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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38836921]Most firearms used in crimes are legally owned.[/QUOTE] Source?

It's kinda scary knowing that about 30 minutes away from where I live this was all happening.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38836907]if i'm not mistaken your Saiga conversion should take longer to ship because of clearing an assault rifle (or foreign made parts? i can't remember) with the ATF, not because of background checks or waiting periods[/QUOTE] Partly right, mostly wrong. They have to disassemble it, remachine certain parts to be in the correct configuration, add all the wanted accessories, mill some new parts, test it, and do this on top of hundreds of similar orders. Granted, they have to wait for some parts to arrive, but that doesn't take too long at all. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;38836943]and why are long waiting times, in respect to regulations, are bad can you share this detail on why it's bad?[/QUOTE] I never said it was bad. I just said he was wrong.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38836895][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM[/media][/QUOTE] I like Penn and Penn and Tellers Bullshit from an entertainment perspective, but them being libertarians I find their political positions disagreeable. Linking a small excerpt from their show doesn't really do much for your argument other than tell me that two people who support the second amendment and the idea that the constitution is an immutable piece of legislation given to us by the perfectly prescient Founding Fathers interpret it literally.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;38836927]Some states are even allowing Open carry now. its crazy. I also don't get why "BAN GUNS" is even someones opinion. Do you really think criminals who intend to harm someone care if their gun is legal or not. That takes guns out of civilians hands and puts it into people buying them illegally, which are most likely criminals. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.[/QUOTE] My state's open carry. Yay! :v:

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38836881]No, but I can blame the gun control system for being racist, and I can also blame how miserable a failure it has been for the frequency of muggins and murders there[/QUOTE] well you did was basically blamed gun control for causing widespread corruption and all sorts of problems in a country that doesnt even seem to have the power to even properly run itself, let alone enforce gun control [quote]No, because the law doesn't magically stop someone from using their gun to kill their wife.[/QUOTE] except it arrests them for that and puts them in jail [quote]I went over much of this in that miserable thread you made in mass debate, where you stonewalled any counter-argument with ignorance and denial. I see no real point in repeating it, as it would just be met with the same.[/QUOTE] thats because your hobby is pretty awful and defending the privilege to carry firearms whilst they proliferate throughout the country seems a good way to help solve crime [quote]No, I argued being able to carry them would help.[/quote] they dont [quote]That has nothing to do with the number of guns.[quote] yes it does, it makes it easier for people to acquire and use them [quote]I've also already addressed to you that America is at a 40-year low in murder rate despite the number of guns per 100 people being at an all-time high.[/QUOTE] and can this be attributed to guns? [quote]Which is defending part of the purpose and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Also, why is the increased use of guns for sport a bad thing? [/QUOTE] sports isnt the only reason, and the second amendment is antiquated [QUOTE]Do you have a press release from the NRA dated today where they push for less gun control?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/12/michigan-bill-repealing-handgun-license-to-purchase-passes-senate,-goes-to-house-for-concurrence-vote.aspx[/url] [QUOTE]And they may be in the US, but literally everywhere else they're minuscule, and they're gaining traction in the US as well.[/QUOTE] if they are, then good

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38836954]Partly right, mostly wrong. They have to disassemble it, remachine certain parts to be in the correct configuration, add all the wanted accessories, mill some new parts, test it, and do this on top of hundreds of similar orders. Granted, they have to wait for some parts to arrive, but that doesn't take too long at all. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] I never said it was bad. I just said he was wrong.[/QUOTE] that sounds like manufacturing, not gun control?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38836895][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM[/media][/QUOTE] did you know this???? penn and teller are defending an ancient document, simply because they assume those people who lived then were hyperintelligent and a homogenous blob of people who agreed on absolutely everything and had incredible foresight you know, it's almost like biblical literalists who peddle bullshit simply because a sentence exists saying that and the supposed writer is "free from criticism".

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38836976]and can this be attributed to guns?[/QUOTE] If it can't be, then that means guns have no affect on crime rates, which would make gun control legislature pointless.

wait saiga is manufactured by izmash isnt it? izmash is russian, thats import/export laws (so i was right about foreign parts), not gun control, or at least not gun control that i care about enforcing

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837002]penn and teller are defending an ancient document[/QUOTE] It's not just an ancient document dude. It's the law.

I think being Bullying is a critical factor to people who rampage. The Columbine school shooting and Virginia Tech shooting had gunmen who were bullied during their lives. Which gave them a reason to hate the world.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38836855]Yes. America's infatuation with firearms is an unsettling phenomenon that, as far as I am aware, doesn't extend to any other first would country. It's part of the reasons you see some of the absurd arguments in this thread, where people having a gun is the end-all solution to every problem that comes up in our day to day life, and that the world would just be safer if we got more guns. A society where everyone is armed against everyone else is not one I want to live in. This is not an actual part of the Brady Campaign's platform Again, have not actually heard anything about this. Can you cite specific examples? Is endorsing gun control a "fear campaign"? I do have this excerpt from their webpage Chilling in it's moderation What pundits do in their spare time is none of my concern and shouldn't be yours either. That said, I can't actually find a recording of this right now so take that how you will But gun control does work, on a local, state, and federal level. Countries with much stricter gun control than America have vastly lower gun homicide rates than the United States. Now, whether or not we should insistute the same policies as all of those other countries do is a different question entirely, but it's preposterous to say that there is no amount of gun control that can stop someone from getting a gun. This is statistically false. Mass stabbings tend to injure as many people but kill far less. Bi-weekly, as in two happened in one week. Hopefully two don't happen next week Sure thing. Does the NRA count as a reliable source? [url]http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters%60.aspx[/url] [url]http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm[/url] It's called the NRA complex. Gun manufacturers give money to the NRA, who then creates fear and propaganda, which drives up gun sales, and both parties benefit And no the reason NRA members are polling against the NRA itself isn't due to partisan bickery, it's because the NRA is putting business interests ahead of it's members interests, by letting criminals and possibly terrorists easily buy firearms Pro gun and gun control advocates have both said that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was weak, poorly put together legislation. Stop holding it up as the prime failure of every gun control measure ever, and more importantly as a barricade to discussion Again, pretty pro-firearms. But there is merit to the conversation that yes, maybe assault rifles that were designed specifically to kill human beings shouldn't be atleast easy for civilians to get their hands on. Just maybe that is where we draw the line. If every other nation's weapon bans are nonsensical and cosmetic, how come they have so much less problems with guns than us? Just so we are clear you are still talking about people who aren't in this thread right? Because again, no one actually here in the thread you are replying to has said that gun control of any variety would completely halt mass shootings or mass murders fullstop.[/QUOTE] To address the core things in this, it's from videos I've seen of Brady Campaign members presenting and arguing, can't find them now, as to Bloomberg it was a news article from a few months ago, where he planned to be the "counterweight to the NRA" and run massive media campaigns. As to the argument that "gun control works" no it doesn't, it's failed n Detroit, Chicago, California, New York, and Washington D.C. Internationally, there are plenty of countries with higher murder rates than the US but stricter gun control, like Jamaica, South Africa, Mexico, and Venezuela. Speaking form a standpoint of extensive research into Canada's gun control scheme, there was a study done by McMaster University that showcased that none of the gun control efforts enacted in 1995, including arbitrary bans, did anything to help Canada. Other nations have less problems because they provide better support to their citizens, better healthcare, better public services, and better welfare. There's no need to commit crime there, so people don't. Bi-Weekly implies a trend, having 2 shootings in one week is 2 shooting in one week, unless there's 2 shootings next week it's not a bi-weekly matter. A lot of the NRA's arguments about the watchlist are about how inaccurate it is, and that the law would arrest someone if they already owned a gun before being put on the list, even accidentally. As for a ban on "assault weapons" the AWB was based solely on cosmetic factors, it had nothing to do with the function of a gun. There is no difference whatsoever between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi-auto hunting rifle, other than the way they look. They are not designed just to kill people, and that also doesn't mean they don't have sporting applications. People in the US hunt with AR-15s, AK-47s, and handguns all the time. So-called "assault weapons" are a misnomer when applied in modern arguments, and are never defined by function, always only by looks. Those that look "scary" are assault weapons to most uneducated people and to the mass media. Truthfully, real "assault rifles" have been banned since 1986 in the US, as an assault rifle has full-auto capabilities. In the modern world, the calls for bans are based on things like if it accepts a pistol grip, a foregrip, has a rail, a barrel shroud, and a "shoulder thing that goes up." It has nothing to do with function.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38837011]It's not just an ancient document dude. It's the law.[/QUOTE] except dumb laws exist

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38836995]that sounds like manufacturing, not gun control?[/QUOTE] I never said it was gun control. I was just using it as an example to show you that it takes more than a week to receive a gun.

[QUOTE=Jurikuer;38836896]What establishment is she referring to? Because uh...in most cases people like things without knowing the person who made it.[/QUOTE] It was like a restaurant or something. She dumb. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bleach Qeef;38836908]I'm glad Illinois just made concealed carry legal.[/QUOTE] technically the federal courts made it legal

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38837020]I never said it was gun control. I was just using it as an example to show you that it takes more than a week to receive a gun.[/QUOTE] ok well we were talking about gun control but thanks for sharing? i am in fact aware that guns dont magically materialize in your hands when you confirm your purchase

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38837026]i am in fact aware that guns dont magically materialize in your hands when you confirm your purchase[/QUOTE] If only they did. I'd get a ma deuce and go shoot some watermelons. :v:

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38837011]It's not just an ancient document dude. It's the law.[/QUOTE] you know a 'law' can be revised, right? you know what else is the law? look at laws concerning gum in singapore

[QUOTE=Ownederd;38837061]you know a 'law' can be revised, right? you know what else is the law? look at laws concerning gum in singapore[/QUOTE] They have laws about GUM? This'll be a laugh. [editline]15th December, 2012[/editline] Wow, that is probably the stupidest law I have ever seen.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38836976]well you did was basically blamed gun control for causing widespread corruption and all sorts of problems in a country that doesnt even seem to have the power to even properly run itself, let alone enforce gun control[/quote] No, I said gun control is ineffective because of widespread corruption. [quote]except it arrests them for that and puts them in jail[/quote] The woman is still dead, the man is arrested for murder then, nothing to do with gun control. [quote][B]thats because your hobby is pretty awful [/B]and defending the privilege to carry firearms whilst they proliferate throughout the country seems a good way to help solve crime[/quote] Ad hominem attacks now? This is disgusting how ignorant and bigoted you are. [quote]they dont[/quote] Yes they do. [quote]yes it does, it makes it easier for people to acquire and use them[/quote] Being allowed to carry a gun doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to get it, just that you can do more with it once you have it. [quote]and can this be attributed to guns?[/quote] No, and that's exactly it, there are more guns but less murder. No correlation at all. [quote]sports isnt the only reason, and the second amendment is antiquated [/quote] So then should we repeal the 1st amendment that allows for free speech? After all, it's antiquated, therefore it must be irrelevant. The argument that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated and supposedly irrelevant is itself irrelevant. [quote][url]http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/12/michigan-bill-repealing-handgun-license-to-purchase-passes-senate,-goes-to-house-for-concurrence-vote.aspx[/url][/quote] I said from today, and preferably directly referencing this shooting as a reason. This is from the 12th. [quote]if they are, then good[/QUOTE] Yes, it's great that they're using fallacies, lies, and fear to strip people's rights and freedoms away, despite there being factual, scientific evidence that the laws are useless and unfounded. Atrocious. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837016]except dumb laws exist[/QUOTE] Yes, like Britain's Law 9, the one about hate speech that gets people arrested over Facebook comments. Or their laws banning handguns because of the actions of one person. Or similar laws in Canada, and Australia.

Tim Schafer said it best imo [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MHbuH.png[/IMG] All those people don't realize THEY are helping continue the now tradition of mass shootings every year or so (if you average it out cause some years have none, but others have like 2 or 3). It reminds me so much of those "don be bias pls :(" "in the middle" people who are the driving force behind political apathy.

[QUOTE=faze;38834548]BTW - The guns [I]were[/I] stolen. From his mother.[/QUOTE] make safes with locks mandatory problem solveth

[QUOTE=Neat!;38837108]make safes with locks mandatory problem solveth[/QUOTE] in an imaginary world where every murder is committed with guns stolen from your mom yeah

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38837073]No, I said gun control is ineffective because of widespread corruption.[/QUOTE] hence it cannot be blamed because its not being fucking enforced properly [QUOTE]The woman is still dead, the man is arrested for murder then, nothing to do with gun control.[/QUOTE] and what if gun control (god forbid) helped prevent that? [QUOTE]Ad hominem attacks now? This is disgusting how ignorant and bigoted you are.[/QUOTE] you are trying to defend a dumb law that gives you a privilege to carry firearms because you think that if only the teachers were armed, this would not have happened [QUOTE]Being allowed to carry a gun doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to get it, just that you can do more with it once you have it.[/QUOTE] easier to carry around and use in all sorts of situations, like shooting people [QUOTE]No, and that's exactly it, there are more guns but less murder. No correlation at all.[/QUOTE] and have studies been done looking into a absolute number of handguns in a geographic area, comparing it to another similar one to see if the absolute number of handguns correlate with homicides? [QUOTE]So then should we repeal the 1st amendment that allows for free speech? After all, it's antiquated, therefore it must be irrelevant. The argument that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated and supposedly irrelevant is itself irrelevant.[/QUOTE] except that's a fallacious argument "oh, so you say this specific old law is dumb? lets get rid of all of them then" [QUOTE]I said from today, and preferably directly referencing this shooting as a reason. This is from the 12th.[/QUOTE] it barely happened a few hours ago [QUOTE]Yes, it's great that they're using fallacies, lies, and fear to strip people's rights and freedoms away, despite there being factual, scientific evidence that the laws are useless and unfounded. Atrocious.[/QUOTE] and somehow pro gun lobbies arent? [QUOTE]Yes, like Britain's Law 9, the one about hate speech that gets people arrested over Facebook comments. Or their laws banning handguns because of the actions of one person. Or similar laws in Canada, and Australia.[/QUOTE] well yes those are dumb laws the second amendment is a dumb law, the original purpose for which it was intended, no longer exists

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38837015]To address the core things in this, it's from videos I've seen of Brady Campaign members presenting and arguing, can't find them now, as to Bloomberg it was a news article from a few months ago, where he planned to be the "counterweight to the NRA" and run massive media campaigns.[/QUOTE] This seems like pretty typical publicization to me. Did they do or say anything noteworthy that came across as just trying to spread fear or hate of gun owners? I have to ask because you can't link them apparently. [QUOTE] As to the argument that "gun control works" no it doesn't, it's failed n Detroit, Chicago, California, New York, and Washington D.C. Internationally, there are plenty of countries with higher murder rates than the US but stricter gun control, like Jamaica, South Africa, Mexico, and Venezuela. Speaking form a standpoint of extensive research into Canada's gun control scheme, there was a study done by McMaster University that showcased that none of the gun control efforts enacted in 1995, including arbitrary bans, did anything to help Canada. Other nations have less problems because they provide better support to their citizens, better healthcare, better public services, and better welfare. There's no need to commit crime there, so people don't.[/QUOTE] Yet there are places that have stricter gun control than the United States and have lower murder rates, such as Germany and Japan. The problem with your argument is your black and white outlook. Strict gun control doesn't mean there will be more or less crime, and vice versa for complete freedom. There are examples of either existing all across the world and even in the US itself. I also don't understand the latter half of your argument. Is better healthcare and public services mutually exclusive with gun control? [QUOTE] Bi-Weekly implies a trend, having 2 shootings in one week is 2 shooting in one week, unless there's 2 shootings next week it's not a bi-weekly matter.[/QUOTE] You are arguing semantics and getting hung up on a minor point. [QUOTE] A lot of the NRA's arguments about the watchlist are about how inaccurate it is, and that the law would arrest someone if they already owned a gun before being put on the list, even accidentally.[/QUOTE] No, the problem with the watchlist is that it reduces the maximum amount of people who could buy guns from manufacturers who need to be paid. The NRA doesn't care if kids die in a school massacre, why would they care about a theoretical false negative? [QUOTE]As for a ban on "assault weapons" the AWB was based solely on cosmetic factors, it had nothing to do with the function of a gun. There is no difference whatsoever between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi-auto hunting rifle, other than the way they look. They are not designed just to kill people, and that also doesn't mean they don't have sporting applications. People in the US hunt with AR-15s, AK-47s, and handguns all the time. So-called "assault weapons" are a misnomer when applied in modern arguments, and are never defined by function, always only by looks. Those that look "scary" are assault weapons to most uneducated people and to the mass media. Truthfully, real "assault rifles" have been banned since 1986 in the US, as an assault rifle has full-auto capabilities. In the modern world, the calls for bans are based on things like if it accepts a pistol grip, a foregrip, has a rail, a barrel shroud, and a "shoulder thing that goes up." It has nothing to do with function.[/QUOTE] Yes thank you for the history lesson I know all of this. Sorry my replies are coming in slow, actually sourcing shit takes time. [QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38836947]Source?[/QUOTE] I'm having trouble finding the data specifically right now, most of my sources keep linking this: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011[/url] without actually saying where the table is. There is also a Department of Justice page that is 404'ing here: [URL]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm[/URL] But basically the vast majority, possibly 95% of gun crimes are commited by people who stole a weapon legally owned by someone else.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38837167]This seems like pretty typical publicization to me. Did they do or say anything noteworthy that came across as just trying to spread fear or hate of gun owners? I have to ask because you can't link them apparently. Yet there are places that have stricter gun control than the United States and have lower murder rates, such as Germany and Japan. The problem with your argument is your black and white outlook. Strict gun control doesn't mean there will be more or less crime, and vice versa for complete freedom. There are examples of either existing all across the world and even in the US itself. I also don't understand the latter half of your argument. Is better healthcare and public services mutually exclusive with gun control? You are arguing semantics and getting hung up on a minor point. No, the problem with the watchlist is that it reduces the maximum amount of people who could buy guns from manufacturers who need to be paid. The NRA doesn't care if kids die in a school massacre, why would they care about a theoretical false negative? Yes thank you for the history lesson I know all of this. Sorry my replies are coming in slow, actually sourcing shit takes time. I'm having trouble finding the data specifically right now, most of my sources keep linking this: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011[/url] without actually saying where the table is. There is also a Department of Justice page that is 404'ing here: [URL]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm[/URL] But basically the vast majority, possibly 95% of gun crimes are commited by people who stole a weapon legally owned by someone else.[/QUOTE] Can't find an article from a month and a half ago, so I'm going to drop the assertions on Bloomberg and Brady. You also just defeated your argument, you agreed that gun control is not necessarily what leads to lower or higher crime rates. I was asserting that it is moreso the societal differences making people not want to commit crime and helping them with issues so they don't, not their gun control laws. To try and assert that the NRA doesn't care if people die in a massacre is demonizing them, it's a hyperbole. At any point that these shootings happen, the NRA always agrees they're a tragedy. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837152]hence it cannot be blamed because its not being fucking enforced properly and what if gun control (god forbid) helped prevent that? you are trying to defend a dumb law that gives you a privilege to carry firearms because you think that if only the teachers were armed, this would not have happened easier to carry around and use in all sorts of situations, like shooting people and have studies been done looking into a absolute number of handguns in a geographic area, comparing it to another similar one to see if the absolute number of handguns correlate with homicides? except that's a fallacious argument "oh, so you say this specific old law is dumb? lets get rid of all of them then" it barely happened a few hours ago and somehow pro gun lobbies arent? well yes those are dumb laws the second amendment is a dumb law, the original purpose for which it was intended, no longer exists[/QUOTE] Yes, corruption can indeed be blamed for failed gun control. And the thing is that gun control laws DON'T prevent those kinds of domestic violence shootings from happening. We don't live in some sort of ideal world where registering a gun makes it unable to commit a crime, gun control laws don't stop these kinds of crimes, or those kinds of crimes. As to have their been studies... handguns, yes, there have, by Harvard: [url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/url] Countries in continental Europe that disallow handguns tend to have higher murder rates. As for the 2nd being dumb and it's purpose not existing, the Japanese didn't invade the US in 1941 because of how many guns the US has: "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- A Japanese Admiral 15 years after VJ day on why Japan didn't invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor. And claiming the only reason the 2nd Amendment should be abolished is because it's "antiquated" is a fallacy itself. I was simply applying your flawed logic to showcase how useless and senseless it is. And no, pro gun lobbies are basing their arguments, especially in Canada, on facts and evidence. The problem is the media doesn't care about facts or evidence, they want sensationalist bullshit, and the anti-gun lobby here is brilliant at bullshit.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38837270]text[/QUOTE] please don't confuse stricter regulations as 'anti-gun'

[QUOTE=Ownederd;38837304]please don't confuse stricter regulations as 'anti-gun'[/QUOTE] Where I'm from, the 2 terms are synonymous.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38837323]Where I'm from, the 2 terms are synonymous.[/QUOTE] people in your backwoods village aren't very smart then