Image ImageImage Image

OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut

Moderators: HomoSapien, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat

CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#481 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:23 am

Multiple teachers confronted the murderer, one teacher told him her class was at gym, if you have enough time to lie face to face with the murderer then you could have time to shoot him and end the threat.

Multiple mass shootings ended with citizens teaming up and sacrificing themselves to overwhelm a shooter, if they were carrying a gun and were qualified shooters, they could end the engagement.

Cops qualify with their pistols twice a year, and that is good enough for the department, its not like you need a masters degree to be competent with a firearm.

I cannot guarantee that conceal carry can stop all mass shootings, just like you cannot guarantee that banning guns will have any effect at reducing crime.
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#482 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:27 am

Ben wrote:The idea is that someone who has a concealed weapon is going to be on the scene, is going to be brave enough to take on the deranged killer (putting his/her own life on the line), and is going to be skillful and calm enough to do so even if the deranged killer (who has planned out the whole thing) is carrying automatic weapons and is wearing a bulletproof vest (as this monster seemed to be doing, like the Aurora monster). And the idea is that the odds of those occurrences coming together will save more lives than widespread gun control would do, and those savings would more than offset any additional loss of life that might result from the widespread practice of carrying concealed firearms.


Unfortunately we have had 10 years of the gun control the Democrats are proposing, 94-04 and the CDC and the FBI said that it had no measurable effect on crime.

What you say may be well written, and full of presumptions, its a lie.
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#483 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:30 am

And another thing "Ben"

Automatic weapons were not used in any of these mass shootings.

and your body armor, is just a vest with pouches, completely made of cloth.

Image

Don't believe everything MSNBC says without doing the proper research.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#484 » by League Circles » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:48 am

Ben wrote:The idea is that someone who has a concealed weapon is going to be on the scene, is going to be brave enough to take on the deranged killer (putting his/her own life on the line), and is going to be skillful and calm enough to do so even if the deranged killer (who has planned out the whole thing) is carrying automatic weapons and is wearing a bulletproof vest (as this monster seemed to be doing, like the Aurora monster). And the idea is that the odds of those occurrences coming together will save more lives than widespread gun control would do, and those savings would more than offset any additional loss of life that might result from the widespread practice of carrying concealed firearms.


I dont think that people claim concealed carry will save more lives than it takes or than stricter gun control might save, and that is not the argument most used to advocate cc. Instead, its all about the idea that you must give someone the right to have a chance to protect themselves by holding a specific tool in their pocket. For people like myself who lean more libertarian, many issues do not boil down to utilitarian arguments. So one might even think that widespread cc might increase gun deaths and still advocate for it based on a rights argument. I think a key difference is that some people believe the role of government is to seek the greatest results on all issues, while others believe the role of government is simply to protect our rights by implementing more just policies.

Im a deontological libertarian, so for me, ends and high utility outcomes are irrelevent arguments for freedom/rights based policy (though there are often practical benefits coincidentally). Basically, the goal of the government should be to do no wrong itself, not to do whatever wrong it sees fit to minimize the wrong done in society.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#485 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:52 am

CalilLove89 wrote:Multiple teachers confronted the murderer, one teacher told him her class was at gym, if you have enough time to lie face to face with the murderer then you could have time to shoot him and end the threat.


Says you. What we know happened is that the deranged killer shot each of these people in cold blood.

CalilLove89 wrote:Multiple mass shootings ended with citizens teaming up and sacrificing themselves to overwhelm a shooter, if they were carrying a gun and were qualified shooters, they could end the engagement.


Hey, that could have happened in this case too, right? You don't need guns in order to team up and sacrifice yourselves to overwhelm a shooter. But curiously enough, it didn't happen in this case or in Aurora or in Columbine. Curious.

CalilLove89 wrote:Cops qualify with their pistols twice a year, and that is good enough for the department, its not like you need a masters degree to be competent with a firearm.


Competence with a firearm is not what I was addressing.

CalilLove89 wrote:I cannot guarantee that conceal carry can stop all mass shootings, just like you cannot guarantee that banning guns will have any effect at reducing crime.


This part is surely true. I don't have any guarantees. I can cite the vast disparities in gun violence between the US and other countries that don't allow guns, though.
EastBayFJ
Head Coach
Posts: 6,145
And1: 295
Joined: Jul 02, 2001
Location: Get yourself a Mitch ...everyone's doing it

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#486 » by EastBayFJ » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:52 am

In 1997 , after the worst mass murder shooting spree in Australia's history at Port Arthur in Tasmania , the Federal Governemnt initiated a compulsory gun buy back scheme with extremely tight criteria

Up until that point - mass murder shootings were trending close to the same rate as what was occurring in the United States at that time.

Since this time there have been zero, repeat ZERO , incidences of mass murder shootings in Australia
"GarPax played Grab Ass with Mirotic for 5 years and been in Omaha playing Hide the Salami with Doug McBuckets for the 1.5 years and they've developed feelings for him. Well, I say "F feelings and F loyalty!" I want CHIPS! Jerry Krizause
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#487 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:55 am

CalilLove89 wrote:And another thing "Ben"

Automatic weapons were not used in any of these mass shootings.

and your body armor, is just a vest with pouches, completely made of cloth.

Image

Don't believe everything MSNBC says without doing the proper research.


What are you saying about the bulletproof vest claim? It was made by ABC, NBC, the Daily Mail, many other newspapers, etc. Are you saying that all of them got it wrong? If so, could you just cite your source instead of condescending vaguely?
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#488 » by League Circles » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:01 am

Ben wrote:
This part is surely true. I don't have any guarantees. I can cite the vast disparities in gun violence between the US and other countries that don't allow guns, though.

How do you reconcile the much higher gun death rates in jamaica where gun laws are strict and gun ownership low, or places like IIRC norway and sweden, where ownership is high and violence very low?

I can buy the notion that limiting gun access MIGHT reduce the numbers of random, crazy mass shootings, but IMO it would still likely increase overall gun deaths due to how it would empower the true criminals (vs the mentally ill). So maybe less mass shooting suicides, but maybe more mugging gun deaths, etc. And thats not even touching the rights issue.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#489 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:04 am

Ben wrote:
CalilLove89 wrote:Multiple teachers confronted the murderer, one teacher told him her class was at gym, if you have enough time to lie face to face with the murderer then you could have time to shoot him and end the threat.


Says you. What we know happened is that the deranged killer shot each of these people in cold blood.
It was reported, and what we know is that teacher sacrificed herself because she had no means to defend herself or her students.

CalilLove89 wrote:Multiple mass shootings ended with citizens teaming up and sacrificing themselves to overwhelm a shooter, if they were carrying a gun and were qualified shooters, they could end the engagement.


Hey, that could have happened in this case too, right? You don't need guns in order to team up and sacrifice yourselves to overwhelm a shooter. But curiously enough, it didn't happen in this case or in Aurora or in Columbine. Curious.
It happened in Tuscon, and your right, people don't have the right to defend themselves with equal force
CalilLove89 wrote:Cops qualify with their pistols twice a year, and that is good enough for the department, its not like you need a masters degree to be competent with a firearm.


Competence with a firearm is not what I was addressing.
So when you questioned a citizens theoritical competency under stress you weren't addressing it?
CalilLove89 wrote:I cannot guarantee that conceal carry can stop all mass shootings, just like you cannot guarantee that banning guns will have any effect at reducing crime.


This part is surely true. I don't have any guarantees. I can cite the vast disparities in gun violence between the US and other countries that don't allow guns, though.


Give me statistics from 94-04 where gun control IN THE UNITED STATES worked, I am disinterested in other Nations, because I live in America.

The united states has more crime than other nations, its our CULTURE, its not simply because we have guns, do the research, educate yourself.

Horrible fact of the day

The recent shooting overtook the previous record, and that shooting happened in 98, under the Clinton gun ban.
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#490 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:09 am

Ben wrote:
CalilLove89 wrote:And another thing "Ben"

Automatic weapons were not used in any of these mass shootings.

and your body armor, is just a vest with pouches, completely made of cloth.

Image

Don't believe everything MSNBC says without doing the proper research.


What are you saying about the bulletproof vest claim? It was made by ABC, NBC, the Daily Mail, many other newspapers, etc. Are you saying that all of them got it wrong? If so, could you just cite your source instead of condescending vaguely?


How about the reciept, and the owner of the company that sold him his clothing confirmed that it is not body armor.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... b1.pdf.pdf
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#491 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:10 am

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
Ben wrote:
This part is surely true. I don't have any guarantees. I can cite the vast disparities in gun violence between the US and other countries that don't allow guns, though.

How do you reconcile the much higher gun death rates in jamaica where gun laws are strict and gun ownership low, or places like IIRC norway and sweden, where ownership is high and violence very low?


I don't really need to reconcile a few cherry-picked cases when the vast preponderance of data worldwide supports my claim. (Parenthetically, Norway has an incredibly low murder rate PERIOD, not just a low gun murder rate. That's quite different from the US in itself. Also, they do have restrictions on gun types and ammunition types.) The Jamaica case is an odd one b/c (if I recall correctly) it's armed gangs that are fighting with police & the military. It's not mass murders by crazy civilians. What has prompted the recent conversation about gun control in the US is mass murders by crazy civilians. So I'm not really sure how Jamaica becomes relevant, except that it's cited by Fox News whenever gun control comes up.
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#492 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:11 am

CalilLove89 wrote:
Ben wrote:
CalilLove89 wrote:And another thing "Ben"

Automatic weapons were not used in any of these mass shootings.

and your body armor, is just a vest with pouches, completely made of cloth.

Image

Don't believe everything MSNBC says without doing the proper research.


What are you saying about the bulletproof vest claim? It was made by ABC, NBC, the Daily Mail, many other newspapers, etc. Are you saying that all of them got it wrong? If so, could you just cite your source instead of condescending vaguely?


How about the reciept, and the owner of the company that sold him his clothing confirmed that it is not body armor.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... b1.pdf.pdf


Can you just post to the site where you found the news? I don't want to download a PDF. I'm interested in this, and in why other news sources would have gotten it so wrong, so I do want to know.
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#493 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:14 am

And do not forget the wild untrue information from this recent tragedy, the news only wants to get information out whether it be true or not.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#494 » by League Circles » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:16 am

Ben wrote:
Gar Paxdorf wrote:
Ben wrote:
This part is surely true. I don't have any guarantees. I can cite the vast disparities in gun violence between the US and other countries that don't allow guns, though.

How do you reconcile the much higher gun death rates in jamaica where gun laws are strict and gun ownership low, or places like IIRC norway and sweden, where ownership is high and violence very low?


I don't really need to reconcile a few cherry-picked cases when the vast preponderance of data worldwide supports my claim. (Parenthetically, Norway has an incredibly low murder rate PERIOD, not just a low gun murder rate. That's quite different from the US in itself. Also, they do have restrictions on gun types and ammunition types.) The Jamaica case is an odd one b/c (if I recall correctly) it's armed gangs that are fighting with police & the military. It's not mass murders by crazy civilians. What has prompted the recent conversation about gun control in the US is mass murders by crazy civilians. So I'm not really sure how Jamaica becomes relevant, except that it's cited by Fox News whenever gun control comes up.


The point is that all nations have different cultures of violence, and the more violent a culture is determines its gun death rate much more than its gun laws or gun ownership do. I contend that in gang deep america, outlawing guns may give more criminals more free reign. So while the mass shootings prompted the discussion on gun control, other types of gun violence and cultures of violence must be considered in terms of unintended consequences of gun bans or stricter gun control.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#495 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:22 am

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
The point is that all nations have different cultures of violence, and the more violent a culture is determines its gun death rate much more than its gun laws or gun ownership do. I contend that in gang deep america, outlawing guns may give more criminals more free reign. So while the mass shootings prompted the discussion on gun control, other types of gun violence and cultures of violence must be considered in terms of unintended consequences of gun bans or stricter gun control.


The point about cultures of violence & cultures of guns is a valid one. Not so much (from my perspective) about the culture of gangs, but the deeply rooted American attachment to (and stockpiling of) guns. That's probably quite different than in many other countries.
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#496 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:31 am

CalilLove89 wrote:
Ben wrote:
CalilLove89 wrote:And another thing "Ben"

Automatic weapons were not used in any of these mass shootings.

and your body armor, is just a vest with pouches, completely made of cloth.

Image

Don't believe everything MSNBC says without doing the proper research.


What are you saying about the bulletproof vest claim? It was made by ABC, NBC, the Daily Mail, many other newspapers, etc. Are you saying that all of them got it wrong? If so, could you just cite your source instead of condescending vaguely?


How about the reciept, and the owner of the company that sold him his clothing confirmed that it is not body armor.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... b1.pdf.pdf


Wait a minute, CaliLove. Is this link (which I won't download b/c I don't want to open a strange PDF) the receipt in question in the James Holmes (Aurora) case? In that case, Holmes was originally reported to be wearing a bulletproof vest but then a store owner showed that Holmes had bought a non-bullet-proof vest from him. Yet we don't know whether the vest that Holmes wore on that day was the non-bullet-proof one described in the receipt or a different, bulletproof one.

It's all described in the following article, which details a large number of instances in which shooters DID use bulletproof vests.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ests_.html

But you made it sound as if the link you were providing established that Adam Lanza wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest. So my question to you, again, is: can you please provide a link to the news source that allegedly proved that Adam Lanza wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest? And can you comment on the apparently extensive use of body armor described in the article that I linked?
CalilLove89
Analyst
Posts: 3,361
And1: 613
Joined: May 03, 2011

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#497 » by CalilLove89 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:33 am

Ben wrote:
Gar Paxdorf wrote:
The point is that all nations have different cultures of violence, and the more violent a culture is determines its gun death rate much more than its gun laws or gun ownership do. I contend that in gang deep america, outlawing guns may give more criminals more free reign. So while the mass shootings prompted the discussion on gun control, other types of gun violence and cultures of violence must be considered in terms of unintended consequences of gun bans or stricter gun control.


The point about cultures of violence & cultures of guns is a valid one. Not so much (from my perspective) about the culture of gangs, but the deeply rooted American attachment to (and stockpiling of) guns. That's probably quite different than in many other countries.


You admit America has a more violent culture, so it makes sense to you that America has higher crime statistics across the board than other nations, so why does it surprise you that our gun crime is higher, if crime in general is higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

Again, there is proof that gun control does not work in this country. We have 10 years of data about the gun control that is being called for, and not one study has found a correlation between gun control and crime.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#498 » by League Circles » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:39 am

Ben, i may have missed some posts, but are you suggesting that bulletproof vests be made illegal?
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#499 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:42 am

Gar Paxdorf wrote:Ben, i may have missed some posts, but are you suggesting that bulletproof vests be made illegal?


You didn't miss anything. I mentioned their use because if a morally deranged (but wickedly prepared) shooter is wearing body armor, that makes it all the more unlikely that other individuals, unprepared for the event, could coolly stop him by pulling a concealed handgun.
User avatar
Ben
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,712
And1: 2,843
Joined: Feb 09, 2006

Re: OT: Grammar School Shooting in Connecticut 

Post#500 » by Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:46 am

I don't "admit" anything; I state it. "Admitting" it implies that it's something I've been hiding. My orientation is to try to figure out the effective truth rather than to advance some sort of self-serving dogma. I have no way of knowing for sure that gun control would reduce homicide rates in the US. Culture does play a role. And for full disclosure, I don't have that much against the idea of a private individual owning a handgun that shoots a very limited number of bullets. It's the weapons with huge firepower and rapidity that concern me most.

But at issue here are mass murders such as Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown. Could THOSE be avoided (or reduced) by tougher gun laws? That's what interests me.

We also probably need a lot more resources devoted to the treatment of mental illness. It's very difficult for parents who have scarily disturbed kids to get any kind of intervention and help. Drugs aren't the answer. Institutionalization probably is, but that's been made much, much more difficult to procure.

There aren't any easy answers. I'm not down with those who suggest that there are. But I'm also not down with those who shoot down any calls for inquiry into tougher gun control simply due to a blind allegiance to unlimited gun ownership.

PS: Still waiting on your response to the body armor questions, above.

Return to Chicago Bulls