18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Is that the norm, or the exception?

<font color=red>The norm. If I want to drive a vehicle on private property and not on the roads, it's handled the exact same way. </font color>


Did these drunk bus drivers actively set out to kill individuals or was the result of irresponsible behavior on their part?
<font color=red> So it isn't irresponsible behavior that leads to these shootings? This is a poor comparison, because both acts are irresponsible, regardless whether they were actively sought after and planned out, or a spur of the moment bad decision. Who's to say what happened in Sandy Hook wasn't a spur of the moment decision? Show me where he planned it out. </font color>

---

This is PROBABLY the best post from you yet..... It shows that you're not the expert of all experts that you believe you are on everything, and the second portion shows the stupidity of your argument.

Keep trying though. Everyone gets an award these days. Maybe they'll give you a gold helmet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HuntPA

I have never bought a car in any other state, so I am not sure, what is needed in your neck of the woods?

---

It's really a moot point if the car never leaves the owners property. Though I'm sure the drive home must be fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HuntPA

Do the victims or their families care whether it was intentional or irresponsible? The effect is the same; many dead, many injured by the act of a single person acting in an unawful manner. The bus drivers had to register to operate the vehicle, had to show proof of elligibility to purchase the alcohol, and yet they were able to commit these unspeakable acts.

---

It absolutely matters. The bus driver didn't intentionally set out to kill their passengers. Those carrying weapons into schools and theaters had that purpose in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

This is PROBABLY the best post from you yet..... It shows that you're not the expert of all experts that you believe you are on everything, and the second portion shows the stupidity of your argument.

---

The argument of comparing a firearm designed to fire multiple projectiles in a short period of time to a knife or baseball bat is the stupid argument. But keep thinking they are similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The argument of comparing a firearm designed to fire multiple projectiles in a short period of time to a knife or baseball bat is the stupid argument. But keep thinking they are similar.

---

And comparing law-abiding citizens with the extremely-rare mass murderer is even more asinine.

If you look at the stats, knives and baseball bats (hell, hands and feet, even) kill more people annually than rifles. If you doubt it, look at the FBI stats. In 2011, 323 murder by ALL rifles. 1694 by knives, 782 by body parts, and 496 by blunt weapons (bats, clubs, hammers, etc). Yet we have an assault rifle problem?

Estimates are that there are 2.5 million AR-15 type rifles in the US (that is an extremely low estimate, they can't even get accurate statistics) and that's just the AR-15 model, doesn't include the SKS, AK, or other models. Two have been used in mass murders in the last year. That is .00008% of those rifles used in mass murders. How big of a problem are "assault rifles" again?

I won't even get into my research into Chicago's assault weapon problem.

Please, tell me how assault weapons are the problem. Let's use some facts, statistics, or anything else other than conjecture and opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

But they are getting enjoyable.

---

Care to discuss gun laws again? You appeared so utterly clueless before regarding fully automatic weapons and the law I would be happy to help educate you further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The argument of comparing a firearm designed to fire multiple projectiles in a short period of time to a knife or baseball bat is the stupid argument. But keep thinking they are similar.

---

Tell that to the 22 kids in China who got stabbed on the same day as Sandy Hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It's really a moot point if the car never leaves the owners property.
<font color=red> And all these proposals on gun control are a moot point, because law abiding citizens don't kill other law abiding citizens when not in fear for their own life</font color>


It absolutely matters. The bus driver didn't intentionally set out to kill their passengers. Those carrying weapons into schools and theaters had that purpose in mind.
<font color=red> But he intentionally drank the alcohol, and intentionally got behind the wheel of the bus. Sounds like a pretty fair comparison to me </font color>

---

You're gonna need a bigger shovel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

And all these proposals on gun control are a moot point, because law abiding citizens don't kill other law abiding citizens when not in fear for their own life

---

Regardless. The point was originally started about the paperwork required to buy a car. I'm betting the people who use their vehicles is a vast minority. I'm not concerned about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

But he intentionally drank the alcohol, and intentionally got behind the wheel of the bus. Sounds like a pretty fair comparison to me.

---

You're free to have believe in an invalid analogy. I won't argue with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You're gonna need a bigger shovel.

---

This makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Tell that to the 22 kids in China who got stabbed on the same day as Sandy Hook.

---

Many of whom lived. Can't say the same for the kids at Sandy Hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

And comparing law-abiding citizens with the extremely-rare mass murderer is even more asinine.

---

I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook, Columbine, or VA Tech would agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

If you look at the stats, knives and baseball bats (hell, hands and feet, even) kill more people annually than rifles. If you doubt it, look at the FBI stats. In 2011, 323 murder by ALL rifles. 1694 by knives, 782 by body parts, and 496 by blunt weapons (bats, clubs, hammers, etc). Yet we have an assault rifle problem?

---

The apples to apples comparison would be the number of people killed in a mass murder (defined as four or more at one time) with knives and baseball bats. If you want to use all blunt objects then one must also use all firearms. In which case that number isn't remotely comparable given the amount of people killed with firearms every year versus any other method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Estimates are that there are 2.5 million AR-15 type rifles in the US (that is an extremely low estimate, they can't even get accurate statistics) and that's just the AR-15 model, doesn't include the SKS, AK, or other models. Two have been used in mass murders in the last year. That is .00008% of those rifles used in mass murders. How big of a problem are "assault rifles" again?

---

A big problem when you are on the wrong end of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

I won't even get into my research into Chicago's assault weapon problem.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Please, tell me how assault weapons are the problem. Let's use some facts, statistics, or anything else other than conjecture and opinions.

---

I've never advocated getting rid of them. I've only advocated limiting the capacity of magazines. It's others on this board believe I'm opposed to owning semi-auto firearms.

Sure. Please continue with the history lesson. Especially the part where those "advisors" were there in the same capacity as the draftees who did the majority of the fighting and dying. I'll clarify my point since you are such a stickler for details.

Just so I am clear here you are downplaying the role of the advisors in the US involvement in the Viet Nam war. Including the fact that they fought and died side by side with the ARVN they were sent to "Train." Including the 416 members of the US military that died between 1956 and 1964. Apparently they forgot to not go into combat, risk their lives, and die. Golly, maybe you want to contact their families and tell them how insignificant their deaths were since they weren't draftees that did the majority of the dying in that war.

Our active involvement in establishing a combat role and presence wasn't decades long. Does that help?

Like I said above, maybe you want to contact the families of those advisors that died and dismiss their combat deaths as not worthy. Their names are on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall.

The Viet Cong were also being supplied via the North Vietnamese and by extension the USSR. It wasn't their sole source of weaponry. And btw, they suffered massive casualties compared to their combatants.

Duh? Wow? Did you use Wikipedia for that amzing information? The 1968 Tet offensive pretty much wiped out the Viet Cong as a viable military force. Some experts have stated the opinion that the North Vietnamese military actually embraced the destruction of the Viet Cong as a military force so they wouldn't have to try to deal with them after the war was over.

The simple truth is the Viet Cong had a miriad of weaponry from all kinds of sources. WWII surplus, French weaponry from their attempts to retain their colony, and finally US weaponry taken from killed or captured US soldiers and even more when we abandoned Viet Nam and left enough stuff behind to keep them stocked for years. I don't disagree that the communist block supplied them with weapons, that is indisputable. But they were hardly the only source.


You hope.

Just as much as you hope they will goose step right in line with the latest gun grabbing, rights eliminating, government. Sorry, only a delusional fool would believe that the entire military would step in line with a despot attempting to destroy the United States from within.


It is the best answer to that statement.

When it is all you have it is the best you can do.


You hope. If the tyrant has the support of the military that may not be the case.

You hope your leftist despot will have control of the military, he never will be.


So what? The tyrant's military will have access to hardware and technology not available to the rebels.

Again, you assume the military will robotically follow illegal orders in direct violation of the law. I believe the majority will not. Since it is hypothetical at this point nether side can be proven correct. The interesting side note is all the federal agencies buying billions of rounds of ammunition, military grade weaponry, armored vehicles, and bullet proof check point booths. All of these weapons and accessories are for use within the borders of the United States. WHY? What is the need? Perhaps Obama will not call on the military but other federal agencies to usurp the rights of US citizens.


Please show me where I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership. Even semi-auto rifles.

You openly stated no one needed assault weapons. A nonsenical term that means nothing made up by anti-gunners to stir knee jerl emotional reactions.


EPIC FAIL on your part......again.

Epic fail? What are you like 13 years old? Again when you have nothing else try to sound cool.

Keep preaching those talking points it is all you have.

The fact that I have proved your knowledge of firearms is slighly less than Diane Feinstein seems pretty clear.

You continue to show that isn't the case. I can't help it if you lack the ability to understand what I've written versus what you believe I've written.

You've written jibberish and anti-gun talking points and irrelevant gun incidents and hypothetical nonsense.


Maybe that is the case. You make it sound as if though that it is an impossible scenario despite it happening on more than one occasion.

And you make it sound like any time the shooter had only 10 round magazines potential victims will magically rise up and subdue the gunman. You posted 2 incidents where it occurred, there are more where it didn't. Hide or flee is most common and you know it.

How many crazy people have run through a school with a hammer and killed over two dozen people? How many crazy people have smuggled a hammer into a crowded theater and used it to kill two dozen people and injure about five times that many? Yet another ridiculous analogy. But since you claim to only argue with facts, could you show me the source of that statement regarding hammers? Heck, I'll even let you expand it to blunt objects.

See this link: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...10shrtbl08.xls

By this table from the FBI website there were 438 murders by rifles (including the misnamed assault rifles), 618 murders by blunt objects including hammers, 1830 by knives or cutting instruments, and 841 by the use of hands or feet.

BOOM baby, argue with the FBI!!


Not really. You are the one dissolving into rants and name calling.

Oh it does, you protector of the potato chip.

I disagree. Legislation has been passed during the course of our nation's history and yet people still possess the ability to own firearms. Though I'm not surprised given your previous paranoid rantings.

Neither am I surprised that you are okay with disassembling the Consitution.

So once again. Please show where I advocated the elimination of private firearms ownership.

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Regardless. The point was originally started about the paperwork required to buy a car. I'm betting the people who use their vehicles is a vast minority. I'm not concerned about them.
<font color=red>Anyone could run down 26 children outside of a school while they were waiting for the bus too, but you don't want to believe that's possible</font color>

You're free to have believe in an invalid analogy. I won't argue with you.
<font color=red> Not an invalid analogy at all. You don't believe in the need for magazines that hold more than ten rounds. I don't believe we need to keep letting repeat drunk drivers back out on the roads. You think the rights of the law abiding citizen need to be infringed to curb gun violence. I couldn't disagree more. Look at Chicago. Point proven.</font color>


This makes no sense.
<font color=red> It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand it. Here, let me try it a little slower. Each. Time. You. Post. You. Are. Digging. Yourself. A Bigger. Hole. </font color>


Many of whom lived. Can't say the same for the kids at Sandy Hook.
<font color=red> Many of whom could have just as easily died, and we don't know if anyone at Sandy Hook could have been saved because it's all been a big secret, and the story keeps changing. But that's a different discussion.</font color>

---

You can argue that stricter laws will reduce and prevent gun violence until your blue in the face. You've been presented with facts that counter that point and you don't want to listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Anyone could run down 26 children outside of a school while they were waiting for the bus too, but you don't want to believe that's possible.
It's very possible. When has that happened?

Not an invalid analogy at all. You don't believe in the need for magazines that hold more than ten rounds. I don't believe we need to keep letting repeat drunk drivers back out on the roads. You think the rights of the law abiding citizen need to be infringed to curb gun violence. I couldn't disagree more. Look at Chicago. Point proven.
I agree with you on drunk drivers. What rights have I advocated infringing?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand it. Here, let me try it a little slower. Each. Time. You. Post. You. Are. Digging. Yourself. A Bigger. Hole.
It doesn't surprise me that you (like many others) believe things about me based upon your own imagination.

Many of whom could have just as easily died, and we don't know if anyone at Sandy Hook could have been saved because it's all been a big secret, and the story keeps changing. But that's a different discussion.
But they didn't die. Some of them lived.

You can argue that stricter laws will reduce and prevent gun violence until your blue in the face. You've been presented with facts that counter that point and you don't want to listen.
I know that other nations have a lesser problem with multiple homicides via firearms than we do in the US. I believe we should examine what they do and consider adoption of the programs that can be shown to work.

---

I'll ask you since others like FyredUp won't answer.

When have I advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook, Columbine, or VA Tech would agree with you.

Would they agree to ban gasoline if the perpetrator has tossed in a half a dozen moloyov cocktails? Would they agree to ban fertilizer if the perpetrator had made an ammonium nitrate bomb?
Would they agree tto ban cars if he had waited until recess and ran over kids in the playground?

There reaction is emotional and the truth is magazine limits are meaningless and even you know that.


The apples to apples comparison would be the number of people killed in a mass murder (defined as four or more at one time) with knives and baseball bats. If you want to use all blunt objects then one must also use all firearms. In which case that number isn't remotely comparable given the amount of people killed with firearms every year versus any other method.

So if the Sandy Hook killings had involved a sword and he only killed one or 2, or even a half dozen, it wouldn't be a big deal to you?


A big problem when you are on the wrong end of one.

Same big problem if you are on the wrong end of a knife, baseball bat, or whatever...


Ok.

Because despite Chicago having some of the toughest gun control laws, if not THE toughest control laws, in the country it still has the highest murder rates through the gun violence in the nation. So much for gun control...or at least attempting to enforce gun control on the law abiding citizens of the city.


I've never advocated getting rid of them. I've only advocated limiting the capacity of magazines. It's others on this board believe I'm opposed to owning semi-auto firearms.

Not true, you said repeatedly no one needs an assault rifle.

---

Man this is fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I'll ask you since others like FyredUp won't answer.

When have I advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms?

---

Quote:

---

I know that other nations have a lesser problem with multiple homicides via firearms than we do in the US. I believe we should examine what they do and consider adoption of the programs that can be shown to work.

---

Actually this statement right here in actuality is calling for eliminating private ownership of firearms...

Thank you for finally admitting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Just so I am clear here you are downplaying the role of the advisors in the US involvement in the Viet Nam war. Including the fact that they fought and died side by side with the ARVN they were sent to "Train." Including the 416 members of the US military that died between 1956 and 1964. Apparently they forgot to not go into combat, risk their lives, and die. Golly, maybe you want to contact their families and tell them how insignificant their deaths were since they weren't draftees that did the majority of the dying in that war.
Compared to the role played by draftees, absolutely. The numbers of draftees (who didn't volunteer) who died were a far greater number.

Like I said above, maybe you want to contact the families of those advisors that died and dismiss their combat deaths as not worthy. Their names are on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall.
I didn't dismiss their deaths as unworthy. Once again you read something that wasn't stated.

Duh? Wow? Did you use Wikipedia for that amzing information? The 1968 Tet offensive pretty much wiped out the Viet Cong as a viable military force. Some experts have stated the opinion that the North Vietnamese military actually embraced the destruction of the Viet Cong as a military force so they wouldn't have to try to deal with them after the war was over.

The simple truth is the Viet Cong had a miriad of weaponry from all kinds of sources. WWII surplus, French weaponry from their attempts to retain their colony, and finally US weaponry taken from killed or captured US soldiers and even more when we abandoned Viet Nam and left enough stuff behind to keep them stocked for years. I don't disagree that the communist block supplied them with weapons, that is indisputable. But they were hardly the only source.
True. They had many sources. Their major source of supply was via the USSR. There is no doubt they would have not been able to continue fighting the US were it not for those supplies given they had little manufacturing capacity. I agree we made them a military power with what we left behind. However, those weapons weren't being used against US military personnel since we had pulled out. Your reference was to the weaponry used during our involvement.

Just as much as you hope they will goose step right in line with the latest gun grabbing, rights eliminating, government. Sorry, only a delusional fool would believe that the entire military would step in line with a despot attempting to destroy the United States from within.
I hope for no such thing. I'm saying it is a possibility. More to the point. That is the scenario played out by pro-gun extremists.

When it is all you have it is the best you can do.
It is more than enough.

You hope your leftist despot will have control of the military, he never will be.
What makes you believe the despot will be leftist? It could very well be a right leaning despot. Given the historical actions by despots I could easily show their commonality with many in the extreme conservative movement.

Again, you assume the military will robotically follow illegal orders in direct violation of the law. I believe the majority will not. Since it is hypothetical at this point nether side can be proven correct. The interesting side note is all the federal agencies buying billions of rounds of ammunition, military grade weaponry, armored vehicles, and bullet proof check point booths. All of these weapons and accessories are for use within the borders of the United States. WHY? What is the need? Perhaps Obama will not call on the military but other federal agencies to usurp the rights of US citizens.
That is the scenario played out by pro-gun extremists. If a president did as you claim using other federal agencies then that wouldn't be the full might of the US military. Which is not the original statement I made regarding this scenario. You're moving the goal line to accommodate your paranoid fantasies. I like how you mentioned the current president. He has signed zero legislation on gun control. The gun issue has never been of much interest to him during his presidency. It's not been any sort of a policy issue of his administration in the least. It's only become an issue because the American people are motivated to work on the problem.

You openly stated no one needed assault weapons. A nonsenical term that means nothing made up by anti-gunners to stir knee jerl emotional reactions.
You've stated there are considerable barriers to owning what you define as assault weapons. Do you believe those barriers should be eliminated?

Epic fail? What are you like 13 years old? Again when you have nothing else try to sound cool.
It is more than enough.

Keep preaching those talking points it is all you have.
Okay. You've yet to counter them with a valid argument.

The fact that I have proved your knowledge of firearms is slighly less than Diane Feinstein seems pretty clear.
In what way? Would you like to post more pics? That was fun. The link you posted from the FBI disagrees with what you consider assault rifles.

You've written jibberish and anti-gun talking points and irrelevant gun incidents and hypothetical nonsense.
You've written jibberish and pro-gun talking points and claiming that actions by real people are to be ignored.

And you make it sound like any time the shooter had only 10 round magazines potential victims will magically rise up and subdue the gunman. You posted 2 incidents where it occurred, there are more where it didn't. Hide or flee is most common and you know it.
That is exactly what happened with Jared Loughner when he ran out ammo and was reloading his 30 round magazine. I doubt there was any magic attached to their act. More likely it was survival mode for those who were afraid they would be killed if he had been able to reload.


See this link: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...10shrtbl08.xls

By this table from the FBI website there were 438 murders by rifles (including the misnamed assault rifles), 618 murders by blunt objects including hammers, 1830 by knives or cutting instruments, and 841 by the use of hands or feet.

BOOM baby, argue with the FBI!!
I won't argue with the FBI. Yet you claim they misname assault rifles. So you are the one that is arguing with them. Are you going to tell them they are not as educated about firearms as yourself? Not a significant lesser amount of deaths by blunt objects compared to rifles. Since you believe that assault rifles (according to the FBI) are not the problem because Adam Lanza used a semi-auto handgun, how does that number compare? Since I asked for all blunt objects, how does that number compare to all firearms?

Neither am I surprised that you are okay with disassembling the Consitution.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Including conservative justice Antonin Scalia.

See above.
I did there is nothing there.

---

Not surprising you didn't answer the question. Instead to see delusions of what I've written versus what I've actually written.

This is fun watching you continuing to pursue arguments that get ever more bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It's very possible. When has that happened?

---

Why does it have to happen? You want to prevent violence and murder, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I agree with you on drunk drivers. What rights have I advocated infringing?

---

The rights of a person to own a 25 round magazine for their .22LR plinking/target shooting rifle. The rights of a person to own a 15 round magazine for their home defense/Open carry/Concealed carry weapon. At least we agree on the drunk drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I'll ask you since others like FyredUp won't answer.

When have I advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms?

---

You have not OUTRIGHT, read this CAREFULLY, OUTRIGHT said "I wish to eliminate private gun ownership." However, throughout various posts by YOU in this thread, you have implied, (read: IMPLIED, not OUTRIGHT stated) that you would be okay with eliminating the rights of private ownership of firearms.

You have, stated however, that you wish to limit my right to own a magazine capacity over 10 rounds. Which I believe is an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Actually this statement right here in actuality is calling for eliminating private ownership of firearms...

Thank you for finally admitting it.

---

Once again you read something that wasn't stated. The operative word is "examine."

It's becoming more obvious that you need to buy a dictionary and read it.

Be advised. Not many pictures.

You believe the status quo is working. When that is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Why does it have to happen? You want to prevent violence and murder, don't you?

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

The rights of a person to own a 25 round magazine for their .22LR plinking/target shooting rifle. The rights of a person to own a 15 round magazine for their home defense/Open carry/Concealed carry weapon. At least we agree on the drunk drivers.

---

Where is it written that one has a right to own a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You have not OUTRIGHT, read this CAREFULLY, OUTRIGHT said "I wish to eliminate private gun ownership." However, throughout various posts by YOU in this thread, you have implied, (read: IMPLIED, not OUTRIGHT stated) that you would be okay with eliminating the rights of private ownership of firearms.

---

LIke FyredUp you sink into delusion. I've implied no such thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You have, stated however, that you wish to limit my right to own a magazine capacity over 10 rounds. Which I believe is an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights.

---

Where does the 2nd Amendment state you have a right to own a magazine with greater than a 10 round capacity?

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/
Huge press, pomp, and circumstance to ban "assault rifles", using Sandy Hook as an example-one wasn't even used.
4 handguns; let's be honest, he could have caused that much carnage with 4 revolvers with 6 rounds each. So how is a ban on high-capacity magazines going to help?
Nothing more then uneducated, knee jerk reactions from the left. Hell, in New York, in their rush to utopia, their latest gun laws may have failed to exempt law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Once again you read something that wasn't stated. The operative word is "examine."

It's becoming more obvious that you need to buy a dictionary and read it.

Be advised. Not many pictures.

You believe the status quo is working. When that is not the case.

---

Quote:

---

I know that other nations have a lesser problem with multiple homicides via firearms than we do in the US. I believe we should examine what they do and consider adoption of the programs that can be shown to work.

---

The operative words are "consider adoption of the programs that can be shown to work." All that means is restricting or eliminating gun rights for civilians. So if you support that you support further restrictions up to eliminating private gun ownership. Therefore you are anti-gun.

None of which will solve anything because once again you would be destroying the rights of law abiding citizens and doing nothing to stop criminals or the mentally ill.