Shooting at Conn Elementary, 20 reported dead

[DMC]

That were bought legally.

This massacre doesnt happen if the shooter didnt have an assault rifle and semi-automatics available in his house.

Nice attempt though.

It didn't have to happen regardless. It's not like he was forced, against his will, to kill 20 children. It's not like he was a kid. The truth is you are powerless as can possibly be to do anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but you cannot accept that so you go after whatever you think you might have a chance as placing blame on. You've built a strawman out of the gun debate and basically ignored any human wrongdoing because you cannot do about it. I understand the frustration, but at some point you have to admit to yourself that you are powerless in the grand scheme, and you have to decide if you're going to remain prey to these things instead of taking matters into your own hands and protecting yourself. All the hate in the world isn't going to change anything. Assault weapons have been restricted in the past, as have magazine capacities. What happened was that existing stock sold like hotcakes and now there are about 10x the number of each that there would have otherwise been.

At the end of the day, even the law doesn't matter. All that matters is that I protect myself and my family.

[rascal]

So given the known conditions, that people do indeed have guns and that some people are bat crazy, you choose to not protect yourself against these people and just hope all the guns disappear.

Good luck with that. I will protect myself, my family and my home.

You miss everyone's points. You have blinders on, I am going to own guns and that is it. If someone wants to kill you they will, if you own a gun or not. You will be shot before you even know what hit you. Let's say the mob has a hit on you, you are gone, gun or not. Are you going to be walking around with an assault weapon strapped around your neck everywhere you go?

how are you going to protect yourself otherwise?

Dumb solution is to add more guns. How many more guns do you want? You want every man, woman and child to be armed? There are already millions of guns in the country and that s the problem, there are just too many guns already out there and those guns end up in the hands of the wrong people.

[DMC]

You miss everyone's points. You have blinders on, I am going to own guns and that is it. If someone wants to kill you they will, if you own a gun or not. You will be shot before you even know what hit you. Let's say the mob has a hit on you, you are gone, gun or not. Are you going to be walking around with an assault weapon strapped around your neck everywhere you go?

You can die while wearing a seat belt, but I still wear mine.

It's illegal to walk around with an assault rifle. I do have a CHL however, and I am routinely carrying a semi-auto. I have been for over 15 years. I've never even pulled it on anyone, never even thought I might have to. I also haven't changed a flat tire in years, nor have I used my first aid kit in my truck or my boat. That doesn't mean I need to get rid of them.

A mob hit, really?

how are you going to protect yourself otherwise?

Since my assault rife is an actual assault rifle, a select fire fully automatic weapon, it's not my first choice for home defense. There's a tactical element to home defense weapon choice that requires more than just a blurb on a page for people to actually comprehend so I'll spare you of the details.

Dumb solution is to add more guns. How many more guns do you want? You want every man, woman and child to be armed? There are already millions of guns in the country and that s the problem, there are just too many guns already out there and those guns end up in the hands of the wrong people.

I don't think anyone has suggested adding more guns. I simply stated that your choice to live in fear because your irrational hatred for guns leaves you and your family at risk is your own choice. I choose to be educated on something that could one day save my life or the life of someone I love. Every year I spend a few days at a place that teaches tactical response and home defense. It might do nothing for me, but I would feel irresponsible if something happened to my family and I couldn't do anything but use a cell phone.

Neither of us are going to eliminate guns from the crime stats in the US, but your stance is akin to not wearing a seat belt because you think road hazards should be eliminated. I don't like wearing a seat belt. I don't like carrying a concealed handgun. It's bersome, but it's better than the alternative.

[cantthinkofanything]

So given the known conditions, that people do indeed have guns and that some people are bat crazy, you choose to not protect yourself against these people and just hope all the guns disappear.

Good luck with that. I will protect myself, my family and my home.

the problem is that it's too easy for the gun control crowd to point at these mass killings as their proof that we need gun control. but the fact is that there are thousands more lives saved, rapes and assaults avoided, etc. just due to the simple fact that people are allowed to have guns.

[DMC]

the problem is that it's too easy for the gun control crowd to point at these mass killings as their proof that we need gun control. but the fact is that there are thousands more lives saved, rapes and assaults avoided, etc. just due to the simple fact that people are allowed to have guns.

The problem is that gun rights advocates willingly take on the onus of proof when it comes to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment was ratified long long ago. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine trying to demand proof that the 1st Amendment is necessary. It's not necessary, except to a free state.

From Wiki:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. er, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia^[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.^[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.^[4]

These are interpretations of the BoR. The argument of "should" doesn't come into play in the USSC cases. "Should", then, is an individual decision, unless anyone here thinks that the USSC will overturn it's own rulings.

What will happen is placebo legislation on evil features, things that the gun ignorant person thinks makes a gun more effective for killing, like forearm grips and magazine capacity and black synthetic stocks.

[cantthinkofanything]

The problem is that gun rights advocates willingly take on the onus of proof when it comes to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment was ratified long long ago. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine trying to demand proof that the 1st Amendment is necessary. It's not necessary, except to a free state.

From Wiki:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. er, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia^[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.^[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.^[4]

These are interpretations of the BoR. The argument of "should" doesn't come into play in the USSC cases. "Should", then, is an individual decision, unless anyone here thinks that the USSC will overturn it's own rulings.

What will happen is placebo legislation on evil features, things that the gun ignorant person thinks makes a gun more effective for killing, like forearm grips and magazine capacity and black synthetic stocks.

if we start down this road, I don't think it stops. Someone starts sniping people, then we have to ban scopes. someone goes nuts with a revolver, , why would anyone need 6 shots?

[DMC]

if we start down this road, I don't think it stops. Someone starts sniping people, then we have to ban scopes. someone goes nuts with a revolver, , why would anyone need 6 shots?

We don't need to follow idiots down these dead end roads. We have the BoR. The same BoR allows them to say whatever they like about the government without being imprisoned, censored or killed allows us to keep and bear arms. They don't have to like it. Sometimes most of us don't like due process in cases where the killer seems obvious.

[cantthinkofanything]

We don't need to follow idiots down these dead end roads. We have the BoR. The same BoR allows them to say whatever they like about the government without being imprisoned, censored or killed allows us to keep and bear arms. They don't have to like it. Sometimes most of us don't like due process in cases where the killer seems obvious.

Are you confident that the BoR is not going to be under attack under this administration?

[leemajors]

List of school shootings and anti depressants gunmen were being treated with:

http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Doesn't prove there is a direct link, but it seems this should be discussed moreso than gun control.

[DMC]

Are you confident that the BoR is not going to be under attack under this administration?

If it could be defeated, Clinton would have done so. Libs run on a platform of "we are not trying to take guns away" then they try to pass legislation to restrict firearms. Technically they've never passed a law that takes away guns. Even fully autos were grandfathered in if you registered them.

No, I don't think the BoR will be under attack. I think, as I said, congress will compromise and pass some placebo legislation because they know that the USSC will shoot down any extreme gun control laws and states will flip the bird to ratification of any changes to the BoR.

The link is interesting. My BiL spoke to a school board recently (when his property taxes were increased) and showed them that 25% of their students were on some form of behavior modification medication. There's a legal limit to the percentage of students that can be on that, and most schools ignore that and parents who don't like to actually raise kids will drug them, and if little johnny isn't acting like his brother, he's depressed and gets medications.

Some is probably necessary, but most of it is just big pharma in cahoots with doctors. I didn't know a single person in HS who was taking any behavior mod drugs.

[da_suns_fan]

It didn't have to happen regardless. It's not like he was forced, against his will, to kill 20 children. It's not like he was a kid. The truth is you are powerless as can possibly be to do anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but you cannot accept that so you go after whatever you think you might have a chance as placing blame on. .

Bull .

If assault rifles arent legal, his mother doesnt buy one.

Unless this extremely bizarre and introverted kid has connections in a military black market, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he would have been able to get these weapons.

Thats not powerless. Thats systematically eliminating the availability of a lethal weapon to the general public.

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken to admit it.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.

[thunderfan]

Bull .

If assault rifles arent legal, his mother doesnt buy one.

Unless this extremely bizarre and introverted kid has connections in a military black market, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he would have been able to get these weapons.

Thats not powerless. Thats systematically eliminating the availability of a lethal weapon to the general public.

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken to admit it.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

[cantthinkofanything]

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

Which is what exactly a large part of the gun control crowd already knows. they'll systematically ban everything item by item as it is used in some tragic killing.
He could have walked in there with a couple of revolvers, killed 7 or 8 children and we'd be having the same discussion about the need to control guns.

[leemajors]

US govt banning things usually turns out enabling organized crime's exponential growth in the end.

[da_suns_fan]

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

If Assault Rifles dont change anything, then WHY DO THE PSYCHOS KEEP USING ASSAULT RIFLES?

[cantthinkofanything]

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

which of the first graders was going to tackle him when paused 3 seconds to change clips?

[da_suns_fan]

Which is what exactly a large part of the gun control crowd already knows. they'll systematically ban everything item by item as it is used in some tragic killing.
He could have walked in there with a couple of revolvers, killed 7 or 8 children and we'd be having the same discussion about the need to control guns.

7 or 8 <<<<< 26

[da_suns_fan]

which of the first graders was going to tackle him when paused 3 seconds to change clips?

Would have given them time to run away or an adult (teacher etc) a chance to tackle him.

The point is assault rifles are much more lethal...thats why the psychos choose them.

[cantthinkofanything]

7 or 8 <<<<< 26

yeah...I get that. It's better. But my point was that if he had walked in and killed 7 or 8 kids with revolvers, we'd be having the exact same discussions about gun control.
None of the gun control side would be saying, "good thing he didn't have a semi auto".

[cantthinkofanything]

Would have given them time to run away or an adult (teacher etc) a chance to tackle him.

The point is assault rifles are much more lethal...thats why the psychos choose them.

He had to change clips on the .223 also.

[da_suns_fan]

He had to change clips on the .223 also.

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

[cantthinkofanything]

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

If Assault Rifles dont change anything, then WHY DO THE PSYCHOS KEEP USING ASSAULT RIFLES?

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

You responded to thunderfan's comments on the 20 rd handgun clips saying that when he reloaded, they would have time to tackle him. It takes less than a couple of seconds to change out 20 rd. magazines. Haven't seen what the Conn. shooter used but I'm guessing 30 round clips. He still had to change out clips.

[cantthinkofanything]

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

And in this case, the psycho "chose" the AR-15 because that was the gun his mom had. It's a popular and affordable gun. Would it surprise you that the most wrecked car in the U.S. is also one of the most popular?
Or would you just assume it was the most dangerous?

[Drachen]

And in this case, the psycho "chose" the AR-15 because that was the gun his mom had. It's a popular and affordable gun. Would it surprise you that the most wrecked car in the U.S. is also one of the most popular?
Or would you just assume it was the most dangerous?

He could have chosen any of the other three guns she had (and he had with him).

[johnsmith]

Obviously you guys never played Metal Gear. Revolver Ocelot could up back in the day.