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

[QUOTE=Archimedes;38833372]I could be cutting them too much slack though,[/QUOTE] You are cutting WAY too much slack.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38833434]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.[/QUOTE] Compared to the USA, the laws here are less lenient.

If every teacher at that school had a firearm, and was trained at using it, the shooter would only kill one, maybe two people if he knew what he was doing, before being shot down by the third, fourth, and fifth person. Every stable citizen of the United States needs to carry a firearm, and be trained at using it, regardless of whether it is a 16 year old girl, or a 35 year old off duty SWAT officer. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to defend themselves adequately, because evil never sleeps, and always strikes at the most opportune times of weakness, hesitation, and false assumptions of safety, as the recent shootings have clearly demonstrated.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833429]Are you fucking high? Gun laws in the EU are much more restrictive than in America.[/QUOTE] Ignorance at work, gents. Take individual states such as California, Illinois or others and compare them to Various EU countries. Chances are it's easier to (legally) get certain stuff in Prague than in NYC, LA or Chicago.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833440]I never argued about the "average gun owner". I argued that sociopathic gun owners can be called sociopaths.[/QUOTE] But you did not specify when you said that. Back on page, what was it, 25 or 26. This leads me to believe you did so by accident, in which case I would kindly request you go back and resolve the poorly worded post. Or you were doing so on purpose, maliciously, to propagate misinformation, in which case I, and others should take anything you contribute to this conversation, or any conversation from here on out with a grain of salt, at the very lest.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833452]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] Yes but we had a whole fucking plethora of things happen since then. Falling back onto a quote from some philosopher whose work has been superseded in many fields as an argument isn't a good one.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38833477]If every teacher at that school had a firearm, and was trained at using it, the shooter would only kill one, maybe two people if he knew what he was doing, before being shot down by the third, fourth, and fifth person. Every stable citizen of the United States needs to carry a firearm, and be trained at using it, regardless of whether it is a 16 year old girl, or a 35 year old off duty SWAT officer. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to defend themselves adequately, [B]because evil never sleeps[/B], and always strikes at the most opportune times of weakness, hesitation, and false assumptions of safety, as the recent shootings have clearly demonstrated.[/QUOTE] Bolded is exactly the type of lame shit I would expect to see typed out by someone having vigilante, Wild West gun fantasies. I'm a pretty pro-gun person but the solution sure as fuck isn't giving more people guns.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38833477]If every teacher at that school had a firearm, and was trained at using it, the shooter would only kill one, maybe two people if he knew what he was doing, before being shot down by the third, fourth, and fifth person. Every stable citizen of the United States needs to carry a firearm, and be trained at using it, regardless of whether it is a 16 year old girl, or a 35 year old off duty SWAT officer. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to defend themselves adequately, because evil never sleeps, and always strikes at the most opportune times of weakness, hesitation, and false assumptions of safety, as the recent shootings have clearly demonstrated.[/QUOTE] Yeah this sounds like a healthy society.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38833477]If every teacher at that school had a firearm, and was trained at using it, the shooter would only kill one, maybe two people if he knew what he was doing, before being shot down by the third, fourth, and fifth person. Every stable citizen of the United States needs to carry a firearm, and be trained at using it, regardless of whether it is a 16 year old girl, or a 35 year old off duty SWAT officer. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to defend themselves adequately, because evil never sleeps, and always strikes at the most opportune times of weakness, hesitation, and false assumptions of safety, as the recent shootings have clearly demonstrated.[/QUOTE] I respect your opinion, however I disagree that every person should have a gun, and think that only trained security guards should have them. Teachers could carry a taser though, or perhaps have one locked in their desk.

What the fuck is wrong with those people? Already reading this makes me feel sick... This is so disgusting! These goddamn motherfuckers don't even deserve to be allowed to be alive in my opinion, they just don't deserve it. What the hell makes you think "Oh I feel like shootin'a buncha kiddies today. You with me?". Shoot these bitches ON SIGHT! I don't wanna know how the parents of the dead children must be feeling right now! EDIT: Sorry for raging.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;38829890]I have an idea, lets not? I'd rather not have some knee jerk emotional reaction and tear apart the constitution and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't even match up to the supreme courts.[/QUOTE] the supreme court thinks corporations are people so i could care fuck all what they think about being able to walk around town spinning revolvers around your index finger

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833501]Yes but we had a whole fucking plethora of things happen since then. Falling back onto a quote from some philosopher whose work has been superseded in many fields as an argument isn't a good one.[/QUOTE] Except many modern criminologists don't think gun control is effective either, hell they think our whole justice system is flawed. They feel more money needs to be put towards preventing crimes from happening, and that reducing violence involves changing the segment of society that causes most of the violent crime, providing services to those most at risk of offending to try and steer them away from a life of crime rather than enacting laws that don't work and penalizing people after the crime is already done.

[QUOTE=Bledrix;38833304]Anyone see this bullshit? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NEh05.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I agree with their sentiments, for different reasons. 24/7 coverage breaking into all channels is beyond stupid. EDIT: Especially given the number of factual errors that have already turned up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833501]Yes but we had a whole fucking plethora of things happen since then. Falling back onto a quote from some philosopher whose work has been superseded in many fields as an argument isn't a good one.[/QUOTE] I agree, it is a poor argument. But that shouldn't mean it isn't one at all. Especially with Plato still being taught in many colleges.

the constitution isn't infallible it was written by slave owners in a time and culture radically different from what we have today. the 2nd ammendment existed in a time where the entire population being armed meant we could fight off our government or maybe the british, not the worlds most powerful fucking military

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38833535]the supreme court thinks corporations are people so i could care fuck all what they think about being able to walk around town spinning revolvers around your index finger[/QUOTE] Except you'd be arrested for misuse of a firearms for doing that. You obviously don't care about looking up the laws before arguing about them, do you?

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38833479]Ignorance at work, gents. Take individual states such as California, Illinois or others and compare them to Various EU countries. Chances are it's easier to (legally) get certain stuff in Prague than in NYC, LA or Chicago.[/QUOTE] Except the EU has established a minimum baseline, and is seeking to push for stricter gun control. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/europe/29iht-29union.4.8530991.html?_r=0[/url] [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38833536]Except many modern criminologists don't think gun control is effective either, hell they think our whole justice system is flawed. They feel more money needs to be put towards preventing crimes from happening, and that reducing violence involves changing the segment of society that causes most of the violent crime, providing services to those most at risk of offending to try and steer them away from a life of crime rather than enacting laws that don't work and penalizing people after the crime is already done.[/QUOTE] They also don't think making gun control more lenient is going to help,

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38833546]Except you'd be arrested for misuse of a firearms for doing that. You obviously don't care about looking up the laws before arguing about them, do you?[/QUOTE] it was a fucking exaggeration of course people aren't literally playing cowboys and indians in the streets christ

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38833380]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, [B]unless it's a cop[/B], 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] Nope. I didn't say that either. In fact, I said that only cops with experience, meaning cops that have experience with a gun being pointed or fired at them or something to that extent. I'm not going to believe that most cops fit this definition, but a well trained and experienced officer will deal with the problem better. I am aware of shootings that have been stopped by careful and considerate CC holders. I think this is a good thing but I really don't think it'll hold out to be the average event in a case where we rely on CC holders as a form of protection, and a sense of deterrent. I'm not dead set convinced of my beliefs, but I am sure of the falability of peoples reactions. No I wouldn't rather we wait for police, and I'd rather there be no collateral damage, there is no situation that fulfils anyones sense of "winning" in this situation. Maybe earlier in the argument I had more zeal for this but I've sort of looked at my beliefs in this argument and it is hard to argue that CC doesn't have it's benefits, I've seen enough sources while searching for evidence for my arguments to actually feel like neither CC or police have any chance of really meeting what we want. But it's impossible for me to really think that relying on inexperienced individuals in a situation which is more chaotic than either you or I can actually literally understand, to act correctly every time. There's no reason to really prefer police on this either, though anyone who's been in a life and death situation on a number of occasions is likely going to handle these things better than we would or other inexpeirenced individuals. Now I dunno where I'm going with this from here really. Thanks for the argument though. I'm glad I was challenged in my beliefs

My mother brings up a point when I was talking to her about this. What if the killer planned this? Not to say he didn't. But what if he went to ranges, practiced shooting. What if he got a lay out of the school, and knew when kids would be clumped together? I hate to say that, but truly.. What if someone starts thinking these things through.. The damage it could cause.

[QUOTE=Mr, Jukebox;38833139]Just going to say that there's never going to be a way to prevent things such as this incident from happening. There will always be crazy people in this world and we'll never be able to actually stop these things from occurring by banning or allowing more guns. Like someone said earlier in this thread, there was also a mass stabbing in China. That guy was mentally ill, and he didn't even need a gun to cause such massive harm. If someone is truly sick in the head, they will use whatever they can acquire to cause as much damage as possible. If you ban guns, then they'll just find some other way to kill because that's what they want to do. They could go somewhere and just buy a gun off the streets, or maybe go to a nearby store and buy a baseball bat, or make their own gun from scratch. What I'm trying to say is that you can't argue about regulations with weapons because no matter what, stuff like this is going to happen. It's just a part of life, and you really just can't do anything to stop people from doing things like this since you can't tell who is crazy or not, or what people around you are thinking. A man could be right next to you about to rob you when you're outside. He could have anything from a gun to a knife to just plain fighting skills. You don't know what the person is capable of at all, and it will almost always be unexpected when something bad happens like this because you don't know their intentions. Don't know if this makes sense. I just typed this very quickly, but I hope someone understands my point... I'm aware that I've probably restated a few things and will probably be showered in boxes, but whatever.[/QUOTE] Yep, this is what I've believed for years. You can't completely stop this kind of stuff, if someone really wants to do something horrible like a shooting, they'll find a way. All you can hope is that the procedures in place can reduce the damage as it's happening and after. Knee-jerk regulations, etc that stem from extreme emotional response aren't going to bump that prevention rate up to 100%. The media needs to drop this stuff quickly, harsh as it may seem, because putting the shooter's name out there and building his infamy is only adding to his "glory" and encouraging copy cats. Let him die anonymous and unknown if you really want to hurt him and the people who do things like that.

[QUOTE=Ghost101;38833599]Yep, this is what I've believed for years. You can't completely stop this kind of stuff, if someone really wants to do something horrible like a shooting, they'll find a way. All you can hope is that the procedures in place can reduce the damage as it's happening and after. Knee-jerk regulations, etc that stem from extreme emotional response aren't going to bump that prevention rate up to 100%.[/QUOTE] no but anything that will reduce mass murder by any amount is good

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833547]Except the EU has established a minimum baseline, and is seeking to push for stricter gun control. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/europe/29iht-29union.4.8530991.html?_r=0[/url] [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] They also don't think making gun control more lenient is going to help,[/QUOTE] Actually, they've said the laws should be based on fact and research, and the truth about those facts and that research is it often doesn't show any benefit to gun control (especially in Canada), meaning if you were to base laws on the recommendation of criminologists, they actually would, in many cases, be advocating more lenient gun control, but addressing the real factors that cause violent crime, the problems with society that cause it.

and its not fucking kneejerk, this isn't a new concept. this happens multiple times a year and we have the same discussion over and over again, we've been having it for fuckin decades yet somehow its still "kneejerk"

[QUOTE=SatansSin;38833584]My mother brings up a point when I was talking to her about this. What if the killer planned this? Not to say he didn't. But what if he went to ranges, practiced shooting. What if he got a lay out of the school, and knew when kids would be clumped together? I hate to say that, but truly.. What if someone starts thinking these things through.. The damage it could cause.[/QUOTE] What if he did? I don't know what it changes. Columbine was kinda planned, more or less.

In response to Sobotnik: [B]Is this why most of Europe lives under tyrants? I better call my local MP to tell them that we live in an autocracy.[/B] A lot of Europe does not live under tyrants because it has healthier states of various societies that exist in it. United States has a visible capacity of living under tyrants because its current society is ultimately unhealthy and disturbed, and requires a natural barrier to prevent obscenities from occurring regularly, knowing that everyone has a gun, would deter a significant portion of people from trying to attempt anything funny. [B]Such as?[/B] Control of the media and art forms, high crime counts, highest number of incarcerated citizens, drowning in materialism, a significant portion of things being done for the personal benefit of higher ups, corrupted government and corporate worlds, there are really too many things to list. [B] It would also make the murderers job much harder.[/B] Not particularly, prohibition never works, and someone who is truly interested in an instrument of death, would always find a way of acquiring it, regardless of how tight the supposed control laws actually are. [B]You do realise Plato lived over 2000 years ago in a society utterly unlike that of today?[/B] As species, we have really not evolved in our actual behaviors since then whatsoever. We still make exactly the same mistakes, have exactly the same desires and illusions, and are really the same people overall. There is a quote stating "Science made us gods before we were worthy of being men" which applies to this situation quite fully.

A gun debate? Seriously?

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38833641]A gun debate? Seriously?[/QUOTE] It always happens, because it's easier to debate gun control than to psychoanalyze the shooter and actually try and find warning signs before these things happen.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38833641]A gun debate? Seriously?[/QUOTE] yes try to stay calm i know you are very shocked right now but (brace yourself): in wake of the 2nd shooting spree this week people are considering dealing with gun control

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38833641]A gun debate? Seriously?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=verynicelady;38833436]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]