Another School Shooter. This makes me sick to my stomach.

[creggur]

The gun did not kill anybody. It was the chosen tool used by a person to kill on this day. Crazy is Crazy and people set to kill people will use what ever means possible. I do not own guns, but I do believe in the right to have them and believe a national licensing policy would go a long way in reducing the amount of emotionally unstable people that own them. Disarming law abiding citizens is a BAD idea. Making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain a gun is a GOOD idea. Political correctness, deterioration of morals and values, and everybody is a winner syndrome has contributed more to the delinquency of our society than an inanimate object. Its hard to take the crazy out of people once its already hardwired in. Killers are going to kill; if not with guns it will be IED's, homemade chemical agents/toxins, edged weapons...etc. Another part of the plan needs to focus on education. Education that will restore moral and ethical values to our children, which in turn will help them deal with society and the life struggles they will encounter.

^^This^^

 

[Twisties]

Quote from: Ahdrvr on December 14, 2012, 11:49:04 am

Funny how all these shootings happens where guns aren't allowed. It just ensures a safe workplace for criminals.[/quote]

I hear the same on the news! I don't think it maters when the criminals are wiling to take their own lives, they will do some damage before they go down themselves.

Interesting. I thought open carry w/o permit and concealed carry with permit were legal in a number of venues where these things have happened. Colorado at the theater, Oregon at the mall, just to name two very recent incidents that come right to mind and where I happen to be familiar with the laws. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of these incidents occur where guns are legal. As well, I just read that 74% of them occur with legally owned guns. Schools and Universities are the exception, I'll grant you that, although in Connecticut, so far as I can see at the moment, concealed carry with permit is legal in schools is legal with permission.

 

[TommyBwell]

I hate that this has turned into a gun control debate but it was inevitable. The guns used yesterday were not legally owned by the shooter. They were stolen from his mother.

 

[EricV]

What happened is a tragedy and will be dissected for months to come. Prayers to the families and all involved.

This will stop when we as a country stop publicly and vocally insisting that someone else make things safe for us and accept that it is up to each individual to make things safe for themselves, and to accept personal responsibility for our own individual actions.

One of the heros of this incident was a young female teacher that hid her class in a closet and when the gunman entered her classroom, told him the children were in the gym. He killed her and left, never knowing the children were hidden in the room. Had she also been trained to use weapons and defend herself, she might have also been able to save herself and disable or kill the gunman.

And I use the term weapon, because the knowledge of defending yourself is not restricted to firearms, though they are more regulated than many weapons of opportunity that have no public recognition as 'weapons', yet are equally deadly when used as such.

 

[erenet]

The guns used yesterday were not legally owned by the shooter. They were stolen from his mother.

This was terrible, starting with his mother getting killed by her own sun and her own gun.

 

[Twisties]

I hate that this has turned into a gun control debate but it was inevitable. The guns used yesterday were not legally owned by the shooter. They were stolen from his mother.

Perhaps, depending on the exact word and interpretation of law in Connecticut. They were legally sold and legally owned in the home where the shooter lived and had access to them. But you are right, even if he had permission to the general use of them, presumably, although stranger things have happened, his permission to use them did not extend to shooting their owner and shooting up the school. Therefore, technically stolen, by a hair's breadth, or maybe a tiny bit less, depending on your pov. Actually, probably would take a specific legal expert on Connecticut criminal laws to offer a worthy opinion.

So what do we do about legal gun owners that do not restrict access to their weapons, or weapons legally sold, but later stolen (in the more common sense of the word, stolen)? I was in a home the just the other day where the handguns are left out for the kids (8 and 5 yoa) to use out in the yard after school. The expensive hunting rifles are kept in the gun safe, presumably for their own protection. Although I live adjacent to the property in question, it didn't bother me.... these kids are well trained and follow the rules. So where is the line? How do we even recognize it? If we can't recognize it, and get gun owners to respect it, then this becomes a potent argument for banning or severely restricting guns.

 

[Twisties]

What happened is a tragedy and will be dissected for months to come. Prayers to the families and all involved.

This will stop when we as a country stop publicly and vocally insisting that someone else make things safe for us and accept that it is up to each individual to make things safe for themselves, and to accept personal responsibility for our own individual actions.

One of the heros of this incident was a young female teacher that hid her class in a closet and when the gunman entered her classroom, told him the children were in the gym. He killed her and left, never knowing the children were hidden in the room. Had she also been trained to use weapons and defend herself, she might have also been able to save herself and disable or kill the gunman.

And I use the term weapon, because the knowledge of defending yourself is not restricted to firearms, though they are more regulated than many weapons of opportunity that have no public recognition as 'weapons', yet are equally deadly when used as such.

So, we're finally going to disband the military? Get rid of the police? Get rid of jails? Eliminate the courts?

 

[kballowe]

I've read these same debates on half a dozen forums.

Some folks seem to think that banning guns is the answer.

Some folks think that the teachers being armed is the answer.

The truth is that one cannot legislate sanity. There will always be crazy people in this world. It is a very sad fact.

They say that hindsight is 20/20.

We can all go back and examine the events and postulate preventive measures... but (in my mind) it all goes back to "one cannot legislate sanity".

 

[Boondocker]

Yes this is a tragedy of the first order. Yes it will fuel the anti-gun debate. Personal responsibility does not apply to the insane.
Facilities that don't allow weapons should be labeled as Victim Zones.
Come on in, kill us, we're unarmed.
I am too responsible to be a victim. I know whose responsibility it is to protect me and those around me. It is mine.

 

[Twisties]

I am too responsible to be a victim. I know whose responsibility it is to protect me and those around me. It is mine.

Yep, it's the victim's fault. All the victim's fault.

 

[EricV]

So, we're finally going to disband the military? Get rid of the police? Get rid of jails? Eliminate the courts?

If that's what you took from my post, you missed the message. The military doesn't have anything to do with this, other than if everyone had to serve a year or two, they'd have better skills and knowledge about personal defense. The police are reactive, not proactive. They do not prevent crime, but respond when a crime has already occurred. Jails and courts are also after the fact realities for people that are caught, not preventative measures.

Like the fallacy that gun control works. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws, so passing more laws has little effect upon them.

 

[MikeBear]

If that's what you took from my post, you missed the message. The military doesn't have anything to do with this, other than if everyone had to serve a year or two, they'd have better skills and knowledge about personal defense. The police are reactive, not proactive. They do not prevent crime, but respond when a crime has already occurred. Jails and courts are also after the fact realities for people that are caught, not preventative measures.

Like the fallacy that gun control works. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws, so passing more laws has little effect upon them.

It was like that in USSR. Everybody after highschool had to serve in the military, unless you got in college. 2 years for army and Air Force and 3 years for navy.

 

[Dirt_Dad]

It was like that in USSR. Everybody after highschool had to serve in the military, unless you got in college. 2 years for army and Air Force and 3 years for navy.

Many nations have compulsory military service. Based on the overwhelming number of people that would likely be impossible in the US. Personally I think that's unfortunate since both our society and the individuals would benefit greatly from service. Far too many people are clueless about the cost of freedom.

The Connecticut shooting is truly gut wrenching. The tragedy is far beyond any words I could offer.

It is unfortunate and predictable that those who yearn for a society of defenseless citizens will rise up and try once again try to push their agenda using this incident as their rallying cry. It's coming as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, it will happen. Time once again for us to be vigilant and be prepared to protect the freedom that keeps so many safe from harm.