Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@JPB,

I'm not responding to you JPB. My "Reply to all" function has disappeared.

The President used the word "must" in his speech in Newtown. I can't imagine such a word being used rhetorically.

And with the US being split on the issue I imagine half the bereaved families are, or were, on the same side as the NRA.

If I lived in the US I think I might be too.

It seems to me that every elected office holder or appointee is bound to be in favour of restricting freedom. Grandstanding notwithstadning.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5198241)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Humm…interesting reasoning, oralloly.

At one point in our history, people “plotted” to consider blacks as humans…not subject to slavery. At one point in our history, people “plotted” to give women the right to vote.

Are you saying it is reasonable to characterize those people as “hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution?”

No. Those people were plotting in favor of freedom. And their plotting did not involve trying to violate people's Constitutional rights.

They most assuredly did involve trying to violate people's Constitutional rights, Oralloy. Absolutely. They were violating the Constitutional rights people had to own slaves...

...and the Constitutional rights of men to decide who would lead the country.

Why are you saying they do not involve those things?

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
By the way…since you actually said: " The left hates America’s freedom even more than Osama bin Laden did”…don’t you think you ought to offer your “reasoning” for making that statement…why you assert it has to be the truth and not hyperbole?

I thought I did offer it.

American freedom includes the Constitutional right to own assault weapons. The Democrats are trying to abolish that freedom by violating that right.

No, Oralloy, you did not offer it...AND STILL HAVEN'T.

Even if one were to buy into the hyperbolic assertion that Democrats are trying to abolish the freedom to own guns...

...THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEY HATE AMERICAN FREEDOMS MORE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN DID.

Deal with that, Oralloy. You claim to be truthful. So deal with the two things I just mentioned.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

I think not teaching kids about guns is a problem. They will encounter guns somewhere and they should know how to handle one safely.

I'll wager that there are many more accidental gun deaths -- boys showing off and goofing off -- than there are shootings like the one at the school.

My son turns 12 soon. Old enough for the sheriff's department gun safety course. He'll be going.

I want him to know gun safety so he'll recognize when someone is behaving recklessly. I don't want him to be an accidental victim or an accidental shooter. I want him to have a healthy respect for guns.

Whether you like guns or not, saying that teaching kids about guns is wrong, couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion.

5 Replies

@boomerang,

It's an American problem, boomer.

Found Soul is right - for her location. Australia brought in some tough gun laws - and they worked. Kids don't experience guns the same way there. Thank goodness.

I don't understand Americans acceptance of their problem in this area. I've given up trying. It is some sort of willful community blindness.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

Good on ya! When our kids were children, I sent them to swimming school.
Back then, guns were not that common in our neighborhood. None of our family or friends had guns, but I did have a b-b gun that I used for target practice in the back yard. My wife hid the gun from me. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Yes, absolutely you're right. I think it's an American problem too. I wasn't aware that Found Soul was not American.

I totally accept that it is a problem.

And I totally understand some people's fascination with guns (including Mo's).

I want Mo to know it isn't like what you see on TV and in video games. I want him to know how powerful they are and how destructive they can be.

I absolutely want him to be safe around guns.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

In Oregon, guns are everywhere.

And we have very loose gun laws.

We had a public shooting in a shopping mall near our house the other day. According to the news, there was a person in the mall with a concealed carry permit who encountered the shooter but didn't shoot because he worried that other people could be hurt. (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html)

I'm adding this mostly for those people who think more guns would prevent this type of thing but the fact is -- understanding guns is important.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

I did read the links you posted. And I don't doubt that Adam Lanza may have suffered from Asperger's, and might have been on medication in the past, but that does not mean he was necessarily treated with medication at the time of the shooting.

In addition, certain medications were banned in the U.K. for use with children--those under 18--and Lanza was 20. So medicating him with SSNI/ SSRI drugs, if that was even done, would not have been inappropriate given his age. The cautions about these drugs have been well-known for years and behavioral or mood changes would have been apparent to his mother who could then have reported them to his physician. So far there is no evidence that any physician was currently treating Lanza with medication.

Also, I'm not overly impressed with the info supplied by those 2 people in the 60 minutes interview because it seems somewhat dated, mainly referring to what Adam was like in school--which was at least 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe he was on some kind of medication back then, but that doesn't mean he was on medication more recently. Hopefully, when the complete autopsy results come back, maybe we will have some answers regarding medication. I'm sure his family wants those answers too.

No one I've seen on TV, or even read about, seems to have had any direct contact with Lanza in quite some time. He apparently was seen at a shooting range, target practicing, in the past 6 months, but he doesn't seem to have interacted with anyone outside of his home, and I don't even think his brother had seen him very recently. We don't know what sort of information his brother or father might have supplied to law enforcement, but they certainly might be more reliable sources of more recent information than anything I've heard thus far.

I think Lanza's motivation, and what might have provoked his actions, still remains a complete mystery. We have no idea what his behavior had been like in the days or weeks prior to his rampage, or even what his life was like or how he spent his time. Did he just sit in the house playing violent video games by himself? Did his mother know what he was planning? Is that why he shot her? He apparently smashed the hard drive of his computer in an attempt to conceal it's contents, but law enforcement is confident they can restore it. Perhaps that will yield some clues.

0 Replies

@JPB,

I think I was roughly 14 before my father and mother took me out shotting ad the funny part was that my mother was a better shot then my father.

I remember when we were at a gun club that my father had just joined with his brand new shotgun when he was having a hell of a time hitting the target and loudly blame the sights and declare that he would take it back to the gunsmith to be adjusted.

My mother ask to give it a try and her first shot hit the bullshit. My Dad turn red and march us out of there and never went back however my mother retrieved the target and hung it on the kitchen walls for years.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The shooter's mental state, and the causes of it, are not the issue here FS. Those things are going to happen.
It is the easy access to cheap and deadly weaponry that is the issue.

That is what makes the Government responsible in the last analysis. That is the factor it can do something about. If it is unwilling for political reasons then it accepts the consequences and its tears are crocodile tears. If it is unable it is hardly a government.

U object to the poor having AFFORDABLE health care.
Its not fair.

David

0 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

With this never ending news coverage my fear is that the news media is setting up all the nuts in the nation to go out and shoot at children to become famous.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Very little of the coverage mentions the killer by name, or shows his photo. I think the media is being very careful not to give him a lot of notoriety, in order not to encourage copycats who are after infamy.

Mostly, they are focusing on the effects of this tragic shooting on the community, how people are coping, and discussing possible ways of preventing this sort of thing. Right now, on CNN, they are showing photos of the victims. The emphasis is clearly on the victims, and remembering them, rather than their murderer.

I think the media coverage from that small town will begin to wind down, but the discussions about how to try to prevent future incidents of this type, and about the general issue of gun violence in our society, should continue. And the emotional impact of this slaughter of children has hit home with so many people, I think that those discussions will continue.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Lives of children overrides what you believe to be "shall not be infringed."

Wrong.

(Not that they are in conflict to begin with.)

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you are saying that the size of the clip is merely cosmetic?

No. I did not address clip size at all.

There is really no need for me to do so. Your insistence on linking any regulation of clip size to an unconstitutional ban on pistol grips renders the issue moot.

parados wrote:

That is the only way your rational basis review argument works with clip size.

Were I to address clip size, I would apply strict scrutiny.

However, I see no need to worry about what clip sizes might pass muster and which might not. You and others have made it abundantly clear that you will sabotage all regulation of clip size by tying it to unconstitutional bans on pistol grips.

No need for me to worry much about a measure that you're going to sabotage for me.

(Thanks for sabotaging it, BTW.)

parados wrote:

So in other words you are going to argue that a single shot weapon performs exactly the same as one that holds 100 shots.

No. I have no intention of ever arguing that.

parados wrote:

That doesn't seem very rational, does it?

No, indeed it doesn't. But since I have no intention of ever taking such a position, that doesn't matter very much.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

In Oregon, guns are everywhere.

And we have very loose gun laws.

We had a public shooting in a shopping mall near our house the other day. According to the news, there was a person in the mall with a concealed carry permit who encountered the shooter but didn't shoot because he worried that other people could be hurt. (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html)

I'm adding this mostly for those people who think more guns would prevent this type of thing but the fact is -- understanding guns is important.

Too many times we have been accused of wanting to be big shot "heros".
We don't.
During the 1993 LIRR massacre, several passengers were armed,
but chose not to get involved; thay knew that lawyers' fees are expensive, even when u win.

We just wanna be able to defend OURSELVES (or loved ones)
if that becomes necessary.

David

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Humm…interesting reasoning, oralloly.

At one point in our history, people “plotted” to consider blacks as humans…not subject to slavery. At one point in our history, people “plotted” to give women the right to vote.

Are you saying it is reasonable to characterize those people as “hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution?”

No. Those people were plotting in favor of freedom. And their plotting did not involve trying to violate people's Constitutional rights.

They most assuredly did involve trying to violate people's Constitutional rights, Oralloy. Absolutely. They were violating the Constitutional rights people had to own slaves...

...and the Constitutional rights of men to decide who would lead the country.

No such rights.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why are you saying they do not involve those things?

Because they don't.

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
By the way…since you actually said: " The left hates America’s freedom even more than Osama bin Laden did”…don’t you think you ought to offer your “reasoning” for making that statement…why you assert it has to be the truth and not hyperbole?

I thought I did offer it.

American freedom includes the Constitutional right to own assault weapons. The Democrats are trying to abolish that freedom by violating that right.

No, Oralloy, you did not offer it...AND STILL HAVEN'T.

Even if one were to buy into the hyperbolic assertion that Democrats are trying to abolish the freedom to own guns...

...THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEY HATE AMERICAN FREEDOMS MORE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN DID.

There is nothing hyperbolic about pointing out the fact that the Democrats are plotting a massive violation of our Constitutional rights.

That is exactly what the Democrats ARE doing.

And what, are you suggesting that I only should have said that they hate our freedom "just as much" as Osama bin Laden? Or 90% as much? 78.9265% as much?

The point is not the exact magnitude of their comparative hate. The point is that BOTH of them hate our freedom.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

So, how do you expect to protect yourself and your loved ones like what happened in CT?

How many of these similar tragedies have people with guns stopped? NONE!

4 Replies

@firefly,

Not the same coverage I been looking at and I think that the damn news media would be happier then not to see their ratings increase once more by another such tragic.

An it not that the news media do not know about a numbers of copy cats who had try to outdo Columbine and thereby becoming more famous then Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

So, how do you expect to protect yourself and your loved ones like what happened in CT?

Well, if I'm in a group and someone opens up on us, as the murderer did,
I 'd put 2 warning shots of hollowpointed .44 caliber slugs
into his pelvic girdle; that shud slow him down,
and maybe another one into his medulla oblongata.

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many of these similar tragedies have people with guns stopped? NONE!

Many of them; I had records of them, but thay were consumed in a fire.

I successfully defended MY OWN life, with my gun.
That's what I care about.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It's "impossible" for you to be at every location where somebody else kills with a gun.

You are buried in your own myopic ignorance.

BTW, provide us with your so-called self defense when you protected yourself with your gun? Police or newspaper report will do.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know