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

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833266]And with a gun![/QUOTE] Not all, and many that were reported having firearms be involved could very well be confusion from the person being robbed. The fear is enough to make them assume whatever is touching their back is a gun, but it isn't always the case.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38832716]I can criticise gun owners for being sociopathic if I please, especially when they have sociopathic traits.[/QUOTE] You suggest that you can indeed "Criticize" gun owners for being sociopaths. This implies to me that you think owners of firearms are mentally ill. Which you then support by saying, "Especially when they have sociopathic traits." Which implies to me that you have some statistic that suggest that me, and the rest of the gun owning community have mental issues. Or, that you have personally found this to be the case. To my knowledge no statistic like that exists. And I don't think you have had the time, money or means to personally interview enough American gun owners to create a well informed opinion about mental stability and gun owners. If you know of an article or paper or journal that suggests your right, let me know, I would enjoy the reading material.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38833280]Wrong again! In fact, you're 0.6% more likely to be robbed by an unarmed man![/QUOTE] Except being robbed with a gun is more likely than being killed by one.

[QUOTE=Bledrix;38833304]Anyone see this bullshit? [img]http://i.imgur.com/NEh05.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Is it me, or does social media exist of fucking retards for 90%?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833340]Except being robbed with a gun is more likely than being killed by one.[/QUOTE] I assume you have a statistic to back this up?

Ryan Lanza, the original suspect, doesn't have anything to do with the rampage, as confirmed in this recent police briefing.

This thread could easily move to Mass Debate from the discussion going on in here

[QUOTE=aydin690;38828737]Can we all agree that these type of shootings are far less prevalent in other countries with more strict gun laws?[/QUOTE] Gun control laws are not the problem, the state of the society is the problem. Removing guns from a society makes it incredibly easy to establish tyranny. One of the first things that any dictatorship ever does, is to take away guns from the people. With the mind boggling amount of corruption in the US, being anti gun is incredibly dangerous for a plethora of self explanatory reasons. People who want to murder, will always find ways to murder, the difference being of how easy it would be for them to achieve it. Disarming the populace would make it that much easier for them to accomplish that. Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws -Plato

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833326]You suggest that you can indeed "Criticize" gun owners for being sociopaths. This implies to me that you think owners of firearms are mentally ill. Which you then support by saying, "Especially when they have sociopathic traits."[/QUOTE] Yes, what I am saying is that if you have sociopathic traits, there's a good chance you will be a sociopath and therefore I can justifiably call you one.

Ryan used Adam's ID so that's where the confusion originated from. What was the motive of the killing spree exactly? EDIT: By the way if you people don't shut the fuck up I'm just going to make a Gun Laws debate thread in the Mass Debate thread.

Guys take out in Mass Debate, this thread is for discussing the shooting not gun control!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833286]If gun ownership helped reduce crime significantly, then every country in the world would have lax gun laws.[/QUOTE] Vermont has LAX AS FUCK gun laws, yet it's possibly the nicest state in the US. Chicago and NY have horribly restrictive laws and they are, well, Chicago and NY. Most EU countries are actually pretty relaxed too, yet you don't see Germany, or Italy, or Czech Republic in lists of places with high gun crime. And for the other side of the medal, the UK is both the EU country with the most restrictive gun laws, and the one with most crimes overall.

[QUOTE=Bledrix;38833304]Anyone see this bullshit? [img]http://i.imgur.com/NEh05.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Perhaps I'm just not pessimistic enough but I can't really stay mad at these people. It's contemptible and self-centered yes, but these are in all likelihood young teens who aren't able to fully comprehend the situation. I could be cutting them too much slack though, but it isn't nearly as idiotic as that lot of adults leaving scathing and accusational comments on the Mass Effect page.

[QUOTE=EzioAuditore;38833309]It's not logical, its just a massive shitfest that derails the thread and goes off the topic of the actual purpose of the thread. This isn't the "Sensationalist headlines and backward debates that don't go anywhere" section.[/QUOTE] In my opinion it is perfectly logical to discuss the problems with legislation that possibly enabled a tragic event to happen and improvements to said legislation in a thread pertaining to the event. If the moderators disagree then they will post saying so, they haven't (yet), so for now I think it's perfectly fine to debate this here.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38833212]Even after I SAY exactly how that's NOT what i'm thinking or feeling, you fucking ignore me and repeat yourself. good job. I see you've already won the argument in your own head.[/QUOTE] Where? All you've said is that a person with the permit is going to shoot people because of the stress of the scenario. You can't know that for sure, and admittedly I can't know for sure they won't, but all you've been saying the whole time is no matter what, unless it's a cop, whose textbook training somehow prepares them for these things better than a citizen training from the same textbook, then someone other than the shooter is going to be shot by the permit holder, because the permit holder can't possibly be that accurate/prepared/trained/lucky/whatever. As much as you assert that I've won the argument in my own head, the selfsame thing applies to you. You weren't open to trying to believe that collateral damage is unlikely, you were convinced that the person was going to make a mistake no matter what and that someone else would get shot, and you still seem to be just as convinced that that's the most likely outcome, despite the fact that neither of us have yet provided statistics to back up our claims, and the main reason is this thread moves too fast for me to find evidence to back up the claim I have that in only 2% of cases where a CCW holder fires their gun do they hit the wrong/an innocent target, versus 14% of cases with police, or to find evidence to back up an infographic I saw that stated that in cases where a permit holder was present at a shooting, there were only 2 victims on average, versus 12 average when police were first responders. As well, and this is going to probably get people attacking this part of my post specifically, would you rather the permit holder accidentally hit a person but take down the shooter after they only kill 2 people, plus the one the CCW holder hit, or would you rather they keep their gun holstered, wait for police to arrive, and have the shooter kill 10 or more people? 3 victims versus 10+.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38833254]I'd just like to point out that for 2010, only 8,775 people were killed by firearms. That's 0.002925% of the US population in one year. Statistically speaking, mass murder is only a fraction of the 8,775 people, and even then, gun homicide is not a very serious issue. See for yourself. [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url] It's tragic when stuff like this happens. It is. But it's not a very significant issue. You are much more likely to be robbed than you are shot: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/robberymain[/url][/QUOTE] But it is a significant issue. Who cares if people are being robbed? It's not some kind of accident either. It's people killing other people on purpose.

[QUOTE=Drakehawke;38833374]In my opinion it is perfectly logical to discuss the problems with legislation that possibly enabled a tragic event to happen and improvements to said legislation in a thread pertaining to the event. If the moderators disagree then they will post saying so, they haven't (yet), so for now I think it's perfectly fine to debate this here.[/QUOTE] Are you backwards? There is a section for these kind of debates called MASS DEBATES. Go take your arguments and opinions that no-one cares about there. This thread is about the actual massacre so how many times should I repeat myself?

Maybe it's too late for the reactions, but I just heard about this. God, it makes me so sad that these things have to happen. I can't help but think of the families who won't be able to spend Christmas with their children. Fuck.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833358]Yes, what I am saying is that if you have sociopathic traits, there's a good chance you will be a sociopath and therefore I can justifiably call you one.[/QUOTE] And what's your definition of a "sociopathic trait", pray tell?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833358]Yes, what I am saying is that if you have sociopathic traits, there's a good chance you will be a sociopath and therefore I can justifiably call you one.[/QUOTE] I agree, if I have sociopathic traits, I am more likely to be a sociopath. What you are saying is that gun owners are sociopaths, this could be true. But, your support is that they are so because they have sociopathic traits. So what are these sociopathic traits? And how have you managed to correlate them with the average gun owner? To quote you.... [b]Source?[/b]

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38833354]Removing guns from a society makes it incredibly easy to establish tyranny. One of the first things that any dictatorship ever does, is to take away guns from the people.[/QUOTE] Is this why most of Europe lives under tyrants? I better call my local MP to tell them that we live in an autocracy. [QUOTE=genkaz92;38833354]With the mind boggling amount of corruption in the US, being anti gun is incredibly dangerous for a plethora of self explanatory reasons.[/QUOTE] Such as? [QUOTE=genkaz92;38833354]People who want to murder, will always find ways to murder, the difference being of how easy it would be for them to achieve it. Disarming the populace would make it that much easier for them to accomplish that.[/QUOTE] It would also make the murderers job much harder. [QUOTE=genkaz92;38833354]Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws -Plato[/QUOTE] You do realise Plato lived over 2000 years ago in a society utterly unlike that of today?] I.e we have criminology, legal thought, etc.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38833403]And what's your definition of a "sociopathic trait", pray tell?[/QUOTE] I have a book that lists I think 9 possible traits, and you only need 3 to be called a "sociopath." The thing is, chances are many people exhibit at least 3 of these traits, meaning one can apply the term "sociopath" to many people, often wrongly.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38833369]Vermont has LAX AS FUCK gun laws, yet it's possibly the nicest state in the US. Chicago and NY have horribly restrictive laws and they are, well, Chicago and NY. Most EU countries are actually pretty relaxed too, yet you don't see Germany, or Italy, or Czech Republic in lists of places with high gun crime. And for the other side of the medal, the UK is both the EU country with the most restrictive gun laws, and the one with most crimes overall.[/QUOTE] Are you fucking high? Gun laws in the EU are much more restrictive than in America. The gun lobby would argue that less guns = more crime. In fact this has not happened.

[quote]In the latest twist in a contradictory day of news reports, the Associated Press reports that Ryan Lanza, the 24-year-old brother of the suspected gunman, had no involvement in the shooting, according to an unnamed official. Ryan Lanza was earlier mistakenly identified as the gunman by several news outlets.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833418]Is this why most of Europe lives under tyrants? I better call my local MP to tell them that we live in an autocracy.[/QUOTE] Again, "most of Europe" does have rather lax gun laws. Heck, my first gun was an Ak and all it took was a basic permit.

It's perfectly fine to mention your opinions on gun control since it's highly relevant to the news story. If people descend into name calling and personalities they will be probably be banned, otherwise feel free.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833408]I agree, if I have sociopathic traits, I am more likely to be a sociopath. What you are saying is that gun owners are sociopaths, this could be true. But, your support is that they are so because they have sociopathic traits. So what are these sociopathic traits? And how have you managed to correlate them with the average gun owner? To quote you.... [b]Source?[/b][/QUOTE] I never argued about the "average gun owner". I argued that sociopathic gun owners can be called sociopaths.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38833425]I have a book that lists I think 9 possible traits, and you only need 3 to be called a "sociopath." The thing is, chances are many people exhibit at least 3 of these traits, meaning one can apply the term "sociopath" to many people, often wrongly.[/QUOTE] My bad, the book lists traits for a psychopath, not a sociopath.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833418]You do realise Plato lived over 2000 years ago in a society utterly unlike that of today?] I.e we have criminology, legal thought, etc.[/QUOTE] Plato still holds weight today as does most of the work done by Greek and Roman philosophers. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the works of Euclid are irrelevant today.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833440]I never argued about the "average gun owner". I argued that sociopathic gun owners can be called sociopaths.[/QUOTE] Sociopaths can be called sociopaths? I feel like you got cornered by your own arguments.