Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71

Thread: Newtown CT School Shooting

  1. #21
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Beagleboy View Post
    Yours or the previously accepted term of "assault weapon" is meaningless to those on the other end of a non-auto .223 M-16 type weapon. They usually have nowhere to run even if they are fast enough. The average pistol isn't much of a defense either. I realize its pointless to discuss these issues with the extreme right as they usually pile on irrelevant subjects like abortion or other explanations of why the world (and this country) are insane and wouldn't be so if everyone just conform to the agenda of the extreme right as a foundation for the solutions to all problems, so lets just let it lie at that. I'm not advocating the dastardly government attempting to rip your arsenal from your cold, dead hands, just highlighting another POV and the fact your "solutions" aren't solutions.
    I'll accept your POV, so long as you admit that your comparisons are those of the far left extremists who hate the looks of weapons they like to call assault weapons, that function no differently than the average hunting/sporting rifle. Your entire argument is appearance based without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagleboy View Post
    Perhaps we should follow many of the extreme right and issue MAC-10's, Glocks and Bushmasters to all citizens on their 8th birthday that way everyone can have a chance at self-defense like the old west ? Sounds great, but the U.S. today isn't the old west, but more resemblance of Hue in January 1968. Personally, I don't think gun laws will change because of this latest massacre as the body count isn't high enough. Jet like the airline industry, real change never occurs until that count reaches a certain level. Another massacre or two and we may be there. Since they are now occurring with greater and greater frequency, perhaps by the end of 2013 ?
    I disagree completely. I think the gun laws in CT will change. The current laws there for rifles and shotguns are fairly Basic. Their laws for handguns are more traditional... Permitting and training requirements. The only real requirement on long gun purchases is a two week waiting period so the police can do a background check... The police are not mandated to actually do one, nor does the law say they can include the background of their household members.

    However, the people calling for gun law changes are not talking about fixing this loophole in CT... They're talking about a whole new set of bans and more attempts at federalization of gun laws. Just as you're on a tear about "assault rifles."
    Last edited by Cujo665; 12-17-2012 at 02:36 PM.

  2. #22
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Ironic that the segment of society most interested in unfettered access to guns is also the segment of society most interested in cutting access and funding to medical care that could help prevent mentally ill people from being on the streets and committing crimes.

    The guns were legally purchased by the mother. They were not "stolen". We do not know at this time if they were secured in any way or if the killer was allowed to, or knew how to, access them.

    These individuals never made it into programs because its more important to liberals to use our tax money to fund abortions, provide needles to drug abusers, create more touchy freely BS programs, and allow unemployment to go for 99 weeks for able bodied people. The money to address the mentally disturbed is there, it's just being diverted to BS programs.
    Do you even listen to yourself? Even if it isn't the liberal's fault, let's throw in a few more things that I think are the liberal's fault 'cause I hate the liberals so much I'm going to find a way to blame them for this too...


  3. #23
    Registered User Divine Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Job
    CA
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Posts
    1,151
    Level
    62
    Points: 8,721, Level: 62
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Overdrive5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 204/5
    Given: 132/2

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Anyone care to guess the difference between these three rifles?




  4. #24
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Flugschlafen View Post
    Ironic that the segment of society most interested in unfettered access to guns is also the segment of society most interested in cutting access and funding to medical care that could help prevent mentally ill people from being on the streets and committing crimes.

    The guns were legally purchased by the mother. They were not "stolen". We do not know at this time if they were secured in any way or if the killer was allowed to, or knew how to, access them.



    Do you even listen to yourself? Even if it isn't the liberal's fault, let's throw in a few more things that I think are the liberal's fault 'cause I hate the liberals so much I'm going to find a way to blame them for this too...

    They were not his guns. He stole them from his parent just as if he'd taken money from her purse. Nobody here ever said gun laws aren't required, we're just disagreeing with what your idea of sensible laws are.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Wind View Post
    Anyone care to guess the difference between these three rifles?



    Internal and external magazines... Other than that, nothing except appearance.... But that mean looking one on the bottom is one if those nasty assault rifles... It looks scary.
    Last edited by Cujo665; 12-17-2012 at 02:50 PM.

  5. #25
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I see. So that will justify having the guns in the house, perhaps unsecured, thereby absolving the gun owner of any wrongdoing; and by proxy, gun laws and owners at large. Therefore any changes to gun laws that, in your opinion, place any new limits on gun ownership are wrong and the liberal's fault.

    Very good. Two birds with one stone.

    No price too high, eh?

    Regarding your 10-22 pic, the reason it got modified like that is because the owner wanted it to look just like an assault rifle. Be careful what you ask for.
    Last edited by Flugschlafen; 12-17-2012 at 02:56 PM.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Level
    48
    Points: 5,701, Level: 48
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 187/7
    Given: 0/40

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo665 View Post
    I'll accept your POV, so long as you admit that your comparisons are those of the far left extremists who hate the looks of weapons they like to call assault weapons, that function no differently than the average hunting/sporting rifle. Your entire argument is appearance based without substance.
    Yes, I guess I'll have to join the far left due to our disagreement. Considering the far right considers EVERYONE who disagrees with them "far left", that's no surprise. To the far right there are no moderates. ;-)



    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo665 View Post
    I disagree completely. I think the gun laws in CT will change. The current laws there for rifles and shotguns are fairly Basic. Their laws for handguns are more traditional... Permitting and training requirements. The only real requirement on long gun purchases is a two week waiting period so the police can do a background check... The police are not mandated to actually do one, nor does the law say they can include the background of their household members.

    However, the people calling for gun law changes are not talking about fixing this loophole in CT... They're talking about a whole new set of bans and more attempts at federalization of gun laws. Just as you're on a tear about "assault rifles."
    Like I said, to the far right, there are no moderates. I'm going to try a watch a little more of that paranoid fruitcake Glenn Beck and see if his latest rants can clue me in (at least when his minions aren't trying to sell me gold or freeze dried food for the coming apocalypse). If that doesn't work, I'll turn next to that racist gasbag Rush Limbaugh for accurate non-paranoidal guidance, unless of course he's pole-vaulted back into opiate abuse.

    I'll keep you informed should I ever get cured of my apparent left-wingitis. :-)

  7. #27
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    You guys seem to think I don't approve of sensible gun laws, and that's not true. I just disapprove of laws based on emotion rather than fact, or upon appearance rather than operational capabilities.

  8. #28
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Suggest some and hold the side dish of liberal hate and we can have a constructive debate on the merits of the ideas presented. I think it will be a short conversation because we'll find we're likely to agree on most things.

    Regarding your logic on gun's appearance - John Q. Public doesn't give a crap that the rifle being used might only be a dolled-up .22 rifle, only that it looks big, scary and like it came out of some military movie.

    That's what responsible gun owners are up against, that's the reality.

  9. #29
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I have no problem with a permitting/licensing program that is based on an individuals right to bear arms; in that the state SHALL ISSUE the license or permit unless any of the specific reasons not to are found during a background check. Mental issues, criminal activity for example. Homes with children under 18 or with resudents with mental issues must secure the weapons (gun safe, trigger locks...etc). The permit/ licensing process can be used to require some minimal safety training as well (or a letter from an already licensed person attesting to your competence.)

    CT has no such laws for rifles and shotguns; only for handguns. They do have a two week waiting period to buy a gun, but there is no requirement that the police actually investigate the background. So, essentially CT has zero laws on long guns.

    I still say if the teachers were allowed to carry guns this incident may have had a different outcome. In fact, if I were an ambulance chaser; I'd find out how many teachers own guns that could have been armed that day; then sue the state for denying them their right to bear arms; which could have saved countless lives.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17
    Level
    24
    Points: 1,713, Level: 24
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 0/3
    Given: 1/0

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Flugschlafen View Post
    Ironic that the segment of society most interested in unfettered access to guns is also the segment of society most interested in cutting access and funding to medical care that could help prevent mentally ill people from being on the streets and committing crimes.

    The guns were legally purchased by the mother. They were not "stolen". We do not know at this time if they were secured in any way or if the killer was allowed to, or knew how to, access them.



    Do you even listen to yourself? Even if it isn't the liberal's fault, let's throw in a few more things that I think are the liberal's fault 'cause I hate the liberals so much I'm going to find a way to blame them for this too...


    Apparently his mother was an avid shooter and would take both her sons with her. She ran into one of her sons old friends from high school and he asked how her son was doing cause he hadn't returned to school after his sophomore year. She replied that he was doing good, taking classes at the university and had recently taken up shooting as a hobby. Seemed rather proud of that fact. Little did she know that a few years later she would be murdered by him with her own weapons while she slept. So I'm guessing he knew how to access those weapons and was probably allowed access to those weapons.
    What we have here is a tragedy with no easy fix. Revoking the right to bear arms is unacceptable, but restricting access to high capacity magazines and assault rifles would be a start. I can guarantee that this kid had was giving off some kind of warning signs and they went ignored, because what harm would a quiet shy kid do? I would be more worried about the shy, quiet ones, then the loud, outspoken ones. I would say we need mental health reform in this country, but I don't know how it would have prevented this incident. The parents of this kid were well off and could have easily gotten him the help he needed. This kid didn't just snap and go off, this was a planned attack.

  11. #31
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Exactly. There isn't much - in terms of gun control - that would have changed this... Except maybe if teachers were allowed to carry concealed. As it is now, the easiest targets in our country are public buildings (courts and police stations excepted) Post offices, and our schools. None of those places allow even licensed citizens to carry.

    Want proof the laws won't stop it... Look at how many nuts went into police stations shooting... A place where everybody is carrying a gun and is trained to use them. Point being.... Laws only stop the law abiding.

  12. #32
    Registered User KEITH STONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    436
    Level
    36
    Points: 3,497, Level: 36
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 120/12
    Given: 50/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Guns have to be harder to obtain, period. I know it's not fair for law abiding folks, but there must be a more stringent vetting process. Unfortunately, this is the path our society has chosen. I call myself a Libertarian, but this is where I diverge. I'm starting to wonder if some people can handle their Liberty.

    We had guns in the house when I was a kid. Lots of guns. I hunted with my dad, and went to the range once a month or so. Had I shown an inability to handle the responsibility, they would have been out, immediately.

    I didn't play video games where I blew up 100 people, and slashed limbs off of another 100 either. I didn't watch Rambo or Red Dawn. Well not with my parents consent anyway. They didn't feel it was healthy or appropriate to witness senseless violence for entertainment. It is pretty silly when you think about it. If you look at the TV programming in 1980 vs now, it's laughable at how far our society has degraded itself. The movie Idiocracy was spot on.

    As long as violence in media is the norm, and we allow our children access to it at ever decreasing ages, we will continue to bury innocents after a kid pops a rivet. It's in the news every hour, it's highly sensationalized, and it's warping the youth.
    Always smooth.

  13. #33
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by KEITH STONE View Post
    Guns have to be harder to obtain, period. .
    If you said, the laws in CT should be changed to eliminate some loopholes I'd agree. A blanket statement such as yours implying that all states need tougher laws. It's already been shown that laws only effect the law abiding so I'm not sure what you actually mean.

    The rest of your post I agree with. It isn't the guns, it's our society

  14. #34
    Registered User KEITH STONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    436
    Level
    36
    Points: 3,497, Level: 36
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 120/12
    Given: 50/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It's already been shown that laws only effect the law abiding so I'm not sure what you actually mean.
    The shooter's mother(won't use his name, ever) obtained the guns legally, and proceeded to teach him, a presumably mentally unstable individual, to use them. It has been said that he was big into video games, and you know he was.

    Law-abiding is not synonymous with responsible or intelligent.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I know there is a problem, and it will get worse if a soluton is not found. Mass shootings are ever increasing, so I think we all know something is going to be done, and it won't benefit gun seekers.
    Always smooth.

  15. #35
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I agree with much of what has been said, though I diverge in a couple of areas. I do agree that more laws only affect the law-abiding. I don't believe in the guns-for-all policy, in other words arming teachers. Does society want to pay for the regular background and psychological checking of armed civilians? It can't be a one-time check either, people have life events, illnesses and other things that may change their thought processes enough that a once safe individual may no longer be fit to carry or own. Who will pay for this?

    I differ on high cap mags, too. Some of the most fun that can be had is pulling that trigger as fast as you can while wasting rounds down range and making lots of noise. Would I be heartbroken if there was a limit? No. But I think in this most recent event that a couple of normal capacity 9mm's did enough damage and high cap magazine was not the factor.

    Here's where I also diverge, I don't think we need more laws, less would be better. Typical politicians make laws that are full of holes and then fail to provide avenues to properly fund, monitor and enforce them. But they get to say at re-election, "See, I was tough on guns!"

    Guns should no longer change hands privately, they must go through a local law enforcement agency capable of conducting the needed background checks while the gun is held in escrow and returned to the owner if the recipient fails the checks.

    Gun owners need to be held responsible for the safe and secure storage of weapons. No loaded 9mm under the bed, no loaded 12 gauge in the closet to be stolen or played with by some poor kids in a deadly game. If you can afford a Bushmaster loaded up with enough goodies to cost $2000, you can damn well afford a quality gun safe. Failure to do so should result in the owner being charged with the crime committed with the weapon. Obviously one can't be accountable if the thief brings a cutting torch or rips the safe out with a truck and tow chain.

    Things won't change overnight, but eventually people will get the idea that transferring a gun illegally will land them a hefty fine, jail time and the loss of the gun too. You can still have your AR, but you'll have to work for it a bit more.

    We also need to take a hard look a homes like the one that Lanza came from. Even though mom may have been a model citizen, how do we assess whether guns should be allowed in a home where the owner may be ok, but a family member is not? Do we trust the next mom to not provide her son with the knowledge needed to access those guns?

  16. #36
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Flugschlafen View Post
    I agree with much of what has been said, though I diverge in a couple of areas. I do agree that more laws only affect the law-abiding. I don't believe in the guns-for-all policy, in other words arming teachers. Does society want to pay for the regular background and psychological checking of armed civilians? It can't be a one-time check either, people have life events, illnesses and other things that may change their thought processes enough that a once safe individual may no longer be fit to carry or own. Who will pay for this?

    I differ on high cap mags, too. Some of the most fun that can be had is pulling that trigger as fast as you can while wasting rounds down range and making lots of noise. Would I be heartbroken if there was a limit? No. But I think in this most recent event that a couple of normal capacity 9mm's did enough damage and high cap magazine was not the factor.

    Here's where I also diverge, I don't think we need more laws, less would be better. Typical politicians make laws that are full of holes and then fail to provide avenues to properly fund, monitor and enforce them. But they get to say at re-election, "See, I was tough on guns!"

    Guns should no longer change hands privately, they must go through a local law enforcement agency capable of conducting the needed background checks while the gun is held in escrow and returned to the owner if the recipient fails the checks.

    Gun owners need to be held responsible for the safe and secure storage of weapons. No loaded 9mm under the bed, no loaded 12 gauge in the closet to be stolen or played with by some poor kids in a deadly game. If you can afford a Bushmaster loaded up with enough goodies to cost $2000, you can damn well afford a quality gun safe. Failure to do so should result in the owner being charged with the crime committed with the weapon. Obviously one can't be accountable if the thief brings a cutting torch or rips the safe out with a truck and tow chain.

    Things won't change overnight, but eventually people will get the idea that transferring a gun illegally will land them a hefty fine, jail time and the loss of the gun too. You can still have your AR, but you'll have to work for it a bit more.

    We also need to take a hard look a homes like the one that Lanza came from. Even though mom may have been a model citizen, how do we assess whether guns should be allowed in a home where the owner may be ok, but a family member is not? Do we trust the next mom to not provide her son with the knowledge needed to access those guns?
    Might as well blame the car for the drunk driver

  17. #37
    Registered User Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    TCFKAE
    Base
    LGA
    Job
    Husband & Father
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Divorces
    Happily Married
    Posts
    1,721
    Level
    97
    Points: 26,407, Level: 97
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 352/50
    Given: 61/6

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Here

    NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...#ixzz2FRd7pQYv

  18. #38
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Might as well blame the car for the drunk driver
    I refer to my previous statement that you need to compare apples to apples and that one drunk in a car does not intend to commit a murderous rampage with the car being the tool used to take lives. Guns are designed to kill quickly and repeatedly. Therefore if you elect to possess such a device in your household you should be held responsible for it and its safekeeping. No other device available to the public is designed to do as quickly, efficiently, and repeatedly what a gun can do.

    Regarding your link, at least we now have a possible reason. It does nothing to explain why he chose to commit the terrible acts he did, and the innocent targets he chose.
    Last edited by Flugschlafen; 12-18-2012 at 05:53 PM.

  19. #39
    Registered User Yossarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    The Man
    Base
    La Garbage
    A/C Flown
    CRJ, EMB
    Posts
    151
    Level
    40
    Points: 4,025, Level: 40
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 33/2
    Given: 0/0

    Ignore User

    Newtown CT School Shooting


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I have lots of guns. They are all locked in a safe that nobody else knows the combination to. I enjoy the Second Amendment but I would give every one of those guns up to protect my children. Stricter gun laws won't keep guns out of every criminal's hands but they absolutely would have kept the guns out of Adam Lanza's hands.

  20. #40
    Registered User Flugschlafen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Oh boy...
    Base
    On my 4th one.
    Job
    Unrewarding
    A/C Flown
    C-152,172,182,340 PA-140 BE-76 SF340, EMB 145
    Posts
    1,779
    Level
    65
    Points: 9,616, Level: 65
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveTagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 223/29
    Given: 36/1

    Ignore User

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    How so? The laws on the books don't cover the situation that caused this. Making them stricter won't work because they only apply to the purchaser, so unless you make laws that require checking the background and mental health of the entire household it would have no effect.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •