DEVELOPING: Shooting reported at Connecticut elementary school; 27 killed - Polidicks

I woke up awhile ago and was laying in my bed and my grandpa was watching the news in the other room. I has thinking to myself oh shit what now then I get up and find out 20 children were massacred.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38832654]Note how you can't perform surgery or prepare a meal or effectively hunt game with a handgun. The only purpose a handgun serves is to end human lives. That is it's sole function as a tool.[/QUOTE] Yes, that what is was originally designed for, but that doesn't mean it's sole purpose is to end lives. I know it's a slipperly slope, but you can end a life with a gun, but you also save a life by ending another. Saying that guns are only the tools of the wicked is just biased.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;38832643]Yes, that applies to the common folk who are not trained to use a gun in a real situation. Police officers mainly shoot to incapacitate, and if the situation desires it, to kill.[/QUOTE] That's not true in the slightest? Police training is to shoot towards the center of mass so as to stop the target as quickly as possible; which means killing. Police are trained only to shoot to kill because the only situation in which a police officer is supposed to fire on a suspect is when a suspect is immediately threatening somebody else's life. There is no "shoot to incapacitate" in American police training.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832332]Again, you're acting as if permit holders are inept. If someone walks into a theatre, or a school, or a mall, and begins shooting off a rifle, chances are the permit holder(s) will see and/or hear the rifle and know it's a rifle being used in the shooting. They'll see each other pull their guns out, they'll hear each other yelling for the shooter to put the gun down, and chances are after the shooter is down, all the permit holders will advertise the fact to ensure just such a scenario doesn't happen. Like I said, people against it fabricate fictitious scenarios that have never happened and are unlikely to ever happen in an attempt to justify their disdain for something that increased public safety. And have you ever even shot a gun? It's possible to yell over them, it's not like everyone is going to be completely deaf. If clear communications were possible in a warzone with gunshots and bombs going off everywhere, they're possible in a building with one or two people shooting guns.[/QUOTE] This is all just what you want to happen in that situation. That situation is rare and is unique to every time it happens. Someone innocent's going to get shot in the mess of gunfire during a chaotic event. People aren't as smart and as capable when their in a [b]REAL FUCKING GUNFIGHT[/b] for the first time in their lives, maybe if it's an ex soldier or something, but either way, there's a lot of room for this to go so wrong.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;38832618]Not a disorder. If someone was actively psychotic they would be in a Hospital. Psychosis isn't something you're diagnosed with and live with for the rest of your day, it's an episodic occurrence.[/QUOTE] Fine - If you are going to be pedantic, then 'the entire spectrum of psychotic disorders which impair the patient's judgement in a way which causes them to lose track of right and wrong'. This includes - Clinical depression with presenting psychosis. Schizophrenia. Bipolarity. Antisocial Personality Disorder. Dissasociative Identity Disorder. Borderline personality disorder, etc. If it is detectable and it makes you a psychotic, then you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38832610]They protect themselves by killing people.[/QUOTE] More often than not, when a permit holder uses their gun for self-defence, simply drawing the gun is sufficient, the gun is almost never fired. [QUOTE=Hullu V3;38832643]Yes, that applies to the common folk who are not trained to use a gun in a real situation. Police officers mainly shoot to incapacitate, and if the situation desires it, to kill.[/QUOTE] Actually no, they shoot to kill, just like the average citizen. Shooting to wound leads to lawsuits, if a cop shoots his gun it's to kill, not to wound. He needs to make sure the threat is eliminated, and since shooting the gun is a last resort, it's generally because the threat is an extreme danger, and leaving them alive means they're still an extreme danger to anyone on the scene, because they are still armed, though wounded.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832645]"ridiculously insane sociopaths" you know nothing about gun ownership then, do you? Just as many, if not more, people latch on to these saying gun control is the answer, grave-dancing is not a one-way street.[/QUOTE] He's not even arguing in favour of gun control, he's arguing that people who use school shootings to propagate their bullshit gun ideology are sociopaths. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832645]And as for sociopaths, your assertion is ignorant, bigoted, and absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE] I can criticise gun owners for being sociopathic if I please, especially when they have sociopathic traits. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832645]A gun does not suddenly make someone sociopathic and more than liquor suddenly makes someone alcoholic.[/QUOTE] Yes it can. Too much liquor makes somebody an alcoholic, especially if they grow a dependence on it and see it as a solution to all of lifes problems. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832645]I think you're the one who needs to grow up here, for insulting half the country because of a hobby they have and a piece of property they own.[/QUOTE] Half the country owns a gun? Source? Do they all use guns for a hobby?

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;38832689]Yes, that what is was originally designed for, but that doesn't mean it's sole purpose is to end lives. I know it's a slipperly slope, but you can end a life with a gun, but you also save a life by ending another. Saying that guns are only the tools of the wicked is just biased.[/QUOTE] Are you high? Like the weird logical backflips and blind leaps you're taking is making me think you're high.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;38832688]No, they don't. Police officers are trained to shoot at the center of mass, not the legs or the arms. Center of mass being the torso, which is literally stuffed with vital organs. They use tazers as a non-lethal weapon. Other than that however, officers are trained to neutralize threats.[/QUOTE] Wasn't there a study about this? About how people don't die from gunshots as oftens as people think?

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832702]people hunt turkeys with handguns all the time i dont get what you're saying[/QUOTE] Turkey hunting.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832702]people hunt turkeys with handguns all the time i dont get what you're saying[/QUOTE] lmao what a great excuse "sir we found your mother dead from a gunshot wound and we see you are holding a handgun" "nonono its for shooting turkeys"

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;38832618]Not a disorder. If someone was actively psychotic they would be in a Hospital. Psychosis isn't something you're diagnosed with and live with for the rest of your day, it's an episodic occurrence.[/QUOTE]Firstly psychosis falls under the effects of a psychiatric disorder, so it goes without saying that I am speaking of psychiatric disorders severe enough to cause psychosis. Secondly I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Pretty much anything that could label someone as a threat to themselves and others should restrict them from accessing guns.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;38832559]Sorry, but I have to disagree on that one. People don't carry guns mainly to kill people. They carry it for protection. I know, I'm nitpicking, but that's a horrible wrong thing to say.[/QUOTE] But that's how guns protect someone. By injuring someone before they can injure you. Unless you're going to say that it's just for prevention, but the only reason it prevents some cases is because it is used to injure if it ends up not preventing in the others.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38832648]Source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://m.gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything[/url] Sure thing.

"A sword never killed anybody, it's a tool in the killer's hands." I never understood mass shootings. If you want to die just turn the gun on yourself, you selfish motherfucker.

Are you guys seriously suggesting being unable to hunt turkeys with handguns is a valid argument against outlawing them? I'm not trying to take sides, but just look how ridiculous that sounds

Are there a lot of wild turkeys in Baltimore? Lot of turkeys in downtown Chicago that people gotta have their handguns to shoot?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38832716]I can criticise gun owners for being sociopathic if I please, especially when they have sociopathic traits.[/quote] Sociopaths own guns, but that doesn't make all gun owners sociopathic. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38832716]Yes it can. Too much liquor makes somebody an alcoholic, especially if they grow a dependence on it and see it as a solution to all of lifes problems.[/quote] Are you sure that it isn't a summation of their problems that drives people to alcoholism?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38832703]This is all just what you want to happen in that situation. That situation is rare and is unique to every time it happens. Someone innocent's going to get shot in the mess of gunfire during a chaotic event. People aren't as smart and as capable when their in a [b]REAL FUCKING GUNFIGHT[/b] for the first time in their lives, maybe if it's an ex soldier or something, but either way, there's a lot of room for this to go so wrong.[/QUOTE] People also aren't as inept as some people assert, they're not going to shoot at a target they're not sure they're going to hit, that's something covered in all self-defence classes, and is a basic fundament of firearms safety; be sure of your target before you shoot. Innocent people may indeed get shot, chances are it's not by the permit holder, it's likely to be by the person who came there to shoot people. Of course in a "gunfight" they're going to be scared, it doesn't mean they're going to be stupid. As well the situation is definitely rare and unique, but it's brought up all the time by people who are against CCW. I acknowledge it's not likely to happen, but I propose the other side of the argument in the hypothetical to counter the first side proposed; that it's going to lead to a huge shootout and tons of people, more than the shooter alone would have killed, would die. I present the side of the argument arguing why that's not a likely outcome in the hypothetical scenario.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832748]its a slippery slope, why can't people just say a disaster is fucking awful and leave it at that, everything is BAN or NOT BAN in every fucking article unless its not a mass shooting, then it is PUN LOL[/QUOTE] Because we actually have an idea of how to prevent the next one. If you implement it, and it works, then you have made the world a better place.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;38832747]But that's how guns protect someone. By injuring someone before they can injure you. Unless you're going to say that it's just for prevention, but the only reason it prevents some cases is because it is used to injure if it ends up not preventing in the others.[/QUOTE] Okay, so lets take a scenario then you're in a theatre, during the middle of a loud scene in the movie, a gunman walks in, and opens fire on the crowd, from the bottom of the stair case. After the initial gun fire is over and he goes to reload, a CC permitted crowd member stands up, and fires a shot off. The shot goes through the guys body because there's no way a civilian is using fucking hollowpoints, the bullet carries through his body, and say, hits an innocent bystander BEHIND the gunman cowering in the very front row and kills them outright Honestly, to think a NORMAL PERSON will have enough experience, knowledge, and luck to fire off a gun in a crowded place and ONLY, ONLY fucking hit the target and do nothing to anyone else is... I shouldn't even have to say.

[QUOTE=0FucksGiven;38832756]"A sword never killed anybody, it's a tool in the killer's hands." I never understood mass shootings. If you want to die just turn the gun on yourself, you selfish motherfucker.[/QUOTE] This is part of the problem with mental health ignorance when someone thinks that the killer would have just decided that just killing himself and not other people is something he would have done if only he wasn't such a selfish motherfucker.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38832773]Sociopaths own guns, but that doesn't make all gun owners sociopathic. Are you sure that it isn't a summation of their problems that drives people to alcoholism?[/QUOTE] The mere existence of alcohol is a single, but important component of a larger problem with a consumer culture that glamorizes drinking.

[QUOTE=Drakehawke;38832447]At least they wouldn't be dead though, they have a chance to recover and live out the majority of their life still[/QUOTE] That doesn't really make me feel any better about this. I can see from the debates going on right now in this thread alone no one really cares. They're more interested in putting the blame on guns, and gun advocates are more interested in defending their guns to even care. And as usual this debate gets buried in endless rhetoric.

[QUOTE=lolo;38832749][url]http://m.gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything[/url] Sure thing.[/QUOTE] You still need manufacturers to produce them. Disagree all you like, but getting guns is harder when they are illegal.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38832773]Are you sure that it isn't a summation of their problems that drives people to alcoholism?[/QUOTE] People can actually get addicted to alcohol.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832782]are you seriously suggesting that the illegal handgun ownership in chicago would be justified by an arbitrary amount of game animals living in the area?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that Rocket Propelled Grenades have practical applications in the demolitions industry and in whale destruction and that I, as a private citizen, shouldn't be prohibited from owning one. If you take away our RPG's we'll just start shooting each other with guns again.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38832790]People also aren't as inept as some people assert, they're not going to shoot at a target they're not sure they're going to hit, that's something covered in all self-defence classes, and is a basic fundament of firearms safety; be sure of your target before you shoot. Innocent people may indeed get shot, chances are it's not by the permit holder, it's likely to be by the person who came there to shoot people. Of course in a "gunfight" they're going to be scared, it doesn't mean they're going to be stupid. As well the situation is definitely rare and unique, but it's brought up all the time by people who are against CCW. I acknowledge it's not likely to happen, but I propose the other side of the argument in the hypothetical to counter the first side proposed; that it's going to lead to a huge shootout and tons of people, more than the shooter alone would have killed, would die. I present the side of the argument arguing why that's not a likely outcome in the hypothetical scenario.[/QUOTE] Scared leads to stupid. I guess you've never been in a panic or seen anyone in a true panic before.

[QUOTE=0FucksGiven;38832756]"A sword never killed anybody, it's a tool in the killer's hands." I never understood mass shootings. If you want to die just turn the gun on yourself, you selfish motherfucker.[/QUOTE] Since they'll die anyways, they see no point in giving a shit about people around them.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832830]and if it doesnt? i know a police officer who sells my dad guns regardless of his mental state or past history, hell, you can buy a large multitude of guns in the south without any red flags being raised, people sell shit to you and you don't need to report it to the government[/QUOTE] Except if we have an idea of how to improve things, we do it. If it doesn't, you try another idea.