BREAKING: WABC: One dead in school shooting in Newtown, CT

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Gerry, you have to deal with reality.

The Second Amendment is clear, and it is not going away.

Neither are the hundreds of millions of weapons in the hands of civilians going away.

Therefore, as it is legally and physically impossible to erase the threat, there are only two options:

1. Do nothing.

2. Encourage good people to take steps to defend themselves and the innocent.
The yanks are good at # 1: Do nothing. unless it is someone else's business that is. They have done diddly squat as a result of all the other mass shootings down there. The second amendment has to go, but they are afraid to do it.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
another "amendment" just isn't possible, eh? "Amendments" just aren't allowed any more?

"By many measures, Americans have changed on the question since the 1990s, when people favored gun control over gun rights – by a 2-to-1 margin in polling after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. In a Gallup poll last year, 55 percent said gun laws should stay the same or be more lenient, while 43 percent wanted them toughened."

Gun Control Debate Back In Spotlight After Shooting

An amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both houses, and ratification by 2/3 of state legislatures.

It ain't gonna happen.

And if it did, it would not remove the hundreds of millions of guns held by US citizens.

Connecticut gun laws fifth toughest in USA.....

Connecticut gun laws among the toughest in the U.S.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
just reinforces my opinion of americans and their values. Their selfish, self centered values. Their personal rights are more important than the lives of others.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The yanks are good at # 1: Do nothing. unless it is someone else's business that is. They have done diddly squat as a result of all the other mass shootings down there. The second amendment has to go, but they are afraid to do it.

So tell me, exactly what would cancelling the Second Amendment achieve??

Give us your vision of the ideal situation inn the USA.

Pretend you are Obama, and the Congress is compliant, and the Second Amendment has been overturned.

What do you do????
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
When I heard this story break, it really hit me in the heart.

But that doesn't change the fact that children die every day.

Why will this story cause so much consternation and kneejerking?

Why this story? Because it's massive and we can't ignore it. Yes, children do die every day and if we stopped and put any real thought into that, we wouldn't be able to do anything else. We would easily be consumed by empathy. But this, you can't not let it get to you. Add to that the large body count, the age of the victims, the fact that it occurred not in some obscure corner of the world but right on our doorstep. It becomes emotional overload.

I can see that you view it differently, but I don't view it as life until it is capable of living outside the mother's body on it's own.

I'm curious because I've heard a lot of people say this type of thing, along with characterizing the unborn child as a "fetus" instead of a "baby". I've always wanted to ask and I know that you have children, how did you refer to the unborn child when your wife/partner was expecting? I'm not judging here, your views on the abortion debate and when a life begins are your own. But when I was pregnant with both of my children I was carrying a baby, not a fetus. I've just always wondered how people who categorize their thoughts along those lines when it comes to the abortion debate differentiated when it was their own child. Again, merely curious.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Why this story? Because it's massive and we can't ignore it. Yes, children do die every day and if we stopped and put any real thought into that, we wouldn't be able to do anything else. We would easily be consumed by empathy. But this, you can't not let it get to you. Add to that the large body count, the age of the victims, the fact that it occurred not in some obscure corner of the world but right on our doorstep. It becomes emotional overload.



I'm curious because I've heard a lot of people say this type of thing, along with characterizing the unborn child as a "fetus" instead of a "baby". I've always wanted to ask and I know that you have children, how did you refer to the unborn child when your wife/partner was expecting? I'm not judging here, your views on the abortion debate and when a life begins are your own. But when I was pregnant with both of my children I was carrying a baby, not a fetus. I've just always wondered how people who categorize their thoughts along those lines when it comes to the abortion debate differentiated when it was their own child. Again, merely curious.

Right on all counts. It's funny how some people will move heaven and earth to protect life, except when it's inconvenient for them.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
I can see that you view it differently, but I don't view it as life until it is capable of living outside the mother's body on it's own.

Technically even bacteria are considered a form of life. Just because something is microscopic doesnt mean it isnt alive.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
So tell me, exactly what would cancelling the Second Amendment achieve??

Give us your vision of the ideal situation inn the USA.

Pretend you are Obama, and the Congress is compliant, and the Second Amendment has been overturned.

What do you do????

Its not rocket science. Make them all illegal to start with. Jail those who possess. Oh by the way, there was a shooting in an alabama hospital today, wounding 3. Yes, guns are great aren't they? Pro gunners are idiots and the yanks are at the top of the list.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So tell me, exactly what would cancelling the Second Amendment achieve??

Give us your vision of the ideal situation inn the USA.

Pretend you are Obama, and the Congress is compliant, and the Second Amendment has been overturned.

What do you do????

Why pretend the 2nd amendment is gone? That's not really a rational discussion to have, as that right is not realistically going to be overturned anytime in the near to medium future. There are plenty of reasonable things which can be discussed based on the merits without inventing unrealistic scenarios.

  1. Remove the gun show loop hole for background checks.
  2. Re-instate the restrictions on high capacity magazines and weapons of war.
  3. Other conditions for purchasing, such as proof of competency, which could include evaluations of mental fitness by range instructors.
  4. Since the majority of mass shootings occur in public places, and gun enthusiasts like Colpy would like to see armed people, how about a tax on ammo sales that must be spent on hiring security/law enforcement in public places.
That's off the top of my head, but I'm sure that there are many other options out there. I guess a corollary needs to be addressed as well. The types of things I listed above may make it more difficult for the mass shootings to take place, as it means time, effort, and skills training are all part of the process for purchasing a gun. But the vast majority of gun related deaths aren't mass shootings. So that may be a whole other topic that needs to be addressed, and not necessarily with the same actions.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
That is my line in the sand. I also view that once the baby is born he is alive and under our laws (and societal values) the parents or guardians are responsible for it's care until the age of 16. So leaving an infant on the ground with out care is chargeable (and is).

I don't expect you to agree with me. I respect your position (your line in the sand), and gerrys but just don't agree with them.

I would add until their line in the sand is forced upon me.

The pro gun owners on this forum probably have wee weenies and are trying to compensate for that by trying to look manly by waving around their gun.
The only purpose of a gun is to kill. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Which is not a true statement. many people only shoot at targets. Then their are many that do not live in cities and o are capapble of not only thinking for themselves but doing as well. A gun of some kind is pretty much an essential tool if you have livestock.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Its not rocket science. Make them all illegal to start with. Jail those who possess. Oh by the way, there was a shooting in an alabama hospital today, wounding 3. Yes, guns are great aren't they? Pro gunners are idiots and the yanks are at the top of the list.

How many people are in hospital in Alabama today for injuries inflicted by a vehicle?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Its not rocket science. Make them all illegal to start with. Jail those who possess. Oh by the way, there was a shooting in an alabama hospital today, wounding 3. Yes, guns are great aren't they? Pro gunners are idiots and the yanks are at the top of the list.

Judging by your posts citiots lack the intelligence to make rational statements and have serious mental issues.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,081
10,996
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
How many people are in hospital in Alabama today for injuries inflicted by a vehicle?

You realize that you've opened the door to the definition of the word "vehicle" now, eh?
The slope is slippery. Does that include skateboards & tugboats & bicycles & airplanes?

(That might be its own Thread)
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Its not rocket science. Make them all illegal to start with. Jail those who possess. Oh by the way, there was a shooting in an alabama hospital today, wounding 3. Yes, guns are great aren't they? Pro gunners are idiots and the yanks are at the top of the list.

Well, congrats on taking up the challenge, at least.

But now actually think about what you propose.

It would require creating a prison state.........and the suspension of the entire constitution to search, try offenders and collect weapons. And there would be (quite rightly) extensive resistance.

270 million guns. An armed people can never be oppressed. Your plan would require a war by the American government on its own people, who are quite well equipped to fight it.

Civil war.

How many children would die in that??

625,000 people died in the last one, and that was 150 years ago.

The idea is quite simply, idiotic.

Why pretend the 2nd amendment is gone? That's not really a rational discussion to have, as that right is not realistically going to be overturned anytime in the near to medium future. There are plenty of reasonable things which can be discussed based on the merits without inventing unrealistic scenarios.

  1. Remove the gun show loop hole for background checks.
  2. Re-instate the restrictions on high capacity magazines and weapons of war.
  3. Other conditions for purchasing, such as proof of competency, which could include evaluations of mental fitness by range instructors.
  4. Since the majority of mass shootings occur in public places, and gun enthusiasts like Colpy would like to see armed people, how about a tax on ammo sales that must be spent on hiring security/law enforcement in public places.
That's off the top of my head, but I'm sure that there are many other options out there. I guess a corollary needs to be addressed as well. The types of things I listed above may make it more difficult for the mass shootings to take place, as it means time, effort, and skills training are all part of the process for purchasing a gun. But the vast majority of gun related deaths aren't mass shootings. So that may be a whole other topic that needs to be addressed, and not necessarily with the same actions.

1. Okay, but remember the guns used in the Connecticut shooting were registered, and the owner background checked. We need things that actually work....

2. Those are exactly the weapons protected by the second amendment.

3. Actually, that almost makes sense. I have always seen licensing as the best solution....but the guns in Connecticut were held by a licensed shooter.

4. HUGELY expensive....why not ENCOURAGE people to become trained on their own, paid for by themselves, qualify and background check them, and let them carry anywhere? I'd do it....although I already have all the qualifications.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Well, congrats on taking up the challenge, at least.

But now actually think about what you propose.

It would require creating a prison state.........and the suspension of the entire constitution to search, try offenders and collect weapons. And there would be (quite rightly) extensive resistance.

270 million guns. An armed people can never be oppressed. Your plan would require a war by the American government on its own people, who are quite well equipped to fight it.

Civil war.

How many children would die in that??

625,000 people died in the last one, and that was 150 years ago.

The idea is quite simply, idiotic.

Lets see, now. A civil war over it? If you believe that you are more mentally challenged than I thought. Drugs are illegal, I don't see a civil war over that. Robbing a bank is illegal, I don't see a civil war over that.
One point that you mentioned: the guns in this case were obtained legally. Yes, but if it was illegal to own guns, those weapons wouldn't have been there for the dimwit to take and use in the first place.

Oh yeah, guns are good for one thing: they give CNN something to talk all day about...
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Isn't interesting that serious discussions about gun control only happen after tragedies like this?

I think we should realize that gun control is not a matter of freedom as principal, but instead a matter of deciding how much freedom a certain state has as a response to the likelihood of significant harm occurring in that state.

In this way, we do not need to have a bi-polar discussion between activists on both ends.

Obviously a problem exists. Easy access to guns is only part of the problem. So is lack of empathy and desensitization to violence.

Gerry, you have to deal with reality.

The Second Amendment is clear, and it is not going away.

Neither are the hundreds of millions of weapons in the hands of civilians going away.

Therefore, as it is legally and physically impossible to erase the threat, there are only two options:

1. Do nothing.

2. Encourage good people to take steps to defend themselves and the innocent.

3. Better screening and regulation regarding who possesses firearms.

4: Accountability.

Governments should be able to prevent people with a history of violence or mental disease from acquiring firearms. But just because you have a clean record doesn't mean you should be able to possess a firearm. I agree with Colpy regarding training/education to become qualified to possess a firearm. I'd also like to see all fire arm owners required to belong to a gun club or association which is accountable for the actions of its members and has the power to strip members of their firearms for dangerous irresponsible behavior. If a member commits a crime. the gun club should be partly liable.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,299
14,268
113
Low Earth Orbit
Petition your MP to fund mental health treatment. Sane people are much safer around weapons than un or under-treated people with mental health issues.

Governments should be able to prevent people with a history of violence or mental disease from acquiring firearms. But just because you have a clean record doesn't mean you should be able to possess a firearm.

Do you have to prove sanity to buy a bottle of bleach and bottle of ammonia to make mustard gas?

ANYBODY, any age, sex, race or space alien can buy those two products with no checks or balances.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,253
2,883
113
Toronto, ON
I'm curious because I've heard a lot of people say this type of thing, along with characterizing the unborn child as a "fetus" instead of a "baby". I've always wanted to ask and I know that you have children, how did you refer to the unborn child when your wife/partner was expecting? I'm not judging here, your views on the abortion debate and when a life begins are your own. But when I was pregnant with both of my children I was carrying a baby, not a fetus. I've just always wondered how people who categorize their thoughts along those lines when it comes to the abortion debate differentiated when it was their own child. Again, merely curious.

My wife has had some issues with mis-carriages so we tried not to count any chickens until he was born. Didn't even buy baby stuff till 2-3 weeks before the date. I guess we may have used the term baby but my wife and I didn't even do the Downs tests because we had decided that for us abortion was not going to be our choice regardless.