O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

vintagetoppsguy · #1 12-17-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canoeswamp

The problem is human based. We live in a culture that does not value human life.

+1

We live in a world that desensatizes killing - almost glorifies it like it's no big deal. You watch it movies, see it in video games and hear it in music.

Even if the assault rifle ban were re-enacted, do you really believe it would stop events like this? I don't.

barrysloate · #2 12-17-2012, 04:16 PM

If the assault rifle ban were reinstated, some incidents would be stopped. Even if only one were thwarted it could save the life of somebody's loved one.

And make no mistake about it: if you think the gun laws should remain exactly as they are, you are now officially in the minority. The majority wants this issue to be addressed now, and whether gun lovers agree or disagree with possible new laws will not matter. There are going to be changes, it's only a matter of when and what they will be. The days of keeping the status quo will soon end.

conor912 · #3 12-17-2012, 04:20 PM

How about this for an argument?

You want to know why there are more and more shootings? It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.

packs · #4 12-17-2012, 04:30 PM

People are mentally ill in this country and they obviously are feeling like they're out of options. Being driven to kill random strangers and as many as you can at once is a pretty good indicator that these people feel ostracized from society and are now so angry with being the outcast that they are determined to kill society at large.

Mental illness does not make a person "evil." I'm so tired of seeing people like the shooter in Newtown and the Aurora shooter labeled "evil." They are mentally ill. If the country had a stable healthcare system that encouraged treatment rather than making healthcare so expensive that people seek it out only at extreme moments in their lives, and then are turned away as people who don't need help or "are just blowing off steam" I believe that these people could get the help they need.

I'm not making excuses for this kind of behavior. But it doesn't boil down to "good" people and "bad" people. And if you take a gun out of someone's hand you're putting something else in it. You need to find a way to keep them from wanting either if you're going to solve anything. Let's see mental health services encouraged. Let's make it easier to access mental health professionals. Let's stop labeling anyone who has special mental health needs "crazy." Let's stop making them feel like they aren't a part of our lives.

Runscott · #5 12-17-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

People are mentally ill in this country and they obviously are feeling like they're out of options. Being driven to kill random strangers and as many as you can at once is a pretty good indicator that these people feel ostracized from society and are now so angry with being the outcast that they are determined to kill society at large.

Packs, that's not how their thinking works. First, they don't generally believe they are mentally ill, so they aren't angry over being 'out of options'. With young men, the first big manic break typically manifests itself as irrational anger, thus the violence. The irrational anger can certainly be directed at a person or people, and have some basis in their pre-break reality, but it is a product of the illness itself, not a response to our reaction to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Mental illness does not make a person "evil." I'm so tired of seeing people like the shooter in Newtown and the Aurora shooter labeled "evil." They are mentally ill. If the country had a stable healthcare system that encouraged treatment rather than making healthcare so expensive that people seek it out only at extreme moments in their lives, and then are turned away as people who don't need help or "are just blowing off steam" I believe that these people could get the help they need.

I'm not making excuses for this kind of behavior. But it doesn't boil down to "good" people and "bad" people. And if you take a gun out of someone's hand you're putting something else in it. You need to find a way to keep them from wanting either if you're going to solve anything. Let's see mental health services encouraged. Let's make it easier to access mental health professionals. Let's stop labeling anyone who has special mental health needs "crazy." Let's stop making them feel like they aren't a part of our lives.

Thanks for this well-thought out post. The response I always get when I present such an argument, is that "we can't fix everyone". No, we can't fix everyone, so we don't attempt to fix ANYONE? Hard to imagine where society would be if we took that approach to everything we do. But I do understand - people feel that our resources would be better spent somewhere else. I can't argue with that logic, as there's always a trade-off, and we might have some more wars coming up.

vintagetoppsguy · #6 12-17-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

That's the big question.

Western europe has a range of gun laws.

I worked for a machinist from Switzerland. One day we were talking about the differences between here and there.

One thing that amazed me was that all men able to serve a brief time in the military. I think 1-2 years. Followed by a long period of being considered a reserve. The guys on reserve, and remember this is nearly everyone is required to have their issued weapon available. That means a fully automatic machine gun in nearly every home. They don't have much in the way of problems, and I'm convinced it's a matter of training and attitude with the attitude aspect being more important.

Steve B

As I'm reading back through this thread, it reminds me of the same rhetoric as the Aurora thread - nothing new. Everyone has their opinion and nothing anybody says is going to change the way the other side feels. However, the post I quoted above really stood out to me. Is it true, or was Steve given false information? I decided to check to out for myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

It's there in black and white. You can choose to read it or not. Doesn't this take the assault rifle blame out of the equation? Sure it does. Because if there are more assault rifles in the homes of the Swiss than the US, why don't they have these types of problems? I would like to see someone answer that!!!

yanks12025 · #7 12-17-2012, 06:35 PM

Do you guys know over 16,000 children die everyday because of starvation, yet not one word is mentioned on the news.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 12-17-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

How about this for an argument?

You want to know why there are more and more shootings? It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.

I agree that the coverage is beyond excessive, and while it's impossible to know, it may well play into the next mentally ill person's mindset who plans one of these. I thought it was particularly inappropriate today that the media intruded on the funerals of these unfortunate victims.

vintagetoppsguy · #9 12-17-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If the assault rifle ban were reinstated, some incidents would be stopped.

Barry,

I respectfully disagree. I believe these sickos would just find a hand gun, shotgun or other type of rifle (lever action, bolt action, etc) instead. I believe they're choosing assault rifles only because of their magazine capacity - to inflict as much damage as possible. An assault rifle ban would probably limit the amount of casualties, but would not stop the frequency of these types of events. No way! They'll find other types of guns.

Besides, from my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), an assault rifle ban (as the last one) does not mean gun owners have to "give up" their assault rifles. It only stops future transactions. The ban does not make it illegal to own an assault rifle, it only makes it illegal to barter one - buy, sell or trade. In other words, an assault rifle ban will not get existing assault rifles off the streets.

packs · #10 12-17-2012, 04:45 PM

It's putting a band aid on a broken arm. You can say you've done something to help. But you haven't fixed anything.

oldjudge · #11 12-17-2012, 05:33 PM

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 12-17-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

NO, Jay, the Supreme Court very recently rejected that interpretation.

Gecklund311 · #13 12-17-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the bolded statement above, and did so fairly recently. There is plenty of room to maneuver if you want to restrict the types of guns purchased and who can purchase them.

vintagetoppsguy · #14 12-17-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

Interesting how you can twist the Second Amendment to make your point. Can I play too? Let's talk about the First Amendment - Separation of Church and State and the removing of prayer in public schools. If our forefathers thought that prayer in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, don't you think they would have done something about it 1789 (when the First Amendment was ratified) rather than waiting nearly two hundred years until 1962 (when it was taken out of schools)? Certainly. So why let it go on for 200 years? But that's not what the First Amendment was about - it was to keep the State from setting up one religion like the Church of England. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair got her way by twisting the First Amendment to suit her needs. I don't see you complaining about that. Or is it okay to interpret the Bill of Rights the way you want to when it suits you?

Peter_Spaeth · #15 12-17-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Interesting how you can twist the Second Amendment to make your point. Can I play too? Let's talk about the First Amendment - Separation of Church and State and the removing of prayer in public schools. If our forefathers thought that prayer in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, don't you think they would have done something about it 1789 (when the First Amendment was ratified) rather than waiting nearly two hundred years until 1962 (when it was taken out of schools)? Certainly. So why let it go on for 200 years? But that's not what the First Amendment was about - it was to keep the State from setting up one religion like the Church of England. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair got her way by twisting the First Amendment to suit her needs. I don't see you complaining about that. Or is it okay to interpret the Bill of Rights the way you want to when it suits you?

I wouldn't say Jay is twisting it. it was a close S.Ct. vote and a very respectable argument was made concerning the Militia Clause.

Vintageismygame · #16 12-17-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

Texxxx · #17 12-17-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

If they come after our retirement accounts and the government in power is talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.

teetwoohsix · #18 12-18-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

This, I believe, is the reason our Founders wrote the second amendment. They had just fought off an out of control tyrannical government, and understood that it could happen again. In this day and age of uncertainty, I think the trust in government is extremely low. Tyranny sneaks in, it doesn't announce itself. It was not about "hunting" (the right of the people to bear arms)

The Khmer Rouge (The Communist Party of Cambodia) won power from a right wing military government in 1975 after a five year long bloody civil war. The people of Cambodia were tired, and hoped for times of peace. They were terribly disapointed, as the Khmer Rouge's fanatical leader Pol Pot instituted social and agricultural reforms that ravaged the country.

Under Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge, with their extreme Marxist philosophy, only the uneducated workers and the peasants were to be trusted. The skilled workers, the middle class, the rich, and the intellectuals of Cambodia were all potential threats/ counter-revolutionaries in the eyes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They were systematically arrested and tortured. Those that survived, were forcibly "re-educated" as agricultural laborers (slaves).

They were forced to work and live in total squalor, usually denied tools to do their work, and made to use their bare hands. Thousands were executed on the slightest pretext, or they simply lay down and died in what became famously known as "The Killing Fields".

It is estimated that over 1.5 million people were slaughtered in this way, before Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were given the boot in 1979 by an invading Vietnamese army. Cambodia's intellectual classes and skilled workers were almost destroyed by less than four years of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's repression.

This is just one instance in our not so distant past that an out of control government slaughtered their own people. It's called democide. If you disarm the public, this is what can possibly happen (not saying it will, but look back at world history to see for yourself).

Can it happen here? Who the hell wants to find out ????? People want to be able to protect themselves *from any danger*. God Bless America.

Sincerely, Clayton

travrosty · #19 12-17-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Barry,

I respectfully disagree. I believe these sickos would just find a hand gun, shotgun or other type of rifle (lever action, bolt action, etc) instead. I believe they're choosing assault rifles only because of their magazine capacity - to inflict as much damage as possible. An assault rifle ban would probably limit the amount of casualties, but would not stop the frequency of these types of events. No way! They'll find other types of guns.

Besides, from my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), an assault rifle ban (as the last one) does not mean gun owners have to "give up" their assault rifles. It only stops future transactions. The ban does not make it illegal to own an assault rifle, it only makes it illegal to barter one - buy, sell or trade. In other words, an assault rifle ban will not get existing assault rifles off the streets.

not only that but the last assault rifle ban only stopped sales of assault rifles and the high capacity magazines produced after a certain date, all the rifles and magazines produced before that date were still legal to buy albeit at high prices due to supply and demand.

Also the ban didn't refer to the guns semi-automatic feature, as full automatic is already banned. It basically referred to the looks of the gun, the folding stock, the telescoping stock, a certain scope, the pistol grip, the bayonet mount, etc. it needed three of these characteristics to fall under the ban.

manufacturers just made these guns with 2 characteristics and it was still legal to sell. so an assault weapons ban was nothing more than a ban of "scary looking" guns. semi-automatic rifles (one pull, one shot) were still legal to buy and sell and regular semi-automatic hunting rifles that don't look as scary are still one pull, one shot, and they are just as lethal in the wrong hands.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anybody else sick of MLB?	HercDriver	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	72	12-13-2011 04:14 PM
Anyone else sick of seeing these?	t206hound	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	08-16-2011 03:47 PM
Sick of seeing these!!	mrvster	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	08-01-2011 06:26 AM
I'm beginning to feel sick	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	07-01-2010 11:27 PM
This may be a little sick but I don't mean anything bad by it	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	09-03-2005 01:35 PM