Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[exranger06]

97tbird: You're (partially) right. Guns are much more effective, efficient killing machines than knives and screwdrivers. Which is exactly why we need to keep them legal and in the hands of law-abiding citizens. If you are in a public place and some maniac starts shooting at you and everyone else in sight, do you want your fellow man trying to save your life with a knife or screwdriver? Or would you rather have him use his legally-owned and responsibly-used gun to effectively take out the attacker?

Lunatics like this target schools because they KNOW guns aren't allowed there and everyone is a sitting duck with nothing better than a screwdriver to defend themselves. If we have some armed personnel in schools, nobody would try attacking them.

This whole tragedy has motivated me to start getting my documents in order to get my pistol permit, something I've been meaning to do for the past few months.

 

[97tbird]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
If you are in a public place and some maniac starts shooting at you and everyone else in sight, do you want your fellow man trying to save your life with a knife or screwdriver? Or would you rather have him use his legally-owned and responsibly-used gun to effectively take out the attacker?


In how many mass shootings in a school (there are many, but I am sure you know the list of them that happened over the last few decades), or the Gabrielle Giffords (sp?) shooting, or the Batman theater shooting did an armed, law-abiding citizen use a legally-owned gun and take out the attacker and and prevent the killings like you described?

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
LOL all the arguments in the defense of un-restricted all out gun use



All the inanimate objects that people have used to kill since the dawn of man, would be no threat to anyone, if someone didn't intentionally pick them up and use them for that purpose.

Here's a link to the deadliest school massacre, in US history. Note that no guns were used.

Bath School massacre

And since when has there been "un-restricted all out gun use"? There are laws in every State in the Union that stipulate who can legally purchase a firearm.

But again, these laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about and don't abide by civilized society's laws.

The killer, Adam Lanza, didn't own the guns he used. His Mother legally owned them, and he stole them, and killed her with them. I can only imagine the living [censored] she went through for years, dealing with a Son that clearly had a mental illness.


That's the one thing these murderous massacres all have in common; An individual with mental illness.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: exranger06
If you are in a public place and some maniac starts shooting at you and everyone else in sight, do you want your fellow man trying to save your life with a knife or screwdriver? Or would you rather have him use his legally-owned and responsibly-used gun to effectively take out the attacker?


In how many mass shootings in a school (there are many, but I am sure you know the list of them that happened over the last few decades), or the Gabrielle Giffords (sp?) shooting, or the Batman theater shooting did an armed, law-abiding citizen use a legally-owned gun and take out the attacker and and prevent the killings like you described?

None. Because guns weren't allowed in any of those areas. Which is exactly what the problem is. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
I can list many ways weapons that the evil person used the other day that others use for the good.

I'm sorry, but as a whole, the contribution which guns have made to society is a bit questionable in my view.

Of course, that is just my view. You are entitled to your own.




The second part of your post is absolutely correct.

However, the 2nd Amendment is not an opinion. It's one of the founding principles of this great country, second only to free speech. So whether your opinion says that firearms are useful or not is irrelevant.

 

[97tbird]

@ Exaranger:
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, EVERYONE must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, everyone must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.


So don't carry a gun. This country was founded on the principle of the right to bear arms. It doesn't mean the "requirement to bear arms". It also means that whether we have the right to do so should never be up for debate.

 

[97tbird]

I was replying to exranger - if you read his last post, it sure does sound like he thinks everyone MUST have/carry a gun in ALL places, at ALL times.

 

[cchase]

Ooops, I was posting while he was. Sorry!

 

[exranger06]

I
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
@ Exaranger:
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, EVERYONE must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.

Please point out where I said EVERYONE MUST own a gun. Because I didn't. I'm saying massacres occur where the shooter KNOWS that NOBODY will have a gun. If the attacker thinks there's a good possibility that SOMEONE (read: not necessarily EVERYONE) has a gun, he wouldn't try attacking that location.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: exranger06
If you are in a public place and some maniac starts shooting at you and everyone else in sight, do you want your fellow man trying to save your life with a knife or screwdriver? Or would you rather have him use his legally-owned and responsibly-used gun to effectively take out the attacker?


In how many mass shootings in a school (there are many, but I am sure you know the list of them that happened over the last few decades), or the Gabrielle Giffords (sp?) shooting, or the Batman theater shooting did an armed, law-abiding citizen use a legally-owned gun and take out the attacker and and prevent the killings like you described?


According to this, the shooter was partly stopped by a concealed carry permit holder, and once engaged by him, the shooter then killed himself.

 

[buster]

We need to find ways to reduce violence in society.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: buster
We need to find ways to reduce violence in society.


Agreed. And violence in society is completely separate to a discussion of gun "control".

 

[buster]

Right. It may involve it, but it's separate.

 

[97tbird]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
I
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
@ Exaranger:
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, EVERYONE must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.

Please point out where I said EVERYONE MUST own a gun. Because I didn't. I'm saying massacres occur where the shooter KNOWS that NOBODY will have a gun. If the attacker thinks there's a good possibility that SOMEONE (read: not necessarily EVERYONE) has a gun, he wouldn't try attacking that location.


I know you didn't SAY it - but mathematically, and probability wise, how would you ensure that there's at least one good armed person present in every occasion and location where a potential bad guy with a gun can be present, planning a mass-kill? (your view excludes guards, etc - you wanted CIVILIANS to be there to shoot the bad guys)

I think better solution would be to ensure guns are BANNED from public places and ENHANCE the control and ENSURE that really NO ONE gets into a school area/theater, etc.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: exranger06

Please point out where I said EVERYONE MUST own a gun. Because I didn't. I'm saying massacres occur where the shooter KNOWS that NOBODY will have a gun. If the attacker thinks there's a good possibility that SOMEONE (read: not necessarily EVERYONE) has a gun, he wouldn't try attacking that location.


I know you didn't SAY it - but mathematically, and probability wise, how would you ensure that there's at least one good armed person present in every occasion and location where a potential bad guy with a gun can be present, planning a mass-kill? (your view excludes guards, etc - you wanted CIVILIANS to be there to shoot the bad guys)

I think better solution would be to ensure guns are BANNED from public places and ENHANCE the control and ENSURE that really NO ONE gets into a school area/theater, etc.


First of all, my view does not exclude guards. Sure, let's get some armed guards in schools and other areas. The more the merrier. But let civilians be armed too.
Second of all, there doesn't HAVE to be someone armed in every location at all times. It's the POSSIBILITY of someone being armed that is a deterrent. If you ban guns in a certain location, attackers KNOW that they can shoot everyone and no one can fight back. But if you ALLOW guns everywhere, attackers know that there MIGHT be someone there with a gun. It doesn't necessarily mean that there WILL be someone with a gun. If you were a burglar and you KNOW a particular house has no guns in it amd the people will be unarmed, whereas another house MIGHT have a gun in it and the people MIGHT be able to shoot you, which one are you gonna choose to break into?

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I think better solution would be to ensure guns are BANNED from public places and ENHANCE the control and ENSURE that really NO ONE gets into a school area/theater, etc.


As proponents point out constantly, viewpoints like this miss the mark entirely. Banning things only works for people who CARE ABOUT THE LAW in the first place. Adam Lanza was not LEGALLY allowed to own a gun in the first place, he didn't own a gun, he STOLE a gun. So what good does BANNING guns from law-abiding citizens do when the people who commit crimes are obviously not concerned about the law.

That's the crux of why gun bans do nothing useful in the first place. All it does it punish people who obey laws and conceal carry and does nothing for the people who go nuts and go on killing sprees.

Remember back in grade school when one bad kid would do something he shouldn't when the teacher was gone? Then when the teacher came back, he/she would try to find out who did it. If the kid who did it came forward and admitted to doing it, how would you have felt if the teacher punished the whole class? Remember, you did nothing wrong and now you're being punished for it.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: exranger06
I
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
@ Exaranger:
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, EVERYONE must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.

Please point out where I said EVERYONE MUST own a gun. Because I didn't. I'm saying massacres occur where the shooter KNOWS that NOBODY will have a gun. If the attacker thinks there's a good possibility that SOMEONE (read: not necessarily EVERYONE) has a gun, he wouldn't try attacking that location.


I know you didn't SAY it - but mathematically, and probability wise, how would you ensure that there's at least one good armed person present in every occasion and location where a potential bad guy with a gun can be present, planning a mass-kill? (your view excludes guards, etc - you wanted CIVILIANS to be there to shoot the bad guys)

I think better solution would be to ensure guns are BANNED from public places and ENHANCE the control and ENSURE that really NO ONE gets into a school area/theater, etc.


You really don't get it do you?

HOW in the world are you going to do this? Or do you live in some utopian world where you can snap your fingers and the evil doers will willingly surrender their guns (and any other form of weapon) I'm sure most law abiding people would (hint: that's what separates us from criminals).

No criminal in the world will care about some silly (to them) law banning guns here, there or anywhere else. Are you really that naive????

 

[exranger06]

Oh yeah, and +1 to what cchase and The_Eric said.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: exranger06
I
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
@ Exaranger:
I didn't prove a thing!
I see - in your view, EVERYONE must (not should, MUST) own a gun and carry guns EVERYWHERE- because that's the ONLY way to ENSURE that a 'good guy' with a gun will definitely be present at any (and every) place that a 'bad guy' with a gun is also present.

THAT's gonna work well.

Please point out where I said EVERYONE MUST own a gun. Because I didn't. I'm saying massacres occur where the shooter KNOWS that NOBODY will have a gun. If the attacker thinks there's a good possibility that SOMEONE (read: not necessarily EVERYONE) has a gun, he wouldn't try attacking that location.


I know you didn't SAY it - but mathematically, and probability wise, how would you ensure that there's at least one good armed person present in every occasion and location where a potential bad guy with a gun can be present, planning a mass-kill? (your view excludes guards, etc - you wanted CIVILIANS to be there to shoot the bad guys)

I think better solution would be to ensure guns are BANNED from public places and ENHANCE the control and ENSURE that really NO ONE gets into a school area/theater, etc.


You really don't get it do you?

HOW in the world are you going to do this? Or do you live in some utopian world where you can snap your fingers and the evil doers will willingly surrender their guns (and any other form of weapon) I'm sure most law abiding people would (hint: that's what separates us from criminals).

No criminal in the world will care about some silly (to them) law banning guns here, there or anywhere else. Are you really that naive????

I have read this whole thread. Eric, even though a good protion of what we post here we don't agree on, I have to agree with you on this point.

I don't own any guns. Spent time in the Army and lots of time in the Navy so they just don't interest me.

If people want something, they are going to get it.
Breaking the law for a criminal is no big deal, that is why they are criminals. No sign is going to stop them.

My heart breaks for all the families involved. Not sure what would have stopped this except for shooter getting help before it came to this.