Sandy Hook Solution?

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

So tell me (considering that so many people in the USA own guns) do you have no street crime there?? Are no homes ever broken into?? Are no shops ever robbed?? If you have crime if you have guns and crime if you don't, they you have nothing to loose by getting rid of the guns. You may get you house broken into but at least you don't lose your life. But are we are not talking about house robberies or general crime here, so your video is a 'strawman'. It is about people getting shot, children getting shot. Remove the gun and you remove the shooting...as we have proven. QED. If general crime goes up as a result of removing guns then that is a problem that politicians must deal with. You can use the argument that people will get robbed if there are no guns ...because people are getting robbed even when guns are allowed.

I can only reiterate what I have said throughout this thread. Europe does not have guns and Europe is not having it's children murdered in school by crazed gunmen. Protect your 'right to carry guns' at your own peril people.

If you believe that government and politicians are capable of keeping you safe and secure then you live in utopia. For some of us a firearm is the only thing that stands between us and potential victimization. A phone call to "911" in my locale means that I have about 15 minute window to deal with whatever prior to the arrival of the police. It generally takes 10 minutes or less to break into an undefended home, murder all occupants, remove the valuables, and egress.

I understand where you're coming from and I am as disgusted as anyone over the irresponsble use of firearms. It's senseless. But no matter what we do we cannot change what has happened. It seems like an easy and quick fix to ban or restrict firearms. Where is the outcry to remove these lunatics from our society? Franco here and Don H make very compelling arguments about these folks. When we take serious measures to deal with the people problem then we will see these tragedies cease. Until then I will vigorously fight any attempts to punish citizens like I who own, operate, and maintain firearms in a safe, lawful, and respectful manner.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

So why don't you be the first here to explain why Europe doesn't have the same problem with it's infants getting massacred at school as the USA has? Everyone seems to be avoiding this question. As far as I can see, it's either because ....

a) We are not as psychologically disturbed as Americans.
b) We are better educated.
c) We are more civilised
d) We care about our children more than Americans care about theirs.
e) We are not allowed to carry guns.

Personally, I'd go for (e)...how about you?

I know a lot of Americans, so (a) would be my choice. A lot of the psychologicaly disturbed people from Europe liked to goose step and Americans showed up with the "cowboy" attitude you seem to look down on and killed them like well armed psychologically disturbed group we really are.

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

So why don't you be the first here to explain why Europe doesn't have the same problem with it's infants getting massacred at school as the USA has? Everyone seems to be avoiding this question. As far as I can see, it's either because ....

a) We are not as psychologically disturbed as Americans.
b) We are better educated.
c) We are more civilised
d) We care about our children more than Americans care about theirs.
e) We are not allowed to carry guns.

Personally, I'd go for (e)...how about you?

That's easy...the answer is E.

To some extent, I'm going to agree with my fellow Americans Steve and Hrdguera, with whom I very rarely agree. Though I don't own a gun, we Americans see guns as an insurance policy against anyone - whether it be a President or a military leader - who would attempt to establish a dictatorship. You can debate whether or not it's because of gun ownership, but for over 200 years, we have avoided totalitarianism. I do believe that an armed citizenry has played some role in insuring that we did not fall victim to the tragedies that have afflicted much of your continent.

But, it is the heighth of intellectual dishonesty to suggest that we haven't paid a very high price for arming our citizens. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Adam Lanza, or the other maniacs who perpetrated mass killings, could have or would have done so w/o firearms. Mass slaughter like what we see at Columbine or VA Tech or Sandy Hook is possible only with firearms and wouldn't happen but for firearms.

In my opinion, the USC doesn't provide a right to own ANY kind of firearm. It's way past time we banned weapons such as assualt rifles. I think it's also time to consider banning easily concealed hand guns as well - the weapon that accounts for, by far, the most gun-related deaths in America. If our citizens were allowed to own only hunting rifles, shotguns, etc., we would still have an armed citizenry that would act as a deterent to anyone considering forcibly seizing power. We would not eliminate gun related deaths, but they would be significantly reduced.

[Francoitalianarmy]

Originally Posted by pgh69

That's easy...the answer is E.

To some extent, I'm going to agree with my fellow Americans Steve and Hrdguera, with whom I very rarely agree. Though I don't own a gun, we Americans see guns as an insurance policy against anyone - whether it be a President or a military leader - who would attempt to establish a dictatorship. You can debate whether or not it's because of gun ownership, but for over 200 years, we have avoided totalitarianism. I do believe that an armed citizenry has played some role in insuring that we did not fall victim to the tragedies that have afflicted much of your continent.

But, it is the heighth of intellectual dishonesty to suggest that we haven't paid a very high price for arming our citizens. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Adam Lanza, or the other maniacs who perpetrated mass killings, could have or would have done so w/o firearms. Mass slaughter like what we see at Columbine or VA Tech or Sandy Hook is possible only with firearms and wouldn't happen but for firearms.

In my opinion, the USC doesn't provide a right to own ANY kind of firearm. It's way past time we banned weapons such as assualt rifles. I think it's also time to consider banning easily concealed hand guns as well - the weapon that accounts for, by far, the most gun-related deaths in America. If our citizens were allowed to own only hunting rifles, shotguns, etc., we would still have an armed citizenry that would act as a deterent to anyone considering forcibly seizing power. We would not eliminate gun related deaths, but they would be significantly reduced.

While I think everyone agrees that concealed handguns were very helpful in carrying out this travesty, I also believe it was a very well planned, thought out event. He had the access and means (handguns from the mother), the knowledge to destroy the HD on his PC, which COULD have led to his researching a bomb for all we know and the determination to do it.

Had the mother secured those weapons properly by a trigger lock or gun safe, the job would have been tougher, but not undoable. He was angry... angry enough to not only take her life, but take something from her that HE perceived to possibly be more important to her than him....those children.

It is sad how it unfolded, but I think this was unfortunately inevitable... we have to understand this person was sick... he seemingly ONLY targeted her students. if he had made a bomb, the casualties could have been far worse. The handguns make it personable, which is why it affects all of us.

If anything should change to current law, maybe MANDATORY 25 years - no parole for conviction of a crime in conjunction with a handgun...at least some folks may think about using a gun beforehand.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Francoitalianarmy

Plad ole' boy.... you are missing the point here...

No old bean! The 'point' is that there have been an unacceptable number of people killed by being shot in the USA and too many of them have been children. If the right to own and carry firearms is removed then the number of shootings will decrease significantly.

Speaking for myself and probably a few others, we will trade off the possibility of a few idiots using a tool (gun) wrongly as long as we have the right to carry firearms to defend ourselves and this country.

...but as well as trading off a few idiots incorrectly using guns, you are trading off a few hundred dead children.

We were born of revolution here and we do not have the fear of the government locking us down politically, gassing us, making us fear retribution for merely speaking out against the government.

Nor do we...and we don't have firearms.

200 years ago, this country was oppressed.... we fought and broke that bind WITH GUNS... it is part of who we are and that will never change.

Then on your own heads be it.

Where do you feel safer.... on a bus in NYC with the threat of a mad gunman or on a bus in Tel Aviv that can be bombed... Millions are killed world wide... the "means" makes no difference to lunatics

The problem is that you are unable to identify the lunatics and if that is the case, the alternative is too remove the tools that the lunatics are using.

The right and MEANS to defend yourself is precious here...

Then as I've already said, you must be ready to accept the consequences of having that right.

BTW... I'm doing fine... been busy, but I lurk as much as possible. Hope your holiday is doing good!

Holiday??? What feckin' holiday??? Have I missed something?

Originally Posted by Francoitalianarmy

... many robberies are thwarted because of dogs in the house......

See, there is no excuse to own a firearm. All you need is one vicious bastard of a dog!

It is really common sense from the robber point of view that if you knew a man had a gun on him, would you attempt to rob him or choose the unarmed guy to rob?

Clearly, the unarmed guy...but I don't see that as an excuse to risk 5 year old infants getting shot.

Originally Posted by evileye

I know a lot of Americans, so (a) would be my choice. A lot of the psychologicaly disturbed people from Europe liked to goose step and Americans showed up with the "cowboy" attitude you seem to look down on and killed them like well armed psychologically disturbed group we really are.

Oh please!! John Wayne rides again!
Point of information brother. America didn't join the war because it wanted to save the occupied countries of Europe. It joined because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Had the Japanese not done that then the USA would have left Europe to it's fate. America saw the war as a European conflict that had feck all to do with them and they wanted no part of it. Now don't think we ain't grateful for your help but please don't try to make out that you came steaming in to 'save us from the Hun' out of the goodness of your hearts because you didn't. On December 8, America was furious with Japan, and ready to support a war against Japan, and Japan only. The men lining up outside enlistment offices that morning wanted to go kill Japs, not Germans or Italians. It was Germany that declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

I suggest you read some of the six volumes of Winston Churchill's work concerning the period from the end of the First World War to July 1945. You might get a bit of a shock!!

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by pgh69

That's easy...the answer is E.

That is the correct answer. You win a life-sized, fully functioning blow-up doll.

But, it is the heighth of intellectual dishonesty to suggest that we haven't paid a very high price for arming our citizens. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Adam Lanza, or the other maniacs who perpetrated mass killings, could have or would have done so w/o firearms. Mass slaughter like what we see at Columbine or VA Tech or Sandy Hook is possible only with firearms and wouldn't happen but for firearms.

THERE...now THAT is an intelligent response!!! Bravo!

It's way past time we banned weapons such as assualt rifles. I think it's also time to consider banning easily concealed hand guns as well - the weapon that accounts for, by far, the most gun-related deaths in America.

Yep!

If our citizens were allowed to own only hunting rifles, shotguns, etc...

...with adequate control.

We would not eliminate gun related deaths, but they would be significantly reduced.

There you have it folks. Simple isn't it.

[Stevomeo]

I'm not one to jump on conspiracy theories but consider for a minute what we know to be fact. The government of the United States allowed assault weapons to walk across the Mexican border into the hands drug cartels. These weapons have been used to kill many innocent civilians and at least one border patrol agent.

Now add in the claims and evidence from these videos:

http://youtu.be/gQhdiqv3NN4
http://youtu.be/ynLpXrbyCzQ

The implications are chilling!!!

[Wouldhe]

As I ponder all the comments here, I can't argue with Plads assertion that if there were no guns tragedy's like this wouldn't happen. I am also struggling with idea of gun control.
With that said, my thoughts.. We are too late in the game to implement gun control. There are millions of guns in circulation. If we were to implement a ban of some sort only the law abiding citizens would obey the law. This means two things, 1. Only the undesirable elements would have guns and 2. There would be no way to control, do away with, conficate, or other to get the exisiting guns off the streets. There just too many.

I could find my way to banning assault weapons but unless handguns and the like are banned as well banning the assault weapon will have no effect on the goal. The biggest problem I have with any ban is the act of taking away my freedoms. If I want an assault rifle for collector or sport shooting puposes my right to have one would be taken away. Looking at the bigger picture, is the cost of my freedoms and America's freedom worth trade off in the loss of the freedoms. I see no solution by banning weapons because there are just too many out there. The solution is to identify problem children not forcing Americans to lose their freedoms.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

We are too late in the game to implement gun control. There are millions of guns in circulation. If we were to implement a ban of some sort only the law abiding citizens would obey the law. This means two things, 1. Only the undesirable elements would have guns

What I can't get my head around Woodster is the fact that so many of you are 'creating' problems for no other reason, it seems to me, than to make excuses for not getting rid of your guns. If banning gun ownership is going to result in the streets swarming with criminals gunning innocent people down (because they are the only ones that are going to have firearms) then I would love someone to explain to me why the streets of London, Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin and a hundreds of other European cities are not swarming with criminals gunning innocent people down...because they are the only ones that are going to have firearms.

Do you not see what I'm getting at here? You are creating a problem when the evidence shows that such a problem does not exist in countries where ownership of firearms is prohibited.

and 2. There would be no way to control, do away with, conficate, or other to get the existing guns off the streets.

Why ever not??? You have a six month amnesty in which to turn in your firearm...no questions asked. After that, anyone found in possession of an illegal firearm gets 5 years in prison. People would soon turn their firearms in bro.

I could find my way to banning assault weapons but unless handguns and the like are banned as well banning the assault weapon will have no effect on the goal.

Firearms should be banned. If you want to own a hunting rifle or belong to some kind of sports shooting club then there is no problem with that, providing you have undergone the most stringent of checks, training and control.

The biggest problem I have with any ban is the act of taking away my freedoms.

I feel the same way about the bans that take away my freedom to ride my motorbike at 130mph bro but you see, I realise that if I ride around at 130mph, I put myself and, more importantly, other people in danger from my actions. Sometimes it is necessary to curtail the freedom of some if the end result will be of benefit to most...dontchthink mate?

If I want an assault rifle for collector or sport shooting puposes my right to have one would be taken away.

No it wouldn't! We have sports shooting clubs here. People still hunt!

Looking at the bigger picture, is the cost of my freedoms and America's freedom worth trade off in the loss of the freedoms.

The question must be.... 'What price is my freedom costing'.

The solution is to identify problem children .....

Well sure but how are you going to do that? If all lunatics had 'I'm a lunatic' stamped on their foreheads there wouldn't be a problem would there - but they don't! I mean...everyone is fit and healthy....until the day they are ill right? So what happens when the fit and healthy person that has responsibly owned a firearm for 10 years, suddenly becomes a lunatic, walks into a school and proceeds to slaughter class after class of 5 year olds?? But if people don't have guns, it won't matter whether you have identified the loony or not because he doesn't have a firearm to do any damage with.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

What I can't get my head around Woodster is the fact that so many of you are 'creating' problems for no other reason, it seems to me, than to make excuses for not getting rid of your guns. If banning gun ownership is going to result in the streets swarming with criminals gunning innocent people down (because they are the only ones that are going to have firearms) then I would love someone to explain to me why the streets of London, Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin and a hundreds of other European cities are not swarming with criminals gunning innocent people down...because they are the only ones that are going to have firearms.

Do you not see what I'm getting at here? You are creating a problem when the evidence shows that such a problem does not exist in countries where ownership of firearms is prohibited.

You don't see that behavoir in Europe is because they don't have a "gun" culture. Their activity's that revolve around guns doesn't exist to the extent it does in the U.S. How many generations of children in Europe grew up not seeing a gun, knowing about guns, does any hunting or sport activity's that involve guns. Guns in the U.S. is as important to U.S. citizens as their cars.

I agree with your idea but it just won't work. People will fight to the death for their guns. Let the governent try to confiscate them or buy them back or whatever and all hell will break loose.

The concern about only criminals gunning people down in the streets is a real concern. Maybe not the way the idea is phrased but more like if robbers knew nobody had guns the home invasions would sky rocket. That is a problem in Arizona. Carjackings would increase, more banks would be robbed, the Jewelry stores and Pawn Shops would be getting robbed at an alarming rate. Crime in general would increase because only the bad guys would have the guns.

I hear yha bro'
Why ever not??? You have a six month amnesty in which to turn in your firearm...no questions asked. After that, anyone found in possession of an illegal firearm gets 5 years in prison. People would soon turn their firearms in bro.

I explained above.

Firearms should be banned. If you want to own a hunting rifle or belong to some kind of sports shooting club then there is no problem with that, providing you have undergone the most stringent of checks, training and control.

I feel the same way about the bans that take away my freedom to ride my motorbike at 130mph bro but you see, I realise that if I ride around at 130mph, I put myself and, more importantly, other people in danger from my actions. Sometimes it is necessary to curtail the freedom of some if the end result will be of benefit to most...dontchthink mate?

Let me ask you this. If a motorcyclist went down the road at 130 mph and slammed into someone and killed them and then the goverment turned around and said that everyone who owns a motorcycle has to install a 50 mph governor what would you think? Is it fair that the masses suffer because of one nut case driving too fast.

No it wouldn't! We have sports shooting clubs here. People still hunt!

Not like in the U.S. Groups of people, will go out camping in the desert for the weekend with thousands of rounds of ammo and a variety of guns and have one big shoot 'em all weekend. Guns are a big thing here and I'll tell you what, don't even think about getting Texans to turn in their guns. They might be the biggest gun state in the U.S.

The question must be.... 'What price is my freedom costing'.

What is for the greater good? I think preserving our freedoms and Constitution is the greater good. We have fought war after war for freedom. Millions have died for those freedoms. This is the cost we pay to have those freedoms.

Well sure but how are you going to do that? If all lunatics had 'I'm a lunatic' stamped on their foreheads there wouldn't be a problem would there - but they don't! I mean...everyone is fit and healthy....until the day they are ill right? So what happens when the fit and healthy person that has responsibly owned a firearm for 10 years, suddenly becomes a lunatic, walks into a school and proceeds to slaughter class after class of 5 year olds?? But if people don't have guns, it won't matter whether you have identified the loony or not because he doesn't have a firearm to do any damage with.

Pladster, in almost all cases there were/are warning signs and indications. It isn't the "normal" people that are doing this. A child who is acting strangely should be approached.