At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

[samran]

Don't be silly, now!

A car and a knife are not intended to kill people! Neither are lawn mowers, spoons and chalk!

But tell me, what is a guns purpose?

Cars and knives can be intended to kill people if that is what some deranged individual intends to do with them.

Great - then you'll have no problems with guns being stored and restricted to:

- gun clubs where they can be shot at targets

- farmers - who need them for pest control and to control their livestock.

- designated hunting areas where they can be used as intended.

- the odd museum where gun nuts can come and drool over them

Excellent and safe ways all there.

Cops, national guard and army can be relied for everything else...

That sounds reasonable IF you are willing to park all automobiles and never drive them as well as having only un-sharpened knives in every home.

Close down those roads to nowhere.

That is a dumb argument, and I think you actually realise it. There is no way in totally de-risking day to day life, but if there was ever a low hanging fruit - lax gun ownership is one.

If this 20 year old kid had decided to go mental behind the wheel, or with a set of kitchen knives - how effective do you think he would have really been?

As I said, dumb argument.

[submaniac]

Uhm, most most are in favor of stricter laws on gun control and banning assault weapons and large clips.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2309324.html

Are you serious?

The article says "The new HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now"

First off, the pool of the poll are people who decided to participate in a Huffington Post Poll.

Secondly, 50% is not a majority.

Half of the people who participated in a Huffington post who think that gun laws should be changed does not amount to a majority of the American public thinking gun laws should be stricter.

[samran]

Uhm, most most are in favor of stricter laws on gun control and banning assault weapons and large clips.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2309324.html

Are you serious?

The article says "The new HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now"

First off, the pool of the poll are people who decided to participate in a Huffington Post Poll.

Secondly, 50% is not a majority.

Half of the people who participated in a Huffington post who think that gun laws should be changed does not amount to a majority of the American public thinking gun laws should be stricter.

Subby - suspect you are going to be the lone 'voice of reason' on the otherside of this debate Nary a conspiracy theory in sight.

[marstons]

nothing will change, there will be another massacre, the mentallity in the USA could not acccept not having their right to bear arms. I wonder how many victems parents had weapons. Armed teachrs in school one idea being floated, says it all really, along with the right to be allowed to take weapons to work place.

Obama is talk talk as usual.

[DocN]

Uhm, most most are in favor of stricter laws on gun control and banning assault weapons and large clips.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2309324.html

Are you serious?

The article says "The new HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now"

First off, the pool of the poll are people who decided to participate in a Huffington Post Poll.

Secondly, 50% is not a majority.

Half of the people who participated in a Huffington post who think that gun laws should be changed does not amount to a majority of the American public thinking gun laws should be stricter.

yeah...given the fact that any poll (pro or con guns) is always questionable in terms of motive, goal or sponsor...

I guess the Huffington Post (as all polls do) got a statistic average questioned, which somehow represents the population- structure in the USA (as polls do) and 50% said they are PRO gun- control, you can be quiet sure, it was a majority!

How? You always get a certain percentage of undecided voters. Even if that is only 1%, that means 49% are CON- gun control.

Which makes the 50% a MAJORITY!

Pretty easy to understand, isn't it!?

...oh well...

[Markaew]

Seems the 2nd amendment is more important than school children...

A young man with mental problems killed those children. Let's not lose sight of who needs help. We need to be treating mental illnesses like he has and not ignoring them.

[cdnvic]

I removed an accidental misquote and all replies. I hope it cleaned everything up. If not, please let me know.

[Markaew]

The first few minutes of Fox News coverage mentioned: this isn't about guns. Funny. Guns were used. It's OK for them to bring up the gun control issue moments after one of the worse cases of gun violence in American history, as long as the comment is AGAINST gun control. Later they suggested that now every American school should have a full time guard, armed with ... GUNS. Amazing.

A very shallow reply. The young man needs/needed help. Something needs to be done to stop and help people that pull the trigger.

[Markaew]

its against the law to kill children. did it stop the culprit? so would anti gun laws stop any other mad killer?

If the USA had proper gun control laws then there is a very good chance that this killer would not have had a gun in the first place.

"Proper"? What is proper in your opinion?

[Markaew]

One of the worst days of my life was Dunblane.

It ripped the soul out of Scotland, we could not believe it. Dunblane, a little sleepy town 25 miles from my home.

Do us all a favour and stop fighting like cats and dogs about gun control, these kids are still warm, Have some respect.

I couldn't agree more.

[Chicog]

It's called "democracy". Majority of people who can vote in the United States are not in favor of more gun control.

I'd like to know what the majority feel while this story is still in the news. Sensible people would be all for it. Gun lunatics would probably want all teachers packing.

[Markaew]

We have so many of these massacres these days in the U.S. that the public displays of mourning have become ritualistic and ultimately empty and superficial (and lots and lots of old time religion preachers). The real mourners are as they should be, the close ones to the victims. This event IS different because of the little children but I reckon the rote public media ritual will basically be the same. I do predict a stronger social REACTION to this particular event than the others inspired by the child victims. Not necessarily a positive change, but something will change. For example a negative change would be if American elementary schools get turned into armed camps with barbed wire fences. That's a possibility, sadly.

It's not empty and superficial to pay respect to families that have lost love ones. You have an interesting perspective on Americans but they are not as horrible as you constantly suggest. Under situations like these they are very sincere.

[simple1]

its against the law to kill children. did it stop the culprit? so would anti gun laws stop any other mad killer?

If the USA had proper gun control laws then there is a very good chance that this killer would not have had a gun in the first place.

"Proper"? What is proper in your opinion?

Here's an answer for you.

States in the USA do not comply with federal law for the submission of data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) After some quick research & I found the following example. http://smartgunlaws....policy-summary/ Accordingly there is a large amount to data that is not captured on the NICS databases. A summary quote follows:

As of April 30, 2007, the FBI identified only 23 states as having submitted mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in NICS. Thirteen of the 23 had submitted less than 50 records. Some had submitted only one record. A few more states began reporting mental health records to NICS soon after the Virginia Tech shooting. Nevertheless, according to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, as of November 2007, only 32 states had submitted mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in NICS.

It was also mentioned that 40% of weapons purchased do not require a permit from a State agency e.g. Montana & Kentucky; details at http://crime.about.c.../gunlaws_mt.htm

So proper would mean for the non complying States & territories to comply to the spirit and intent of federal law - that would be a good step in the right direction

Edited December 17, 2012 by simple1

[Markaew]

How was a mentally disabled man, able to acquire a gun of which one type was illegal to own in that state?

The gun could have been stolen. The kid could have bought it second hand. You are assuming he bought it from a store.

[Markaew]

Gun control does not work, let everyone carry a gun over there, then they can finish off themselves over time...

I agree that if the teachers had carried a gun, he might have stopped earlier, but who would stop the teachers if they went apeshit??

RIP to all the children...

BBC is just taking about this. Police took down a gunman out side the Empire States building. Most of the casualties amongst innocent bystanders were shot by trained policemen. More guns isn't the answer.

In that case, the BBC is getting it wrong. Again. The gunman is dead. BTW, just where is the "Empire States" building?

Empire State Building. King Kong ring any bells?

Mosha, what a ridiculous statement. Did you mistake a movie for a news program? I understand you want to make a point about gun control, but let's not make stuff up.

[Markaew]

Just heard on BBC. "Parents have been told, if you haven't been reunited with your child. It's not going to happen". What an horrible way to be told your child is dead.

There is no easy or good way to present news like this. I couldn't do it myself.

[Markaew]

Logical consequence of the too liberal Arms law in the U.S., where every criminal can buy arms in the next shop around the corner. Responsible is at the end the Republican Party, which opposites any change to arms trade laws.

Every criminal cannot buy a weapon. If you have a criminal record you cannot buy a weapon. BUT...every honest citizen can buy a weapon to defend themselves.

[Markaew]

Seems the 2nd amendment is more important than school children...

If the USA had proper gun control laws then there is a very good chance that this killer would not have had a gun in the first place.

Would this including the 12 dead and 11 others wounded by a gunman in the Cumbria shootings in Britain two years ago?

Or would it include the 16 killed and the 15 injured in the Hungerford mass murders by a gunman in Britain where a gunman with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun cut loose?

No? Then perhaps it was the Port Arthur massacre in Australia - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21?

Ah, Australia essentially outlawed such guns after that, but then there was the Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

So people really don't obey laws if they are really killers, do they? They don't even need guns, do they?

Maybe it was the Finnish gunmen, 22-year-old Matti Juhani Saari, who opened fire with a semi-automatic pistol on fellow students killing 10 in 2008?

No? Then was it the July 2005 London bombings where 52 were killed and 700 more injured?

Killers will kill and all we can do is mourn after the fact. Sad.

Prayers up for the friends, parents a relatives of the victims. It is a terrible thing.

What's a fire got to do with this?

Gun gun control laws in the states are idiotic not only because they provide easy access to guns for criminals and the mentally unstable, but also because they are based on creating a false sense of security. You are more likely to be shot by your own gun than use it on an intruder.

You didn't finish your thought. You may be shot by your own gun because most people point a gun at a criminal with no intentions of using it. They think the sight of a gun will deter a criminal, but the criminal takes it from them and uses it.

[jpinx]

A rational comment from a poster at the Washington Post:

It is a constitutional right, under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. -........

bollards some of you guys need to read that amendment with spectacles on.......

[Chicog]

A rational comment from a poster at the Washington Post:

It is a constitutional right, under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. -........

bollards some of you guys need to read that amendment with spectacles on.......

Granted it's ambiguous at best, but the fact that he takes that view makes his comments in favour of tighter controls all the more surprising.

[jpinx]

A rational comment from a poster at the Washington Post:

It is a constitutional right, under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. -........

bollards some of you guys need to read that amendment with spectacles on.......

Granted it's ambiguous at best, but the fact that he takes that view makes his comments in favour of tighter controls all the more surprising.

Not really - the amendment calls for a "well regulated" system but it says nothing about "rights" of self-defense, family, burglars, local politicans, etc and it was written when there was no standing USA army. That is actually the reason it was written at all. Now there is a standing army in USA the 2nd amendment is null and void.

Edited December 17, 2012 by jpinx

[metisdead]

Some posts containing some good information were removed as they were in possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

Other off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Pormax]

I can understand the Americans standing up for their constitution 'rules' of a 'Right To Bear Arms' if it actually does say this. Not American so can't say for sure.

What I don't understand is why someone can hold an arsenal of weapons at home.

Want a gun for self protection then fine, a handgun with 6 rounds is sufficient. Get one licence for one gun per household only with a maximum 20 cartridges to be held at any one time.

Most tragedies like this one are when multiple guns are used and laws should be changed to prevent this.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Pormax

[chuckd]

Great - then you'll have no problems with guns being stored and restricted to:

- gun clubs where they can be shot at targets

- farmers - who need them for pest control and to control their livestock.

- designated hunting areas where they can be used as intended.

- the odd museum where gun nuts can come and drool over them

Excellent and safe ways all there.

Cops, national guard and army can be relied for everything else...

That sounds reasonable IF you are willing to park all automobiles and never drive them as well as having only un-sharpened knives in every home.

Close down those roads to nowhere.

That is a dumb argument, and I think you actually realise it. There is no way in totally de-risking day to day life, but if there was ever a low hanging fruit - lax gun ownership is one.

If this 20 year old kid had decided to go mental behind the wheel, or with a set of kitchen knives - how effective do you think he would have really been?

As I said, dumb argument.

I'm trying to get it down to the level of some on this forum.

[F430murci]

I can understand the Americans standing up for their constitution 'rules' of a 'Right To Bear Arms' if it actually does say this. Not American so can't say for sure.

What I don't understand is why someone can hold an arsenal of weapons at home.

Want a gun for self protection then fine, a handgun with 6 rounds is sufficient. Get one licence for one gun per household only with a maximum 20 cartridges to be held at any one time.

Most tragedies like this one are when multiple guns are used and laws should be changed to prevent this.

But my forefathers said I have a right to buy each of my 9 year olds Bushmasters with 100 round clips. They need those guns and can handle them better than Chapo Guzman or Z40.

I am still waiting to hear what is so dam_n fun about owning an AR-15. Shooting cans or sitting around in your underwear and boots polishing them.

Talk about Vetted being compensation for some other area of your life. At least you can drive it on the weekends with your 20 something mistress.

Edited December 17, 2012 by F430murci

[Ferangled]

How was a mentally disabled man, able to acquire a gun of which one type was illegal to own in that state?

The gun could have been stolen. The kid could have bought it second hand. You are assuming he bought it from a store.

I thought it was widely known that the guns were legally owned by his mother, one of a number of Americans who are taking it upon themselves to stock pile weapons, ammunition and supplies in preparation for some imagined collapse of society. In this respect it mirrors the vast majority of gun homicides in the US, in that the weapons used were owned legally.

While the NRA and other pro-gun nut-jobs like to spread the misconception that arming yourself is a necessary precaution to combat "all those criminals with illegal firearms" the reality is that they are actually used to kill ones neighbours, friends, family and loved ones. You are nearly 3 times as likely to be shot and killed if you own a gun & 5 times as likely to shoot yourself (fatally).

Why, with an armed police force that are paid to combat crime the need to arm yourself? Simply call 911 and those that you pay to protect you with your taxes will do it for you; they are also appropriately trained and the statistics support that you are more likely to expose yourself and your family to danger by opting for the vigilante, protect yourself method.

[15Peter20]

If the right to bear arms is:

1) Such an integral part of American culture

2) So contentious

and if Americans have the freedom to determine their own laws, why don't they just have a national referendum on it? It seems an appropriate issue on which to poll the nation.

[Jingthing]

If the right to bear arms is:

1) Such an integral part of American culture

2) So contentious

and if Americans have the freedom to determine their own laws, why don't they just have a national referendum on it? It seems an appropriate issue on which to poll the nation.

It's a nice thought but Americans don't have national referendums because they are of no consequence legislatively. Some states have referendums as their state constitutions are structured so that the results actually have legislative impact. A national referendum result would just be like a bigger deal opinion poll. We've got plenty of opinion polls already. The way to change laws is in place. It often doesn't work, but that's the system. So bottom line, there will never be a national referendum on ANY issue unless the constitution is changed.

[chuckd]

From today's news:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats vow push for gun control measures in Congress

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST

(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.

...from the article...

Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.

...from the article...

President Barack Obama campaigned on gun control in 2008, but he has expanded gun rights in his first four years in office, signing legislation that would allow people to carry weapons on Amtrak trains and in national parks. He tearfully called for "meaningful action" to prevent further tragedies on Friday, but the White House has declined to say what measures he would support.

http://www.reuters.c...E8BF0DH20121216

[15Peter20]

If the right to bear arms is:

1) Such an integral part of American culture

2) So contentious

and if Americans have the freedom to determine their own laws, why don't they just have a national referendum on it? It seems an appropriate issue on which to poll the nation.

It's a nice thought but Americans don't have national referendums because they are of no consequence legislatively. Some states have referendums as their state constitutions are structured so that the results actually have legislative impact. A national referendum result would just be like a bigger deal opinion poll. We've got plenty of opinion polls already. The way to change laws is in place. It often doesn't work, but that's the system. So bottom line, there will never be a national referendum on ANY issue unless the constitution is changed.

Thanks for that. So from what you've said it is impossible to change the constitution via referendum. Not that it necessarily should be changed via referendum, but the possibility would be a nice alternative to having political gridlock and no change, on this and other 'culture defining' issues.