In light of today's events

X Factor said:

What? Why? Aren't pretty much all of these types of killers male?

Click to expand...

Male, from reasonably affluent families. Out of touch Mothers in my opinion. This shooter was treated for mental problems and he knew about and had access to his Mother's guns. I have seen way to many mothers who just say "No, my boy couldn't have done that." Or, make grand excuses when they are caught doing something wrong. Or, deny the facts when they are point blank and obvious. They treat these children as children into their twenties. I think parent training is in order. Just an opinion.

DaveFagan said:

Male, from reasonably affluent families. Out of touch Mothers in my opinion. This shooter was treated for mental problems and he knew about and had access to his Mother's guns. I have seen way to many mothers who just say "No, my boy couldn't have done that." Or, make grand excuses when they are caught doing something wrong. Or, deny the facts when they are point blank and obvious. They treat these children as children into their twenties. I think parent training is in order. Just an opinion.

Click to expand...

This I suspected.....
I cannot agree with you more.

PirateMk1 said:

The state IS NOT responsible for your saftey. The Supreme court and lower courts have stated this and even went so far as to comment on the irony of not being able to arm yourself in those districts that make that exceedingly difficult. The government and Law enforcemnt in particular, have no obligation to you whatsoever. If you ceed your responsibilty it will be for nought. Not only cant they protect you they have no obligation to protect you.

Click to expand...

Well, thats a new one on me...So, all these policemen, state troopers, inspectors that the state has are simply acting on their own ?
A man , of sound mind, being able to arm himmself is the entire "safety system" ???
That is the way things were in the 600s, even to an extent in the 1600s.
But this "protection" of the 2000s cannot be 100%, even if we have a total police state..
Strange.

Fisher said:

See this is the problem. Below is a picture of a 30-06 semi-auto rifle that is a very common hunting rifle. It is probably one of the most common big game hunting rifles around in the US. Now the democrats have tried in the past to declare this an assault weapon, but I think you can look at it (unless you are a no gun for anybody person) and see that it is hardly comparable to an M-16.

View attachment 67139406

Click to expand...

It shoots 5 bullets per second. Is that the kind of gun most people hunt with? If so why?

Goshin said:

A Sig and a Glock. I certainly hope you're not going to start talking about "Assault pistols", because there is no such thing by any accepted definition.

Click to expand...

As I guess you know by now, he used a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second.

jamesrage said:

A semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon. The 1994 assault weapons ban did not ban assault rifles, it banned features on guns that made anti-gun loons piss their panties and it had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the weapon,.

Click to expand...

a rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second and is used in the military is not an assault weapon? Since when?

Carleen said:

As I guess you know by now, he used a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the rifle was not used and was left in the car. If you have information proving the contrary, provide a link.

In any case, such a weapon is hardly necessary for committing this type of mass murder. A lever-action .30 rifle would do almost as well.

Gun control is not the answer. We need to address mental illness and school security. Those are more likely to provide actual results.

Carleen said:

a rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second and is used in the military is not an assault weapon? Since when?

Click to expand...

Civilian versions are semi-auto. Actual "assault rifles" are capable of selective fire, burst or full auto, which almost no rifles available to civilians normally are.

You need to educate yourself on this subject if you wish to address it. "Assault weapons" is a much abused term.

Carleen said:

It shoots 5 bullets per second. Is that the kind of gun most people hunt with? If so why?

Click to expand...

You can fire 5 bullets per second with almost any semi-auto firearm, but you're damn unlikely to hit anything you're aiming at that way.

Learn something about semi-auto firearms vs "Assault" weapons before you address the issue. Ignorance is not appealing in debate.

Goshin said:

Civilian versions are semi-auto. Actual "assault rifles" are capable of selective fire, burst or full auto, which almost no rifles available to civilians normally are.

You need to educate yourself on this subject if you wish to address it. "Assault weapons" is a much abused term.

Click to expand...

Then you better share that info with our politicians. Some have the wrong opinion about what an assault weapon is. They are the people that matter if they take the issue up.

Carleen said:

Then you better share that info with our politicians. Some have the wrong opinion about what an assault weapon is. They are the people that matter if they take the issue up.

Click to expand...

I've known for a long time that most anti-gun politicians don't know what an "assault rifle" is. None of the weapons banned by the 90s AWB were actually "assault rifles".

Goshin said:

I've known for a long time that most anti-gun politicians don't know what an "assault rifle" is. None of the weapons banned by the 90s AWB were actually "assault rifles".

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Carleen said:

a rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second and is used in the military is not an assault weapon? Since when?

Click to expand...

The only way a semi-automatic weapon is going to fire 5 bullets in one second is if you can squeeze the trigger 5 times in a second. The US military uses selective fire rifles that can switch between safe,semi-automatic to automatic or safe, semi-automatic to 3 round burst. These weapons have never been used in a mass shooting. If you in the anti-2nd amendment crowd are going to propose bans and severe restrictions then you should at least know what you are talking about.

Here check this video out.

jamesrage said:

The only way a semi-automatic weapon is going to fire 5 bullets in one second is if you can squeeze the trigger 5 times in a second. The US military uses selective fire rifles that can switch between safe,semi-automatic to automatic or safe, semi-automatic to 3 round burst. These weapons have never been used in a mass shooting. If you in the anti-2nd amendment crowd are going to propose bans and severe restrictions then you should at least know what you are talking about.

Here check this video out.

Click to expand...

I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.

Carleen said:

I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.

Click to expand...

Define overkill.

Weapons are inherently dangerous; they're bloody well supposed to be, or they aren't working properly. Any weapon good for self-defense is also capable of being misued by a criminal or a crazy.

Mass-murders are also committed using things other than guns: bombs, fire, knives (recent stabbing of 22 children in china for example), and even a hammer (case in Atlanta years ago, I posted a link in another thread).

The one common denominator is that almost all of these mass-murderers were mentally ill. That is why I keep saying mental illness is where our focus should be.

Carleen said:

I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.

Click to expand...

Isn't that like saying I'm not anti-1st amendment but I think mega-churches should be banned,porn magazines should be banned, and you should only be allowed to write your elected official once a year?

Goshin said:

Define overkill.

Weapons are inherently dangerous; they're bloody well supposed to be, or they aren't working properly. Any weapon good for self-defense is also capable of being misued by a criminal or a crazy.

Mass-murders are also committed using things other than guns: bombs, fire, knives (recent stabbing of 22 children in china for example), and even a hammer (case in Atlanta years ago, I posted a link in another thread).

The one common denominator is that almost all of these mass-murderers were mentally ill. That is why I keep saying mental illness is where our focus should be.

Click to expand...

This shooter took his mother's guns so having stronger gun laws in relation to the mentally ill would have had no effect. I have a problem with any weapon that can rapidly fire and put many bullets in someone. I can't imagine a 6 year old child having 11 bullets in his body or anyone else for that matter. It makes me sick.

jamesrage said:

Isn't that like saying I'm not anti-1st amendment but I think mega-churches should be banned,porn magazines should be banned, and you should only be allowed to write your elected official once a year?

Click to expand...

Not in my opinion. Not all guns should be allowed. The 2nd ammendment was written a long time ago and any weapon that can put multiple bullets into a person should not be allowed. It makes no sense to me.

Carleen said:

This shooter took his mother's guns so having stronger gun laws in relation to the mentally ill would have had no effect. I have a problem with any weapon that can rapidly fire and put many bullets in someone. I can't imagine a 6 year old child having 11 bullets in his body or anyone else for that matter. It makes me sick.

Click to expand...

Of course does. It would make anyone sick.

The thing is, you'd need to ban almost all firearms if you really wanted to prevent such crimes.

Most revolvers hold 6 rounds... some can hold 8. Many rifles that are in no way "assault rifles" can hold up to 10 rounds.

A 12 gauge sporting pump shotgun that only holds 5 shells can put 45 lethal projectiles (00 buckshot, .30 cal, 9 per shell) into the air in less than five seconds.


But okay fine, lets say you ban legal ownership of everything except single-shot guns.

There are about 300 million firearms in the USA, most of which are not single-shot. How many do you think will actually be turned in? What about the millions upon millions of guns already on the black market? What about the millions of lawful gun owners who will believe you're infringing on their Constitutional rights and refuse to comply?

How will you get rid of all those guns? Raid every house that ever owned guns? That's (depending on whose estimates you accept) over 30 million households.

What about the black market? We can't keep weed off the street or from coming over the border, how will we keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies?

The answer is you can't. Doing things your way will only insure that millions of law-abiding gun owners are turned into criminals, and that law abiding citizens will be FAR less well-armed than the criminals who prey on them.

And for crazy mass-murderers, there would still be illegal guns, fertilizer bombs, arson, knives and swords (see China's recent attacks), and so on.

Gun control is not the answer.

Changing the way we handle mental illness (not just mental illness as it relates to gun ownership, but in the broader sense) will do FAR more to protect us from these types of events than any gun control ever could.

earthworm said:

Well, thats a new one on me...So, all these policemen, state troopers, inspectors that the state has are simply acting on their own ?
A man , of sound mind, being able to arm himmself is the entire "safety system" ???
That is the way things were in the 600s, even to an extent in the 1600s.
But this "protection" of the 2000s cannot be 100%, even if we have a total police state..
Strange.

Click to expand...

The part you missed OBLIGATION, there is none for the state. They are NOT OBLIGATED to protect you. The SCOTUS has exempted the govenmet at all levels from that duty. There could be a COURT order and they are not obligated to enforce it. THey have made it VERY clear on that note.


7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).


(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

JohnWOlin said:

-federal offense to sell rated r or rated m material to minors

Click to expand...

This will not solve anything it's just stupid.

Carleen said:

Not in my opinion. Not all guns should be allowed. The 2nd ammendment was written a long time ago and any weapon that can put multiple bullets into a person should not be allowed. It makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

A lot of other amendments were written a long time ago too.Technology doesn't change their intent.

The woman in the video has a clear understanding about what the 2nd amendment is for.

DaveFagan said:

Male, from reasonably affluent families. Out of touch Mothers in my opinion. This shooter was treated for mental problems and he knew about and had access to his Mother's guns. I have seen way to many mothers who just say "No, my boy couldn't have done that." Or, make grand excuses when they are caught doing something wrong. Or, deny the facts when they are point blank and obvious. They treat these children as children into their twenties. I think parent training is in order. Just an opinion.

Click to expand...

I've seen many that live in denial as well. Their children is overweight, lacks language acquisition due to neglect and left too much on front of TV, makes hysterical requests, and yet there's nothing wrong with him. They sabotage your attempts to help them by working ahead of you.

First one needs to recognize that there is a problem such as for instance overweight. I ask how much their obese son weighs they say 20kg. How tall he is, he is 1m. Under such data the BMI formula shows that the child is not overweight but is athletic. Obviously they've checked the formula and agreed about providing consistent answers ahead of me asking them. While I was trying to help them by providing suggestions what they should do to their kid.

Anyway, parental training is a good opinion. Not that it was not tried though. First, usually concerned parents that have more time attend the courses voluntarily anyway, and they by that much are better parents than overworked neglecting parents. Secondly, what happens if they fail the course?

Paratrooper said:

The reason why this is irrelevant is neither side is saying, go and kill children. I am not even aware of them saying go and kill the opposition. Talk News/Radio are simply stating an opinion just like we are here. Are causing people to kill each other simply by expressing opposing view points on this page?

Click to expand...

That's correct, neither side is saying go and kill children. But my argument isn't that this incident was a direct product of the political environment. My argument is that the increasing frequency of mass shootings has many causes and one of them is the hostile environment apparent in America today - often blown out of proportion by politicians and the media.

There are a couple people I grew up with and went to school with who have taken an innocent life - and none of them were brought up being told by their parents to murder the innocent. Nonetheless, the parents were part of the problem in each instance. Do you think that growing up with parents who are violent towards each other would have some effect on their children? The point is that people are some combination of nature and nurture and - in my opinion - the rhetoric and media people are being exposed to is making the Lanza's and Holmes' of the world more likely to hit that point where they actually do what they do. It's not the only cause, but it is a contributing factor. Turn on the news - death, death, death, death, death. Listen to MSNBC or Fox News - they're killing America, they hate America, this is the end, we can't turn back, they want to take your guns away, they want to take your health care away, they hate poor people, they hate rich people. Are you affected by it? I am, how could I not be? How can any of us claim that we aren't affected by it?

You don't have to agree with me but you shouldn't be in denial about it.

DDD said:

I've seen many that live in denial as well. Their children is overweight, lacks language acquisition due to neglect and left too much on front of TV, makes hysterical requests, and yet there's nothing wrong with him. They sabotage your attempts to help them by working ahead of you.

First one needs to recognize that there is a problem such as for instance overweight. I ask how much their obese son weighs they say 20kg. How tall he is, he is 1m. Under such data the BMI formula shows that the child is not overweight but is athletic. Obviously they've checked the formula and agreed about providing consistent answers ahead of me asking them. While I was trying to help them by providing suggestions what they should do to their kid.

Anyway, parental training is a good opinion. Not that it was not tried though. First, usually concerned parents that have more time attend the courses voluntarily anyway, and they by that much are better parents than overworked neglecting parents. Secondly, what happens if they fail the course?

Click to expand...

I've read articles that have stated that many of these shooters had been on prescription psychotropic drugs. There may be a link there, as many insanities produce the same manifestations in many humans, ergo drugs can probably do the same thing.