At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

[F430murci]

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.

The average time for police to respond to a 911 call is around 10 minutes.

The average time to pick up a personal weapon and defend oneself against an intruder would be in seconds.

Which do you want defending the lives of you and your family?

http://apbweb.com/fe...ty-to-city.html

Too bad guns cause way more accidental injuries to children in home or are taken out if home and used in crimes way more than they are used to shoot a home intruder. 500 children killed a year in in home accidental discharges. How many injured due to in home accidents or just got drunk and shot my wife.

I have not locked my doors in years, much less need a gun. Seems like they usually try to break to take your shit when your not there. I do agree there are some neighborhoods that are whack and you have to lock your doors.

[F430murci]

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.

Something like 2/3rds of house and senate and maybe like 3/4 of the states.

Edited December 17, 2012 by F430murci

[samran]

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.

You've always been there Chuck, you just didn't know it.

[jpinx]

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.

The average time for police to respond to a 911 call is around 10 minutes.

The average time to pick up a personal weapon and defend oneself against an intruder would be in seconds.

Which do you want defending the lives of you and your family?

http://apbweb.com/fe...ty-to-city.html

And the average time for one of your family members to pick up your gun and shoot you, themselves or your neighbours is what exactly?

You seem to miss the point that you are far more likely to be shot by your own gun than an intruders. Perhaps one to many Hollywood action flicks... personally I put the safety of my family before paranoid fantasising about fending off imaginary intruders. Let's face it if someone does break into your house the likelihood is that they want to steal something and run; if you confront them with a gun you're likely to escalate a house robbery into a bungled robbery and murder.

I've had my house broken into twice, once in Thailand and once in the UK. In Thailand I slept through the entire experience and my wife lost a mobile phone worth c.5,000 bt, no one was hurt. In the UK I walked straight into the front room to be confronted with a man with a sock on his head. I yelled at him, picked up the nearest object at hand, a half bottle of decent red and waved it at him menacingly. He left and no one was hurt probably more due to the fact he was confronted by a naked man waving a bottle of wine at him than through any threat of violence. I'm quite sure if I'd had a gun I would have either shot someone that didn't have to die or shot myself in the panic.

I'd prefer to live in a society where I know guns are hard to get hold off and most people, criminals and everyday members of society, aren't armed with them. What is this fascination with guns? If you are indeed paranoid about "intruders" or "strangers", start going to the gym, learn to actually defend yourself and stop perpetuating this myth that extracts such a direct death toll on your own society. This deadly circle will not stop until people put other members of their society before their own irrational fears.

...and what would you have done if he had pulled a very large, sharp knife from his jacket, waving it as menacingly as you with your wine bottle?

By the way, I am now retired in Thailand, have been through one revolution, part of a civil war and the two Gulf wars. I hardly need a naked Englishman with a wine bottle to tell me how to take care of myself.

Thanks for your concern.

Bragging rights ? I think you fall well short me old china

[metisdead]

Some off topic baiting and insulting posts and replies have been removed.

[dhrobertson]

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.

It seems that the rate of homicides with a firearm in the USA is about 3 per 100,000. Compare that with the UK at 0.07 per 100,000. Thats a factor of 40.

A trawl through the internet brings up loads of nutters trying pathetically to justify owning firearms. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

I know very many Americans and have lived in the States on 3 occassions. No-one, that I know, is in favour of the ridiculously lax gun control laws.

"It's not guns that kill, it's people who kill" Bull s--t! It's people with guns who kill. Get rid of the guns or get rid of the gun owners. Frankly, I don't care which....

[Ferangled]

It seems that the rate of homicides with a firearm in the USA is about 3 per 100,000. Compare that with the UK at 0.07 per 100,000. Thats a factor of 40.

A trawl through the internet brings up loads of nutters trying pathetically to justify owning firearms. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

I know very many Americans and have lived in the States on 3 occassions. No-one, that I know, is in favour of the ridiculously lax gun control laws.

"It's not guns that kill, it's people who kill" Bull s--t! It's people with guns who kill. Get rid of the guns or get rid of the gun owners. Frankly, I don't care which....

I have to agree. I would say that having worked in the US for a period I encountered quite a few people that support these pro-gun ideals and were religiously staunch in their defence of their "right to bear arms". Having worked all over the world and encountered many Americans on my travels, the vast majority I have met living outside of the US have been staunchly anti and in favour of tighter controls and regulation.

I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from that other than perhaps the more educated, well balanced and well adjusted Americans tend to expand their horizons, while the less well adjusted ones stay home, breed and polish their arsenal...

[slapout]

The weapon of choice of the civilian nutters of the world seems to be a semi/full automatic weapon with a load capacity of 15 rounds for handguns to 30 plus rounds for the war weapons. Most of the pro gun people would probably agree that these type weapons could and should be taken out of the public's hands.

The problem seems to arise from the individuals on opposite sides of the proposal and their lack of consideration toward other peoples thinking/needs/desires. A rife, shotgun, and even a handgun are regarded as tools in many rural areas/ sportsmen. of the world and are used as such The majority or accidents/mistakes made by people with guns seem to be made by those who should never had access to one in the first place.

For those who see those with a different view than theirs, as being impossible to deal with, I would say that with a proper open mind, the impossible can be done, it will just take longer than with those who are being difficult.

[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.

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.

It seems that the rate of homicides with a firearm in the USA is about 3 per 100,000. Compare that with the UK at 0.07 per 100,000. Thats a factor of 40.

A trawl through the internet brings up loads of nutters trying pathetically to justify owning firearms. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

I know very many Americans and have lived in the States on 3 occassions. No-one, that I know, is in favour of the ridiculously lax gun control laws.

"It's not guns that kill, it's people who kill" Bull s--t! It's people with guns who kill. Get rid of the guns or get rid of the gun owners. Frankly, I don't care which....

That's a common statement that people make when they do not understand the big picture. People say, including you, no body I know thinks that way. Well duh! Yes, you are going to hang out with people that think the way you do. They (you) think the world revolves around you and the people you know. You constantly hear what you want to hear and not diverse opinions. You have diverse opinions in this forum and that is why you are convulsing now.

[Chicog]

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.

I would of thought that something like this is between the parents and the authorities, not for public broadcast.

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted post had been altered has been removed:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[Chicog]

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.

Perhaps I should have phrased it less conveniently. but your "honest citizen" includes emotionally disturbed people with no criminal record. That is not good enough. Although personally I think people who stockpile weapons and buy a years supply of MREs online are a sandwich short of a picnic anyway.

[Exsexyman]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

[DocN]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

[Credo]

Would they just issue the principal with an assault weapon or does s(he) have to take training?

[mamypoko]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

Perhaps you're confusing FOX with Americans...or humans. If this is f'ing with your tolerance, then turn off the TV. We are sick about this, we are crying over this...stop confusing what you hear on TV with the 99.9% that are crushed over this.

[Publicus]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It's been pointed out in this thread that scientific surveys which include gun owners in the United States show "Americans" (as you state it) are in favor of more demanding gun laws. The problem is in the Congress, where the Republican Party opposes any or all modifications to gun laws and the Democratic Party favors greater regulation of gun ownership. The Democratic Party however is cowardly and fearful of the powerful National Rifle Association lobbyists in Washington which can knock you off in the next election with their money and mantra against greater control of gun ownership. I'm in the Democratic Party and own a handgun in the United States, so some Democrats do own guns. However, its is only in the Democratic Party that we see any, if occasional, action toward pursuing better laws concerning who can get which, or any, firearm. Kindly don't say "Americans" and "they" in a way that it seems to imply 100% of us. We saw last year in the Republican Party contest for the Party's nomination how extreme and irrational Republicans in the United States have become. Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein of California will be introducing new gun laws in January when the next Congress convenes and a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives will introduce the legislation there.

The Repugnican party Congressman you quote is from Texas, which was a part of the Old Confederacy. In fact, Willard Mitt Romney won nine of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy to include Texas which also elected a crackpot new Repugnican party U.S. Senator who absolutely agrees with the R Congressman from Texas.They think in syllogisms, e.g., more guns mean less violence. It's clear to you and I that more guns means more violence and deaths.

Thais call us "falhang" which demonstrates their inability (or indifference) to recognize cultural distinctions among the many nationalities and also the respective continents we farangs represent in Thailand. I'd caution against committing the same cultural and intellectual failures as the Thais do. Democrats and Republicans in the United States are very different people. This needs to be recognized and respected.

[Fozfromoz]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It's been pointed out in this thread that scientific surveys which include gun owners in the United States show "Americans" (as you state it) are in favor of more demanding gun laws. The problem is in the Congress, where the Republican Party opposes any or all modifications to gun laws and the Democratic Party favors greater regulation of gun ownership. The Democratic Party however is cowardly and fearful of the powerful National Rifle Association lobbyists in Washington which can knock you off in the next election with their money and mantra against greater control of gun ownership. I'm in the Democratic Party and own a handgun in the United States, so some Democrats do own guns. However, its is only in the Democratic Party that we see any, if occasional, action toward pursuing better laws concerning who can get which, or any, firearm. Kindly don't say "Americans" and "they" in a way that it seems to imply 100% of us. We saw last year in the Republican Party contest for the Party's nomination how extreme and irrational Republicans in the United States have become. Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein of California will be introducing new gun laws in January when the next Congress convenes and a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives will introduce the legislation there.

The Repugnican party Congressman you quote is from Texas, which was a part of the Old Confederacy. In fact, Willard Mitt Romney won nine of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy to include Texas which also elected a crackpot new Repugnican party U.S. Senator who absolutely agrees with the R Congressman from Texas.They think in syllogisms, e.g., more guns mean less violence. It's clear to you and I that more guns means more violence and deaths.

Thais call us "falhang" which demonstrates their inability (or indifference) to recognize cultural distinctions among the many nationalities and also the respective continents we farangs represent in Thailand. I'd caution against committing the same cultural and intellectual failures as the Thais do. Democrats and Republicans in the United States are very different people. This needs to be recognized and respected.

Can I ask, if they (you)? aren't Americans, then what are you? Every president I have ever seen on TV, will say my fellow Americans, does that mean he's only addressing part of the nation?

[DocN]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

Perhaps you're confusing FOX with Americans...or humans. If this is f'ing with your tolerance, then turn off the TV. We are sick about this, we are crying over this...stop confusing what you hear on TV with the 99.9% that are crushed over this.

Guys...why don't you read, before you rant?

[mania]

The Democratic Party however is cowardly and fearful of the powerful National Rifle Association lobbyists in Washington which can knock you off in the next election with their money and mantra against greater control of gun ownership.

I often see these claims about the NRA with all its power & $$$

Yet the facts are quite different.

The NRA has something like 4 million members.

USA has 300 + million citizens.

Then this talk about the NRA all powerful lobbyist

In 2011 the NRA spent 2.9 million USD on lobbying

In 2012 they spent less

As far as the NRA's ranking as lobbyist they ranked

176th out of 4219 other lobbyist in 2012

So really how powerful are they?

Well they are not as big as many suggest.

Perhaps more citizens than NRA members speak to their Congress person?

I don't know

Edited December 17, 2012 by mania

[Credo]

I'd rather be a Saudi woman showing a little leg than be a politician when the NRA decides to issue a fatwah against you.

[Scott]

Just a reminder that this thread is about the 27 killed in Connecticut.

Please stick to the topic.

[NeverSure]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It is easy to misunderstand. From the beginning, the reason for the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms had everything to do with allowing citizens to protect themselves from the government. It was to assure that the people were more powerful than the government, and they are.

Even though the government has far more powerful weapons, they are too far outnumbered. Also, the people can hide as civilians an come in and out to fight guerrilla style.

Never in history has any guerrilla army been defeated on its own soil. We saw that in N. Korea in the 50's, in Viet Nam in the 60 - 70's, and are today seeing it in Afghanistan. It just cannot be done, even against the US military.

This is why I reject all statements about citizens needing guns only for sporting purposes or even just for hunting. That's NOT what the guns are for. They are for defense of the home, the person, and the populace, and this requires capable weapons.

SO BEFORE anyone thinks this belief in defense against government is crazy, let's not forget the many massacres around the globe by governments against their people. In 1976 the Thai government massacred and then mutilated the bodies of 46 university students who were protesting. Link BTW the right to protest is also protected in the US.

There isn't room here to list all of the massacres by governments against their own people just in my lifetime, and certainly not in my father's lifetime and he fought against Hitler who killed 6 million Jews who had surrendered their guns to him. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China resulted in the government killing at least hundreds and many believe thousands of protestors. How would that have turned out if the Chinese citizens had guns? There were about 1/2 million protesters and a population of over one billion.

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me. As a matter of fact, the increasingly centralized monetary power (and money makes the rules) in Europe, and a somewhat unarmed populace would scare me. History says there are things to be concerned about when government gets too much power.

[jpinx]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It is easy to misunderstand. From the beginning, the reason for the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms had everything to do with allowing citizens to protect themselves from the government. It was to assure that the people were more powerful than the government, and they are.

Even though the government has far more powerful weapons, they are too far outnumbered. Also, the people can hide as civilians an come in and out to fight guerrilla style.

Never in history has any guerrilla army been defeated on its own soil. We saw that in N. Korea in the 50's, in Viet Nam in the 60 - 70's, and are today seeing it in Afghanistan. It just cannot be done, even against the US military.

This is why I reject all statements about citizens needing guns only for sporting purposes or even just for hunting. That's NOT what the guns are for. They are for defense of the home, the person, and the populace, and this requires capable weapons.

SO BEFORE anyone thinks this belief in defense against government is crazy, let's not forget the many massacres around the globe by governments against their people. In 1976 the Thai government massacred and then mutilated the bodies of 46 university students who were protesting. Link BTW the right to protest is also protected in the US.

There isn't room here to list all of the massacres by governments against their own people just in my lifetime, and certainly not in my father's lifetime and he fought against Hitler who killed 6 million Jews who had surrendered their guns to him. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China resulted in the government killing at least hundreds and many believe thousands of protestors. How would that have turned out if the Chinese citizens had guns? There were about 1/2 million protesters and a population of over one billion.

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me. As a matter of fact, the increasingly centralized monetary power (and money makes the rules) in Europe, and a somewhat unarmed populace would scare me. History says there are things to be concerned about when government gets too much power.

Too many inaccuracies to enumurate here. Unfortunately people read this kind of emotive half-truth and it re-inforces their paranoia.

Most USA citizens that I know - including my very large extended family - are against public ownership of assault style weapons, seriously beefed up checks on the suitability of potential owners of any gun, and limits on the quantity in any household.

There is a religious-like fervour about the constitution of USA as amended, but there is little thought put into implementing it correctly. Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated. If that had been the case there would not have been an arsenal in that house because of the unstable son, and those kids would not be dead now.

RIP

Edited December 17, 2012 by jpinx

[F430murci]

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It is easy to misunderstand. From the beginning, the reason for the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms had everything to do with allowing citizens to protect themselves from the government. It was to assure that the people were more powerful than the government, and they are.

Even though the government has far more powerful weapons, they are too far outnumbered. Also, the people can hide as civilians an come in and out to fight guerrilla style.

Never in history has any guerrilla army been defeated on its own soil. We saw that in N. Korea in the 50's, in Viet Nam in the 60 - 70's, and are today seeing it in Afghanistan. It just cannot be done, even against the US military.

This is why I reject all statements about citizens needing guns only for sporting purposes or even just for hunting. That's NOT what the guns are for. They are for defense of the home, the person, and the populace, and this requires capable weapons.

SO BEFORE anyone thinks this belief in defense against government is crazy, let's not forget the many massacres around the globe by governments against their people. In 1976 the Thai government massacred and then mutilated the bodies of 46 university students who were protesting. Link BTW the right to protest is also protected in the US.

There isn't room here to list all of the massacres by governments against their own people just in my lifetime, and certainly not in my father's lifetime and he fought against Hitler who killed 6 million Jews who had surrendered their guns to him. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China resulted in the government killing at least hundreds and many believe thousands of protestors. How would that have turned out if the Chinese citizens had guns? There were about 1/2 million protesters and a population of over one billion.

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me. As a matter of fact, the increasingly centralized monetary power (and money makes the rules) in Europe, and a somewhat unarmed populace would scare me. History says there are things to be concerned about when government gets too much power.

Too many inaccuracies to enumurate here. Unfortunately people read this kind of emotive half-truth and it re-inforces their paranoia. Most USA citizens that I know - including my very large extended family - are against public ownership of assault style weapons, seriously beefed up checks on the suitability of potential owners, and limits on the quantity in any household. There is a religious-like fervour about the constitution on USA as amended, but there is little thought put into implementing it correctly. Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated. If that had been the case there would not have been an arsenal in that house because of the unstable son, and those kids would not be dead now. RIP

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator? If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

[mania]

Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated.

Actually

It is the Militia that shall be well regulated & the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment States

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

At the end of the day if there is to be any further amendments to the Constitution

it will be the citizens of the USA who decide & they alone.

[LaoPo]

Official public data on the web from the FBI shows that from January to November 2012 there were 16,808,538 (yes, 16,8 million) Applications for firearms in the USA, including the type of fire arms.

From November 1998 to November 2012 (14 years) a total of more than 156 Million (!) applications for firearms were received in the US.

Only some serious consciousness and awareness of the dangers of possessing firearms amongst Americans themselves is necessary to change the way of thinking in order to realize that the rest of the world also lives and survives WITHOUT hundreds of millions of firearms in private possession.

The same way of changes in thinking amongst a large part of the Americans happened with/about same-sex marriage...it took decades to realize and accept that the world is changing; the same will be needed for firearms

US Gun statistics overall:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5Hb2htdzJYUk1XeFRxMkJIdEFNUXc#gid=0

datablog by The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#data

How many guns per State:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#state

[jpinx]

Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated.

Actually

It is the Militia that shall be well regulated & the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment States

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

At the end of the day if there is to be any further amendments to the Constitution

it will be the citizens of the USA who decide & they alone.

Good - I am happy that we have got to the point where discussion of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the table. One has to bear in mind what the situation was when this was written. The reference to the militia was because there was no standing army, but there is now, so the legitimacy of this amendment has to be queried. Certainly no well-regulated militia would have allowed it's members guns to be so freely available that a crazed guy could do what happened in CT.

The decisions about the USA will be taken by the politicans - not the people, because there is no place for a referendum in USA law.

Edited December 17, 2012 by jpinx

[mania]

Good - I am happy that we have got to the point where discussion of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the table.

Actually not good,

I am sorry to have taken part in it actually & will add no more to the flames regarding Constitution etc.

But just thought I would point out what the amendment states in reply to your post &

also that it it the American Citizens alone who shall decide on any further amendments.

I agree with a post made early on by "The Blether" I think?

In it he said this topic is about 27 dead. The moderators have also stepped

in many times to remind us of that. This is not the time nor place/thread to debate

gun laws/Constitution interpretation etc.

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a topic in this world news section about

proposed laws/possible changes etc. soon enough. That would be a topic to post all this other stuff in.

It was a terrible evil thing that happened. Perpetrated by a possibly sick, definitely evil

person. My heart goes out to the families & their loved ones he hurt.

Edited December 17, 2012 by mania

[F430murci]

Official public data on the web from the FBI shows that from January to November 2012 there were 16,808,538 (yes, 16,8 million) Applications for firearms in the USA, including the type of fire arms.

From November 1998 to November 2012 (14 years) a total of more than 156 Million (!) applications for firearms were received in the US.

Only some serious consciousness and awareness of the dangers of possessing firearms amongst Americans themselves is necessary to change the way of thinking in order to realize that the rest of the world also lives and survives WITHOUT hundreds of millions of firearms in private possession.

The same way of changes in thinking amongst a large part of the Americans happened with/about same-sex marriage...it took decades to realize and accept that the world is changing; the same will be needed for firearms

US Gun statistics overall:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5Hb2htdzJYUk1XeFRxMkJIdEFNUXc#gid=0

datablog by The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#data

How many guns per State:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#state

Wow. Kentuckians sure like their guns. About 10 to 20 percent times national average. Guess they gotta protect those stills and pot fields from the revenue man.

Kentucky and West Va. Are two of the 4 lowest income and poorest education states in the US, but yet they sure do spend a whole lot on guns.

I do get gun ownership in states such as Alaska, Montanna, and Colorado type places. When I had my summer place in Salida Colo, we used to carry a 50 or 44 pistol when hiking just in case we ran into a bear.