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

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38833418]Circular Argument[/QUOTE] Okay,[I] First off[/I] : The reason a law abiding citizen in the united states can own a firearm,airgun,bow, bludgeon,bigfuckingknife,tacticalgermanshepard Is to ensure that the rights of aforementioned civilian are never to be infringed upon by any Government, Hostile Militia,Or any hostile entity; the removal of said rights would lead to one if not all of those things happening. [I]Second:[/I] If you take someones gun that not going to prevent a murder, if anything the assailant would just have to be a bit more creative. If you look at the car bombings in Ireland and south america, you will find [U]guns aren't the only things that kill people[/U]. I believe someone also mentioned the bat-shit crazy Chinese man that stab a couple dozen kids. [I]Third[/I] The argument that old-time philosophy and legislature are irrelevant, is irrelevant due to the fact that at the drafting and development of said terms, your average everyday citizen could get hold of some really devastating shit such as cannons, high powered musket with rifled barrels, dragoons, blunderbusses and fucking hand grenades(See:American Revolution).[B] If a citizen of the day could own a fucking cannon then why shouldn't I be allowed to own a Glock? [/B] By the way you never gave me your sources.

Don't wander too far off topic - posts of opinions about gun control should be linked in some way to the events in the news story [Editline]Edited:[/Editline] Also I'm puzzled as to why the few people who try to point out that better mental health care might prevent this sort of thing are mostly ignored.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38833515]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] I do admit that I sounded way too gimmicky in that sentence.

[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][/QUOTE] [quote]individuals age 18 and over will be able to buy and own a firearm, provided they are not deemed a threat to public safety. Individuals under 18 will only be able to obtain a gun for hunting or target shooting under the supervision of a licensed adult. To plug holes in the current system, in which the registration of guns is not consistent across the 27-member bloc, each member state will be obliged to set up a computerized database of firearms, including details about their model, caliber, serial number and the names and addresses of both the seller and the buyer.[/quote] [quote]Under the proposed legislation, a weapon such as a hunting rifle can be purchased at a gun shop, where that person must register the gun and prove the lack of a criminal record. Those seeking to acquire weapons such as a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon are subject to more stringent controls, including a requirement to get authorization from a local authority, which typically conducts a background check and requires that the purchaser pass an exam.[/quote] It pretty much already works like this. Always has. [quote]He stressed, however, that gun control laws did little to prevent criminality, since criminals typically acquired guns by illegal means. "There are strong hunting traditions in Europe - in France, Spain, Sweden and Finland and elsewhere - and this culture must be respected," he said. "Criminality is linked to social factors. Gun crimes are more prevalent in the U.S. because American society is generally more violent than in Europe. Austria and Sweden have relatively permissive gun laws, for example, and the incidence of gun crime in these countries is comparatively low." He added that it was nevertheless unfair to accuse the United States of having a laissez-faire attitude to gun control, since regulations differed sharply from state to state.[/quote] So uh, pretty much what I have already said?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38833577]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[/QUOTE] I'm glad we can come to a reasonable, clam conclusion. I don't like leaving an argument with either party being mad or harbouring hatred towards each other, and I'm sorry if I was misinterpreting some of the things you were saying.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;38833664]Okay,[I] First off[/I] : The reason a law abiding citizen in the united states can own a firearm,airgun,bow, bludgeon,bigfuckingknife,tacticalgermanshepard Is to ensure that the rights of aforementioned civilian are never to be infringed upon by any Government, Hostile Militia,Or any hostile entity; the removal of said rights would lead to one if not all of those things happening.[/quote] nah dude background checks, waiting periods and buying from a licensed dealer won't affect your gun/dog ownership in any significant way sorry [QUOTE=snapshot32;38833664][I]Second:[/I] If you take someones gun that not going to prevent a murder, if anything the assailant would just have to be a bit more creative. If you look at the car bombings in Ireland and south america, you will find [U]guns aren't the only things that kill people[/U]. I believe someone also mentioned the bat-shit crazy Chinese man that stab a couple dozen kids.[/QUOTE] have you heard the expression "cross that bridge when we come to it"? its the same with car bombings, stabbings, and any other nonsensical comparison you guys try to come up with to pretend guns aren't efficient killing machines. when car bombs are killing large groups of people on a bi-monthly basis we'll crack down on car sales [QUOTE=snapshot32;38833664][I]Third[/I] The argument that old-time philosophy and legislature are irrelevant, is irrelevant due to the fact that at the drafting and development of said terms, your average everyday citizen could get hold of some really devastating shit such as cannons, high powered musket with rifled barrels, dragoons, blunderbusses and fucking hand grenades(See:American Revolution).[B] If a citizen of the day could own a fucking cannon then why shouldn't I be allowed to own a Glock? [/B][/QUOTE] because owning a cannon is fucking stupid

[QUOTE=demoguy08;38833517]Yeah this sounds like a healthy society.[/QUOTE] Please inform us of your vision in relation to a healthy society. I think that having defense tools available to everyone, does not make a society any less unhealthy than having shovels available to everyone. It is the same thing as there not being bad knowledge, only bad application, except with guns, or shovels for that matter.

People always say after a shooting like this that "Today isn't the day to talk about gun control." but with a shooting every other week it seems like it's a never good time to talk about it. Honestly today IS the day to talk about it, to make it known. It's not too soon, it's already too late. [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-address-issue-gun-control-through-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC[/url]

[QUOTE=verynicelady;38833670]Don't wander too far off topic - posts of opinions about gun control should be linked in some way to the events in the news story [Editline]Edited:[/Editline] Also I'm puzzled as to why the few people who try to point out that better mental health care might prevent this sort of thing are mostly ignored.[/QUOTE] because everyone already agrees on that, we just don't agree that it should stop at mental health

[QUOTE=verynicelady;38833670]Don't wander too far off topic - posts of opinions about gun control should be linked in some way to the events in the news story [Editline]Edited:[/Editline] Also I'm puzzled as to why the few people who try to point out that better mental health care might prevent this sort of thing are mostly ignored.[/QUOTE] The argument has never been that we should ignore the mental health of our society and just go forward with gun control. No one has ever suggested that mental health should be ignored. It's just that doing both could help solve the problems with America and it's horrible mass-shooting epidemic

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;38832932][img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/222339_176779289134879_1363867000_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That top part is really badly written Hungarian. Pretty much says what's on the bottom part [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] Why would he write this stuff in Hungarian though, addressed to his mother? Was his mother Hungarian, maybe?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;38833703]People always say after a shooting like this that "Today isn't the day to talk about gun control." but with a shooting every other week it seems like it's a never good time to talk about it. Honestly today IS the day to talk about it, to make it known. It's not too soon, it's already too late. [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-address-issue-gun-control-through-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC[/url][/QUOTE] "Powerful lobbying groups allow the ownership of guns to reach beyond the Constitution's intended purpose of the right to bear arms." This person obviously hasn't looked up any quotes from the founding fathers as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. "laws are the only means in which we can reduce the number of people murdered in gun related deaths." No, trying to provide services to the disadvantaged and mental health help to the citizenry are both far more effective ways to reduce the number of people murdered, which as been declining since the late '80s in the US, since it addresses the societal problems around murder, not the objects used in the crime.

The level of retardation here is astounding. [url]http://www.facebook.com/masseffect?ref=ts&fref=ts[/url]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38833744]The argument has never been that we should ignore the mental health of our society and just go forward with gun control. No one has ever suggested that mental health should be ignored. It's just that doing both could help solve the problems with America and it's horrible mass-shooting epidemic[/QUOTE] Guns would be naturally less needed as social health is managed, but they should always stay there just incase the social health program experiences... complications Even if social health dramatically improves, guns should still be as wide spread as possible in case social health suddenly plummets again. We all know that empires can collapse within days, or even hours.

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;38833764]The level of retardation here is astounding. [url]http://www.facebook.com/masseffect?ref=ts&fref=ts[/url][/QUOTE] what?

jesus christ, shut the fuck up about your precious 2nd amendment for a day you vultures.

[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] Do you honestly think that I mindlessly fell back on some "ancient quote" only to automatically regurgitate it and use it as a desperate shield? I would never use a quote from ANYONE without being familiar with its message, and being certain of its truthfulness. Plato made mistakes just like any other human being, and I would never use a poor quote from anyone, regardless of who they are or when they are.

My Biology teacher told us about the shooting in 6th period today. She said it was a sad occurence and that she saw it on the news earlier. She played Pandora on her phone. This song started playing. [video=youtube;T3ldsF65cLM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ldsF65cLM[/video]

[QUOTE=Lazor;38833799]jesus christ, shut the fuck up about your precious 2nd amendment for a day you vultures.[/QUOTE] Shut up about your 1st amendment you rodent..... See, I can do it too.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/url] I will not make an argument here Just want to point out that the USA has a homicide by gun rate of around 3 per 100000 which is not bad compared to plenty of countries It is just kinda weird that it is slightly more than the West Bank and Gaza In most countries as rich as the USA, the rate is less than 0.5

Jesus christ.. just what the fuck, these were god damn children.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38833781]what?[/QUOTE] I imagine he was trying to copy-and-paste something, but failed at the copying part leading to him accidentally pasting the last thing he had copied.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833814]Shut up about your 1st amendment you rodent..... See, I can do it too.[/QUOTE] please just end your life nobody's going to take your precious god damned guns. it's more sacred than the fucking third rail at this point and if you can't take a day off defending from some imaginary assault on your liberties then just fuck off [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] your priorities are super fucked up if right now all you can think about is gun rights [highlight](User was banned for this post ("End your life, fuck off? This is not rational discussion. Take a break and calm down" - verynicelady))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=person11;38833817][URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/URL] I will not make an argument here Just want to point out that the USA has a homicide by gun rate of around 3 per 100000 which is not bad compared to plenty of countries It is just kinda weird that it is slightly more than the West Bank and Gaza In most countries as rich as the USA, the rate is less than 0.5[/QUOTE] It's because most firearm owners are responsible. However, from what the news want's to say, the minority of whack-jobs with guns is made out to be the majority of gun owners. It's pretty sad. Had the guy gone in and killed everyone with a knife, they wouldn't call for a ban on knives. The thing is fucked up, lots of little kids died, but guns weren't the culprit, the person wielding them is. Had anyone else in that school had a sidearm, they could have saved lives.

[QUOTE=Lazor;38833832]please just end your life nobody's going to take your precious god damned guns. it's more sacred than the fucking third rail at this point and if you can't take a day off defending from some imaginary assault on your liberties then just fuck off [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] your priorities are super fucked up if right now all you can think about is gun rights[/QUOTE] That's a high quality response. Your response also allows me to ignore you because your insults defeat themselves.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833814]Shut up about your 1st amendment you rodent..... See, I can do it too.[/QUOTE] in the current social situation of the US, i can see several reasons why to either: heavily revise the 2nd Amendment as it stands enact stricter firearm regulations there's no need for to be sarcastic about it

We need tighter screening. Don't sell shit to people who have mental disorders. Shouldn't that be common sense? Personally, I think more people (responsible people) need to carry sidearms. Had anyone in that school had a gun, they could have stopped the guy. I know it's a tad different for a highschool, but we always had a cop in the building at all times with a sidearm.

If only those kids were armed... [sp]satire you scrubfucks[/sp]

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38833702]Please inform us of your vision in relation to a healthy society. I think that having defense tools available to everyone, does not make a society any less unhealthy than having shovels available to everyone. It is the same thing as there not being bad knowledge, only bad application, except with guns, or shovels for that matter.[/QUOTE] A healthy society is a society where you [I]don't[/I] need guns to the extreme extent that you describe because people have some basic level of respect and trust in their fellow citizens. By handing everyone guns and training you are by all means telling them to trust no one and expect the worst at every street corner. It wouldn't be a stable society, it would be a virtual war zone.

Similar case happened in the UK, semi auto pistols were banned.