Sorry America. This stuff just makes me so mad, and sad due it being children. Its just not right at all how anyone can be able to do that if they want to.

At 12/14/12 07:40 PM, Gagsy wrote: Sorry America. This stuff just makes me so mad, and sad due it being children. Its just not right at all how anyone can be able to do that if they want to.

You have more violent crime though. In the end this is really about mental health. People are slipping through the system who need help.

At 12/14/12 01:11 PM, MikeyS9607 wrote: I bet everyone will blame it on the internet and cyber bullying or violent video games.

This

As I've been saying to people around me almost all day, banning guns outright will not help, and may in fact do a lot more harm than most people realize. If the right person was outside the classroom, such as an armed guard or cop, just as this was going on, his or her gun could have been used for the better in effect by killing the shooter early and saving many lives. It all comes down to, again, blaming the perp and not the gun since guns don't have minds of their own.

Still, it's far too early to know whether any significant changes in gun legislation will come up as a result of this. You have countries like Japan with strict gun laws and very low homicide rates every year, but then you have other countries like Mexico, which like Japan, also has strict gun laws but way more murders and overall crime.

Culture plays a very important role here. And sadly, no matter what we do, even if we illegalize guns by way of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we're still going to have to deal with tragedies close to this or even worse. Major cultural shifts where most people would move away from being inclined to engage in mass shooting sprees take a LONG time, if ever. In any case, there's no good reason why this piece of human filth did what he did, and the best decision he ever made in his miserable life was ending it.

I think it's perfectly logical to take people like this and use them for involuntary medical experimentation. That way, the victims are being satisfied, and society benefits.

Media blames the wrong guy, everyone sees that he likes the Mass Effect page, then mindlessly attack it.

At 12/14/12 07:55 PM, ngmastah wrote: I think it's perfectly logical to take people like this and use them for involuntary medical experimentation. That way, the victims are being satisfied, and society benefits.

People like the shooter though will never see the court since they usually kill themselves after the crime happened. We could use that Anders guy in Norway but the law over there makes it so he spends the rest of his life in what amounts to a hotel room as a sentence for his crime that's besides the point though.

At 12/14/12 07:48 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

You have more violent crime though. In the end this is really about mental health. People are slipping through the system who need help.

Thats a fair enough comment but many people do go unchecked in many countries when it comes to mental health. Its especially hard as seemingly some people just seem to snap out of nowhere. They seem perfectly fine to everyone including family and then something happens and they lose it. Them being able to obtain the weaponry to kill large groups of people doesn't reflect well on the health system sure but still not well on the actual gun law either.

Also I don't understand why pro gun people are using the Chinese stabbing as a resource for their belief that this tragedy would be just as bad with the use of a knife. Fact is 27 (or 28 is it now?) people, including children are dead from gunshot and attack in China had no fatal casualties from stabbing. If anything that event reflects badly on guns further.

At 12/14/12 07:54 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: As I've been saying to people around me almost all day, banning guns outright will not help, and may in fact do a lot more harm than most people realize. If the right person was outside the classroom, such as an armed guard or cop, just as this was going on, his or her gun could have been used for the better in effect by killing the shooter early and saving many lives. It all comes down to, again, blaming the perp and not the gun since guns don't have minds of their own.

Still, it's far too early to know whether any significant changes in gun legislation will come up as a result of this. You have countries like Japan with strict gun laws and very low homicide rates every year, but then you have other countries like Mexico, which like Japan, also has strict gun laws but way more murders and overall crime.

Culture plays a very important role here. And sadly, no matter what we do, even if we illegalize guns by way of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we're still going to have to deal with tragedies close to this or even worse. Major cultural shifts where most people would move away from being inclined to engage in mass shooting sprees take a LONG time, if ever. In any case, there's no good reason why this piece of human filth did what he did, and the best decision he ever made in his miserable life was ending it.

I understand where you're coming from when you tell me that a gun can't make the decision to kill. But guns can't really be compared to tools or anything else that possesses an ambiguous function. Guns are designed primarily to kill, be it animals or people. And I don't believe that it's necessary to potentially allow dangerous people to possess these weapons in the first place.

I still believe that we should give hunting rifles and such the same kind of availability, but limit the owning of semi-automatic rifles purely because of the danger they pose to society. The use of a hunting rifle can be argued, you can claim that you want to hunt, which is a perfectly logical argument. But with semi-automatic rifles, there is no other function, these are weapons that are designed to kill, and we're just giving them to anyone. We cannot give so many people the responsibility of using one of these weapons, they're fast, automatic, and easy to use, in the wrong hands, these weapons can kill vast amounts of people in a short time. Another thing is, we're not stripping anyone of any special rights here when we inhibit the use of such firearms, you can't argue that you use an AR-15 to hunt deer, nor can you say that it's logical to go duck hunting with an M16. No, the only fairly valid reason for owning these weapons (other than taking another person's life) is either a) collection b) shooting inanimate objects. And yet, these two reasons are not valid enough to favor the continued legalization of such guns. To take away someone's right to shoot watermelon in their backyard with an M16 isn't really all that bad, you're not infringing on an inherent human right, and in a way, you're saving someone from losing the one right that is universal to all; the right to live.

So I do agree with you in some aspects. Yes, it is people that are causing these shootings in the first place, but had they possessed an alternate weapon because semi-automatic rifles were not available to them, then perhaps the number of deaths would have been much lower. This is why I believe that banning such rifles is the best course of action concerning these kinds of killings.

At 12/14/12 07:54 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: Culture plays a very important role here. And sadly, no matter what we do, even if we illegalize guns by way of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we're still going to have to deal with tragedies close to this or even worse. Major cultural shifts where most people would move away from being inclined to engage in mass shooting sprees take a LONG time, if ever.

This. Having a freely available supply of firearms doesn't help IMO, but at the end of the day, triggers don't pull themselves. The biggest warehouse of guns and ammunition in the world wouldn't be the least bit dangerous if no-one wanted to ever use any of it.

I think America stuck itself into a bit of a rut with that 2nd amendment. By now there are so many guns in circulation that even if it was repealed, it'd take decades to track down and remove all of the guns people legally bought, and even longer to get rid of those that went off the radar (like what's usually used to cause this kind of shit). Ergo, there'd be a point where the only people still in possession of a gun are exactly the ones who would do others willful harm with it, thereby proving the old adage: "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.". Keeping the laws the same won't solve the current problems, and changing them would almost certainly swap the current ones for a set of new issues, so you can't really win here.

Changing the way a population views guns is arguably a better approach than trying to get rid of them; with current public opinions, people would probably just go out and buy them illegally anyway because they feel guns grant a sense of security, and protecting themselves and their families is more important to them than adhering to the letter of the law.

At 12/14/12 08:19 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 12/14/12 08:14 PM, Gagsy wrote: Also I don't understand why pro gun people are using the Chinese stabbing as a resource for their belief that this tragedy would be just as bad with the use of a knife. Fact is 27 (or 28 is it now?) people, including children are dead from gunshot and attack in China had no fatal casualties from stabbing. If anything that event reflects badly on guns further.

Because if people want to go crazy and hurt multiple people, they will. There's plenty of shootings where the person takes multiple gunshot wounds and they come out fine, much like there are plenty of knifings where one stab is all it takes to end the life.

And that's why we can't give these crazy people the kind of weapon that allows them to kill so easily. Had this psychopath used a knife or maybe even a hunting rifle, then perhaps more lives could have been saved.

At 12/14/12 08:19 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Because if people want to go crazy and hurt multiple people, they will. There's plenty of shootings where the person takes multiple gunshot wounds and they come out fine, much like there are plenty of knifings where one stab is all it takes to end the life.

Yeah sure but in this case you have two similar stories (without knowing the mens reasoning or mental state) where they wanted to harm a lot of children in a school with a weapon of their choice, one using firepower, the other slashing. And the difference is 27 body bags.

At 12/14/12 07:31 PM, Travis wrote: Please don't turn this into a gun control topic... please.

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? BAN ME?

At 12/14/12 08:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

It's been compared so much because of how close to each other the events were. If this guy made a crude explosive using any multitude of day to day things, nobody at all would have batted an eye even though they can be far more deadly. Why people don't use them if they want to cause as much harm as possible? No idea, but I'm thankful for that

Probably because he didn't know how to but he knew how to get a couple of guns.

I bet this guy did it to spite his mother.

"The victims ... are believed to include the school principal, teachers and young pupils aged between five and 10."

I don't know how anyone could shoot innocent children like that.

Rest in peace to all people who lost their lives in the crisis.

At 12/14/12 08:43 PM, 4761 wrote: Is prayer going to supply the victims' families with financial relief?

I've been noticing a trend more and more common in America where, when something goes wrong or someone is injured, people immediately jump to "someone owes me cash money!" and they file lawsuits against anyone and everyone.

Today was a tragedy, yes - but just like prayers are not going to bring these kids back to their parents, neither is money.

Further, filing suits against the school district will have disastrous consequences for the American education system - not only will it empty the coffers of this CT school district, but all other schools around the country will have to install overbearing, expensive security measures in order to avoid claims of negligence should another shooting occur. Then 4th Amendment groups and the ACLU will file suits against schools for being too invasive in their security measures and infringing their students' rights.

The parents who've lost a child today have suffered a loss which none of us, myself included, can never understand. However, these parents are not suddenly entitled to monetary damages because of this loss.

At 12/14/12 02:33 PM, NeutralObjections wrote: It's fucking disgusting. He went into a school with the sole reasons of shooting children.

What the fuck? I'm fucking filled with rage, and I feel worse because there is literally nothing I can do about it except complain on the internet.

And then killing himself? Sweet fuck. He was the most cowardly of cowards. He isn't worth being part of the dirt he will become.

I know, I felt the exact same way. I mean, its so fucking unfair but there is NOTHING you can do about it, there's no action there's no vengeance there's just: "oh well, more dust in the wind."

It pissed me off all day long, just in the worst possible mood. Oh well, he's burning in a fiery Hell, so I'll take solace in that. I guess the worst I can do to him is forget he ever existed as to make his life and doings essentially worthless. Although we still have his brother although I don't know if he was in on it. If he was, I would rather hope to have news of his death penalty soon, shame death is the worst we can do to him.

This is a very upsetting thing, especially to children who are too young to have even attempted to enjoy life, and far too young to ave done anything against anyone else, and if they did somehow affect the person they couldn't have known what they did or done it on purpose, as they are simply too young to understand whatever was happening to them.

School shootings are very old and I usually pass them by without saying anything due to the fact they seem to happen far too regularly due to some child being unable to take being bullied with any common decency and instead lashing out like a fucking useless cunt and killing people. But to hear it was towards such children, it truly upsets me.

Ceratisa wrote:

Gagsy wrote:
Sorry America. This stuff just makes me so mad, and sad due it being children. Its just not right at all how anyone can be able to do that if they want to.

You have more violent crime though. In the end this is really about mental health. People are slipping through the system who need help.

Alas though we do indeed have crimes still it doesn't change the fact we are able to all get along with our lives without any weapons for self defence. The only guns we have are for sport and owned by a low percentage of the population and when it comes to knives and other weapons most of us have nothing with the actual capability to kill someone with. The most dangerous things the majority of us would have would be power tools, kitchen knives and perhaps some sports equipment like bats. We don't look at such things as defensive items though. Of course there are those who would go around with actual dangerous knives on their person, but usually those are the same types of people who are regularly involved in such crimes.

The United Kingdom is a very vulnerable country in terms of the population, and the lack of self defence does indeed make us more susceptible to attacks. Yet we get on with our lives without fears of being attacked which makes the needs of such things none existent. If we were to carry around dangerous weapons it would only make things worse for everyone, as there is the chance of them being used incorrectly. The biggest problem of all is the fact that, if you do carry something for self defence with you then obviously it will effect your mindset, as you will be constantly aware you have such a weapon and you are aware of the reason you have it. So you will always have the gnawing fear of having to use it. Added to the fact that when you have something you have the need to use it, and that is only going to become a growing problem. If you spend money on something you need to make the cost worth it after all, buying a sandwich toaster or a weapon it is all the same.

Of course this is how our country has grown over the centuries, we have grown up with having little to no self defence and as such our minds have all adapted to such things. If America was to suddenly throw away all the terms of self defence then there is no question to people feeling more scared and vulnerable as a result, as Americans have grown used to having that un-required protection for so long that it has become required for many of them. That is sadly how the country has grown compared to ours. And you can blame the amendment for that which people have been so quick to talk about during this thread. It would take likely several generations for the country to truly become used to having no self defence and as a result it likely isn't going to happen anytime soon. But that is the difference between us and why we as a country are able to live without protection while feeling completely safe. That and of course the view of "it won't happen to me" which is always helpful to us all, and for the majority of us is true to believe.

Of course the long text above is not to be argued about in this thread, as of course it is just a statement on our true differences and though it could be talked about I don't really see there being anything which the ever so angry posters in this thread can jump at going "STFU YOU WRONG" about which I have basically been witnessing for 2-3 pages of the total thread so far. But if you do really want to start another random argument then go to the section below in which I actually posted something with some worth to discuss, and as a result will not be discussed and instead will just be yelled at and flamed and be given threats to my life over, the usual stuff in this thread.

--

But in an actual response to the thing people are constantly mentioning in this thread, about how it is impossible to change laws due to your amendments. I have to point out that such a view is entirely fabricated. Laws naturally change it is what keeps society working. For example in England the town used to be allowed and advised to punish a wife (often to death) drowning her for speaking loudly, now we can all safely agree that a review of that law making it an illegal practice and murder / manslaughter was a good thing and that the current state of the country and its population wouldn't be as good as it is today if it was still legal and practiced.

Whether it be religious texts or countries founding principles the refusal to change something based of some ancient and clearly out of date views of society is an ignorant belief that has already held back many countries in the third world, the likes of which claims it is still legal to kill someone based off some very ancient view in the Quoran etc. (yea forgot how to spell it and spellchecker doesn't believe it exists)

I am in no way saying "let's break the amendment for making guns illegal" but I am pointing out that using such an argument is ridiculous and out of date. If the amendments contained a line that said "It is legal to slaughter any foreigner in your way." Would you still be backing that up to this day? Just because it isn't as stupid as that obviously fake example I just made up doesn't mean it is free from being changed for eternity if a need to change it did arise. What if you were invaded and they threatened to kill every single person without mercy if you didn't change the amendments, would they still not be changed? When there is a need law changes. There is no exception.

So kindly don't try and argue that it is impossible to change a law due to some foundation when it is the basis of our evolving culture to do such a thing. It was against all laws of England that Parliament took power from the Monarchy but they did it, an incredibly bloody civil war was involved but it did happen. So don't claim it is impossible as if there is some magical barrier which can't be penetrated.

I write too much when tired.

At 12/14/12 08:43 PM, 4761 wrote: I recall Governor Malloy or another man suggesting that "The best thing we can do is pray for the victims and their families."

Yeah, because prayer's definitely going to do something.

People like you, make me sick. And people who keep bringing gun laws and shit are no better. Why the fuck are you using this fucking tragedy to further push your political ideologies? If prayer is the thing they think is going to help, who the fuck are you to say it won't and that they shouldn't do something to solace the families regardless of what you believe or not? Oh wait, that's right, you're the center of the universe so anyone who doesn't believe what you do is absolutely wrong. Please fuck off.

You want a goddamn gun control discussion? You want to talk about "what we can do to prevent further events like this from happening."? Fucking lovely, why don't you take it over to the politics forums WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Not here where people should be talking about news updates and condolences for the lives lost. Seriously, some of you people make me want to throw up.

At 12/14/12 08:54 PM, Timmy wrote:

At 12/14/12 08:43 PM, 4761 wrote: Is prayer going to supply the victims' families with financial relief?

I've been noticing a trend more and more common in America where, when something goes wrong or someone is injured, people immediately jump to "someone owes me cash money!" and they file lawsuits against anyone and everyone.

Today was a tragedy, yes - but just like prayers are not going to bring these kids back to their parents, neither is money.

Further, filing suits against the school district will have disastrous consequences for the American education system - not only will it empty the coffers of this CT school district, but all other schools around the country will have to install overbearing, expensive security measures in order to avoid claims of negligence should another shooting occur. Then 4th Amendment groups and the ACLU will file suits against schools for being too invasive in their security measures and infringing their students' rights.

The parents who've lost a child today have suffered a loss which none of us, myself included, can never understand. However, these parents are not suddenly entitled to monetary damages because of this loss.

This is a huge problem I have with the whole "I'm going to sue you" mindset so much of society has taken in.

First off the obvious thing is that the school blatantly wasn't responsible for what happened, it wasn't like they opened the doors to a the guy saying "come in and kill our children", they had no awareness until it was too late, and though it does reflect badly on the school you cant turn around to them and sue them just because your child died in the school. What gives the person a right to honestly believe they are allowed to demand money from a victim? The school itself suffered as did the children, if anyone wants to sue them then they can frankly burn in hell along with the murderer as they obviously care more about material wealth and trying to steal it from victims more than their own child dying.

Also I agree that if the school simply isn't about to stop such an event as they already don't have the income to have such defensive measures then how the fuck would sueing them help at all? What do they think taking more money away from the educational system is going to let them improve? Such ignorance.

Worse than Columbine, but still not as bad as Virginia Tech..

I imagine most of the rage comes from the fact that 2/3 of the victims were kids. It's only a matter of time before someone starts making jokes about this.

I take the objective view on this.

If we are allowed to have guns, then sometimes thing like this will happen, and you just have to accept it.

Yes, each death is sad, but that's life.

gun control doesn't work? every developed country profoundly disagrees with that ignorant statement

guns do serve a economic and environmental services no one in the us wants to ban guns no liberal,progressive,democrat,libertardian,republicunt,CONser vitard

switzerland understands a well regulated militia their national defense is based off militia with regular psychological screenings for gun ownership

At 12/14/12 09:17 PM, MuyBurrito wrote:

At 12/14/12 09:13 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: And people who keep bringing gun laws and shit are no better. Why the fuck are you using this fucking tragedy to further push your political ideologies?

This is the time and place to discuss gun control, not the time to be ignorant. You just don't realize it yet.

There are too many people who support owning guns for any gun control law to pass. And besides, gun control won't stop criminals from obtaining them.

At 12/14/12 09:16 PM, Master-X wrote: Worse than Columbine, but still not as bad as Virginia Tech..

I imagine most of the rage comes from the fact that 2/3 of the victims were kids. It's only a matter of time before someone starts making jokes about this.

Something needs to have amusing aspects to it to begin with, I myself can't think of any witty joke based off this event. Maybe a good comedian can manage to think of something truly clever but the majority of "jokes" you will hear will just be tasteless shit meant to be offensive or "edgy" rather than actually be funny and have worth as a joke. The twin towers was the subject of many good jokes as it had the material to be worked on. Without the material there is no real joke.

The best thing you could say about it would be badly quoting Jimmy Carr's jokes about school shootings as a whole. "Have you heard about those kids in America that go into school with guns and go ape shit killing other students before turning the gun on themselves? What is their fucking problem? Don't they know where the staff room is? They could be heroes! Now I see two ways we could put an end to bullying, first is to stop the children who are bullying, well that has been tried. The second way is for the children being bullied to stop being such faggy dicks. And the best way to do that is with bullying."

School shootings are indeed the subject of jokes, but individual shootings just don't have such material to work with.

At 12/14/12 09:16 PM, Master-X wrote: I imagine most of the rage comes from the fact that 2/3 of the victims were kids. It's only a matter of time before someone starts making jokes about this.

They've already started.

Fuck's sake, internet.

At 12/14/12 09:17 PM, MuyBurrito wrote:

At 12/14/12 09:13 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: And people who keep bringing gun laws and shit are no better. Why the fuck are you using this fucking tragedy to further push your political ideologies?

This is the time and place to discuss gun control, not the time to be ignorant. You just don't realize it yet.

Ignorance and respect are two different things. Just because I refuse to bring up political matters the day of a horrific event doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that such things require discussion. This is not the time, and this is not the place. That would be a couple days from now and in the political forums. Christ, at least give a day for grievance before throwing your opinions around.

At 12/14/12 09:23 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote:

At 12/14/12 09:16 PM, Master-X wrote: I imagine most of the rage comes from the fact that 2/3 of the victims were kids. It's only a matter of time before someone starts making jokes about this.

They've already started.

Fuck's sake, internet.

Yeah, I'm quite a fan of sickipedia, but I admit some things are just a bit too much..

"Can't even begin to imagine what the parents of the children lost in the shooting today are going through ... probably coffin brochures."

At 12/14/12 09:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 12/14/12 09:22 PM, captainlolz wrote: gun control doesn't work? every developed country profoundly disagrees with that ignorant statement

Lol wat. UK gun violence has nearly doubled, and they have very strict gun laws.

40% is no where near 80% let alone 200% http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
again every developed country has gun control

guns do serve a economic and environmental services no one in the us wants to ban guns no liberal,progressive,democrat,libertardian,republicunt,CONser vitard

Except no, quite a few people do want to ban guns except for police and military. They say statements such as "Nobody has any use for a semi-automatic weapon"
\

who the fuck is they i and who is the few you are Referencing, also quite means absolute extent which means 350 million americans