Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/22/12 08:44 AM, Alina836 wrote: That strikes out your first argument.

Wrong. The gun was still obtained within the jurisdiction legally. Just because t was stolen from one person to another within the jurisdiction doesn't make the entire gun's life an illegal one.

The shooting at the mall in Oregon - a man with a concealed carry permit ended to shooting. Y'know, a guy with a gun. Oh Heavens forbid! The gunman saw him and turned the gun on himself. That strikes out that argument.

Actually, that is wrong. The guy had a gun and chose not to shoot and the gunman left his area. Either the guy honestly didn't want to hit someone else, or he chickened out. The guy who pulled the gun did so long before the gunman actually killed himself.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 93% of all firearms used in criminal acts are obtained illegally.

I'll trust Tony's actually backed up stats here.

Also, Washington D.C. began a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between the years of 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200% (300% for handguns), while the U.S. national rate rose 12%.

Washington DC turned from a mddle class neighborhood to a giant gang filled slum in that period. That is the cause of the rise in violence. Also, DC is pretty close to other jurisdictions where guns are available and DC doesnt have customes on its borders.

New York City, With less than 3% of the U.S. population, annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the national average.

New York is close to other jurisdictions with loose handgun laws and New York doesn;t have customs on its border, so the virtual handgun law is as impotent as an old man.

At 12/22/12 12:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 08:44 AM, Alina836 wrote: That strikes out your first argument.

Wrong. The gun was still obtained within the jurisdiction legally. Just because t was stolen from one person to another within the jurisdiction doesn't make the entire gun's life an illegal one.

The shooting at the mall in Oregon - a man with a concealed carry permit ended to shooting. Y'know, a guy with a gun. Oh Heavens forbid! The gunman saw him and turned the gun on himself. That strikes out that argument.

Actually, that is wrong. The guy had a gun and chose not to shoot and the gunman left his area. Either the guy honestly didn't want to hit someone else, or he chickened out. The guy who pulled the gun did so long before the gunman actually killed himself.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 93% of all firearms used in criminal acts are obtained illegally.

I'll trust Tony's actually backed up stats here.

Also, Washington D.C. began a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between the years of 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200% (300% for handguns), while the U.S. national rate rose 12%.

Washington DC turned from a mddle class neighborhood to a giant gang filled slum in that period. That is the cause of the rise in violence. Also, DC is pretty close to other jurisdictions where guns are available and DC doesnt have customes on its borders.

New York City, With less than 3% of the U.S. population, annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the national average.

New York is close to other jurisdictions with loose handgun laws and New York doesn;t have customs on its border, so the virtual handgun law is as impotent as an old man.

"Wrong. The gun was still obtained within the jurisdiction legally. Just because t was stolen from one person to another within the jurisdiction doesn't make the entire gun's life an illegal one.

Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

"Actually, that is wrong. The guy had a gun and chose not to shoot and the gunman left his area. Either the guy honestly didn't want to hit someone else, or he chickened out. The guy who pulled the gun did so long before the gunman actually killed himself."

The man with the gun saw him and killed himself. Again, did I say he SHOT the gunman? No. I said he stopped the act.

"New York is close to other jurisdictions with loose handgun laws and New York doesn;t have customs on its border, so the virtual handgun law is as impotent as an old man."

As a resident of New York, I can say with 100% accuracy that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get a concealed carry permit. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

"I'll trust Tony's actually backed up stats here."

Oh you mean the ones that support your viewpoint. As I stated, the ones quoted can be found on the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms site.

"Washington DC turned from a mddle class neighborhood to a giant gang filled slum in that period. That is the cause of the rise in violence. Also, DC is pretty close to other jurisdictions where guns are available and DC doesnt have customes on its borders."

So now you're making up unsupported assertions because, once again, the data conflicts with your perception of gun violence. Didn't you just claim, "I'll trust Tony's actually backed up stats"? Well, I guess I will pull that defense.

At 12/22/12 02:44 PM, Alina836 wrote: Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

If the gun was never allowed to be sold in the state the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a hold of it. So, you are wrong.

The man with the gun saw him and killed himself. Again, did I say he SHOT the gunman? No. I said he stopped the act.

There was a significant period of time between the man wth a gun and the shooter klling himself. More than enough time to remove any indication that the shooter klled himself because of the man with the gun.

As a resident of New York, I can say with 100% accuracy that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get a concealed carry permit. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact that a New Yorker can easily go to another state with much looser gun laws, combined with the fact that New York has no State Border customs, means that even if NY banned all guns, people could stll very easily legally obtain guns and bring them into the state.

Oh you mean the ones that support your viewpoint. As I stated, the ones quoted can be found on the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms site.

Tony doesn't support my viewpont. He just has the integrity to back up his stats when he provides them.

So now you're making up unsupported assertions because, once again, the data conflicts with your perception of gun violence.

No, I'm showing you an alternative reason that violence escalated in DC during that period. The alternative reason being a hell of a lot more convincing than your reason.

At 12/22/12 07:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

If the gun was never allowed to be sold in the state the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a hold of it. So, you are wrong.

YES HE WOULD, you'd be surprised what you can buy on the streets

At 12/22/12 09:31 PM, 919CDS wrote: YES HE WOULD, you'd be surprised what you can buy on the streets

Who is buying semi-automatic rifles on the streets?

At 12/22/12 07:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 02:44 PM, Alina836 wrote: Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

If the gun was never allowed to be sold in the state the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a hold of it. So, you are wrong.

he'd still have the pistols to use, even if there was a ban on 'assault' weapons. this thinking is far too simplistic. of course, if there were armed officers stationed at the school, they could have made a swift end to his rampage. or on another consideration, if school faculty was armed and trained to use a small caliber gun or other device to incapacitate someone, it would have been far less devastating.

problem is, politicians insist that schools be sitting ducks for those with malicious intent because people insist on playing politics at the expense of our children. even a pistol with rubber bullets, or a shotgun with beanbag shot can incapacitate someone quickly. hell eve, a pepper spray grenade, though it would also hit everyone else in the room, would put a stop to a gunman.

it's not hard to tell when someone is shooting up a school, guns are quite loud. even if a person snuck into a school with a concealed weapon, whipped it out and started shooting up a class, everyone is going to hear it. teachers need to be armed with SOMETHING, trained and drilled on how to fight back. a half dozen teachers armed with pistols loaded with rubber bullets would make the hallway a VERY hostile place for the gunman to enter. even a tear gas grenade would make the hallway inaccessible to the gunman, forcing him to either remain in the classroom, or leave through a window (and if you bar the windows, that's not an option), long enough for police to arrive. yes, using a gas weapon would make it necessary to seal all doors to it couldn't seep into other classes when activated. however, if it saves children, it's worth it.

between that and beef up school security, for instance, bulletproof windows, heavy steel lockable doors on the inside and outside of the buildings, cameras watching the entrances to the campus, as well as a camera in the halls and watching the outside doors of the school buildings. these cameras would also be handy for monitoring for other problems at school.

having doors a typical gun can't penetrate that could be locked on the inside without a key would have saved a lot of lives that day. crazy bastard trying to get in? just lock the doors and call the cops. School I went to didn't even have locks on the classroom doors, nor did it have security cameras.

trying to solve gun crime by banning guns is about as effective as ending drug abuse by banning drugs. we all see how the drug ban is working. We need to take the alternate approach, acknowledge that shootings are going to happen and take measures to stop them.

At 12/22/12 11:54 PM, Feoric wrote: Who is buying semi-automatic rifles on the streets?

no one. they're all buying pistols because pistols are more effective at killing people in close range.

the shooter brought a rifle to school because he was a deranged idiot who played too much counter-strike and had little idea on how to use real weapons.

good thing too, because if he had a shred of an idea on what he was doing he would have killed far more children.

At 12/22/12 11:54 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/22/12 09:31 PM, 919CDS wrote: YES HE WOULD, you'd be surprised what you can buy on the streets

Who is buying semi-automatic rifles on the streets?

Gang-bangers for one. However, for the most part these are purchased more for their status symbol appeal than any real criminal value. The vast, vast majority of guns used in crime are pistols. Even the 'machine guns' that are often cited by the California Attorney General are actually submachine guns...or pistol calibur 'rifles'.

While available (and often the military version...not civilian 'clones')...they remain undesirable for any commission of crime.

At 12/23/12 12:05 AM, Korriken wrote: the shooter brought a rifle to school because he was a deranged idiot who played too much counter-strike and had little idea on how to use real weapons.

good thing too, because if he had a shred of an idea on what he was doing he would have killed far more children.

Ah, here's a point I wanted to make. I really wanted the CT shooting to lead to a discussion about mental healthcare, but I had a creeping suspicion that the discourse would devolve into this kind of knee-jerk stuff you get with such a high profile event. Mental healthcare already has an awful stigma in this country and you're making it worse for people who seriously do need help, especially if this narrative sticks and they don't seek proper treatment out of fear of being branded a child killer or a "deranged idiot" or whatever.

At 12/22/12 07:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 02:44 PM, Alina836 wrote:

The fact that a New Yorker can easily go to another state with much looser gun laws, combined with the fact that New York has no State Border customs, means that even if NY banned all guns, people could stll very easily legally obtain guns and bring them into the state.

So now you're making up unsupported assertions because, once again, the data conflicts with your perception of gun violence.

No, I'm showing you an alternative reason that violence escalated in DC during that period. The alternative reason being a hell of a lot more convincing than your reason.

One thing I've found out since I posted about Chicago....

NYC has traced the majority of legally purchased guns used in crime...to out of state sources. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

My state of Missouri may provide the answer. When you buy a gun in Mo you have to:
* Be a resident of either Mo or a state that shares a border with Mo. (An exception is made for military.)
* Bass Pro requires you show utility bills going back three months and have a government issued ID for one of the 9 states Mo allows to buy.

I think this would cut down on guns flowing into NY if every state adopted this law and way of doing things.

At 12/22/12 11:54 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/22/12 09:31 PM, 919CDS wrote: YES HE WOULD, you'd be surprised what you can buy on the streets

Who is buying semi-automatic rifles on the streets?

you obviously havnt been around places like that, im not ognna say too much besides I could get pretty much anything in about a week for a couple hundred bucks

At 12/22/12 09:31 PM, 919CDS wrote: YES HE WOULD, you'd be surprised what you can buy on the streets

You have never been to Portland, have you. There are no "streets" in Portland. The worst part of Portland rivals average neighborhoods in most American Metropolitan areas. If it had taken place in Chicago, NY, LA, or any major city in Texas, (as well as numerous other cities) than you would have a point.

At 12/22/12 11:54 PM, Korriken wrote: he'd still have the pistols to use, even if there was a ban on 'assault' weapons.

It goes for all of his weapons. If there was an oregon assault weapons ban then he wouldn;t have gotten a hold of the assault weapon. If guns were completely illegal he wouldn;t have gotten ahold of a gun at all.

Now I know there are ways to get guns even in complete bar jurisdictions, but it would involve a shit ton of effort and luck, or a good amount of money, the latter Roberts did not have.

problem is, politicians insist that schools be sitting ducks for those with malicious intent because people insist on playing politics at the expense of our children.

Playing politics at the expense of children?! Umm, isn;t inserting guns in a learning environment to prevent a one in a million event from happening without banning guns completely playing politics?

Schools are for learning. Schools are safe, and Newtown was one of the safer ones. The primary goal of schools is to teach, not to protect against an event as likely as the my entire family being struck by lightning on consecutive days in different states. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that there are daily murders and shootings caused by people who were left behind and forgotten in school. Why should we contribute to more of those because the second big school shooting in 2 decades occurred recently? We might as well invade Iraq again. So, don't talk about politicking in schools when you are trying to do it yourself.

it's not hard to tell when someone is shooting up a school, guns are quite loud. even if a person snuck into a school with a concealed weapon, whipped it out and started shooting up a class, everyone is going to hear it. teachers need to be armed with SOMETHING, trained and drilled on how to fight back.

Teachers? NO! (read: abso-fucking-lutely not) School resource officers? That's a better choice.

between that and beef up school security, for instance, bulletproof windows, heavy steel lockable doors on the inside and outside of the buildings, cameras watching the entrances to the campus, as well as a camera in the halls and watching the outside doors of the school buildings. these cameras would also be handy for monitoring for other problems at school.

Jesus Christ. Are these schools or Prisons? Why don't we build metero shelters? Or place SAMs on top?

Security is one thing, but you're just getting paranoid here. Remeber, schools are there to TEACH. Kind of hard to learn in a bunker.

having doors a typical gun can't penetrate that could be locked on the inside without a key would have saved a lot of lives that day. crazy bastard trying to get in?

If this was a daily occurence, or weekley, or monthly, or even yearly, then MAYBE that would be justified. But SHIT. This is a once a decade thing. There is absolutely no reason to be building nuclear shelters for schools to prevent a damn unpreventable act.

At 12/23/12 12:05 AM, Korriken wrote: no one. they're all buying pistols because pistols are more effective at killing people in close range.

There's no question that the school shooting in Newtown was optimal for a pistol. It was at very close range and likely with no distance higher than 20 feet. At that distance rifle rounds will pierce. What distance do rifle rounds, at the most brittle and punchy, tend to shatter upon impact? 40ft? 100ft? 300ft? Once you reach shatter distance, rifle rounds become much more harmful than even the mushrooming pistol rounds.

At 12/23/12 12:21 AM, TheMason wrote: My state of Missouri may provide the answer. When you buy a gun in Mo you have to:
* Be a resident of either Mo or a state that shares a border with Mo. (An exception is made for military.)
* Bass Pro requires you show utility bills going back three months and have a government issued ID for one of the 9 states Mo allows to buy.

I like it. Combining this with a national electronic database will help to ensure that the gun laws that do exist aren't undermined by lax neighbor's. Put an algorithm that flags people who buy inappropriate guns for their tax address, such as a New Yorker buying elsewhere. Won't stop everything, like fraud, but will at least put up a barrier to the easy acquisitions.

At 12/22/12 07:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 02:44 PM, Alina836 wrote: Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

If the gun was never allowed to be sold in the state the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a hold of it. So, you are wrong.

The man with the gun saw him and killed himself. Again, did I say he SHOT the gunman? No. I said he stopped the act.

There was a significant period of time between the man wth a gun and the shooter klling himself. More than enough time to remove any indication that the shooter klled himself because of the man with the gun.

As a resident of New York, I can say with 100% accuracy that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get a concealed carry permit. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact that a New Yorker can easily go to another state with much looser gun laws, combined with the fact that New York has no State Border customs, means that even if NY banned all guns, people could stll very easily legally obtain guns and bring them into the state.

Oh you mean the ones that support your viewpoint. As I stated, the ones quoted can be found on the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms site.

Tony doesn't support my viewpont. He just has the integrity to back up his stats when he provides them.

So now you're making up unsupported assertions because, once again, the data conflicts with your perception of gun violence.

No, I'm showing you an alternative reason that violence escalated in DC during that period. The alternative reason being a hell of a lot more convincing than your reason.

So we should ban guns because someone obtained a weapon and used it illegally. That line of thought makes absolutely no sense. How about, as I suggested, educating people on locking their weapons up?

So what do you suggest? The shooter suddenly decided to kill himself because..? The general trend with these kinds of incidents is - Police show up - Shooter kills himself or surrenders. Civilian with weapon shows up - Shooter is killed or kills himself.

So, let's say you purchase a handgun, er, illegally..seeing as gun licenses are generally per state. If you have no license for your handgun - Bing, illegal. You would have no reason to purchase a weapon from another state and transport it back to New York, where it would be illegal, unless you are planning a crime.

I find it funny how your reason is "more believable" yet unsupported..whereas my opinion, the one conflicting with yours, is less believable yet supported.

At 12/23/12 02:00 AM, Alina836 wrote:

At 12/22/12 07:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 02:44 PM, Alina836 wrote: Uhm, the gun was obtained illegally. You even admitted it in your response. Also, I didn't say the gun's entire life was illegal, please re-read what I said.

Furthermore, your implication of "tony has integrity" is idiotic, seeing as he is citing skewed sources that support his argument as I pointed out. Also, I did indeed note my sources. Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms..hmm, seems like a source to me. Oh, the laws I mentioned..hmm, seem like sources to me..you can go check them until your eyes roll out of your head.

At 12/23/12 02:04 AM, Alina836 wrote: Furthermore, your implication of "tony has integrity" is idiotic, seeing as he is citing skewed sources that support his argument as I pointed out. Also, I did indeed note my sources. Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms..hmm, seems like a source to me. Oh, the laws I mentioned..hmm, seem like sources to me..you can go check them until your eyes roll out of your head.

The thing is while the BATF and laws are sources...they do not really establish any causal relationship between anything. They are unscientific. However, the larger social scientific data tends to support the pro-gun side more than the pro-gun control arguments. That's why all you get out of gun control advocates are descriptive stats (basic observations of the realworld...with no causal relationships evident, just suggested by correlation) because the inferential statistical analysis usually ends up going against them.

At 12/23/12 02:20 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/23/12 02:04 AM, Alina836 wrote: Furthermore, your implication of "tony has integrity" is idiotic, seeing as he is citing skewed sources that support his argument as I pointed out. Also, I did indeed note my sources. Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms..hmm, seems like a source to me. Oh, the laws I mentioned..hmm, seem like sources to me..you can go check them until your eyes roll out of your head.

The thing is while the BATF and laws are sources...they do not really establish any causal relationship between anything. They are unscientific. However, the larger social scientific data tends to support the pro-gun side more than the pro-gun control arguments. That's why all you get out of gun control advocates are descriptive stats (basic observations of the realworld...with no causal relationships evident, just suggested by correlation) because the inferential statistical analysis usually ends up going against them.

The statistics regarding crime with legally owned firearms were not meant to show a causal relationship. They were meant to counter the argument made in the original post that presented a small amount of data and implicitly suggested it illustrated a much larger general trend.

At 12/23/12 08:20 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
the ATF is as credible as the Onion. especially since Fast and Furious then blaming it on Second amendment supporters. anywho.

China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

So now the government source is not credible, whereas Mother Jones is? You people kill me..

At 12/23/12 09:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: most government sources are credible/relliable

;;;
What i can't understand is the NRA is saying there should be armed guards or armed staff (I'm assuming teachers custodians ) at all schools.

If that was the case no one has bothered to mention what for me is the most obvious addition needed.

All students must be equipped with full body armour !

Looka thwhat that would accomplish, for America IF .... IF you hire , ex military & give them jobs.
IF you make it a condition that all body armour is 100% American made.
It can halp the economy.
Puts a thousands of trained armed forces personel who have left the service into jobs they are trained for.
puts 10's thousands of people to work making body armour, supplying the materials going into the equipment .

Yep
Definately the way to do it .... just a WIN (jobs for soldiers) WIN (jobs in factories) WIN (students protected with weapons & defensive armour) ....Yep I think I've just solved the problem.

Best part of my solution ...you can keep buying bigger & badder guns !

Now there's no reason citizens can't have Abram's Tanks & Self propelled guns ~;p

At 12/21/12 06:35 PM, Warforger wrote:

All in all it's a very Marxist way of looking at a social ill. :)

Even if what you were describing was true, that's not a Marxist way of viewing it, merely a leftist way of viewing it. A Marxist would argue that the values of the culture that make it hard to mingle were designed by the rich so that they could divide the working class up.

You need to expand your definition of Marxism. It is not just the OWS worldview of the rich controlling everything. Instead it is about how capital flows, and even race and gender inequalities arise out of this. As a major division of sociology it is also applied to non-economic concerns such as conflict theory which looks at social and political inequality of groups...not just economic inequality.

Ergo, how ELF effects crime (considering the largest variable contributing to ALL crime is economic) is quite often connect to the degree of inequality between the races/fractions impacts social, political and economic inequalities.

It is very Marxist.

Americans are so stupid , when will they understand that they should stop to sell fire weapons as candies !

This kind of things never happens in Europe or Japan , why ? It's forbidden to have a gun

That's very easy , change the Constituion and kick the NRA from the USA.

But it will be hard to do that when the NRA paid the campaign of Obama and Romney

At 12/23/12 07:03 PM, Susanowoo wrote: This kind of things never happens in Europe or Japan , why ?

Exsqueeze me?

What happened in Norway a few years ago? I seem to remember someone shooting up a camp full of childrens. Also, I have already posted an example of a mass attack in Japan in 2008.

Bottom line: This stuff DOES happen in Europe and Japan.

At 12/23/12 01:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/22/12 11:54 PM, Korriken wrote: he'd still have the pistols to use, even if there was a ban on 'assault' weapons.

It goes for all of his weapons. If there was an oregon assault weapons ban then he wouldn;t have gotten a hold of the assault weapon. If guns were completely illegal he wouldn;t have gotten ahold of a gun at all.

he would have simply used another weapon,

Now I know there are ways to get guns even in complete bar jurisdictions, but it would involve a shit ton of effort and luck, or a good amount of money, the latter Roberts did not have.

if only the world was a simple as you imagined.

problem is, politicians insist that schools be sitting ducks for those with malicious intent because people insist on playing politics at the expense of our children.

Playing politics at the expense of children?! Umm, isn;t inserting guns in a learning environment to prevent a one in a million event from happening without banning guns completely playing politics?

no. it's called preventative measures. banning guns won't stop people from getting guns. this has been proven time and time again. handgun ban in the UK? worthless. assault weapon ban? worthless. look at our drug laws. look how effective they are in stopping people from getting drugs. I could go out today and buy any contraband I please.

Schools are for learning. Schools are safe, and Newtown was one of the safer ones.

yeah, REAL safe, let me tell you. one deranged nut shot the place up. how the hell safe is that? Schools are NOT safe. I'm not sure what alternate reality you live in, but schools are the total opposite of safe. Schools are not even equipped to handle bullying properly, let alone an attack.

The primary goal of schools is to teach, not to protect against an event as likely as the my entire family being struck by lightning on consecutive days in different states. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that there are daily murders and shootings caused by people who were left behind and forgotten in school. Why should we contribute to more of those because the second big school shooting in 2 decades occurred recently? We might as well invade Iraq again. So, don't talk about politicking in schools when you are trying to do it yourself.

you're so blind and married to the idea of banning weapons that you can't even see reality. Reality is harsh and unforgiving. one person with malicious intent with a baseball bat, sword, or even a big knife could get into a school and kill people. would he be as effective as a guy with a gun? probably not. However, then what? do we ban baseball bats sword and knives?

Teachers? NO! (read: abso-fucking-lutely not) School resource officers? That's a better choice.

you have no ability to

Jesus Christ. Are these schools or Prisons? Why don't we build metero shelters? Or place SAMs on top?

or sure, let's not protect our children then. let's just let more assholes shoot them up while we scream for more gun control. Like I said, bullet proof door that can be locked from the inside quickly and easily would have stopped this whole thing, along with a camera system to see what is going on in the school. schools already have a PA system in which the administration can simply press a button and order all doors locked.

Security is one thing, but you're just getting paranoid here. Remeber, schools are there to TEACH. Kind of hard to learn in a bunker.

your lack of intellectual honesty is disturbing, but given that it's you, not surprising at all. riddle me this. how did he manage to kill so many, in multiple rooms? simple. he had access to the rooms. a simple twist of the door handle and he was in. lock the door from the inside and he suddenly has a harder time getting in. make the door bullet proof and he has no way of getting in. then what? oh right, he can't perform his massacre!

you insist that the school be unarmed and easily assaulted. that's foolish. we don't like in a magical world where wishful thinking and a signed piece of paper can make things not happen.

If this was a daily occurence, or weekley, or monthly, or even yearly, then MAYBE that would be justified. But SHIT. This is a once a decade thing. There is absolutely no reason to be building nuclear shelters for schools to prevent a damn unpreventable act.

once a decade my fucking ass. you're lying through your god damned teeth and you know it.

At 12/23/12 12:05 AM, Korriken wrote: no one. they're all buying pistols because pistols are more effective at killing people in close range.

There's no question that the school shooting in Newtown was optimal for a pistol. It was at very close range and likely with no distance higher than 20 feet. At that distance rifle rounds will pierce. What distance do rifle rounds, at the most brittle and punchy, tend to shatter upon impact? 40ft? 100ft? 300ft? Once you reach shatter distance, rifle rounds become much more harmful than even the mushrooming pistol rounds.

It would appear that your knowledge of guns and ammo is severely lacking. there are few things more lethal than a hollow point pistol bullet. the reason you use a rifle to hunt animals with is that rifles are more accurate at long range. the 'assault rifle' used in the school shooting, i believe this was mentioned before, as a .223 caliber. basically he brought a .22 rifle with a few cosmetic upgrades to the school. that is not more deadly than a .38 special hollow point which is going to leave a much much bigger hole in your victim. you would not go hunting large game with a gun like this. you would have to land a pinpoint shot in just the right spot to kill something bigger than a dog with a gun like this. and if you used a military round? well you'd be charge with cruelty to animals. Basically this thing is a squirrel gun. why does the military use a gun like this? like it has been mentioned before, military style weapons are made to injure, not kill. Also, smaller armor piecing bullets punch through body armor easier than a larger round, much in the same way an ice pick penetrates easier than a axe blade but causes less damage.

At 12/23/12 02:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/23/12 01:07 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Best part of my solution ...you can keep buying bigger & badder guns !

Now there's no reason citizens can't have Abram's Tanks & Self propelled guns ~;p

I love you so much right now you have no idea.

;;;;
Yer making my girlfriend jealous !

But seriously, I am a big believer in Gun control.

I live in a rural area & while I cannot think of one reason why I need a handgun.
I can think of several on why I need & or would like to own a rifle or shotgun. & I do own a rifle & shotgun.

Restricting Guns & Ammo, makes sense. But to completely outlaw them is asinine. THen we would need to outlaw knives & scissors broken glass & that would also mean blunt objects .... outlaw rocks (how exactly would that work ???) Outlaw fuels, alcohol & other propellants, Hell you take it far enough & seeing as a fart can catch fire ....we'd have to make it a crime to hold a flame & fart at the same time ! Could harm people in a crowd ! ! ! !

While if I wish to go through the steps required I can legally own a handgun in this country.
I see no reason to go through the investment of time & money.
I also really don't see a need of fully automatic rifles or handguns to be a necessary part of legal gun ownership. THey are pretty much useless for hunting ...who would want to put 12+ rounds into a deer ?
Duck or goose hunting with a 357 mag or an auto AR 15 !?!

No I am pro gun ownership, with rules & regulations ...but if we say any & all weapons should be legal ,,,, why not a personal cruise missile , why not one of those new electric gattling guns, why can't I have a hydrogen bomb ?

At 12/24/12 07:46 AM, Korriken wrote: he would have simply used another weapon,

Possible.

if only the world was a simple as you imagined.

That's the truth. When no guns come from a jurisdiction where they're illegal, they must be smuggled in, at great expense.

yeah, REAL safe, let me tell you. one deranged nut shot the place up. how the hell safe is that? Schools are NOT safe. I'm not sure what alternate reality you live in, but schools are the total opposite of safe. Schools are not even equipped to handle bullying properly, let alone an attack.

Schools are extremely safe. They may not handle bullying properly, but they are a ton safer than many of the homes the students come from. Also, attacks outside of school are quite common, attacks inside a school are extremely rare. Seeing as a child spends approximately 25-35% of their yearly waking time at school, and the gap between in school danger and out of school dangers is far off from a 75/25 or 65/35 ratio, I'd say schools are damn safe.

Also, you would have us build tsunami shelthers, and earthquake shelters, and meteor shelters in the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that either would happen. How the hell are students supposed to learn if they feel like they're being taught in a dungeon? Like I said before, there have been a lot more killings by those who were left behind in school than killings of ANYTHING in school.

you're so blind and married to the idea of banning weapons that you can't even see reality.

Take off your red tinted glasses. NEITHER OF THE PARAGRAPHS ABOUT HOW SCHOOLS ARE SAFE HAVE MUCH, IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH GUN COINTROL.

They were about overreactions like your "let make the windows barred and bulletproof, and put locking doors than cn only be unlocked by the warden upfront" hysteria.

Like I said, bullet proof door that can be locked from the inside quickly and easily would have stopped this whole thing, along with a camera system to see what is going on in the school. schools already have a PA system in which the administration can simply press a button and order all doors locked.

That's very much toned down from what you were asking for before. In this case, pony up. Pay the 2-5% extra in taxes that is needed to turn our schools into places as secure as a courthouse.

a simple twist of the door handle and he was in. lock the door from the inside and he suddenly has a harder time getting in. make the door bullet proof and he has no way of getting in. then what? oh right, he can't perform his massacre!

Do you know how he got into the school? He shot off the lock. The door from the outside was a security door and had been armed, but his gun rendered it worthless in a manner of seconds.

you insist that the school be unarmed and easily assaulted. that's foolish. we don't like in a magical world where wishful thinking and a signed piece of paper can make things not happen.

You're right. I do insist that schools be NORMAL. The once a decade out of several hundred thousand schools is NOT a reason to go ape shit. Your thinking out of fear, and not out of thought. The likelihood of this happening again within the next 10 years is so low and the costs of making it not possible on the school side so high that it's not worth thinking APCS? Oh, wait, you aren't thinking with the slightest sliver of rationality here. You're trying to direct policy through the knee jerking of a mentally weak little wimp.

Man up, girl.

once a decade my fucking ass. you're lying through your god damned teeth and you know it.

When was the last time a big shooting happened at a school? When?

1999. I'm sorry. I meant once every 12 years.

At 12/23/12 12:05 AM, Korriken wrote:

It would appear that your knowledge of guns and ammo is severely lacking.

And you don't answer the question. Thanks for giving your account to Memorize.

At 12/21/12 12:23 PM, TheMason wrote: * Dum-Dum bullets ARE hollow points and soft lead bullets...they are the MOST COMMON hunting bullets. They are NOT two different things...but the same exact thing. Wiki article

My bad, I was mixing them up with these rounds which turn the insides of whatever you shoot into paste.

* JMHX put up a graphic earlier that showed what type of firearms were used in mass shootings. 'Assault weapons' come in at 35%. Handguns by far ar the most common at 66%.

I wonder if that graph included the number of rounds from each gun was fired or how many fatalities/casualties each gun caused, because there's an easy causal link that I can see that explains those numbers that has nothing to do with lethality. Merely the fact that it's easier to carry multiple handguns, and difficult to carry more than one AR with any efficiency. DOn't get me wrong, I want to keep handguns out of the hands of spree killers just as much as AR's

Furthermore, 'assault weapons' is a broad category that include guns based upon superficialities such as pistol grips on rifles...nothing that really effects the effectiveness of the firearm...nor places it in an assault rifle category as determined by professionals in the field.

You should know me well enough by now, that I'm not about to legitimize false categorization for political purposes. The previous AR ban was silly, poorly-written, and obviously ineffective (the columbine shooters used an AR under the ban). Any classification of an Assault Rifle should be made by professionals.

* Assault rifles do NOT allow you to put more rounds on-target accurately compared to other modern firearms.

Odd, because I can put more rounds on target from farther away in a shorter amount of time with an AR than with a pistol.

In fact the OPPOSITE is true. See the faster you pull the trigger...the less accurate you become.

True for all weapons, but AR's being heavier, and having a stock generally jump less than a pistol of similar gauge, allowing for more accurate fire.

On the other hand: handguns allow the shooter to take the follow-up 'kill shot' you describe.

If you hit and wound with the first shot.

The grim reality supported by the math is the opposite is true.

I think we need to pony up to the fact that we're talking about slim percentages, here. Also, it's more about the round than the weapon. If you put an expanding round into an AR, they are, per bullet, just as deadly as a handgun or hunting rifle. Hell, wasn't it you who said you use an AR for hunting? Now there may be something that dissuades folk from using non-fmj ammo in ARs, maybe that's an area of firearms minutiae where I can fully claim ignorance, but with the same ammo, the math would actually support a semi-auto rifle as being the more deadly weapon at range.

The reality is if Obama and the Dems get their way and pass the AWB...more people will probably die because of their actions. If someone would've picked an assault rifle out of ignorance...but went for a shotgun or pistol instead they will kill more people.

Might kill more people. You act like AR's are perfectly safe and that it's nearly impossible to actually kill a person with it. Then you say that a couple other weapons would be better for slaughter... as if that's a sane reaction. Handguns and shotguns are more easily obtainable. Hell, you aren't even required to be licensed to own a hunting rifle, which is more deadly than an AR according to you. And yet you still haven't answered the burning question that those supposed statistics raise:

Why, then, are they not used more often in spree killings? Why has the AR been the weapon of choice?

* Also...Holmes picked the theater he went to because it did not allow concealed carry. He eliminated three others because they allowed people to pack heat.

MAD may work, but I think there's a better way.

* Troops to Teachers

Sounds like a really interesting program... I wonder why, if it was instituted in '93, I'm only hearing about it now?

* Background checks for individuals: Given that we can use our phones to access the internet, I think we should make it where this is available to individuals selling firearms. Gun shows could have computers that allow access to background checking software. The FBI's NICS should be opened to individuals and not just FFL dealers. I also would not have a problem with having a BATF form that one fills out and sends in as a record of the transaction. It would be CYA for the person selling the gun.

Agreed. Virginia even closed the loophole after the v-tech shooting that allowed the shooter to get his weapons even after his multiple diagnoses of severe mental and emotional problems. More things like this need to happen. Not so much "more" gun control, but just smarter, more comprehensive, and more well-enforced gun control.

* Mental health: I do not believe we should go get checked out by a mental health professional before getting a gun. It would not be effective because it is not like other kinds of medicine. Likert surveys are easy to lie to. Furthermore, it provides a disincentive to get treatement. I know many servicemember coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan who do not seek out mental health because there is this very common urban legend that as soon as you do and get diagnosed with PTSD they will take your guns away.

I think that very issue is at the heart of the social education about mental health that needs to happen. We need to severely destigmatize mental health issues, and educate people on what may and may not constitute a diagnosis that might exclude one from owning a weapon. Mild depression and anxiety may not exclude on, but Bi-polar and antisocial might. Also, the servicemembers anxiety about seeking treatment due to an urban legend is a failure of education on the Military's part. The Military needs to do some serious soul-searching with regards to mental health, because I believe they're one of the worst organizations when it comes to acknowledging and treating people who need it.

Instead, I think there could be a process where people with mental illness are put on a registry depending on the severity of the condition. This would involve the court. It would also be temporary and person's constitutional right could be returned to them depending upon response to treatment.

Yes, exactly this.

Maybe it is time for there to be strict age limits on joining facebook and twitter. Especially given that this closes the door to other problems such as internet predation. It's not a magic bullet...but it's a start.

Maybe, but this would be hard to enforce. You and I are old enough to have always been of age when an internet site asked how old we are, but you've seen it. The internet is a necessarily anonymous place, and being able to tell who on twitter is "of-age" and who is not (regardless of the arbitrary number we may come up with) can be nigh impossible unless the person gives out that information willingly.

And we need to be careful of stepping on the first amendment to protect the second. I think along with the push to educate people and destigmatize mental health issues, we also need to educate parents on the dangers of social media; bullying, predation, exploitation, etc. Just like tightening restrictions on violence in media, we need to make a two-pronged attack: one towards shifting the culture away from our love of violence and our abject terror of all things verbal or sexual, and a second on pushing responsible parenting: where parents engage with their kids, rather than let the TV or X-Box be their baby-sitter... parents who monitor and educate their kids on the values and dangers of social media and media in general.

At 12/24/12 05:44 PM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe, but this would be hard to enforce. You and I are old enough to have always been of age when an internet site asked how old we are, but you've seen it.

...always good to actually finish a thought before moving on. What I meant to say is:

"You've seen it when all a website asks you to do to confirm your age is pick a b-day from a dropdown menu, or just click on the "I am of age and consent to seeing adult material" button. No checks, no real security, no way to actually tell if the one doing the clicking is telling the truth or lying. Hell even now, if I need to get past an age block, I'll just leave it at Jan 1 and pick a date somewhere in the '60's or '70's. Just as easy for a 12-year-old to do that s it is for me."