18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsb

Well now let's not forget the topic of "high capacity magazines"....

---

Magazines are not firearms.

Please point me to where I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Yes, he did. And, it took less than 10 minutes to do.

---

Wow, 10 minutes. Real thorough and exhaustive detailed background check there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wow, 10 minutes. Real thorough and exhaustive detailed background check there.

---

Well considering there can be no check on past mental health history, that's about all it really takes. Hell, you do a credit check with a print out going back 7 years in about 2 minutes.
So now I ask of you, if that police department background check isn't thorough enough for you, what would you suggest?
I've suggested making mental health records open for review.
I've suggested putting more responsibility on the purchaser to prove med compliance associated with above.
I've suggested adding any misdemeanor of a violent or stalking nature backgroundable, including those that have been plea bargined.
Much to the chorus of those that only want to ban and/or severely limit the rights of law abiding gun owners. The key phrase, LAW ABIDING.

The biggest issue I have with the "arm everybody" rationale is that it falls apart when it is applied to other situations where an unarmed person (doing nothing but walking down the street) was confronted gunned down by someone carrying a gun.

The NRA took the side of the armed individual claiming to be "standing their ground."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wow, 10 minutes. Real thorough and exhaustive detailed background check there.

---

Look, is it my fault that he made the call to the Feds, and it went through quickly? You have a problem with that call them and stop being a complete a z z hat. All they have to do is call in, the feds run you through NCIC and if you come up clean that's that. It is a computer data base, it isn't like they are flipping through volumes of books or making dozens of phone calls. I used to be a dispatcher and we used that system too for doing criminal checks when the cops pulled people over. Sometimes it is very fast and other times it is slow as molasses because of call volume. Heck, the background check at my local gun store has varied from 5 minutes to 30 depending on day of the week and time of day.

By the way, NCIC is the National Criminal Information Center from the FBI. They use that to see if you have a criminal record that precludes you from buying a gun.

Sorry to offend your tender sensibilities but I FOLLOWED THE LAW when I made my purchase. It seems even following the law, to the letter, isn't enough for some of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The biggest issue I have with the "arm everybody" rationale is that it falls apart when it is applied to other situations where an unarmed person (doing nothing but walking down the street) was confronted gunned down by someone carrying a gun.

The NRA took the side of the armed individual claiming to be "standing their ground."

---

How about you use details and facts instead of laying in the shadows only giving out half of the information? You are speaking of the Travon Martin incident. Which by the way hasn't gone to trial yet. To me there seems to be a lot of conflicting information regarding that incident. One being why did Goerge Zimmerman get involved personally at all. Secondly, the wide spread lack of coverage showing that Zimmerman was injured in a fight that ensued between himself and Travon Martin. Unlike you however, I will wait for the results of the trial to pass final judgment on who was wrong or right in this incident.

How about you just be open with the "Facts" you try to use instead of only giving bits and pieces of the story?

Okay next...give me another example where the armed citizen was convicted of a crime in similar circumstances...I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

How about you use details and facts instead of laying in the shadows only giving out half of the information?

---

I'm glad you deduced the event that I describe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You are speaking of the Travon Martin incident. Which by the way hasn't gone to trial yet.

---

That is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

To me there seems to be a lot of conflicting information regarding that incident. One being why did Goerge Zimmerman get involved personally at all.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Secondly, the wide spread lack of coverage showing that Zimmerman was injured in a fight that ensued between himself and Travon Martin. Unlike you however, I will wait for the results of the trial to pass final judgment on who was wrong or right in this incident.

---

A fight Zimmerman initiated after being told by the 911 operator to not get out of his car and confront Martin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Okay next...give me another example where the armed citizen was convicted of a crime in similar circumstances...I'll wait.

---

Not the point. The point is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong other than walking down the street when he was confronted by Zimmerman and shot to death. Yet no one in the NRA or its supporters started clamoring that Martin should have been also been carrying a firearm to protect himself from the confrontation of a complete stranger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I'm glad you deduced the event that I describe.

Funny that I OPENLY stated what case you were talking about and you chose to play games.


That is true.

Yet you have become judge, jury, and executioner...so much for innocent until proven guilty. I believe that is still how our legal system works.


Agreed.

Yet you have decided who is guilty. Interesting, considering initially LOCAL police found no reason to charge him and many would say media hype forced the feds hand. Again, I have many questions about the entire incident, including why Zimmerman got personally involved past making a phone call. But once he did a confrontation ensued and we will probably never really know what happened at that point. There is however evidence to show Zimmerman was injured during a fight.


A fight Zimmerman initiated after being told by the 911 operator to not get out of his car and confront Martin.

I don't disagree that Zimmerman overstepped his bounds as a neighborhood watch member. The tenants of that organization say to not get physically invlved with suspicious people but to observe and call the police. What actually happened when he confronted Travon martin is still a mystery. Who threw the first punch, and what follwed up to the gunshot is unknown. I believe though that we need to wait for the evidence that comes oout in the trial.


Not the point. The point is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong other than walking down the street when he was confronted by Zimmerman and shot to death. Yet no one in the NRA or its supporters started clamoring that Martin should have been also been carrying a firearm to protect himself from the confrontation of a complete stranger.

Though there are reports he was standing next to houses off the sidewalk.

Again, I don't claim to have the answers. Therefore I will not be the Judge, Jury and Executioner you have decided you can be. I will wait for the evidence and the trial to play out before I make my judgement.

---

Man it has to chafe you to think you can pull the kind of crap you tried here with only letting out the facts you deem crucial to your point of view and BOOM! get caught at it. Stop playing stupid games. By the wayI am still waiting for you to provide other examples...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The biggest issue I have with the "arm everybody" rationale is that it falls apart when it is applied to other situations where an unarmed person (doing nothing but walking down the street) was confronted gunned down by someone carrying a gun.

The NRA took the side of the armed individual claiming to be "standing their ground."

---

Intertesting that you seemingly referrng to as case that has yet to go to trial, and we yet to find out if that person that you refer as "doing nothing but walking down the street" was in fact, simply doing that, I would be careful about using that as an example as to why folks shouldn't be armed.

But i guess most liberals have already assumed the "shooters" guilt in that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Yet you have become judge, jury, and executioner...so much for innocent until proven guilty. I believe that is still how our legal system works.
Please show me where I said Zimmerman was guilty of anything. The point I was making has nothing to do with the case against Zimmerman.

Yet you have decided who is guilty. Interesting, considering initially LOCAL police found no reason to charge him and many would say media hype forced the feds hand. Again, I have many questions about the entire incident, including why Zimmerman got personally involved past making a phone call. But once he did a confrontation ensued and we will probably never really know what happened at that point. There is however evidence to show Zimmerman was injured during a fight.
I haven't stated he was guilty of anything criminal. Yes, there is evidence he was injured during a fight. A fight that he initiated. His supporters want to ignore that fact. He was the one who originated the assault. That much is known by the 911 calls and directions he was receiving from the 911 dispatchers.

I don't disagree that Zimmerman overstepped his bounds as a neighborhood watch member. The tenants of that organization say to not get physically invlved with suspicious people but to observe and call the police. What actually happened when he confronted Travon martin is still a mystery. Who threw the first punch, and what follwed up to the gunshot is unknown. I believe though that we need to wait for the evidence that comes oout in the trial.
See above response and what we do know over who initiated the confrontation.

Though there are reports he was standing next to houses off the sidewalk.
And? Is that now illegal? Were any of those property owners complaining?

Again, I don't claim to have the answers. Therefore I will not be the Judge, Jury and Executioner you have decided you can be. I will wait for the evidence and the trial to play out before I make my judgement.
Yet I have said no such thing regarding Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

Man it has to chafe you to think you can pull the kind of crap you tried here with only letting out the facts you deem crucial to your point of view and BOOM! get caught at it. Stop playing stupid games. By the wayI am still waiting for you to provide other examples...
I have provided the relevant facts to the point I was making. You are attempting to deflect it into another arena by trying to make others I believe that Zimmerman is guilty before he has gone through the system.

---

Once again, the point I was making is there was no outcry from anyone about how African American youths should all be armed to protect themselves from overzealous vigilantes to the extent there has been over arming teachers after the incident at Sandy Hook.

Please try to stick to the points that are being made and not the ones you attempt to twist it into to fit your narrative.

Funny how the Travon Martin comes up as the example of how armed America will be nothing but a slaughter house. Especially considering all the facts have to come to light, nor has judgment been made. Completely neglecting the reported defensive wounds, on Zimmerman or the point he was getting back into his vehicle when the confrontation occurred. Yet absolutely nothing is said of the hundreds of times crime, including rape and murder, is prevented or ended by legal gun owners throughout the year. Just this week as a matter of fact.
Another fact, every mass casualty shooting in the US since the late '70's, save the Giffords' incident, has occurred where guns where banned to begin with. So the question I pose to those siding with a ban and/or severe restrictions such as magazine size, what makes you think the perpetrator will follow those rules?
They have already proven a knack to ignore the number of rules already in place...
My theory, the gun owner has proven over and over to be an upstanding, law abiding citizen. Much easier to impose tyranny and the rule of law on those already in the habit of following them. Instant feel good results ending with a "hey look what we did!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Funny how the Travon Martin comes up as the example of how armed America will be nothing but a slaughter house. Especially considering all the facts have to come to light, nor has judgment been made. Completely neglecting the reported defensive wounds, on Zimmerman or the point he was getting back into his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

---

My point has nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It has to do with the reaction to the incident and whether or not Martin should have been armed to protect himself from someone who initiated a confrontation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Yet absolutely nothing is said of the hundreds of times crime, including rape and murder, is prevented or ended by legal gun owners throughout the year. Just this week as a matter of fact.

---

I don't doubt those incidents do happen. However, statistics also show that one is more likely to be injured by one's own firearm in one's house than to use it in a defensive situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Another fact, every mass casualty shooting in the US since the late '70's, save the Giffords' incident, has occurred where guns where banned to begin with. So the question I pose to those siding with a ban and/or severe restrictions such as magazine size, what makes you think the perpetrator will follow those rules?

---

If I apply that logic to other crimes, we should abolish all DUI laws since people still drink and drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

They have already proven a knack to ignore the number of rules already in place...
My theory, the gun owner has proven over and over to be an upstanding, law abiding citizen. Much easier to impose tyranny and the rule of law on those already in the habit of following them. Instant feel good results ending with a "hey look what we did!"

---

See above response. I guess you must subscribe to the theory if one fails they should just quit and not bother trying again to address the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

My point has nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It has to do with the reaction to the incident and whether or not Martin should have been armed to protect himself from someone who initiated a confrontation.
You are stating that Zimmerman initiated the incident. Of what proof do you have of that?

I don't doubt those incidents do happen. However, statistics also show that one is more likely to be injured by one's own firearm in one's house than to use it in a defensive situation.
And statistics from the FBI state that knives murdered 1,694 people in 2011 vs. 323 rifles of any type, including the "assault rifle". But if you injure yourself, how does fit into the discussion of psychos murdering others?

If I apply that logic to other crimes, we should abolish all DUI laws since people still drink and drive.
No, to make that comparison, I would have to be in favor of banning the automobile outright, banning certain types, restricting the number you own, how it is dressed up, or how much it weights.

See above response.
I guess you must subscribe to the theory if one fails they should just quit and not bother trying again to address the issue.

---

No, had you been following my posts, you would see I have stated in numerous threads exactly what I subscribe, and what my views are on addressing the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

You are stating that Zimmerman initiated the incident. Of what proof do you have of that?
The fact that he was driving in a car, stopped, and exited the vehicle when he was told to not confront Martin by a 911 dispatcher. At some point in time he was being injured by Martin and pulled out a gun and shot him. There has yet to be any proof put forth anything from Zimmerman or his defense that Martin was doing anything wrong.

And statistics from the FBI state that knives murdered 1,694 people in 2011 vs. 323 rifles of any type, including the "assault rifle". But if you injure yourself, how does fit into the discussion of psychos murdering others?
Not a valid comparison. If someone attacks me with a knife, my ability to avoid the attack is far greater than when when one is being shot at multiple times with a semi-auto or full-auto firearm. I can see a knife that is being used or thrown at me. Until we all develop the powers of Neo, One cannot see bullets in flight

No, to make that comparison, I would have to be in favor of banning the automobile outright, banning certain types, restricting the number you own, how it is dressed up, or how much it weights.
And there are certain types of automobiles one is not allowed to drive on the street. Formula 1 or NASCAR types being an example.

No, had you been following my posts, you would see I have stated in numerous threads exactly what I subscribe, and what my views are on addressing the issues.
Which doesn't change my premise on the difference in reaction by those who believe the answer to dealing with bad guys carrying guns is for them to be confronted by good guys carrying guns.

---

Like FUp. You are attempting to deflect my point.

And you have yet to make a point.

Zimmerman: Who is to say that he confronted Martin? Maybe he was ambushed at his car when he was trying to leave? You have any proof to the contrary?

As far as a knife, you must be Joe Ninja. If defending yourself from a knife attack was so easy, I guess it wouldn't be the number one murder weapon.

Very valid comparison: Even more valid by your points; yes I am not able to drive a formula 1 car on the interstate, nor am I allowed to own a machine gun. You said it would be like erasing all DUI laws, my posts have been to enforce the current laws in place, even expanding them to include mental health.

As far as bad guys with guns confronting good guys with guns, if that's bad, why is it so successful?

Even you can't be so naive to see that increased gun restrictions or bans are that successful. If that where the case, New York and Chicago would be gun crime free. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to crime statistics and gun ownership.

So I ask, what is your point?
Show me statistics that prove increased gun restrictions and/or bans have had a corresponding drop in violent crime?
Show me statistics that in states where they have enacted conceal/carry and even those with castle doctrine have had an increase of carnage and innocent people being killed by legal gun owners.
Show me a statistic that shows and increase in violent crime in states that have adopted conceal/carry and even castle doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

...
I've suggested making mental health records open for review.
I've suggested putting more responsibility on the purchaser to prove med compliance associated with above.
I've suggested adding any misdemeanor of a violent or stalking nature backgroundable, including those that have been plea bargined.
...

---

All good suggestions.


What else? How about some reference checks....employment checks, family/friend/relative/etc. Fingerprint search. Not against a financial background check either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Please show me where I said Zimmerman was guilty of anything. The point I was making has nothing to do with the case against Zimmerman.

Did you say the words Zimmerman was guilty? No, you didn't say those words directly. But the following post by you leaves no doubt what you believe.

Quote:

---

The biggest issue I have with the "arm everybody" rationale is that it falls apart when it is applied to other situations where an unarmed person (doing nothing but walking down the street) was confronted gunned down by someone carrying a gun.

---

I haven't stated he was guilty of anything criminal. Yes, there is evidence he was injured during a fight. A fight that he initiated. His supporters want to ignore that fact. He was the one who originated the assault. That much is known by the 911 calls and directions he was receiving from the 911 dispatchers.

I agree that Zimmerman overstepped his bounds by going up to Travon. Do we know whether Zimmerman or Martin initiated physical contact? NO, we don't. You assume that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin, I assume no such thing. It is however just as plausible that Zimmerman did confront Martin and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. The big question is did Martin attack Zimmerman, or did Zimmerman initiate a physical confrontation? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. WORDS alone are no reason for a physical confrontation from either of them.

See above response and what we do know over who initiated the confrontation.

Again all we know for sure is Zimmerman went up to Martin. Do we know for sure what transpired up to the shooting? No we don't. if Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood that is not a physical confrontation. You see I will wait and ee what the court has to say instead of convicting Zimmerman before the trial.
Believe me, I have questioned Zimmerman's actions during this entire tragic event. But I am not prepared to use phrases like "gunned down" to over sensationalize this incident, or to presume anyone guilty.


And? Is that now illegal? Were any of those property owners complaining?

Actually, it IS illegal. It's called trespassing and that is against the law. As for the neighbors complaining, perhaps none of them was aware he was there. I can't help but laugh at your idiotic question "Is that illegal" even you have to know how ridiculous that question is...You have no right to be on another person's property without their permission.

I can tell you with 100% certainty if someone is next to my house, without my permission the police will be called, I will be armed, and that person will be questioned by me as to why they are on my property. It is MY property and NO ONE has the right to be on my property without my permission. Especially if it is after dark. I live in a VERY rural area and anyone up by my house at that time of night is not there because they are out for a moonlight stroll.


Yet I have said no such thing regarding Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

You implied his guilt by the phrase "gunned down." More game playing by you.


I have provided the relevant facts to the point I was making. You are attempting to deflect it into another arena by trying to make others I believe that Zimmerman is guilty before he has gone through the system.

Nope, you diverted to an unrelated shooting incident that has absolutely nothing to do with your assault weapon, high capacity magaine crusade. Then to top that you played the race card. Pathetic.




Once again, the point I was making is there was no outcry from anyone about how African American youths should all be armed to protect themselves from overzealous vigilantes to the extent there has been over arming teachers after the incident at Sandy Hook.

Your final admission you have nothing to defend ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise....Play the race card. Excellent liberal ploy, when losing divert it into a racial issue. I haven't seen anyone anywhere turn this into a race issue but YOU. Frankly, I would like to see ALL law abiding citizens armed, no matter what their race, sex, religion or creed. To me it is an issue of law abiding citizens protecting themselves and nothing more.

I understand though why you diverted it into a race issue though and from the Sandy Hook tragedy into a the Travon Martin issue. You couldn't support your stance otherwise so you had to divert into another contentious, unresolved issue.

Please try to stick to the points that are being made and not the ones you attempt to twist it into to fit your narrative.

It is funny YOU would accuse anyone of twisting anything since you haven't been able to stay on topicor even define what yu actually are talking about since your first post. Now spinning off into a totally unrelated incident and palying the race card make you the master of the twist.

---

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

...
Sorry to offend your tender sensibilities but I FOLLOWED THE LAW when I made my purchase. It seems even following the law, to the letter, isn't enough for some of you.

---

Sorry to offend your belief that NCIC is adequate. NCIC only tells a small part of someone's life/personality/etc. I'd think responsible gun owners would be fine with a more thorough check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

Sorry to offend your belief that NCIC is adequate. NCIC only tells a small part of someone's life/personality/etc. I'd think responsible gun owners would be fine with a more thorough check.

---

Your opinion is completely invalid. WHY? Because I met the LETTER OF THE LAW when I made that purchase. If you feel that the background check, which is a criminal history, is inadequate maybe you should speak to your legislators about it. But to attempt to chastise me for FOLLOWING THE LAW makes you look ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Did you say the words Zimmerman was guilty? No, you didn't say those words directly. But the following post by you leaves no doubt what you believe.
We do know that Martin was gunned down by Zimmerman. Zimmerman has admitted shooting him. You continue to read more into what I've written versus what is actually there.

I agree that Zimmerman overstepped his bounds by going up to Travon. Do we know whether Zimmerman or Martin initiated physical contact? NO, we don't. You assume that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin, I assume no such thing. It is however just as plausible that Zimmerman did confront Martin and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. The big question is did Martin attack Zimmerman, or did Zimmerman initiate a physical confrontation? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. WORDS alone are no reason for a physical confrontation from either of them.
We do know that Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin purposely while carrying a firearm. That much is known fact.

Again all we know for sure is Zimmerman went up to Martin. Do we know for sure what transpired up to the shooting? No we don't. if Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood that is not a physical confrontation. You see I will wait and ee what the court has to say instead of convicting Zimmerman before the trial.
You assume that Martin had an obligation to respond to Zimmerman. He did not.

Believe me, I have questioned Zimmerman's actions during this entire tragic event. But I am not prepared to use phrases like "gunned down" to over sensationalize this incident, or to presume anyone guilty.
But that is exactly what happened to Martin. We do know he didn't shoot himself.

Actually, it IS illegal. It's called trespassing and that is against the law. As for the neighbors complaining, perhaps none of them was aware he was there. I can't help but laugh at your idiotic question "Is that illegal" even you have to know how ridiculous that question is...You have no right to be on another person's property without their permission.
You must assume that Martin didn't have permission or that the homeowners desired Zimmerman to protect them in that manner.

I can tell you with 100% certainty if someone is next to my house, without my permission the police will be called, I will be armed, and that person will be questioned by me as to why they are on my property. It is MY property and NO ONE has the right to be on my property without my permission. Especially if it is after dark. I live in a VERY rural area and anyone up by my house at that time of night is not there because they are out for a moonlight stroll.
As well you should call them and confront them. Martin was not in someone's home and we don't know if he was standing in someone else's yard without permission. By your own standard Zimmerman fails this test. The shooting take place around 7p. Hardly near midnight.

You implied his guilt by the phrase "gunned down." More game playing by you.
Sorry if you don't like the term. That is precisely what happened.

Your final admission you have nothing to defend ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise....Play the race card. Excellent liberal ploy, when losing divert it into a racial issue. I haven't seen anyone anywhere turn this into a race issue but YOU. Frankly, I would like to see ALL law abiding citizens armed, no matter what their race, sex, religion or creed. To me it is an issue of law abiding citizens protecting themselves and nothing more.
I only pointed out the inconsistencies of the positions of those who believe that arming everyone will make us safer. Somehow an unarmed person being shot by an armed person didn't get the same response as other circumstances when different ethnic groups were involved.

I understand though why you diverted it into a race issue though and from the Sandy Hook tragedy into a the Travon Martin issue. You couldn't support your stance otherwise so you had to divert into another contentious, unresolved issue.
You clearly do not since I was making a completely different point which you would like to claim is irrelevant.

It is funny YOU would accuse anyone of twisting anything since you haven't been able to stay on topicor even define what yu actually are talking about since your first post. Now spinning off into a totally unrelated incident and palying the race card make you the master of the twist.
It's even funnier how you continue to twist an issue that reveals the inconsistencies in your position.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
Funny, absolutely hi-freaking-sterical

---

Please continue with your continued revealing that your position shifts like a windsock in a cyclone.