Connecticut Elementary School.

welcome

Even though I have stopped wasting my time questioning why people need to have assault weapons in their homes, I am still curious whether people think there should be any upper limit on the firepower. Is the sky the limit?

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

I guess we are not reading each other's posts, which is understandable. But perhaps you could PLEASE consider this one from mine:

"BTW, the term "assault weapon" is being misused here. Please stop. Those of you who throw it around are showing your technical ignorance of the issue. And you have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" of the gun ban folks, i.e. misusing this term to scare folks into thinking the streets are filled with military weapons."

For those of us who know better, it really does make you look ignorant, sorry. It was a term intentionally propagated by the anit-gun movement to take advantage of the general public ignorance in this regard and spread fear over the whole issue. And you have played right into it.

Same with posting the pics that you did. I mean, look at them! Man, those guns sure LOOK evil, don't they??! But they really are nothing more than a modern, practical evolution of design. But if ya' don't really understand them.... or this issue in general... it is quite natural to ask "who the hell needs these?" Your points are all classic examples of the successful manipulation techniques used by the anti-gun movements.

Believe me, I am NOT advocating gun control. Despite my personal believes, I have conceded defeat. My question about unlimited firepower is genuine and sincere.

I am so disappointed when I see simplistic arguments like this.

I would rather you not "guess" about this issue, thanks. Originally Posted by rooster

Really? When we take proposals of change and extrapolate future results from those changes, all we have is guess-work. Comes with the territory.

And given that i conceded my suggestion was based on guess-work, the mere fact that you highlighted and critiqued my guess, while ignoring the guess that i was responding to tells me you are coming at this from a particular agenda that's maybe not entirely pure.

Comparing our gun crime rate with other countries is not valid.

The comparison of gun crime rates may not be all-encompassing, but it is valid. Societal factors, as you point out, do play a part, nobody is disputing that. But suggesting that gun control policies don't also play a part is naive at best, and just ignorant at worst. Unless, of course, you want to suggest it's just one big inconvenient coincidence that the country with the demographics which lead to grossly excessive gun violence also happen to have pretty lax gun control laws.

And this idea that it's okay to do this anyway because it "won't make it worse" is particularly offensive. THAT is not logic. It is... unfortunately... a very common and understandable reaction to a situation like this when no one knows WTF to do. It comes up every time these horrible things happen.

Well, with respect to guns themselves, we're ultimately given two choices if we care to see any movement on the issue. Make the laws more strict with respect to gun control, or make them less strict. If you wanna argue that making them less strict is the way to go, have at it.

(BTW, the term "assault weapon" is being misused here. Please stop. Those of you who throw it around are showing your technical ignorance of the issue. And you have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" of the gun ban folks, i.e. misusing this term to scare folks into thinking the streets are filled with military weapons).

What a lazy comment. The term "assault weapon", from a strict technical standpoint, may be misused somewhat. But in more every-day terms, it's simply referring to weapons that allow 20 kids to be slaughtered in a matter of 5 minutes. Whether there are 50 of them on the streets or 5 million is irrelevant.

We can debate the real problems all day long. But the "gun thing" ain't it. Sorry.

Sorry, but the legal access to weapons which allow someone to kill 27 people in an elementary school (or anywhere else, Anita) in a matter of 5 minutes is part of the problem. A pretty big part, i'd wager.

I've worked with this and studied it for years. Without knowing much about very many of you, I can tell you with confidence that no one on this board knows more about this than I. I will try not on preach on this further, unless specifically asked. But I had to say sumthin'.....

Your internet bravado on the topic is all well and good, and given my respect towards you, i suspect it's entirely valid. Nevertheless, suggesting that assault weapons on the street aren't a problem makes me question just where you're coming from on this.

That statistic is not valid, and again, it is mostly for reasons of demographics.

The NRA doesn't need to fund any study to discredit this. Anyone with a background in proper scientific method and an understanding of the socio-economic conditions in this country can debunk it in a second. It is a piece of shit, plain and simple. But it sure sounds good, doesn't it?

I'll stop now (I hope). Originally Posted by rooster

If i understand your comment, then one of us is mis-reading the article on the study, and i think it's you. Badly.

It's not suggesting that people in the general population are 4.5X more likely to be shot if they own a gun (as your comment seems to suggest it's trying to say). It's suggesting that people involved in an assault are 4.5X more likely to be shot if they own a gun.

And frankly, it makes perfect sense. If someone is pointing a gun at you, is he more likely to shoot you if you do nothing, or if you go for a gun yourself?

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

And if i correctly understand your critique of the study, then again, your bias is showing. If not, i apologize.

We ALWAYS need to have access to the same firepower the cops/authorities have. Should we become unarmed, they will be our worst nightmare. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Then you have a long way to go in your personal "arms race" with the "authorities". That must make you feel extremely vulnerable.

All of you tards are yapping about weapons. Has anyone even considered the mental health situation?

Then you have a long way to go in your personal "arms race" with the "authorities". That must make you feel extremely vulnerable. Originally Posted by jackfengshui

Fortunately it isn't personal. I'm not packing and I won't be unless absolutely necessary. Me holding a gun means I'm holding what someone else will use to shoot me. I'm not trained.

My biggest fear is public apathy on the need to bear arms. It is too easy for modern Americans that are used to our society as it is after 235 years or so with a Bill of Rights to forget one of the most absolute truths mankind has ever demonstrated: power will be abused. Eventually, all unchecked power will be abused. Of that I am certain.

Power will be abused. So I'm glad there are rednecks and fringe elements out there with hundreds of guns, someone I can side with should the government go Gestapo.

All of you tards are yapping about weapons. Has anyone even considered the mental health situation? Originally Posted by pyramider

I've mentioned it. In this case the mother has already been punished.

Mental health mixed with violent TV and violent video games, where you get online to kill. I can't believe how little that is mentioned.

Mental health mixed with violent TV and violent video games, where you get online to kill. I can't believe how little that is mentioned. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I suffered through all the Sunday morning talking heads shows, and that was mentioned once.

We live in a society that worships violence, and I'm gonna say it again whether you like it or not, it started with Nixon's silent majority and the Right's inability to accept the fact that Viet Nam was a mistake and we got our ass kicked and rightly so. Then we move on to Ronald Reagan cashing in on all the bottled up resentment with his little wars on Libya and Grenada. Dubya takes it to the absurd in Iraq. Add to the above the propaganda movies like "Top Gun" and their ilk plus the first person shooter video games and the wall to wall coverage by the news channels of every sordid event like Connecticut and we arrive at this place. USA USA USA, code for Sieg Heil.

people may blame the weapons, the laws, but this person had a mental defect. This persons who committed this hateful act against our fellow man, against God (if I may be so bold on this site), his moral compass was broken, or never even existed.

During this tragedy, we should be grieving, it must be appropriate to shed a tear.

in volunteering with youth, I have seen people who are really hurting, who have experience what a cruel world has to offer. Some of these people still have a moral compass. This moral compass frequently is the result of love in there heart, and/or others showing them love. I mean a brotherly type of love.

This type of love is too frequently vacant in the world today. Some express this love with their religion, which is being forbidden is certain aspects of public life.

I see a lesson here that the world needs more compassion, more mercy, and To display these emotions to our fellow man is the cure against this hatred and cruelty, and this is what HOPE needs to be. All said, reach out to someone who has struggled, either with how God made them, or has been bullied, or has had some other misfortune. It is a sad irony that this occurred in a season, that should marked by peace.

Well worth the read - COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !! Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.
To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

What a lazy comment. The term "assault weapon", from a strict technical standpoint, may be misused somewhat. But in more every-day terms, it's simply referring to weapons that allow 20 kids to be slaughtered in a matter of 5 minutes. Whether there are 50 of them on the streets or 5 million is irrelevant. Originally Posted by Doove

You must not have much knowledge of handguns. Five minutes with ANY weapon, even a revolver, could easily slaughter a lot more than twenty people if they are unarmed sitting sucks.

"never waste a good crisis,"

I guess we are not reading each other's posts, which is understandable. But perhaps you could PLEASE consider this one from mine:

"BTW, the term "assault weapon" is being misused here. Please stop. Those of you who throw it around are showing your technical ignorance of the issue. And you have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" of the gun ban folks, i.e. misusing this term to scare folks into thinking the streets are filled with military weapons."

For those of us who know better, it really does make you look ignorant, sorry. It was a term intentionally propagated by the anit-gun movement to take advantage of the general public ignorance in this regard and spread fear over the whole issue. And you have played right into it.

Same with posting the pics that you did. I mean, look at them! Man, those guns sure LOOK evil, don't they??! But they really are nothing more than a modern, practical evolution of design. But if ya' don't really understand them.... or this issue in general... it is quite natural to ask "who the hell needs these?" Your points are all classic examples of the successful manipulation techniques used by the anti-gun movements. Originally Posted by rooster

Bingo!

Rooster, we will have to go shooting some time!

I wonder how many people here have actually shot the types of weapons in the pics. I know I have. They are no different than a hunting rifle with a magazine.

Well worth the read - Originally Posted by GP

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp

I would argue that relying on a non-existent sky fairy to solve our problems will ultimately solve nothing.