26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

Excon said:
There is no law that could have prevented what happened.
Period.
Your assertion only turns law abiding citizens into criminals if they do not surrender their property.
It would not stop what happened though.

The preclusion of a certain type of weapon does not mean it would not have happened.

There would not be 27 people dead, including 20 children if assault weapons were not available. That's just the bottom line truth that you don't want to accept.

This is the weapon that he used:

There is no reason that these guns are available in this country.

Excon · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
There would not be 27 people dead, including 20 children if assault weapons were not available. That's just the bottom line truth that you don't want to accept.

There is no reason that these guns are available in this country.

And again you are wrong! Go figure.

longview · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
There are ABSOLUTELY laws that would have stopped this from happening.....starting with a ban on asssault rifles.

For the sake of discussion, if the mother did not own an "Assault rifle" would he not have used the pistols and shotgun?

Blue_State · Dec 17, 2012

Moot said:
The misinformation that has been reported about this deranged kid and his mother is just mind boggling. First, we hear that the mom was a teacher at the school and there conclusions made by the media that his motive was to get back at his mother by killing what she loved, teaching children. Then it turns she's not a teacher at all, instead she was a recently divorced, unemployed stay at home mom and she was home schooling Adam. Which is odd because other reports say he finished HS when he in the 10th grade and then there are reports of him attending high school and belonging to a computer science club and always carrying a briefcase clutched to his chest in the hallways.

Then it's reported that Nancy Lanza was a gun enthusist who enjoyed taking Adam to target practice to teach him responsibility, but the police reports say there's little to no evidence of her going to any target ranges in the area. Then her ex-sister in law, Marsha Lanza says she had guns to defend herself, but she never felt under threat while adding that "It's the person who does the killing, not the gun."

That last statement by the sister in law is very telling how that entire Lanza family must have thought about guns. But if those guns were not in the house that kid wouldn't have had the method by which to do what he did.

There is always misinformation in a case like this. Look at Treyvon Martin. I don't think we will have a real grasp of what happened for months to come.

longview · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
There would not be 27 people dead, including 20 children if assault weapons were not available. That's just the bottom line truth that you don't want to accept.

This is the weapon that he used:

View attachment 67139474

There is no reason that these guns are available in this country.

So what about the guns pictured makes they inherently evil?

Bronson · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
There would not be 27 people dead, including 20 children if assault weapons were not available. That's just the bottom line truth that you don't want to accept.

This is the weapon that he used:

View attachment 67139474

There is no reason that these guns are available in this country.

Yes there are

The last defense against tyranny and evil. I don't fear these weapons in the hands of moral and responsible people. I fear them in the hands of the mentally ill and the criminally insane. If we would have treated the root of this problem (mental illness) then it could have been prevented. You are using simplistic symbolism and emotional arguments. Not logic.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

longview said:
For the sake of discussion, if the mother did not own an "Assault rifle" would he not have used the pistols and shotgun?

Yes....but it would not be as easy to kill as many people at once. There would still be some killed, but it would not have been the same level as were killed due to the capability of this assault weapon.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

longview said:
So what about the guns pictured makes they inherently evil?

For what reasonable purpose do we need these types of weapons? You aren't going to go deer hunting with this weapon now are you?

Bronson · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
Yes....but it would not be as easy to kill as many people at once. There would still be some killed, but it would not have been the same level as were killed due to the capability of this assault weapon.

3000 Americans were killed in one day with box cutters

More than 3k innocent and defenseless children are murdered in the womb every day

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

Bronson said:
Yes there are

The last defense against tyranny and evil. I don't fear these weapons in the hands of moral and responsible people. I fear them in the hands of the mentally ill and the criminally insane. If we would have treated the root of this problem (mental illness) then it could have been prevented. You are using simplistic symbolism and emotional arguments. Not logic.

No moral or responsible person would ever own this type of weapon.

Moot · Dec 17, 2012

Blue_State said:
There is always misinformation in a case like this. Look at Treyvon Martin. I don't think we will have a real grasp of what happened for months to come.

Yes, the media prosecuted Zimmerman without a trial and doctored the evidence for their viewing audience. It made me sick. I hardly stand to watch those entertainment news channels anymore.

Ikari · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
No moral or responsible person would ever own this type of weapon.

Is this a statement based on statistic, or one based on ignorance and bias?

Mr.Nick · Dec 17, 2012

Hairytic said:
Is it time to talk about gun control now? This is getting ridiculous. We never find the time to talk about gun control. These sort of things don't happen in England, and they have very strong gun control laws. The NRA needs to get out of the way and let the conversation begin.

We don't need gun control...

What we need to do is make an example out of these psychopaths who ILLEGALLY use guns to kill people.

This guy only killed his mom and took her guns and illegally used them. His mother was a lawful gun owner, she just happened to have some sort of nutbar for a son.

Sane people shouldn't have their guns taken from them because there are a few nuts in this world, not to mention the Second Amendment.

As far as the UK is concerned - they may not be shooting one another (although it does happen), however they do a good job at stabbing one another..

Hell, look at what happens in China - they don't have guns yet the crazies go around on epic "stabbing attacks" most notably on school children.

longview · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
For what reasonable purpose do we need these types of weapons? You aren't going to go deer hunting with this weapon now are you?

The Constitution does not limit our right to keep and bear arms to " those arms necessary for hunting."
If that is what they wanted it to say, it would have been written that way.
Our right to bear arms is based on the 3 boxes of government.
Three Boxes of Liberty
And I do know people who hunt with these weapons.

Eighty Deuce · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
Yes....but it would not be as easy to kill as many people at once. There would still be some killed, but it would not have been the same level as were killed due to the capability of this assault weapon.

False. Semi-auto handguns are just as efficient at the close ranges used. Shoot just as quickly. Magazines change just as quickly.

It ain't the guns.

We are reaping the fruits of liberal society. The decay of the family. The lack of accountability.

Eighty Deuce · Dec 17, 2012

Moot said:
Yes, I distinctly remember when Reagan defunded mental health institutions and all the patients were put out in the street to fend for themselves. Aside from the severe homeless problem it caused, what was once an extremely rare occurance, mass murders became more common at on average two a year since 1981. Coicidence? I think not.

So its folks let out of Instutions who are committing these crimes ....... oh wait !

Can you show us any of these folks who would have been institutionalized in the days of such as .... President Carter ?

Moot said:
Funny, he didn't say a word about constitutional rights. But you did. Twenty children were just ruthlessly shot full of holes and all you care about is that someone might take away your toys??? Yes, there is a mental health problem in this country and it's called conservatism.

Actually, its the decay of the family. We've had guns since our founding. Fast-loading ones for over a century. But the mass-killings by bullets are pretty much in the last twenty years.

Has conservatism been the driver behind the decay of the family ?

Further, and frankly, and unfortunately, these killers exist in the virtual world of the internet. In peer groups they could not likely find, much less sustain, if not for the modern communication age.

It ain't the guns. And you have made no argument that its conservatism, while all arrows point to liberal trash.

Bronson · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
No moral or responsible person would ever own this type of weapon.

His name was Adam Lanza

Adam Lanza killed those innocent and defenseless children. Not pictures you googled on the Internet.

Mr.Nick · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
No moral or responsible person would ever own this type of weapon.

I'm a moral and responsible person and I own some weapons that could do some serious damage. I own these weapons so I can protect my rights to have these weapons - to protect myself from tyranny, to protect civil liberties in general.

If it matters, I hardly ever carry my 38 when I go out in public.

I suppose it's better to have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one.

My next acquisition will be a Thompson M1A1.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

Ikari said:
Is this a statement based on statistic, or one based on ignorance and bias?

It is one based on reason and common sense. What legitimate purpose do assault weapons have? Name one legitimate reason why we need these types of weapons in our society?

Ikari · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
It is one based on reason and common sense. What legitimate purpose do assault weapons have? Name one legitimate reason why we need these types of weapons in our society?

So ignorance and bias then. You believe there could be no purpose and that one who has such weapons surely cannot be moral. But you have no measurement to back this claim. I've seen similar arguments.

Eighty Deuce · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
Yes....but it would not be as easy to kill as many people at once. There would still be some killed, but it would not have been the same level as were killed due to the capability of this assault weapon.

Nope. You clearly do not know guns.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

longview said:
The Constitution does not limit our right to keep and bear arms to " those arms necessary for hunting."
If that is what they wanted it to say, it would have been written that way.
Our right to bear arms is based on the 3 boxes of government.
Three Boxes of Liberty
And I do know people who hunt with these weapons.

The founders of our Constitution could not have possibly imagined this type of weapon when they wrote the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not prevent reasonable restrictions on guns. There is nothing in the second amendment that says that you cannot ban assault weapons.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
I'm a moral and responsible person and I own some weapons that could do some serious damage. I own these weapons so I can protect my rights to have these weapons - to protect myself from tyranny, to protect civil liberties in general.

If it matters, I hardly ever carry my 38 when I go out in public.

I suppose it's better to have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one.

My next acquisition will be a Thompson M1A1.

Based on what you just wrote....I would beg to differ.

disneydude · Dec 17, 2012

Ikari said:
So ignorance and bias then. You believe there could be no purpose and that one who has such weapons surely cannot be moral. But you have no measurement to back this claim. I've seen similar arguments.

What legitimate purpose do such weapons serve?

Ikari · Dec 17, 2012

disneydude said:
What legitimate purpose do such weapons serve?

What business is it of yours? To keep and bear arms is a right, and one is free to exercise their rights. So long as one does not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to do as they like.