Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Elementary School Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut


Recommended Posts

^So you'd take away the right of law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

 

Yes.

 

that's what the police are for.

How often do police get to the crime scene before the innocent are dead?

 

more often then you think.

 

there are "hostage" situations all the time.

 

 

and I'm not saying I have a perfect solution, but I believe it's better than 20 dead children in under 2 minutes.

 

or 13 dead at Columbine

 

or 32 dead at Virgina Tech

 

 

Make it harder for ANYONE to get guns (including strict enforcement and punishment for those that break the law?. . incidents like these disappear).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

anyways. . I know this is a very emotional topic, but overall, this is a fun - getaway type site.

 

so let's not get into a political argument.

 

let's just try to enjoy ourselves, and our families.

 

bless everyone, and especially those who were impacted yesterday in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but writer Greg Rucka posted something on his blog that I feel is not only well written, but also EXTREMELY important.

 

please give it a read.

 

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/37927327450/our-hearts-our-broken-today

 

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten.

 

Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California.

 

He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.)

 

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life.

 

Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.)

 

and in response, I point out that in China yesterday there was an attack on a school as well.

 

a madman attacked 22 students with a knife.

 

ZERO fatalities.

 

ZERO vs 27 dead (with over 100 rounds fired in under 2 minutes).

 

surely you see the difference here: Knife used because the perpetrator had no access to a gun.

 

would the Monster in Conn. have committed something heinous regardless of if he had a gun or not? Very likely. Would we be mourning 20 Kindergarten students today if he had no access to a gun. absolutely not.

 

Strict gun control needs to be addressed ASAP by our President and elected officials.

 

at the VERY LEAST a complete and total ban on anyone other than law enforcement/military have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

 

 

Easy way to increase the fatalities of a stabbing spree: Stab in the center of the body to hit the central nervous system or the heart, and there you go.

 

^But you're missing the point of Gun 'Control'. I'm not one of those crazy people saying we need to ban all guns and take guns away from people but why did his mother have SEVERAL hand guns, a rifle, and more? If there was more CONTROL and limits he wouldn't have been able to do as much damage as he did.

 

This was not some street criminal getting guns from the street. He took what was readily available to him and that's the problem. We shouldn't have SOOOO many guns readily available to every mental case.

 

This is where more guns was not the issue. First off, from what I have heard the AR-15 was left in the car, so he only had the Glock and the Sig Sauer with him. Actually, if he only had one gun, I would argue that he would have been more deadly because then he would have been able to hold onto the gun with both hands, thus making him a lot more accurate. (And you'd be surprised at how much a 9mm can recoil; with two hands, if you don't keep your wrists tight, your gun will go straight up in the air after pulling the trigger.)

 

Guns that we have don't operate like the Covenant weapons in Halo where once you run out of ammo you throw away the gun; they can be reloaded, so technically you are favoring a limit on ammunition, so the fact that more guns in the house is irrelevant. So the one handgun a month limit that I see in some states is completely invalid, because you can still acquire as many guns as you want, which even if there was a max limit of guns you can have at one time is also irrelevant as I have stated in this paragraph. Even in a practical sense, I would say that you need at least three guns minimum to protect yourself; a small handgun for when you are wearing lighter clothing (harder to conceal-carry full sized pistol when you are in shorts) a larger handgun for when you are wearing thicker clothing, and a rifle or a shotgun for home defense. And what about the people that hunt? There are multiple different calibers and different rifles as well as handguns for small game, medium game, big game. And what about the people like me that want more guns for the sake of collecting them? (I plan to eventually have a stockpile of at least a hundred, and that list keeps growing; mind you I appreciate them for their engineering complexity, I'm not a crazed madman...Okay I am crazy, but in the weird and amusing way, not the malicious way.)

 

Which then, you will likely think that there should be high capacity magazine laws (which are already in place in some states like New York.) The problem with that is that high capacity magazines can get very large and unwieldy, (so you can carry only so many at a time) and they only increase how long you can go until you have to reload, and you can always stuff more magazines in your pockets anyway, and it does not take long to switch between magazines in handguns and rifles. it would probably take me between two and three seconds to switch between magazines, and I have seen some videos of highly trained people successfully switch magazines in less than ONE second. So the only way that any ammunition law would be effective in actually achieving its goal would be to put a limit on how much ammunition you can have on your person at a time. But that would mean a gigantic breach in privacy, because every ammunition box would have to be monitored by the government and every time you go to a shooting range or go hunting or whatever, you have to be monitored by the government to see how much ammunition you have with you at one time. And the government would probably have to do periodic searching of your home to make sure you only have X amount of ammunition, which essentially means that anyone that owns a gun can be searched without a warrant. And there's also another issue with that: If you are a good enough shot, you can kill people in one hit, and since pistol ammunition boxes can come in boxes of 50 or more, the ammunition companies will have to only sell like ten round boxes at a time.

 

What the mom should have done was that she should have actually used the locks that came with her handguns and put them and her rifle in a gun safe (external locks are sold with all handguns in Connecticut) where only she knew the combinations.

 

 

For those that are bringing assault weapons bans back into the picture, there are multiple issues with that:

 

 

1: Assault weapons are not an actual class of weapons. It is just a term invented by politicians that were unreasonably scared by certain features which don't make a rifle that much more deadly, if at all. (I'll go into detail in a second)

 

2: Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban, (as does NY state, which I will use their rules because since I live in NY I know them better; my guess is that the laws are almost exactly the same) so it is completely irrelevant in this case because none of the weapons were classified as assault weapons. The specifics of the law is as follows:

 

 

 

 

Rifles can only have one of the following:

 

 

-A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (The only reason these exist is shooter preference, which feels more comfortable in their hand.)

 

-A folding or telescoping stock (These primarily only exist to adjust the pull length, meaning the distance between the stock and the trigger, meaning how far the user has to extend their arm, and is primarily for comfort.)

 

-A threaded barrel capable of mounting a flash suppressor or silencer. (Most guns don't make THAT big of a flash. I'd argue that MAG lights are brighter. They were invented around WWII to preserve the soldier's night vision. And silencers are nowhere near as effective as you might think: Except for a few very rare rifles where the silencer was built into the gun, most silencers only reduce the noise levels by about 30 - 40 dB, and since most guns range between 140 and 170 dB, you'd decrease the level of loudness from "severe hearing damage without hearing protection even after short term exposure" to about as loud as a power saw or a rock concert. And silencers are already regulated by the National Firearms Act, where you have to go through many more hoops and background checks to get the stuff that is on the NFA list, as well as paying a $200 tax stamp per purchase.

 

-A grenade launcher. (Though I agree that these should be more heavily controlled, this law is redundant because they are already covered by the NFA. And it is disgustingly expensive to fire a grenade launcher when you are a civilian. Grenades on their own already cost $40 - $60 or more, and you have to pay the $200 tax stamp on every grenade you buy. With $250, I can buy over a thousand rounds of 9mm handgun ammo.)

 

-A Bayonet mount. (Really? Who uses a bayonet in crimes? Sure, they are still very effective in the military when you are highly trained, but they are little more than a knife; technically they would be classified as swords because you can increase the length of your reach by about two or three feet instead of five or six inches. But you can always duct tape a kitchen knife to the end of your gun and it will have the same effect.)

 

 

 

Semiautomatic shotguns cannot have more than one of the following:

 

 

-A folding or telescoping stock (already covered this.)

 

-A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (already covered this.)

 

-A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds. (Similar to high capacity magazines, except for the fact that unless you have some specially made speed loading devices, you have to load each shell into the gun at a time, which comparatively takes FOREVER to do.)

 

-An ability to accept a detachable magazine. (Same reasons as high capacity magazines, except for the fact that since shotguns rounds are so wide, most magazines are between five and ten rounds. Anything larger just gets gigantic and impractical to carry if you don't have proper ways to secure them.)[\i]

 

 

 

Semiautomatic pistols that can accept detachable magazines cannot have more than one of the following:

 

 

-An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip. (I don't understand this. You can use high capacity magazines with pistols that store the magazines inside a pistol grip. And again, they become very unwieldy.)

 

-A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, forward handgrip, silencer, or flash suppressor. (I already covered these. And it completely defeats the purpose of a handgun's ability to be concealable, so all you have is a low power rifle.)

 

-A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned. (You can already hold handguns with both hands, in fact that's the proper way to hold a handgun--hand over hand. I'm actually going to argue that this would violate product safety laws because it becomes more dangerous for the person to operate, because barrels can get VERY hot after only a few rounds.)

 

-A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded. (I don't understand this at all. These guns that are of this size are just gigantic and are practically rifles in and of themselves.)

 

Weapons specifically banned (company & model), even semi auto versions: (By the way, automatic weapons are also classified as NFA weapons, and because only automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 can be legally purchased, which is only a couple hundred thousand of them, their market values are literally as expensive as cars because of their availability.)

 

-AK variants made by Norinco, Mitchell, or Poly Technologies. (You can buy AK variants from various other companies perfectly legally, which are exactly the same. This is pointless. Most don't even have more than one of the "evil features.")

-the Uzi and the Galil, made by Israeli Military Industries. (There is nothing bad about these weapons. They both have a total of two "evil features", but you can get them customized to remove one, and I already discounted all of the "evil features" anyway.)

-Beretta AR-70 and SC-70 (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil.)

-Colt AR-15 (I don't get this at all. The AR-15 model is one of the most popular types of semi auto rifles in the country. Why?)

-Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/FNC, FN/LAR (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil.)

-Ingram MAC-10, MAC-11, MAC-11/9, and MAC-12 (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil)

-Steyr AUG (These only have one "evil feature" and you can already get models that are exactly the same made by other companies.)

-Intratec TEC 9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 (They may have more than one evil feature, and yes only criminals really use them because they are very large, very cheap, incredibly inaccurate and horridly unreliable, but just because the guns sucks doesn't mean that it should be banned.)

-Revolving Cylinder shotguns such as the Streetsweeper or Striker 12. (You can only carry about a dozen rounds in these things, they cannot accept detachable magazines, and they can't be used with speedloaders as far as I know, so once you run out of ammo, it takes FOREVER to reload them.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/okla-teen-arrested-school-shooting-plot-184243533.html

 

BARTLESVILLE, Okla. (AP) — An Oklahoma high school student is in custody on charges he plotted to bomb and shoot students at the Bartlesville High School auditorium on the same day 26 people were shot and killed at an elementary school in Connecticut.

 

Police arrested 18-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez at about 4:30 a.m. Friday after learning of the alleged plot Thursday.

 

An arrest affidavit says Chavez tried to convince other students to help him lure students into the auditorium, chain the doors shut and start shooting. The Tulsa World reports that authorities say Chavez threatened to kill students who didn't help.

 

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reports Chavez planned to detonate bombs at the doors as police arrived.

 

The school district says students were never in danger. Chavez is being held on $1 million bond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^And that proves another point. As sad as it is, (trust me, I want these tragedies to not occur as much as anyone else) a determined person will find a way to kill a lot of people no matter what is banned. ban guns? he'll use knives. ban knives? He'll use chemicals for bombs. Ban those chemicals? He'll use gasoline as an incendiary device. Ban gasoline? Yeah, like that's gonna go over well.

 

And the media making world news out of every tragedy like this just inspires more and more copycat cases within the next couple of weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uggghhh...I still can't even believe that this even happened, nor can I even begin to rationalize this guy's motivation for doing something so horrific to innocent children - just awful in the most absolute meaning.

 

While I certainly don't want to get into a gun control argument with anyone, I will say that I don't own a gun and have never had a desire to own one. I agree with those that say that there has to be tougher regulations on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Personally, I would love to see a ban on any type of assault rifle, but it most likely won't happen.

 

I lost my Uncle in a tragic hunting accident when he was only 25 years old. Even though this was a pure accident and the shooter had no intention of killing an innocent person, it still scarred me enough to where I don't want anything to do with guns. I would imagine that a lot of these survivors might end up feeling the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^I understand where you are coming from, the same thing happened to my mom's best friend's brother, (which is why I am in the paradoxical situation as being a huge supporter of guns whilst not being allowed to own them for the time being) however you needn't be afraid of the device. People lose their parents and children in car accidents, yet you still use a car; even if you are properly trained with driving a car there is still a risk of an accident. Don't let the fear of the unknown shy you away from a device.

Link to post
Share on other sites
^And that proves another point. As sad as it is, (trust me, I want these tragedies to not occur as much as anyone else) a determined person will find a way to kill a lot of people no matter what is banned. ban guns? he'll use knives. ban knives? He'll use chemicals for bombs. Ban those chemicals? He'll use gasoline as an incendiary device. Ban gasoline? Yeah, like that's gonna go over well.

 

And the media making world news out of every tragedy like this just inspires more and more copycat cases within the next couple of weeks.

 

Comparing gasoline, the main purpose of which is fuel, to a gun, the main purpose of which is death, is not a compelling argument. It is a false comparison, at best, as the two items being compared have entirely different uses.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, why make it any easier for some sick person to kill somebody else? It's much easier to pick up a gun and kill someone, then it is to, say, make a bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life.

 

I have no issue with law abiding citizens carrying registered guns. I (and many people) have issues with automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

 

Illogical is what your argument is. But I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

 

Since you like playing with guns. How many rounds can you fire a minute with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon versus one that is not? Why would a hunter need to fire off so many rounds? If one is that bad a shot maybe one should find another hobby.

In the recent tragedy if the shooter did not have semi-automatic or automatic weapons do you think he would have been able to fire off over 100 rounds?

 

The only good thing that came out of this is the shooter is DEAD? Now the mother justs needs to be thrown in jail for life for not having her weapons secured properly. That should give her plenty of time to contemplate the brilliance her bringing her wacko recluse son to the range with her. Better yet, put her in solitary with a handgun and a single bullet so she will be able to easily take her own life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Semi automatic vs fully automatic: If you set the trigger to a hair trigger, I could probably go about 400 rounds per minute with a semi auto. If I designed a trigger which would allow me to put my index and middle finger on the trigger, I could then double my rate of fire to about 800 because I can alternate them. Some full autos can go very far over 1500 rounds per minute, but past 800 RPM IMO is wasting ammo because it's hard to keep the controlled bursts to about five or six like it is for something between 500 and 800 rounds per minute. And most semi automatic weapons can "bump fire" - where if you hold it the right way, you can actually make the weapon go fully automatic (by "pulling the gun forward continuously whilst keeping your trigger finger out only to press the trigger, the trigger will continually reset itself because you are pulling forward and it will be fully automatic; this is perfectly legal by the way.) However, a hair trigger has other legitimate uses of making those individual shots much more accurate because when you try to muscle a heavy trigger pull it can *really* screw up your accuracy.

 

Though I don't hunt, I understand the difficulty of trying to hunt. Try hitting a single target a few times larger than my fist (you should only hit the heart/lung area to make a quick and humane death) from 200 yards away on the first try. Not easy. Now if you miss, those things can run 40 mph and jump nine feet in the air. Try hitting them again at that speed and distance.

 

Or if you want to hunt ducks where you are legally allowed to kill more than one at a time: Those things are incredibly small targets, which is why semi automatic shotguns loaded with birdshot are good for that sort of thing, so that in that giant flock of birds, you'll have a greater chance of actually hitting something and come home to a nice meal of roast duck. Would you be firing 400 rounds a minute to get those ducks or that deer? No. But you can keep your muzzle on the target (meaning continually keep track of it with your eyes at all times) as opposed to a bolt action or a pump action weapon where you have to move the gun around to load in your next shot.

 

Also, if you are out hunting, and you are unlucky enough that a bear comes charging at you: You would definitely want to pump that thing full with lead in a very quick manner so you don't become eviscerated.

 

Are fully automatic weapons necessarily useful for hunting? Not really, because you waste ammo. But are they fun? YES. My methodology is to keep them available for the avid recreational shooters and collectors like me (there are more like me than you'd think) but I agree that since they are deadlier, at least keep them heavily regulated as they are now (well now it's too much; if they remove the Hughes Amendement so I can buy any machine gun I want except for ones made before 1986, and then increase the tax stamp from $200 to $1000 so they will still be too expensive for criminals to care for them, but not too expensive for those who want them for peaceful purposes. However, the current background checks, etc. I'm fine with. Just not on regular semi auto weapons.)

 

^That's biased information. Please, click this link and do some reading: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf The relevant facts are that there is no correlation between gun control and homicides rates per capita by country. (You'll find it in there.) And no, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm attempting to enlighten you. This was meant to be an instructional reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/