School Shooting in Connecticut

Off Topic
381

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t see why some of you pro-gun people need to be so aggressive about the issue. It’s typically not a good sign whenever people get emotional/aggressive/defensive during an argumentation since it typically clouds their judgement.

I see that on this board a lot. Not sure if it’s just a sign of a lack of intelligence, lack of maturity, or a mixture of both, but it always makes a reasonable discussion impossible.

Clever people very rarely speak in absolutes, accept contradictory evidence, and are NOT dogmatic about their beliefs. You should try it for a change.

~end rant~
[/quote]

Fuck you, being reasonable, moderate and compromising gets you nowhere in todays political climate.

I know you would want the other side to be that way while yours will appeal to emotion, seize any opportunity to ram your agenda through, blow up insignificant stuff to win elections and run an ass rape train on the middle class if your cronies need to be saved from their bad decisions.

You poisoned the well, now drink from it.

With your side I mean Republicans, Democrats and every other statist, socia…, um, communitarian fuck that indulges in the hubris that he can shape society to his hearts delight.

Hubris by the does not literally translate to “the belief to be like the gods” the most literal translation when it comes to the emotional connotations is “violent, agressive arrogance” and everytime you use the power of the state to inch closer to your collectivist little paradise you are engaging in exactly that.

The original titel of a certain book was not Oedipus Rex, it was Oedipus Tyrannos, which by that time was not even a bad thing to be, tyrannos had no negative connotations, but if too few people hold too much power for too long the end result was always the same which is why tyranny got a bad rep.

Since I can see the endgame, because I, like, read books (basically stacks of paper that are glued together, look for them, you will find them) its gunsgunsgunsgunsGUNS and if you disagree you are an incestuous, sheep fucking, ignorant poophead.

Who would listen to someone like that?

382

Boobies?

383

A question for those in favor of more gun control: What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

384

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Boobies?[/quote]

Boooobiiiiieeees!

385

I wonder how many people posting in these threads in favor of gun bans or stricter laws use banned/outlawed substances.

387

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I read the first page and then skipped the the last few pages to see if gun crazies were out.

I was not disappointed.

Spitting on the the graves of children? Stay classy guys.[/quote]

Funny, I was under the impression that opportunistically capitalizing upon the death of children to force unconstitutional laws onto society was the less “classy” act. [/quote]

It’s disappointing that you see it as opportunistic rather than as a final straw bringing a call to action. The problem of mass shootings is getting worse not better and needs to be addressed.[/quote]

Don’t be obtuse. Have you not read anything else that I’ve posted in this entire thread? [/quote]

Nothing that you have said stands out, could you be more specific?
[/quote]

You took issue with my point, which was really just a snarky response to Mak’s troll, but you had nothing to say about his post. By that, I believe I can safely assume that you expect us NOT to reduce your stance to selfish opportunism, but it’s perfectly fine to do that with ours.

It’s transparent hypocrisy. [/quote]

Mak’s post was clearly trolling so why would I engage that? You typically don’t troll so I took your comment for what you said. Some people will rethink their opinions on gun regulations when something as tragic as this happens. The attack on Sandy Hook crossed a boundary that I believe will change the role of guns in America.

388

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

[/quote]

Armed teachers.

Here are my observations:

  1. This is a tradgedy, but keep it in perspective. Your kid is much more likely to die from a falling big screen TV than being shot. I don’t see the media demanding big screen TV control. Gee, I wonder why?

  2. The USA has a crazy loner problem, not a gun problem.

If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you. The root causes I see on this are the isolation of people due to a break down of the family unit AND, more importantly, since the Earl Warren Court, it’s basically impossible to lock up crazy people.

Yes, I know there is a sordid history in this country with sanitariums, but if done right, they are a great, safe, place. This is also the problem with homeless people, too, BTW.

  1. The attached picture is from Israel. It’s a school trip. The guys and lady with rifles are teachers.

You see, we have a much more common problem in Israel with sadly very sane people plotting to kill masses of Jewish children because their prophet told them we should be killed wherever we are found.

They use whatever is at hand — my wife was killed with a bomb; my daughters at about age 6 narrowly avoided being run over by a gentleman who just decided one day to drive along the sidewalk because it was filled with little Jewish girls. (He was gunned down by an off-duty IDF soldier with his sidearm.)

The world is a scary place. The USA has lived in a bubble for the better part of a century, but that bubble is popping. You need to get over the irrational fear of firearms because you are going to need them in the hands of sane, good, people.

389

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I read the first page and then skipped the the last few pages to see if gun crazies were out.

I was not disappointed.

Spitting on the the graves of children? Stay classy guys.[/quote]

Funny, I was under the impression that opportunistically capitalizing upon the death of children to force unconstitutional laws onto society was the less “classy” act. [/quote]

I wonder how much damage the guy would have done with just a pistol.

Interesting that you think I’m trolling.[/quote]

If you read the entire thread I think you’ll find that our arguments are a little more fleshed out and viable than your caricature of them. Until you do, you’re just trolling.

390

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder how much damage the guy would have done with just a pistol.
[/quote]

The same amount.

And if the guy wanted to carry 50 rounds with him he could’ve carried 5 ten round magazines or 3 seventeen round magazines.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

391

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
A question for those in favor of more gun control: What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

[/quote]

Prevent is not likely, but reducing the chances is what needs to happen. The treatment of mental illness needs to change. Currently mental illness is not treated the same as other illnesses and is almost never covered by insurance. The overwhelming attention that we give to these events needs to change. As it is these attacks dominate the media when they happen and we as a society are glued to the television waiting for information on “who did this”. That person is then dissected and in the end we will all know their name. The more attention they receive the more likely someone else is to imitate them which is horrifying considering the events of Sandy Hook. In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now.

392

  1. This event is too sad to comprehend.

  2. Sadness and Anger are ok. Fear is not.

  3. Legislation isn’t the answer in my opinion.

  4. Lots of talk about the scary tactical assault weaponry being used for this sort of thing. However, no matter how bad it is, I’m always thankful that the shooter wasn’t smart enough to use a good old fashioned shotgun loaded with buckshot. I’m sure the thought is “a shotty only holds 5-7 rounds” but the damage one of those things can do at short range is diabolical.

393

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:

  1. This event is too sad to comprehend.

  2. Sadness and Anger are ok. Fear is not.

  3. Legislation isn’t the answer in my opinion.

  4. Lots of talk about the scary tactical assault weaponry being used for this sort of thing. However, no matter how bad it is, I’m always thankful that the shooter wasn’t smart enough to use a good old fashioned shotgun loaded with buckshot. I’m sure the thought is “a shotty only holds 5-7 rounds” but the damage one of those things can do at short range is diabolical.[/quote]

Damn straight.

394

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
I’m sure the thought is “a shotty only holds 5-7 rounds” but the damage one of those things can do at short range is diabolical.[/quote]

Correct. If we were lucky enough to have some assigned to us, the guys with the scatterguns were the first through the door in Iraq just for this reason.

People are all excited about two 9mms and a Bushmaster. Now, I would not like to be shot by any of them, but I would take a .223 in the stomach over a 12g 00 buck any day.

I concur with the posters who say we need “nut control” and not “gun control.”

Gun control reminds me of the idiots at TSA looking for illegal pocket knives on airplanes. No, go look for terrorists.

395

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound.

396

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

Prevent is not likely, but reducing the chances is what needs to happen. The treatment of mental illness needs to change. Currently mental illness is not treated the same as other illnesses and is almost never covered by insurance. [/quote]

OK, then start here and leave the guns alone.

Overwhelmingly by orders of magnitude the number of gun owners who are responsible and don’t commit murder or break laws outnumber the number of incidents involving criminal use of firearms.

397

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder how much damage the guy would have done with just a pistol.
[/quote]

The same amount.

And if the guy wanted to carry 50 rounds with him he could’ve carried 5 ten round magazines or 3 seventeen round magazines.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
[/quote]

The left has decided that high capacity magazines are the source of shootings.

No, high capacity magazines are crappy-built magazines that jam, but remain attractive to nuts, resulting in people having time to run like hell. (Which is what happen in CO movie theater – the round high capacity mag jammed).

398

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
4. Lots of talk about the scary tactical assault weaponry being used for this sort of thing. However, no matter how bad it is, I’m always thankful that the shooter wasn’t smart enough to use a good old fashioned shotgun loaded with buckshot. I’m sure the thought is “a shotty only holds 5-7 rounds” but the damage one of those things can do at short range is diabolical.[/quote]

He was smart enough TO NOT use a shotgun (hard to conceal, heavy, small ammo capacity, slow to reload).

And dead is still dead, regardless of the mess.

399

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you.
[/quote]
I believe the ingredients needed to make a bomb of decent size are more regulated than guns. Try buying a significant amount of fertilizer and see what happens. Big Brother is out there.

400

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
He was smart enough TO NOT use a shotgun (hard to conceal, heavy, small ammo capacity, slow to reload). [/quote]

He used a Bushmaster AR-15. It’s likely larger than tactical shotgun, both length and height.

You can conceal a shotgun in a long coat; ask the victims of many a mob hit.

Round capacity is lower (typically 7), but anyone with any skill can reload a round a second, which is about as fast as you can shoot.