OT: 27 Killed, 18 elementary school students shot dead CON

[Thugger HBC]

Exactly... criminal can get one if they want one, so why make restrictions to people who legally can own one and responsibly use them? You are just giving the criminal or the 'insane' the advantage and more ability to kill many more. Statistics support this. Especially since it's a right that many cherish, and justifiably so in my mind for more reasons than just self defense. We need to look at the debate not as restricting the carrying of or from taking the guns out of the hands of legal responsible owners but making it harder for those who don't have the legal right to possess or irresponsibly use them.

Without stats, just your personal belief, do you believe these types of acts are committed by illegally authorized persons with no access to obtain?

I'm not talking about individual murders but actual mass killings.

What's even worse in this particular case is the guns used were his moms in the same residence.

It's too easy to blame the person who does the crime, but in lots of these case...look no further to the original issue....the origin of such weapons.

[BOOMbip]

Of course it would, doubt anyone is stating otherwise.

But do you think less guns would lower these type of killings? I don't.

It may lower the lower one on one types, but not the mass ones.

The mass ones will be committed by using another method even without the restrictions of guns.

Alot of these killings are done by persons who would normally qualify to own.

Actually stats prove that people having legal access to guns lowers crime and murder. So it gives people who may not be able to defend themselves in strength by fighting off an attacker, namely women, children and the sick or elderly, the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals.

So in the hypothetical if all guns were gone and did not exists 'shooting deaths and crime' would disappear but not homicides and crime. In fact the strong would have an advantage over everyone and anyone who was not able to defend themselves.

Policing or more enforcement wouldn't change that.... they would only come take the report and clean up the blood after. As we have seen a lack of access to guns doesn't stop spree attacks from happening, just changes the methods and weapons. But not allowing people access to guns to defend themselves, 'gun free zones' and restrictive laws, allows people to go on rampage and spree killings with nobody able to stop them.

So taking guns out of criminals or people not legally allowed to possess them should be the goal, not taking them out of the hands of responsible citizens.

Mass murders can happen and do without any form of firearm, it happens all the time.

The possession of the firearm make it easier to accomplish the task, but that same effect can be had WITHOUT the firearm.

There is already methods to prevent illegal gun sales, I'm sure it could be stricter.

But i do think it's really naive to think that these crimes are being done by folks who cannot legally obtain a gun.

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Exactly... criminals can get one if they want one, so why make restrictions to people who legally can own one and responsibly use them? You are just giving the criminal or the 'insane' the advantage and more ability to kill many more. Statistics support this.

Especially since it's a right that many cherish, and justifiably so in my mind for more reasons than just self defense. We need to look at the debate not as restricting the carrying of or from taking the guns out of the hands of legal responsible owners but making it harder for those who don't have the legal right to possess or irresponsibly use them.

Whether criminals still would ultimately be able to get guns is somewhat beside the point... the point is, over the long-haul, will as many criminals get their hands on guns if we pass stricter laws? Sure, some will stop at nothing and use every means possible to obtain guns. But some will be deterred just by having to go that extra length to obtain a gun illegally.

[HarthorneWingo]

We can start the ball rolling by outlawing these "gun shows" where crazy people and criminals can buy guns and ammunition - without background checks - at the drop of a hat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 07340.html?

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

But we do exactly that in all sorts of situations. I mean, if I'm a responsible driver, I still have to go through the hassle of obtaining a driver's license, a requirement that is only imposed to prevent irresponsible/underage people from driving.

[BOOMbip]

Exactly... criminal can get one if they want one, so why make restrictions to people who legally can own one and responsibly use them? You are just giving the criminal or the 'insane' the advantage and more ability to kill many more. Statistics support this. Especially since it's a right that many cherish, and justifiably so in my mind for more reasons than just self defense. We need to look at the debate not as restricting the carrying of or from taking the guns out of the hands of legal responsible owners but making it harder for those who don't have the legal right to possess or irresponsibly use them.

Without stats, just your personal belief, do you believe these types of acts are committed by illegally authorized persons with no access to obtain?

I'm not talking about individual murders but actual mass killings.

What's even worse in this particular case is the guns used were his moms in the same residence.

It's too easy to blame the person who does the crime, but in lots of these case...look no further to the original issue....the origin of such weapons.

I think it happens both ways. Some have legal right to possess them, some don't. But restricting legal access for responsible owners and even especially the legal right to 'bear arms' or carry them which has happened in many places it allows sickos free reign to go off on mass killings and nobody is there to stop them.... by the time the police show up the damage is done.

[BOOMbip]

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

But we do exactly that in all sorts of situations. I mean, if I'm a responsible driver, I still have to go through the hassle of obtaining a driver's license, a requirement that is only imposed to prevent irresponsible/underage people from driving.

Do we ban all cars because a few don't know how to drive responsibly or not drive drunk? No we don't... so we don't take away the rights of all because of few.

[Thugger HBC]

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

Still not sure why you are equating things that have zero relation.

A car is not designed for killing, guns are.

Now here is a real time idea.

How about consumer weapons be made ready for order....like a high end exotic vehicle....combined with periodic checking in such guns and ammo for inspection with law enforcement to track their use?

No more walking into guns shops and shows to make such purchase on spot.

Now while it won't necessarily prevent the act, it will lower the AVAILABILITY.

Guns are just too available, and that has alot to do with the problem.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Do we ban all cars because a few don't know how to drive responsibly or not drive drunk? No we don't... so we don't take away the rights of all because of few.

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It depends how much the law would infringe on the rights of the innocent. Taking away people's right to drive would arguably be a bigger infringement than taking away the right to own a gun.

[BOOMbip]

We can start the ball rolling by outlawing these "gun shows" where crazy people and criminals can buy guns and ammunition - without background checks - at the drop of a hat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 07340.html?

I see regulation of the shows as a solution... not banning of them. People who set up at these shows should have to prove legal ownership of each gun that is present and account for them before(going in) and after(going out). Plus any sale that takes place should be regulated to ensure it isn't a sale to someone who doesn't have the legal right to own and possess a gun.

[Thugger HBC]

Just a random question.....

using this incident, had the mother not been killed does anyone thinks she should NOT be charged with the same level as the killer would have if he still lived?

[BOOMbip]

Do we ban all cars because a few don't know how to drive responsibly or not drive drunk? No we don't... so we don't take away the rights of all because of few.

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It depends how much the law would infringe on the rights of the innocent. Taking away people's right to drive would arguably be a bigger infringement than taking away the right to own a gun.

You aren't making sense now.... you need to get real. I prefer to discuss with someone who has a grasp of reality so either get real or get lost. We only take away someone's right to drive, suspend license, because they show they are irresponsible and infringed on an innocents rights. We don't take everyone's cars away because of it.

Plus who are you to decide that one right is more important than another? Who is anyone to decide which is?

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It depends how much the law would infringe on the rights of the innocent. Taking away people's right to drive would arguably be a bigger infringement than taking away the right to own a gun.

You aren't making sense now.... you need to get real. I prefer to discuss with someone who has a grasp of reality so either get real or get lost. We only take away someone's right to drive, suspend license, because they show they are irresponsible and infringed on an innocents rights. We don't take everyone's cars away because of it.

You are the only who is not making sense. You just argued that the car example proves the general proposition that we never infringe on the rights of the innocent in order to prevent irresponsible people from causing harm. This is a non sequitur. It's like saying, 'it isn't snowing today, therefore it never snows.'

A better argument would be to try and rebut my counter-example; i.e. we infringe on responsible people's right to not have to visit the DMV and complete driver's tests, in order to ensure that irresponsible aren't allowed to drive.

Here's another example: we haul innocent people into police stations and court when they are suspected or crimes, thus infringing on their rights to be free from police compulsion.

The point is, we can't direct laws exclusively at irresponsible people because we don't know in advance who those people are. Imagine trying to implement a law that said something like "only irresponsible people are prohibited from carrying guns."

Plus who are you to decide that one right is more important than another? Who is anyone to decide which is?

Democratically elected politicians.

[BOOMbip]

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

Still not sure why you are equating things that have zero relation.

A car is not designed for killing, guns are.

Now here is a real time idea.

How about consumer weapons be made ready for order....like a high end exotic vehicle....combined with periodic checking in such guns and ammo for inspection with law enforcement to track their use?

No more walking into guns shops and shows to make such purchase on spot.

Now while it won't necessarily prevent the act, it will lower the AVAILABILITY.

Guns are just too available, and that has alot to do with the problem.

The relation is it can result in a death. Just because a gun has a purpose in design that's different than a car or junk food isn't a reason to restrict responsible ownership of it. You can regulate it.... but should not and by the constitution can not restrict legal and responsible ownership.

Availability isn't the problem. I explained how it isn't but you won't acknowledge it. Take away all guns, it changes nothing except the cause of death and the ability to defend oneself when you aren't strong enough to fight off an attacker.

[BOOMbip]

Plus who are you to decide that one right is more important than another? Who is anyone to decide which is?

Democratically elected politicians.

It appears you don't even understand the US government. So I guess you think it's ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority? I wonder how every minority would feel about that. If we weren't a constitutional republic I guess your idea about the democratically elected politicians would be true.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

It appears you don't even understand the US government. So I guess you think it's ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority? I wonder how every minority would feel about that. If we weren't a constitutional republic I guess your idea about the democratically elected politicians would be true.

Well, I don't know if it's ok... that's a pretty deep question. But it's definitely how our government works. Yes, there are some constitutional protections, but most of them have been created by thin air by unelected judges, and even counting those the constitution offers very little protection against majority will.

If it was true that the constitution prohibited laws that infringe on the rights of responsible people in order to prevent irresponsible people from causing harm, the framers wouldn't have even needed to adopt the second amendment.

[Thugger HBC]

Some are.... some aren't, you can't take away all people's rights just based on what can happen based on the irresponsible actions of few... right? We've established that with cars and fast food, did we not? Although restricting the ability to carry or access to guns of responsible owners doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is allow the one who will do it more ability to do it without anyone to stop them.

Still not sure why you are equating things that have zero relation.

A car is not designed for killing, guns are.

Now here is a real time idea.

How about consumer weapons be made ready for order....like a high end exotic vehicle....combined with periodic checking in such guns and ammo for inspection with law enforcement to track their use?

No more walking into guns shops and shows to make such purchase on spot.

Now while it won't necessarily prevent the act, it will lower the AVAILABILITY.

Guns are just too available, and that has alot to do with the problem.

The relation is it can result in a death. Just because a gun has a purpose in design that's different than a car or junk food isn't a reason to restrict responsible ownership of it. You can regulate it.... but should not and by the constitution can not restrict legal and responsible ownership.

Availability isn't the problem. I explained how it isn't but you won't acknowledge it. Take away all guns, it changes nothing except the cause of death and the ability to defend oneself when you aren't strong enough to fight off an attacker.

You can't be serious. A car and a gun does not equate, no way form or fashion, and honestly it's killing any possibility of reasonable discussion.

And secondly, there is no such thing as regulating responsible ownership, that is done strictly on an individual basis.

Do you feel the mom was RESPONSIBLE? She died at the hands of here own legal rights and responsibilities.

This particular incident was caused primarily because AVAILABILITY.

Here's a pieces to consider.....


Law enforcement officials say Lanza killed his mother, Nancy, at her Newtown home before going to the school

[Updated at 1:12 p.m. ET] Investigators have been told that Adam Lanza had some sort of altercation with some people at the school a few days before the shooting, a law enforcement official told CNN's Carol Cratty. The official did not know the nature of the altercation or who was involved in it with Lanza.

[Updated at 11:59 a.m. ET] Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun in the area Tuesday before the shooting, a law enforcement source said, according to CNN's Susan Candiotti.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it is contacting shooting ranges and gun stores in the area to try to establish whether Lanza sought to purchase guns or practice using them.

[Updated at 11:50 a.m. ET] The gunman had access to more guns than the three found at the elementary school, a law enforcement source told CNN's Susan Candiotti.

The home of a woman believed to be the gunman's mother is also being investigated. After killing his mother, investigators believe the gunman took her guns and made his way to the elementary school.

[Updated at 10:13 a.m. ET] The victims' bodies have been transported to the Office of the Chief State's Medical Examiner, where a post mortem examination will be conducted to determine manner and cause of death, the Connecticut State Police said in press release.

Updated at 8:45 a.m. ET] The suspect in the shooting may have had access to at least five guns, a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation said Saturday.

Three weapons were recovered from the school on Friday: a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle made by Bushmaster found in a car in the school parking lot, and two pistols made by Glock and a Sig Sauer found with suspected gunman Adam Lanza's body, a law enforcement source said previously.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/children-and-adults-gunned-down-in-connecticut-school-massacre/?hpt=hp_t1


In short, there is no doubt in my mind availability caused this.

[BOOMbip]

It appears you don't even understand the US government. So I guess you think it's ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority? I wonder how every minority would feel about that. If we weren't a constitutional republic I guess your idea about the democratically elected politicians would be true.

Well, I don't know if it's ok... that's a pretty deep question. But it's definitely how our government works. Yes, there are some constitutional protections, but most of them have been created by thin air by unelected judges, and even counting those the constitution offers very little protection against majority will.

If it was true that the constitution prohibited laws that infringe on the rights of responsible people in order to prevent irresponsible people from causing harm, the framers wouldn't have even needed to adopt the second amendment.

That's not how government works. There are laws created both by legislators and the public that wind up not becoming actually enforceable laws because they get reviewed by judges to see if they are constitutional. Judges don't make laws. I'm sorry man... I'm not here to give you lessons on how our government works.

Also driving isn't a 'right'... it's a privilege. On roads constructed and maintained by public funds it's a privilege to drive so if you want to drive on them there's regulation. You can drive a vehicle all day long on your own property without ever having to register the it or get a license.... as soon as you try to drive on a public road, that's where regulation begins.

[johnnywishbone]

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It depends how much the law would infringe on the rights of the innocent. Taking away people's right to drive would arguably be a bigger infringement than taking away the right to own a gun.

You aren't making sense now.... you need to get real. I prefer to discuss with someone who has a grasp of reality so either get real or get lost. We only take away someone's right to drive, suspend license, because they show they are irresponsible and infringed on an innocents rights. We don't take everyone's cars away because of it.

You are the only who is not making sense. You just argued that the car example proves the general proposition that we never infringe on the rights of the innocent in order to prevent irresponsible people from causing harm. This is a non sequitur. It's like saying, 'it isn't snowing today, therefore it never snows.'

A better argument would be to try and rebut my counter-example; i.e. we infringe on responsible people's right to not have to visit the DMV and complete driver's tests, in order to ensure that irresponsible aren't allowed to drive.

Here's another example: we haul innocent people into police stations and court when they are suspected or crimes, thus infringing on their rights to be free from police compulsion.

The point is, we can't direct laws exclusively at irresponsible people because we don't know in advance who those people are. Imagine trying to implement a law that said something like "only irresponsible people are prohibited from carrying guns."

Plus who are you to decide that one right is more important than another? Who is anyone to decide which is?

Democratically elected politicians.

PWND. This whole car argument just goes to show how thin the ice is assault weapons advocates are standing on.

We spend billions and billions of dollars making cars more safe, educating drivers and policing the roads. We do this because cars are an essential component of how our society works. If you ban cars you would cause more problems than you would solve. But long term cars will get replaced. Or maybe the way to say it is drivers will be replaced.

Assault weapons on the other hand have no purpose for society. Zero. Nada. Banning them only makes the country safer.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

That's not how government works. There are laws created both by legislators and the public that wind up not becoming actually enforceable laws because they get reviewed by judges to see if they are constitutional. Judges don't make laws. I'm sorry man... I'm not here to give you lessons on how our government works.

Laws only get reviewed for constitutionality if their constitutionality is challenged. For most laws, there is no constitutional challenge. And there are plenty of laws where the majority infringes on the rights of the minority that nonetheless survive constitutional challenges.

Also driving isn't a 'right'... it's a privilege. On roads constructed and maintained by public funds it's a privilege to drive so if you want to drive on them there's regulation. You can drive a vehicle all day long on your own property without ever having to register the it or get a license.... as soon as you try to drive on a public road, that's where regulation begins.

Ok, so if a law prevents people from carrying guns while traveling on roads and other public ways such as sidewalks, which are also constructed by the government, there is no infringement on rights?