At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

[F430murci]

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

I have worked in the Court system and brother is an FBI agent. Truth is, very few robberies end up in shooting deaths due to felony murder laws being graded as 1st Degree Murder and felony murder is death elgible. A clerk pulling a gun to defend themselves will be more likely to get themselves shot than if they just handed over the little bit of money. Money is not worth risking a life.

If the robber did not shoot when shot or immediately upon entering, I highly doubt he would have ever shot. Armed robbery is a Class B, but seven to 15 years is a lot better than life without parole, execution or death.

Your parents defended themselves with a .357 so obviously no need for an assault weapon or a pistol with a greater than 10 shot clip. I am cool with a .357 for personal protection inside a store even though most people will leikly just end up dead when trying to use it when they would have been alive if they just handed over the cash. That is there choice.

Better tact may be to put a sign on the door saying "Have Gun, Will Use."

[chuckd]

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

I have worked in the Court system and brother is an FBI agent. Truth is, very few robberies end up in shooting deaths due to felony murder laws being graded as 1st Degree Murder and felony murder is death elgible. A clerk pulling a gun to defend themselves will be more likely to get themselves shot than if they just handed over the little bit of money. Money is not worth risking a life.

If the robber did not shoot when shot or immediately upon entering, I highly doubt he would have ever shot. Armed robbery is a Class B, but seven to 15 years is a lot better than life without parole, execution or death.

Your parents defended themselves with a .357 so obviously no need for an assault weapon or a pistol with a greater than 10 shot clip. I am cool with a .357 for personal protection inside a store even though most people will leikly just end up dead when trying to use it when they would have been alive if they just handed over the cash. That is there choice.

Better tact may be to put a sign on the door saying "Have Gun, Will Use."

Your idea of the sign will guarantee one thing. The bad guys WILL come in shooting.

[F430murci]

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

I have worked in the Court system and brother is an FBI agent. Truth is, very few robberies end up in shooting deaths due to felony murder laws being graded as 1st Degree Murder and felony murder is death elgible. A clerk pulling a gun to defend themselves will be more likely to get themselves shot than if they just handed over the little bit of money. Money is not worth risking a life.

If the robber did not shoot when shot or immediately upon entering, I highly doubt he would have ever shot. Armed robbery is a Class B, but seven to 15 years is a lot better than life without parole, execution or death.

Your parents defended themselves with a .357 so obviously no need for an assault weapon or a pistol with a greater than 10 shot clip. I am cool with a .357 for personal protection inside a store even though most people will leikly just end up dead when trying to use it when they would have been alive if they just handed over the cash. That is there choice.

Better tact may be to put a sign on the door saying "Have Gun, Will Use."

Your idea of the sign will guarantee one thing. The bad guys WILL come in shooting.

That belies common sense and reality. The shooting of one typically happens when things go wrong or badly during a hold up. There is rarely ever any intention to actually kill someone for cash register money. Again, that is felony murder and typically the guys robbing stores know more about the grades of crimes than a business man.

Some dude wanting to rob someone for cash register money will be detered by knowledge that the onwer has a gun. The reality is in most small communities, EVERYONE knows if store owner keeps a gun. Same in most cities. Going in guns a blazing for cash register money may be television show stuff, but is not reality.

Even armored car and bank heist rarely result in shooting or execution of witnesses unless something goes wrong because criminals know that just went from small time 2 or 3 years actually served to life without parole.

[ALFREDO]

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAEL

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

These can't be real, surely?

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

Approximately real, sure,

Britain, 0,04 per 100.000 inhabitants, Killed by others 2011, is 28 death, if 70 Million Brits.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ALFREDO

[F430murci]

"On Friday morning, she was finishing up her daily morning meeting with the class when gunman Adam Lanza began his rampage.

Her cousin, Fairfield County Police Officer James Wiltsie, said the family was told by authorities that Soto hurried the kids into a closet behind her, “trying to shield them from the spray of bullets.”"

http://usnews.nbcnew...-be-buried?lite

Edited December 19, 2012 by F430murci

[ALFREDO]

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAELa

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

These can't be real, surely?

Whilst on the surface its quite alarming, I reckon it needs more perspective. It says killed. Does that mean murdered or self inflicted/ accidental.

Given the fact that the UK is listed with only 8, I would have thought Thailand would be on the list. The list needs to be All encompassing to give a balanced perspective. East Timor for example has gun homicides but a small population. Some other populous nations are not listed. Russia, China, India.

Check it out a bit here. But many countries do not have or provide special list, stats of gun related death. Just over all killings.

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

Over all

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

[Bwanatickey]

The killer killed his Mother first, What if He did not. If She was alive what kind of life would she be having? The Police would find some law to imprison her for her sons crime. Politicians would be trying to further their political career status by denouncing her. Her life would be a living torture. How many fellow citizens would try and kill her?

Grief turns to anger,very quickly.

[DocN]

The killer killed his Mother first, What if He did not. If She was alive what kind of life would she be having? The Police would find some law to imprison her for her sons crime. Politicians would be trying to further their political career status by denouncing her. Her life would be a living torture. How many fellow citizens would try and kill her?

Grief turns to anger,very quickly.

That's another reason why NOT everybody should have a gun, don't you think?

[inapeartree]

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

Seems that the true misunderstanding each and every less than knowledgeable anti-gun spouting advocate is people kill people - if a person misspells a word is the fault of the pen or the writer? - if a car crashes and a person is killed is it the cars fault or the driver? - ban all pens and we will definitely make sure no-one misspells a single word again – ban all cars and we have eliminated all these nasty car crashes and needless loss of life - problems solved - yeah lets go home and feel all fuzzy about the dramatic change we have implemented that did not do anything to change the true root cause of the problem.

That’s what is wrong with the current world today - not realistic - people kill people - simple - if not a gun a knife a club a bat or any instrument - it’s all the same

That’s what is currently wrong with people dealing with something they are not capable of understanding – a sympathetic & pathetic way of dealing with all torts and laws - taking guns away from people only leaves innocent people defenseless against the real criminals that still have the illegal guns and the criminals now have the warm and fuzzy feeling there is less chance the victim has a gun bcoz they have been taken away - Duhh!!

America was founded on the thought that a man required a gun to defend himself and his family against the unknown and real threats outside his door - that same mentality still holds true to this day - if not it is needed even more today than yesterday.

This truly sad crime could have been easily prevented without burdening the entire populous with gun controls and taking away 2^nd amendment rights. It’s all quite simple but again – there are those that must complicate the world with their over engineered thinking. Simply put the school should have had security - that’s the key weak link in this tragedy - if this 20 yr old boy was twisted off at his parents and went for revenge - he should have been stopped at the doors and not allowed in without authorization

you might want to check the stats on gun related deaths in other countries pardner, USA tops the list by a lightyear buzz ...just sayin

then again, there may be something in the water supply

A per-capita miscalculation on your part perhaps - some people seem to forget how big and populated the USA is - 360 million I think - with that many people your going to have a higher rate of anything - cancer, car deaths, slipping in the shower, snake bites, etc...

Now if you pick a country like Kuwait, Belize - those stats might mean something.

Jus sayin !!

Here are the figures again which I posted earlier, they compare 7 countries with strict gun laws with America which allows pretty much anyone to own a gun and encourages it in many states.

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.'

[dhrobertson]

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.

Oh, I understand the big picture just fine. And yes, I do tend to associate with intelligent well informed people and none of these agree with lax gun laws. Maybe we're just more civilised than you.

I'm not "convulsed" by differing opinions, I am convulsed by 20 young children being murdered.

[dhrobertson]

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.

NURSE! Neversure is out of bed again......

[dhrobertson]

Look, I've said my piece and I'm out of here. The last time the Brits got into trouble Churchill begged for help from the US and he got it. He got it in the form of boys who already knew how to shoot by hunting, farming, and generally growing up around guns.

The next time you guys need help, and you will because you've become such weak liberals, I hope the US refuses it and lets you go against the EU on your own. The EU will try to swallow Britain which is in trouble enough as it is.

Good luck.

Neversure, you really are bonkers. You are just the type who should NEVER be allowed near anything more powerful than a spud gun.

However, I welcome your input because it illustrates beautifully the problem.

Moderators, this is not off topic. We are all grieving, but it is what to do next that counts.

Thanks for the help in the last war, we really needed it. that's why we paid you so much and why we did not tell you in advance about Pearl harbour! Pip pip!

[Jingthing]

...

I think TV members should have the option to consider what Michael Harris and others have to say - even if that goes against the mainstream media version.

Sure it's informative to know the kind of virulent anti-semitic propaganda being broadcast out of Iran these days. If you watch the video (not saying you should) you will see it's both anti-Zionist AND anti-semitic, so no splitting hairs about that. I hope the Jewish family of Noah Pozner doesn't have to be exposed to that though. Edited December 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

I've considered it and I think Michael Harris is a shilling short of a two bob note.

[Chopperboy]

I am not expressing an opinion - just saying that there is wide (non-mainstream) comment that the story is full of holes.

[transam]

Look, I've said my piece and I'm out of here. The last time the Brits got into trouble Churchill begged for help from the US and he got it. He got it in the form of boys who already knew how to shoot by hunting, farming, and generally growing up around guns.

The next time you guys need help, and you will because you've become such weak liberals, I hope the US refuses it and lets you go against the EU on your own. The EU will try to swallow Britain which is in trouble enough as it is.

Good luck.

Neversure, you really are bonkers. You are just the type who should NEVER be allowed near anything more powerful than a spud gun.

However, I welcome your input because it illustrates beautifully the problem.

Moderators, this is not off topic. We are all grieving, but it is what to do next that counts.

Thanks for the help in the last war, we really needed it. that's why we paid you so much and why we did not tell you in advance about Pearl harbour! Pip pip!

AND NS, do you think us Brit guys who went to Poland's aid grew up around guns ? Nooooooooo, don't think so and l do believe the UK has been helping the USA out a little lately.

[Jingthing]

The latest (back to something closer to reality) I've heard about the mysterious motivation of the shooter is this:

Shooter thought Mommy was going to commit him to a mental facility (good move!)

All he did all day was play violent video games (join the club, I guess)

Mommy was a regular volunteer at the elementary school (young kids, kindergarten)

Shooter was jealous that Mommy cared more about the kids at school than him and also angry about the threat to commit him

The rest we know. The targets (Mommy and the poor innocents at the school) starts to make a little more sense from the perspective of a man who had cracked.

Mommy didn't lock up her guns. I'm sorry, she knew her son was mentally ill, she is dead yes, but is she not partly culpable?

Interestingly, this family was very well off financially.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chopperboy]

The latest (back to something closer to reality) I've heard about the mysterious motivation of the shooter is this:

Shooter thought Mommy was going to commit him to a mental facility (good move!)

All he did all day was play violent video games (join the club, I guess)

Mommy was a regular volunteer at the elementary school (young kids, kindergarten)

Shooter was jealous that Mommy cared more about the kids at school than him and also angry about the threat to commit him

The rest we know. The targets (Mommy and the poor innocents at the school) starts to make a little more sense from the perspective of a man who had cracked.

Mommy didn't lock up her guns. I'm sorry, she knew her son was mentally ill, she is dead yes, but is she not partly culpable?

Interestingly, this family was very well off financially.

“Investigators searching the Connecticut home gunman Adam Lanza shared with his mother, Nancy Lanza, seized cellphones, computers and computer games, but found nothing at the residence to indicate he was taking medication, Hearst Connecticut Newspapers reported.

Today, Fox News tells us that Adam Lanza had no history of mental illness, was not on any medication and had never been diagnosed:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...FXz45rSa“

Edited December 20, 2012 by Chopperboy

[Jingthing]

The story I've conveyed was reported as a verbal account of someone close to the Mother, and I only heard the report on tv, do not have a link. No, it isn't hard evidence but remember a lot of the people that knew her at the school are dead. If the report is true, it starts to make a little sense as to why he attacked the school of young children, assuming the shooter was mentally ill, and he was obviously mentally ill to have done such a thing.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

There will be a full investigation. Don't fret. Wearing a vest could have been to avoid being shot before having his chance to mass murder enough people which is what he was obviously there for.

Destroying his hard drive was sensible. Maybe he didn't want the world to know what kind of porn he was into?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chopperboy]

There will be a full investigation. Don't fret. Wearing a vest could have been to avoid being shot before having his chance to mass murder enough people which is what he was obviously there for.

Destroying his hard drive was sensible. Maybe he didn't want the world to know what kind of porn he was into?

What like the 9/11 commission??

[ALFREDO]

-chopperboy-

And what? Does that mean he was not some kind of crazy to do what he did?

[Jingthing]

There will be a full investigation. Don't fret. Wearing a vest could have been to avoid being shot before having his chance to mass murder enough people which is what he was obviously there for.

Destroying his hard drive was sensible. Maybe he didn't want the world to know what kind of porn he was into?

What like the 9/11 commission??

No. Like the Sandy Hook School elementary school massacre police investigation.

If you're suggesting they're not going to spend much time considering absurd theories that "the Jews did it" as highlighted in that sad link you supplied, you would be ... CORRECT.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

You, sir and Mr. harris just smeared the memory of innocent children and teachers. You, sir and Mr. Harris should be ashamed!

Ah, I just noticed the logo in the corner. It's the mad mullahs mouthpiece and virtually everything they broadcast is as far from reality as they are.

[Markaew]

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.

Oh, I understand the big picture just fine. And yes, I do tend to associate with intelligent well informed people and none of these agree with lax gun laws. Maybe we're just more civilised than you.

I'm not "convulsed" by differing opinions, I am convulsed by 20 young children being murdered.

That's pretty close minded. So what you are saying is anyone that agrees with you is intelligent. Typical statement from people of your opinion. Subjective and lacking any deep thought. Just a herding of people that are the same as you. That is why compromise doesn't exist any more. I can appreciate your opinion although we disagree, but you appreciate nothing.

[koheesti]

The latest (back to something closer to reality) I've heard about the mysterious motivation of the shooter is this:

Shooter thought Mommy was going to commit him to a mental facility (good move!)

All he did all day was play violent video games (join the club, I guess)

Mommy was a regular volunteer at the elementary school (young kids, kindergarten)

Shooter was jealous that Mommy cared more about the kids at school than him and also angry about the threat to commit him

The rest we know. The targets (Mommy and the poor innocents at the school) starts to make a little more sense from the perspective of a man who had cracked.

Mommy didn't lock up her guns. I'm sorry, she knew her son was mentally ill, she is dead yes, but is she not partly culpable?

Interestingly, this family was very well off financially.

Interesting...where did you read that?

[Chicog]

I wouldn't get too excited - it probably came from Fox and their bevy of "unnamed sources" (i.e blokes in the back writing fairy stories).

Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have been motivated by anger at his mother because of plans to have him committed for treatment, Fox News reported Thursday, citing comments from the son of an area church pastor and an unnamed neighborhood source. Fox also cited an unnamed senior law enforcement official saying anger at plans for “his future mental-health treatment” were being investigated as a possible motive.

[koheesti]

I wouldn't get too excited - it probably came from Fox and their bevy of "unnamed sources" (i.e blokes in the back writing fairy stories).

Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have been motivated by anger at his mother because of plans to have him committed for treatment, Fox News reported Thursday, citing comments from the son of an area church pastor and an unnamed neighborhood source. Fox also cited an unnamed senior law enforcement official saying anger at plans for “his future mental-health treatment” were being investigated as a possible motive.

555 I seriously doubt that JT watches Fox News.

[dhrobertson]

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.

Oh, I understand the big picture just fine. And yes, I do tend to associate with intelligent well informed people and none of these agree with lax gun laws. Maybe we're just more civilised than you.

I'm not "convulsed" by differing opinions, I am convulsed by 20 young children being murdered.

That's pretty close minded. So what you are saying is anyone that agrees with you is intelligent. Typical statement from people of your opinion. Subjective and lacking any deep thought. Just a herding of people that are the same as you. That is why compromise doesn't exist any more. I can appreciate your opinion although we disagree, but you appreciate nothing.

Enough murders of innocent children. ENOUGH!

What do I not appreciate?

The desire of a bunch of boys with something worrying them in the trouser department?

Get a grip!

It's time to allow some grownups to take your pathetic toys away......

[Jingthing]

I wouldn't get too excited - it probably came from Fox and their bevy of "unnamed sources" (i.e blokes in the back writing fairy stories).

Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have been motivated by anger at his mother because of plans to have him committed for treatment, Fox News reported Thursday, citing comments from the son of an area church pastor and an unnamed neighborhood source. Fox also cited an unnamed senior law enforcement official saying anger at plans for “his future mental-health treatment” were being investigated as a possible motive.

It was Fox News. That's the only theory I've heard so far. Otherwise, we can only imagine. For example, if you wanted to be super infamous and were going to do some mass murders, I suppose going for little kids would more or less insure you'd be remembered.