1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

20 elementary school children plus 6 adults shot dead by a guy with a gun

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by earlpearl, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #281

    Guns stop mass shooters. That is a fact. Take for example the recent rampage in California this week. A crazed gunman had a shotgun (not an assault rifle) and killed a woman in his home. He then took off in a car, shooting wildly at random people on the street. He stole several cars in the process. He came up to an innocent motorist, told him to get out of the car, and then executed him on the side of the road. He continued this behavior until the police finally caught up to him. At the first sign of resistance (person with gun), when he knew he could potentially be taken into custody or harmed, he pointed the barrel of the shotgun to his own head and pulled the trigger.

    At Sandy Hook the same situation happened. At the first sign of resistance (person with gun), the shooter committed suicide. In Aurora, CO we saw once again that at the first sign of resistance, the shooter surrendered. In most mass shootings the murdered does not want a confrontation. He goes to the place with the least resistance, where people are vulnerable. Where they cannot defend themselves. Where police are minutes away so that they can inflict as much damage as possible. In other words, they go to "gun free zones".

    Another mass shooting that didn't get much coverage by the lame stream media was in Oregon at a mall. A gunman started shooting shoppers and killed several. Luckily, a man legally carrying his concealed carry weapon was in the mall at the time. He heard the shots and looked to see a gunman with a rifle shooting people. He drew his weapon. The gunman, who's weapon started to jam, noticed the good citizen pointing a handgun at him. Instead of firing back the gunman ran off and shot himself in the head. Once again, life the other situations, at the first sign of resistance the gunman gave up.

    The reason me and so many other Americans are against any more gun control is because it does not work. When you outlaw a certain type of firearm or ban magazines because they hold more than 10 rounds, you are only taking guns away from good citizens who would legally and lawfully purchase and use them. Not one piece of legislation proposed does anything to take guns away from criminals.

    I couldn't agree more, but it is the context in which each side uses the real life event. For example, the liberal media likens gun ownership to wanting to murder children. They spin the story to where it seems like if you own a gun you should feel guilty about the children that are murdered. They don't focus on the crazy guy who did it, they tell us that the evil gun was used and we should ban them because only evil people would want to have these child killers around.

    On the flip side, gun rights advocates like me also use reality to make an argument. Chicago has some of the nations toughest gun laws, yet it's murder rate is on the rise. Just this week the police chief blamed the recent increase in crime on the NRA and gun rights advocates, because if it wasn't for their influence they would have even more gun control. The problem is, like I said before, gun control takes guns away from good people, not bad people, as we are seeing in Chicago and other major cities.

    As if my post isn't long enough, please reference the 2011 shooting in Norway that killed 70+ people, mainly teenagers. Norway had gun laws very similar to what is being proposed in the US. Gun registration. Applying and must have a reason to own a gun. Inspections of your residence to make sure you are storing your guns safely, etc. Did that stop this madman from killing 70 people? Even if guns were banned all together and no access to any firearms was available for this maniac, he would have used other devices such as bombs made from everyday materials, a car, knife, blunt object, etc. Once again, this was a gun-free zone he targeted specifically because it was easy to kill a lot of people without risking harm to himself. He surrendered to police as soon as he was meet with resistance. Tell me, please tell me that you believe the right decision in Norway was to keep as many people from owning guns as possible so that when a crazed shooter does go on a rampage, the only people that can stop them is the police.SEMrush
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
    r3dt@rget, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    robjones likes this.
    SEMrush
  2. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #282
    That's a scary thing to rely on if you read the papers. The responses of the police in California to a threat was to lie in wait in an area he was known to be interested in and open fire indiscriminately on people driving pickups of a different color/make/model simply because they were in a pickup. They were looking for a large black male, so they ambushed two white women in a truck? Without receiving fire? Then minutes later in the same subdivision another police dept responding to a "shots fired report" shot at another guy in the wrong make/model/color truck?

    The first shooting had 40 shots fired and they wounded two ladies in their spray and pray method of response. I think we can dispense with the idea that cops are the only ones that should have weapons because they are trained marksmen and know how to choose targets with care. These sunsabitches look like they were trained by Stevie Wonder.
     
    robjones, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    Obamanation likes this.
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #283
    Very true for a myriad of reasons. The scene you describe above was last week's lunatic on the loose, not to be confused with yesterday's nutjob described by r3dt@rget, who managed to completely foul up my drive to work.

    The guy from last week, by all accounts, was a whistle blower who decided to report a fellow officer in the LAPD after she kicked the crap out of a mentally disabled boy.

    The internal investigation decided the officer had done nothing wrong because the boy's handicaps made him an non-credible witness, despite the physical evidence of boot marks on his face and chest. The father of the boy had his testimony thrown out based on it being hearsay (something the boy had told him prior to an investigation being opened).

    In other words, the testimony of the victim, the victim's father, and a fellow officer were all thrown out in favor of the testimony of the officer being investigated. At that point, LAPD internal affairs charged the whistle blowing cop with filing a false complaint, found him guilty, and fired him on the spot.

    He spent the next three years fighting his termination, and once all his avenues of recourse had been exhausted, he snapped and went on a cop hunting spree that sent the State of California into fit.

    Prior to going on his cop hunting killing spree, he sent off a myriad of well written media packages, describing in detail a culture of corruption within the LAPD, naming specific events, times, places, and people involved. These events included descriptions of cops hoping for fatality outcomes at crime scenes in hopes of overtime pay, and rampant racism including the high level promotion of several of the officers involved in the Rodney King beatings.

    This on the heels of last year when five officers beat a mentally disabled man to death on live camera, resulting in only two being charged and one prosecuted.

    It begs the question, do you need to own a gun because the cops might not show up in time to save you, as was definitely the case in yesterday's car jackings, or do you need to own a gun to protect yourself from the cops.

    One thing is certain. Looking at the wonderful job California police departments have done cleaning up their organizations since Rodney King, they are not getting any more citizen friendly.
     
    Obamanation, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    robjones likes this.
  4. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #284
    California cops are scary. They are mostly incompetents with lousy training and no respect for the law. And if you are black and live in California, best you move to another state before you get shot for - being black. (I had a scary personal story I wanted to tell about California cops but sorry, I don't have the stomach to repeat it anymore.)
     
    Corwin, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    robjones likes this.
  5. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #285
    Moron:
     
    grpaul, Feb 21, 2013 IP
    robjones likes this.
  6. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #286
    Fear the government that asks its citizens why they need their constitutional rights.
     
    r3dt@rget, Feb 21, 2013 IP
    robjones likes this.
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #287

    Is it just me or does that guy look a bit like Milton, helping the Governor get his message out.....
    [​IMG]
     
    Obamanation, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  8. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #288
    Yes, It is tue that guns dont kill people, peole kill people. But lets run a scenario or two,
    1, a guy gets into a fight in a bar, punches are thrown and the guy who is 'losing' pulls out a gun and it goes off! There is a good chance that somebody has just been shot! There is lso a good chance that the guy with the gun has just taken someones life! That guy now has to live with tht for the rest of his life and the family of whoever was shot has potentially lost their Husbnd, Father, Brother or Son. The Law will deal with the guy who pulled the trigger with a very long (or fatal) prison sentence, but what if the the gun went off by accident? By this I mean that the guy pulled out the gun as a means of defending himself without actually intending to use it. Whether it was used intentionally or not there are now 2 families living with the aftermath of the event.

    2, a guy gets into a fight in a bar, puches are thrown and the police are called and both guys get arrested, one ends up in the ER with a frctured cheeckbone and a couple of broken ribs. These injuries heal and both take the legal consequences of fighting and they move on with their lives.

    It is not hard to see which is the better option, we dont have legal guns at the same level in the UK, we also dont have the same level of gun crime and mass fatalities as in the US.
    We have also banned the carrying of knives, we do still have a problem controlling this at times but people are aware of the consequences and it is somewhat harder to prevent someone taking a knife from the kitchen.
    People only carry a weapon if they intend to use it, they leave the house knowing they have it. Unfortunately most who are caught with a weapon will say they only carry it to defend themselves, they dont seem to understand that it is this mentality which has lead to this so-called need in the first place.

    Guns dont kill people, people kill people, but if those people didnt have access to a gun then the gun would not be fired!!

    Just my opinion :)
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  9. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #289
    Thanks for the post, but this is an absolute naive way of looking at life.

    Taking weapons out the hands of law abiding civilians does not help them protect themselves against sicko criminals that exist....

    I too, wish we could all walk around not having to worry about ever protecting ourselves, but that sadly and very simply is NOT the world we live in.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
    grpaul, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  10. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #290

    That is not the world we live in 'because' people are allowed to carry guns. If nobody carries a gun the threat is therefore non existant. I know this is an ideology and it is potentily too late for this to happen but it is not necesarily a niave way of looking at life.
    Ask yoursef this, 'Why do I need to own gun?' If the answer is 'to protect myself' then your next question should be 'Why do THEY need to carry a gun?' the answer is not going to be 'because I want to' it will probaby the same answer you came up with. Nobody should live in fear, but that is what a culture raised with guns brings with it.
    We have sicko criminals in the UK too, most of these dont have guns. We still have crime and people being killed but not to the same extent as in America, when it happens here it is shocking, not normal.
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
    Bushranger likes this.
  11. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #291
    I mentioned this already in a previous post. The obvious consequence to taking away all guns is no more gun violence. That is like saying we would have no more car accidents if no more cars existed. That doesn't mean you solved anything. In fact, taking away guns takes away a free people's right to defend themselves from the government. The only reason Americans were given the 2nd amendment is to protect themselves from the government. To maintain a "free state". You can only do that if you have power over the people making laws and controlling the police. Power is the ability to kill people. If we let only the police and government have the power, couldn't they abuse it if they had the motivation? So I am not arguing that people need guns to shoot people in bars, I am saying guns will always be a right in America because it is guaranteed in our constitution. We fought very hard to break away from the tyrannical England and the one thing our founding fathers made clear was that it would not happen in the US because the people would be in control.

    Your argument is not valid because you assume too many variables in each scenario. You can't assume that everyone that carries a gun in a bar will pull it out and use it when they get in a fight. The truth is that legal concealed carry permit holders would probably not get into fights at bars, and they probably wouldn't take their guns into a bar where alcohol will be consumed.

    Your second to last paragraph is just amusing. Really? So the millions of concealed carry permit holders in the US who carried their locked and loaded weapon yesterday intended to use it? Wake up. There are guns in 50% of US households. Take the total amount of guns we have and then look at the total amount that are used each day in a murder. It would be a tiny percentage. The fact is that most guns will never ever be pointed at another human being. I know that you hear everyday about murders, but what you don't here is the fact that millions of guns were not even fired yesterday. Concealed carry holders don't walk around intending to kill someone, they have it for protection. You must live in an alternate reality if you believe danger doesn't exist and there are no need for people to carry guns.

    One last point, you are not required to carry a weapon or own them if you don't feel comfortable around them. Our government has created gun free zones that guarantee other people in the area won't be carrying weapons either. So if you want to be safe, in a place with no guns at all (like you described, because no guns = no gun crime). But watch out, mass shootings happen in these gun free zones. Ask yourself why, and read one of my previous posts, and then you might understand why gun laws don't take the desire to kill away from people, and taking away guns only hurts innocent people.
     
    r3dt@rget, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  12. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #292
    Obviously there is going to be a difference of opinion here and as such there is no right or wrong.
    If the laws are so watertight and there isnt a problem with having guns, why are so many children dying? Or were the shooters protecting themselves?
    What is so wrong with the govenment in the US that you would need to use guns against them? they were voted for by the people werent they?
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  13. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #293
    How about the more likely scenario that the guy doesn't get in a fight at the bar, and instead climbs into his 5000 lb vehicle and drives over a young child. What we need to do is take all those nasty cars away to prevent that from ever happening.


    More poor spelling. You are in the business of writing content for a living? Really?

    If no one were allowed to carry knifes nobody would get stabbed. If nobody was allowed to drive cars, there would be no automobile accidents. If nobody were allowed to communicate, there would be no arguments. I think what we need to to is build large prisons and put all of our citizens into these prisons, for their own safety of course.
     
    Obamanation, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  14. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #294

    Children are dying people sick, twisted individuals have the desire to kill them. Gun laws don't stop those desires. As I have said previously, many many many instances have happened where bombs made from homemade products, cars, and other devices have been used to kill people. The solution is to get rid of the evil people, not the devices they use.

    Nothing is wrong enough with our government right now, because we have guns.
     
    r3dt@rget, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  15. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #295
    So how do we deal with the child who finds Daddies gun at home and takes it to school then accidentally shoots his teacher?
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  16. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #296
    Yes and I am good at my job, I guess you are running out of reasoned argument which is why you now belittle my spelling and make it personal.
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  17. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #297

    How do you prevent daddy from drinking 6 beers, jumping in his truck, and hitting a van full of pre-school kids? Once again I have said this many times before. It's called individual responsibility. You cannot legislate all of these terrible scenarios from happening, while still maintaining freedom. People make choices and you have to let people make their own choices. If a gun owner has a child, I would hope they are smart enough to know the gun needs to be in a secure location.

    If that scenario did happen, you don't punish the gun and millions of other people who are responsible. You punish the dad who made the mistake. We already have laws that do that.
     
    r3dt@rget, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  18. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #298
    As parent, it breaks my heart every time I hear of another shooting involving kids. Accidents happen and not everything is preventable, but I am of the opinion that certain things can and should be prevented and other things can be made less dangerous. I teach my kids to look before crossing the road, which makes it less dangerous. I am thankful that I don't need to teach my kids about guns because it is not a big issue here.
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  19. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #299

    Actually, the reasoned argument was the rest of my post, which you either didn't read, didn't understand, or ignored. Can't really help you much more than that.

    Try not to take the poke at your spelling personally. Some things are just funny. For instance, when a who person writes for a living creates posts filled with spelling and grammar errors on the forum she advertises on, it is just funny. Even if you didn't write for a living, the idea of ignoring the glaring red underlines under your misspelled words as you create your post just strikes me as odd . Don't shoot the messenger.


    Oh, and a little fyi on writing. When you make sweeping statements in an effort to stereotype a group of people, race, or ethnicity as stupid, members of that group, race, or ethnicity, tend to take it personal. It seems simple fact hasn't occurred to you, so allow me, one of your stupid cousins, to share it with you. The insight of a fool, if you will.
     
    Obamanation, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  20. Emma Pollard

    Emma Pollard Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #300
    The sweeping statement was just that, I did not say that I agree with it!
    I still dont understand how people can prioritise their right to own a gun over the rights of a child to live and go to school in safety.
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, I see no need to carry a gun. If there were no legal guns then you would have as much need as I do to own one.
    FYI, it is not just me who makes mistakes in their posts. A simple case of pot and kettle.
     
    Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013 IP