AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Reply with quote

I have been sick to my stomach all day concerning the precious children and the adults who were murdered today. WHEN are we going to get serious about gun control in this country? If I read or hear one more person say "guns don't kill people" I am going to run screaming into the street.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iluvarake



Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 799

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel the same way. The thing those folks can never answer is why does this happen so much more here in the US than anywhere else. What exactly is wrong with us? What combination of social, political, and other factors are causing massacre after massacre? What actions can we take to reduce the body count?

I'm sick of the NRA shutting down any discussion about these issues.

Point of contrast. There was a school attack in China today. A man wielding a knife attacked and wounded 22 children. But there were NO FATALITIES.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
_________________
Justin managed to look superior and bored and disbelieving all at once. No mean feat for a man who'd just fallen from a tree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iluvarake wrote:
I feel the same way. The thing those folks can never answer is why does this happen so much more here in the US than anywhere else. What exactly is wrong with us? What combination of social, political, and other factors are causing massacre after massacre? What actions can we take to reduce the body count?

I'm sick of the NRA shutting down any discussion about these issues.

Point of contrast. There was a school attack in China today. A man wielding a knife attacked and wounded 22 children. But there were NO FATALITIES.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html


I totally agree with you. I actually used the stabbings in China to make a point. Guns most certainly DO kill people and in greater numbers than knives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1834
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At the very least, we can reinstate the ban on assault rifles. I believe I heard on the news today that when the ban was in affect there were 66% less of these weapons on the street.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandlynn wrote:
At the very least, we can reinstate the ban on assault rifles. I believe I heard on the news today that when the ban was in affect there were 66% less of these weapons on the street.


Right now I am ready to melt down everyone of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eliza



Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Posts: 1165

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two articles:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/?hp
This one's about the changing rhetoric on guns. Two interesting parts of comments:
--"The 2nd Amendment also says the guns are for a well-armed militia..."
--"NRA officers, conservative Supreme Court Justices, Gun Dealers and politicians who constantly brandish 2nd Amendment rights can stick out their chests with pride. To protect the traditions of our founding fathers (the one's with single-shot weapons that took minutes to reload)..."

The other is an op-ed: Looking for America
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/collins-looking-for-america.html?hp

ETA: Another article SYMPATHY OVER US SCHOOL SHOOTING STRETCHES GLOBE. Includes what happened in the UK and Australia.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCHOOL_SHOOTING_WORLD_VIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-15-12-14-00

And, Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/?tid=pm_pop
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is an organization I have contributed to for years:
http://www.bradycenter.org/
This is just one item from one page of the site:
God Bless America
In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robiform



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In addition to sensible measures to regulate guns (e.g. why would a hunter need an assault rifle??), we also need to consider how we deal with mentally ill people. And what many of these mass shootings have in common is a perpetrator with serious mental and emotional problems.

According to the latest news reports from Newtown, the mother of the shooter (who was his first victim) was a gun enthusiast who frequently took her sons to the local gun range. Fine and dandy, but she certainly was aware of her younger son's issues; in fact, she stopped working at the school because looking after her son became a full-time job.

My first question is: if she knew that her son was in such a bad way mentally and emotionally, why on earth didn't she either get rid of her guns or put them in a place where he could not have access to them?? Apparently, he tried to buy a gun at the local sporting goods store a few days ago, but didn't get it because of the three-day waiting period for a background check.

My second question: What kind of drugs (if any) was the shooter on? Anyone who watches television has seen the ads for various antidepressants, and they always have warn about thoughts of suicide, violence, etc. And this relates back to how we deal with mentally and emotionally disturbed people.

The majority of people with these conditions are not going to grab a semiautomatic rifle and go shoot up a shopping mall, a school, or a restaurant. But there are those who are predisposed to do such horrible things, and we have to make sure that they get the treatment they need before they act.

I can remember hearing talk about gun control after the assassinations of the sixties, the school shootings of the nineties, and the all-too-many mass shootings of more recent years.

NO MORE TALK!! It's time to regulate access to guns in a sensible way, and to make sure that people who should be nowhere near a gun get the treatment and help that they need!
_________________
"Have fun storming the castle"--Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2505

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that the kinds of weapons people can get ought to be regulated. However, to ban gun ownership completely, doesn't seem reasonable to me, any more than it would be reasonable to ban cars because one driver's bad driving causes a 100 car pile up, killing or injuring 30 or more people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eliza



Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Posts: 1165

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd bet it's much harder to get a driver's license in a lot of places--or any other number of things--than it is to get a gun, though. We regulate seemingly simple things too but heaven forbid not guns.

My questions: Why on earth does anyone need a Glock or anything of the kind? Have you heard how ammunition factories are now working extra shifts to produce an unprecedented demand for ammo these days? Is it any wonder that political cartoons from around the word still portray the US as the wild west?

It's guns. It's healthcare. But it's also cultural.

The Second Amendment as passed by Congress on December 15, 1791: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court** issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

**Note: This is the same Supreme Court that ruled a corporation was the same as an individual. Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
I agree that the kinds of weapons people can get ought to be regulated. However, to ban gun ownership completely, doesn't seem reasonable to me, any more than it would be reasonable to ban cars because one driver's bad driving causes a 100 car pile up, killing or injuring 30 or more people.


Guns do not have any other purpose than to kill or maim. Cars do. However we require more of drivers than we do of gun owners. There is no test to get a gun. There is no insurance requirement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robiform



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
I agree that the kinds of weapons people can get ought to be regulated. However, to ban gun ownership completely, doesn't seem reasonable to me, any more than it would be reasonable to ban cars because one driver's bad driving causes a 100 car pile up, killing or injuring 30 or more people.


dick, as far as I know, in the current discussion on gun regulation, no one has suggested that guns should be completely banned. So, why would you bring it up?

"Banning all guns" is the argument that the NRA makes whenever a tragedy like the Connecticut school shooting occurs, and voices are raised in support of things like a ban on assault weapons for civilians.

And let's be honest, the purpose of a gun is to kill or maim. The purpose of a car (which you also mentioned) is for transportation. In order to drive a car, a person must pass a driving test and be licensed. Yes, unlicensed people do drive, and unfortunately, they sometimes cause death and destruction.

But again, the purpose of the car is NOT for killing, and yet we require licenses for operating a car. What is wrong with requiring testing and licensing for ownership of guns, particularly those high-powered weapons that have been used in so many of the mass shootings that have plagued this country for too many years?
_________________
"Have fun storming the castle"--Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2505

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the posters, I think, suggested that she was ready to melt down all of them. I read that to mean "ban."

I think a great number of people would say that guns also have the purpose of deterrence. But that either guns or cars have another purpose has little to do with how destructive they can be when used improperly. I'm not opposed to having gun buyers checked out, tested, whatever. I'm simply against banning guns because they are ill-used by some people. I doubt, too, that a ban would work, just as the testing, licensing, and regulating of cars doesn't keep some people from driving in ways that bring harm to others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eggletina



Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 429

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think blogger, Matt Cheney, had a very well thought out and thoughtful post on the subject:

http://mumpsimus.blogspot.com/2012/12/warrior-dreams-and-gun-control-fantasies.html

A few snippets that stood out for me:

Quote:
What we have is a bit of a gun control problem, a bit more of a social services problem, and a lot of a cultural problem.


Quote:
Which brings us to a worthwhile question: What sort of practical gun policies might have prevented what happened in Newtown, Connecticut? The sad, frustrating answer seems to be: maybe none. Even a fantastically perfect system for preventing potentially mentally ill people from buying guns wouldn't have worked: the killer used his mother's guns. She bought them legally. She could, presumably, pass any background check. I'm all for better funding and implementation for the background check system, but let's not pretend it would have done anything in this case.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
One of the posters, I think, suggested that she was ready to melt down all of them. I read that to mean "ban."

I think a great number of people would say that guns also have the purpose of deterrence. But that either guns or cars have another purpose has little to do with how destructive they can be when used improperly. I'm not opposed to having gun buyers checked out, tested, whatever. I'm simply against banning guns because they are ill-used by some people. I doubt, too, that a ban would work, just as the testing, licensing, and regulating of cars doesn't keep some people from driving in ways that bring harm to others.


Murder laws do not keep people from murdering either. So should we just do away with all criminal homicide laws? Are laws against certain types of gun ownership the only laws that we require 100% proof of effectiveness before we will entertain any laws? Having a gun in the home is not an effective deterrent against crime (especially if they are locked up). People who have guns in the home are 43 TIMES more likely to die themselves of a gunshot wound than they are likely to defend themselves against an intruder. When my kids were young, if I knew one of their friends' parents had guns in the house, my kids did not go to that house.

I am tired of the NRA rhetoric. The lives of 20 children should not be the price we pay for having guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group