be doing so for free on a bodybuilding forum.
As for the DMV figuring into the trite line of big government:
Do come down to Florida to be with all the elderly ladies that are shrinking with each year they age and can barely see over the steering wheel, and reverse at 5 mph without looking back hoping people will see them, and yet are still relying on their driving license issued by the government back when they were 16 years old.
16 to 86 and onto the grave ( hopefully not taking others with them.).
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Horrible thing that went down.
So, it was pistols that killed all the children, and the AR15 was in the trunk of the vehicle…
[/quote]
No.
The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance [/quote]
There is a lot of contradictory information, that’s for sure.