Elementary school shooting

[Carrie]

Originally Posted by Elton

I won't dispute that, but the gun industry in America is rather large. Especially the 2nd hand industry.

Well that makes it alright then

Why are you lot such defeatists? Ooooh it's too big to do anything about it, too hard It is not insurmountable, unless you want it to be, so just roll up your sleeves and get on with it like the rest of us do

[TheDodoKiller]

Am I the only person shocked by The Sun's portrayal of the UK firarms industry? Claiming that a Semi-Automatic .22 rifle availible to very few members of gun clubs is some readily availible death machine?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...in-the-UK.html

They're claiming that all of these 'Assault' rifles are available in the UK- Such as the AK47 and the Kalashnikov.

Sensationalistic BS if you ask me. What really annoys me about the article is that it claims that :

Frightening ... Ruger SR-22 is a 'clone' of the weapon used by Adam Lanza

Saying it is a 'clone' of the weapon used by the shooter is, to me, implying that it was almost made to clone the gun he used, which is most definitely not true- If a firearms manufacturer did that, I'd think it's pretty sick. But it's not. As someone who is quoted in the article said 'They're generally only used to hunt rabbits' and I'd probably add target shooting to that too.

[Cei]

It's The Sun, did you expect properly researched journalism?

[mucgoo]

Sensationalist media. Shame 3 million people a day read that particular tabloid.

The cartridges these guns can fire have about a fifth of the energy compared to the "real" versions as well as having 10 rounds magazines.

[theshadow2001]

Interesting commentary

[Cthippo]

Not far off. My prescriber charges me $85 for a 15 minute session to write my prescriptions. Most mental health providers are at least $150 an hour and if you don't have insurance then it's cash up front.

I'm poor enough to get my medications provided free by the manufacturer, otherwise it would be $150 a month.

On the other hand, I can go down to the pawn shop and buy a handgun for $200-300.

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by Cthippo

Not far off. My prescriber charges me $85 for a 15 minute session to write my prescriptions. Most mental health providers are at least $150 an hour and if you don't have insurance then it's cash up front.

I'm poor enough to get my medications provided free by the manufacturer, otherwise it would be $150 a month.

On the other hand, I can go down to the pawn shop and buy a handgun for $200-300.

$200-300? Wow, there must be a high markup in Washington state.

[Scirocco]

I'll just throw this log on the fire:

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by Scirocco

I'll just throw this log on the fire:

Sen. Benjamin Tillman would be so proud....

While you are at it. Look up a guy named Robert Williams from Monroe, North Carolina.

“The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box,” Frederick Douglas

Too bad twitter wasn't around while Mr. Douglas was alive. Burn baby burn.

*edit
I was just sent this via email from the Frederick Douglas foundation. http://youtu.be/nckgyfGbdnU

[Tynecider]

Why don't they have in place strict permit licensing and mandatory weapon safety training including the storage of weapons in the home, like Canada.
That there would have maybe prevented this incident, maybe not. You can never tell who is going to go mental and what they have access too.

So let me get this straight, and please correct me if I'm wrong....

This loner on psychiatric drugs with no weapons training, Drives a car not registered to him to a school. Gains entry past a secure (cameras & locks) front entrance.......He then puts 3 to 11 (untrained) rounds (over 100 in total) in each person with a semi-auto .223 cal rifle with extended magazine's....Is then shot dead inside the school...And yet, law enforcement pull the 'automatic weapon' from the trunk of the suspects car on TV.....They then find four 'discharged' handguns inside the school......Then have the chief medical examiner publicly announce on live TV after examinations, that the victims were killed with a 'long rifle'?
If that's what has happened, The US should start by firing all police involved in the case and hire Scotland Yard.
EDIT: (and put a blanket info ban on the **** disturbing media whores regarding evidence)

This is my conclusion (correct me if i'm wrong) on what patchy TV coverage I have seen, nothing has been said over here lately.
For all the tax money the US government is spending on disaster preparedness, With so many deaths at this school, there weren't many ambulances on scene from the live coverage I watched, I hope no one died because there wasn't any medical staff on hand to treat wounded.

I really do feel sorry for the parents/families who are seeking answers, I honestly do.
Respect the dead by sorting out the 'official story' and give these families closure.

[faugusztin]

Originally Posted by Tynecider

This loner on psychiatric drugs

Probably not on drugs.

Originally Posted by Tynecider

with no weapons training

Mom (the weapon owner) trained them.

Originally Posted by Tynecider

, Drives a car not registered to him to a school. Gains entry past a secure (cameras & locks) front entrance.......He then puts 3 to 11 (untrained) rounds (over 100 in total) in each person with a semi-auto .223 cal rifle with extended magazine's....

Not untrained, see above.

Originally Posted by Tynecider

Is then shot dead inside the school...

He commited suicide, wasn't shot by police.

Hell, just read through the wikipedia article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_H...chool_shooting

[Tynecider]

Originally Posted by faugusztin;3264517
Hell, just read through the wikipedia article :
[url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting[/url]

Cheers for that. Sorry I didn't think to look on Wikipedia since It has only been 4 weeks and with such a massive contradiction of TV coverage.
The wiki article does try to highlight that some of its information is based on 'speculative' news reporting from 'anonymous' and 'unconfimed' sources, and 'Probably' doesn't cut it for me.
I prefer to watch 'officials' make 'public' statements as reliable sources.

Has there been any CCTV footage released stateside yet?
It usually doesn't take the UK media long to get footage from an investigation and have 'non-contradicting' public press conferences.


2nd Amendment and the bigger picture, my views:
You might be thinking why I would have a slight concern in the outcome of this incident?

I have been hearing lots of 'Anti gun' talk and attacks on the US 2nd Amendment.
This worries me as a UK/Canadian citizen for two reasons...

1. The US is a very powerful entity with plenty of 'real firepower' that it can militarily project around the world, no doubt about that.

2. The US constitution and particularly the 2nd Amendment was designed to give the American people a means to defend the constitution (the people) against any would be 'nutter' that manages to get into power and therefore take control of the US (including the military), The means to internally dispose of the said 'nutter' and therefore (interpreted in modern terms) getting this massive conventional/nuclear military under control and out of the threat zone for everyone.

Remove the 'right to bear arms' and you have a perfect opportunity for some dubious nutter to get into power, not play by the rules and then wreak some "terror" on not only US citizen's, but the world as a whole.
Of course I could be wrong but events in history repeatedly warn us that this is a very real outcome.
I certainly don't trust the US govt now, let alone a one that could write its own rules and have some Un-electable nut-job at the helm.

Gun ownership law, my solution:
If the US could introduce a strict vetting process for gun ownership (civil and government), Similar to that of the UK 'SC' and 'DV' vetting process for defense jobs, that would help immensely in my honest opinion. Weapons in the hands of responsible people and all that.

Also, Having weapon storage laws, i.e Rifles in locked gun cabinets with trigger locks and the bolts/firing pins stored separately in a locked container (like Canada).

For the home defense argument, you could allow 'no lethal ammunition' to be made ready, IF your home gets invaded, You have the means to put them down but not kill them and get your real guns ready if the threat persists (extreme yes, but hey it does happen).
Even if some deranged child got hold of the 'ready weapon' the worst that would happen is a trip to hospital and an investigation into the family (for owning a deranged child?), Authorities could then remove any other weapons from a lockup if the family has been deemed unstable/risky.

Wouldn't that keep everyone (not just in the US) happy?
Real progress on the balance of weapon responsibility and upholding the constitution in one swoop.

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by Tynecider

2. The US constitution and particularly the 2nd Amendment was designed to give the American people a means to defend the constitution (the people) against any would be 'nutter' that manages to get into power and therefore take control of the US (including the military), The means to internally dispose of the said 'nutter' and therefore (interpreted in modern terms) getting this massive conventional/nuclear military under control and out of the threat zone for everyone.

I disagree a bit with this point. Nexxo and eddie_dane both pointed out flaws in this reasoning earlier in the thread, from both a practical and historical point of view. I'll add another - Bradley Manning. If the idea is that we have to have the Second Amendment in order to protect against a tyrannical government, I would argue that Bradley Manning did more to protect the public by exposing illegal and immoral activities of the US government, all without firing a shot. His actions were rewarded with a nice stay in prison and a lengthy, controversial trial. Interestingly enough, many of the same people who are outspoken in their defense of the Second Amendment as a means to overthrow tyrannical government are the same people who are outspoken in their wish for Manning to be tried and executed for treason.

Funny world, isn't it?

[Tynecider]

Originally Posted by supermonkey

I disagree a bit with this point. Nexxo and eddie_dane both pointed out flaws in this reasoning earlier in the thread, from both a practical and historical point of view. I'll add another - Bradley Manning. If the idea is that we have to have the Second Amendment in order to protect against a tyrannical government, I would argue that Bradley Manning did more to protect the public by exposing illegal and immoral activities of the US government, all without firing a shot. His actions were rewarded with a nice stay in prison and a lengthy, controversial trial. Interestingly enough, many of the same people who are outspoken in their defense of the Second Amendment as a means to overthrow tyrannical government are the same people who are outspoken in their wish for Manning to be tried and executed for treason.

Funny world, isn't it?

Yes it is.
Do you think Manning would 'take up arms' to put right the wrong doings of his government if it was someone else who leaked the information?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see many of his supporters doing so, Even while they have the means to do it.
It makes me wonder what frame of mind a person has to be in to demand to be disarmed by someone who has no qualms about hurting them if the need arises. In or outside of the law.
Maybe they believe that under tyranny, Laws and courts are operated with best intentions for the people, And there is no need to have the weapons to uphold a constitution or defend themselves?, Who knows.

Funny old species aren't we ;-)


Oh and btw all....How freaky is this.......

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217780/

[mucgoo]

I can't quite work out what the main point of that post was meant to be.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by Tynecider

Yes it is.
Do you think Manning would 'take up arms' to put right the wrong doings of his government if it was someone else who leaked the information?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see many of his supporters doing so, Even while they have the means to do it.

Let me get this straight: do you think that a bunch of civilians with hand weapons can take on the US army?

Originally Posted by Tynecider

It makes me wonder what frame of mind a person has to be in to demand to be disarmed by someone who has no qualms about hurting them if the need arises. In or outside of the law.
Maybe they believe that under tyranny, Laws and courts are operated with best intentions for the people, And there is no need to have the weapons to uphold a constitution or defend themselves?, Who knows.

I wonder what frame of mind it takes for someone to feel the need to arm himself against a government that he could simply have voted out of office at the last election (if he had made the effort to be politically informed and, you know, go out and vote). Who proclaims to espouse democracy but essentially embraces feudalism. Who believes that a bunch of trigger-happy civilians with handguns will stand up against tanks, bombers and trained troops.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the best way to approach society's complex problems and challenges with a big gun in their hand is basically an insecure, posturing little boy. Shooting things is fun in video game fantasies and on the firing range, but it is not a viable life philosophy.

[walle]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the best way to approach society's complex problems and challenges with a big gun in their hand is basically an insecure, posturing little boy. Shooting things is fun in video game fantasies and on the firing range, but it is not a viable life philosophy.

Well, now you're talking about the government, aren't you.

That said, no one's been talking about taking on societies problems with a gun in their hands, let alone having that as a philosophy.

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Who believes that a bunch of trigger-happy civilians with handguns will stand up against tanks, bombers and trained troops.

Tanks, bombers, and troops? This is 2013; we use much better weapons now.

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Who believes that a bunch of trigger-happy civilians with handguns will stand up against tanks, bombers and trained troops.

Isn't that the fundamental belief behind the second amendment?

[Elton]

Originally Posted by Carrie

Well that makes it alright then

Why are you lot such defeatists? Ooooh it's too big to do anything about it, too hard It is not insurmountable, unless you want it to be, so just roll up your sleeves and get on with it like the rest of us do

Although a bit late on this, I'd like to point out that the distribution of guns is actually much more than you'd think. Couple with differing state laws on guns, unequal distribution and generally bizarre politics and you'll have some people who'd hold on to guns more than their children.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the amount of movement is rather difficult to envision from a government that is frankly.....non-moving.

So yes I am a defeatist. In other news. The 2nd amendment (like all other ones) are open to interpretation, let me repeat open to interpretation. If you want an example, look simply at the 14th amendment in the last 50 years and how the interpretation changes according to Supreme Court justices. To say that the law itself is somehow adamant and designed to do something (well maybe outside of the 15th, 18th and 19th Amendments and pretty much anything after the 20th.) The first 10 have always been rather contended.

I have to stop digressing. My point is, the arguments against gun control are weak. We should have at least a modicum of gun control if only to prevent easy access to the damn things.