Conn. Elementary school shooting Options

[Beck]

I finally started back on the message board tonite. It's the earliest I've been home since last Friday. I've lost count of the funerals, wakes, memorials and other services I've been to. We have one more funeral tomorrow and then we can move on. My son was in the gym around the corner, maybe 30 feet from the front desk of the school. Heard it all. Siblings of his friends were murdered. My wife works as a therapist in the school, lost three of her students. She lost two of her closest friends. She was lucky not to be there at the time.

Gun control laws alone cannot fix this problem. The problem is much deeper than that. Our culture is one that flips out when a nipple is shown on tv, but routinely exposes people of all ages to violence no matter when you watch tv. Watching a couple in a true act of love is impermissible, but showing a woman being raped is allowed, as long as you don't show a nipple. Even during this crisis, I still saw a lady in the local Target with a cart full of toy guns.

We live in a violent society. We love our guns. As kids it's fun. But as we mature, guns make us feel more powerful, stronger, confident. The more damage the gun can do, the more stronger and confident we become. I say if you really feel the need to be big and powerful, buy a big, loud truck. Channel that energy into something that is safer, yet just as thrilling or powerful.

So when you mix military style weapons, large capacity clips, pervasive violence and hate in our culture and the mentally ill, even if only slightly ill this is what we get.

I'm not asking to ban all guns. I'm not asking to never film another violent tv show or movie. I'm not asking to ban violent video games. What I am asking is that you ask yourself why is it that the top selling video games are violent, why are the top grossing films violent, why can you see violence on the tv anytime you want and is this what you want our culture to be noted for. Think about why you like to blow people away in video games, or why you need a 30 round m4 style gun to obliterate a target. Can we live with maybe 4 violent movies a year and owning one violent video game? Can you live with 12 or 8 rounds in a gun? Or is there a deeper reason why you need to hold that powerful tool?

Well, now I've lost my train of thought. Oh well. When it's your kids school, maybe you will understand. And maybe you'll want a solution then.

This is the new normal. People still act so surprised when this occurs in the United States, as if this has never happened before or is some sort of freak unprecedented tragedy. I think people are still trying to wrap their minds around the fact that this is the new normal for us, for our society. I was at a party yesterday and observed three small children (I estimate around 4 years old), two girls and one boy, all playing with toy rifles. This is where we are as a society at this point in time. It is essential that we all acknowledge this.

We've seen where we have been before, and we see where we are now as a result of the choices we made and are still unable to make that connection. Failing to learn from the past yields potentially severe consequences. A rather pessimistic (yet realistic) way of looking at this would be to say that it is in our nature to destroy ourselves. But we really have to point out or flaws and weaknesses, IMO, in order to better ourselves for the future. This is the only way to improve.

To hope to be able to have peace, to be able to have justice and environmental balance, are consequences of our behavior, not just our intentions.

With over 7 billion people on this planet as of October last year, and that number is not slowing down at all, again it is essential that we first acknowledge our wrongs. Solutions, viable/practical ways of moving forward, will be made possible after that.

As much as I love talking about this, it becomes increasingly difficult for me not to sound fatalistic, and this is frustrating. Especially since we're dealing with some pretty important, fragile material here. This isn't even a surprise to me anymore. For people like me who study civilizations, human behavior, sociology and pyschology - this makes sense in a way as to say that this is exactly where society should and would stand at this point in time, given our actions. Not easy to accept.

This is the path we have chosen.

[hckyplayer8]

^This is one of the things that causes this. Influential violent video games.

Give me a break. Call of duty is the best selling franchise in history, selling over 100 million copies through its entire life (all games combined).

I don't see a 100 million people going out and committing acts of murder.

Stop blaming everything else for the deed and start blaming the person committing the act.

[drummer182]

Give me a break. Call of duty is the best selling franchise in history, selling over 100 million copies through its entire life (all games combined).

I don't see a 100 million people going out and committing acts of murder.

Stop blaming everything else for the deed and start blaming the person committing the act.

Thank you for this.

[drummer182]

I finally started back on the message board tonite. It's the earliest I've been home since last Friday. I've lost count of the funerals, wakes, memorials and other services I've been to. We have one more funeral tomorrow and then we can move on. My son was in the gym around the corner, maybe 30 feet from the front desk of the school. Heard it all. Siblings of his friends were murdered. My wife works as a therapist in the school, lost three of her students. She lost two of her closest friends. She was lucky not to be there at the time.

Gun control laws alone cannot fix this problem. The problem is much deeper than that. Our culture is one that flips out when a nipple is shown on tv, but routinely exposes people of all ages to violence no matter when you watch tv. Watching a couple in a true act of love is impermissible, but showing a woman being raped is allowed, as long as you don't show a nipple. Even during this crisis, I still saw a lady in the local Target with a cart full of toy guns.

We live in a violent society. We love our guns. As kids it's fun. But as we mature, guns make us feel more powerful, stronger, confident. The more damage the gun can do, the more stronger and confident we become. I say if you really feel the need to be big and powerful, buy a big, loud truck. Channel that energy into something that is safer, yet just as thrilling or powerful.

So when you mix military style weapons, large capacity clips, pervasive violence and hate in our culture and the mentally ill, even if only slightly ill this is what we get.

I'm not asking to ban all guns. I'm not asking to never film another violent tv show or movie. I'm not asking to ban violent video games. What I am asking is that you ask yourself why is it that the top selling video games are violent, why are the top grossing films violent, why can you see violence on the tv anytime you want and is this what you want our culture to be noted for. Think about why you like to blow people away in video games, or why you need a 30 round m4 style gun to obliterate a target. Can we live with maybe 4 violent movies a year and owning one violent video game? Can you live with 12 or 8 rounds in a gun? Or is there a deeper reason why you need to hold that powerful tool?

Well, now I've lost my train of thought. Oh well. When it's your kids school, maybe you will understand. And maybe you'll want a solution then.

The Second Amendment wasn't meant to protect criminals with deadly intent. It was to protect the law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for protection, hunting, sporting and recreational use. You speak of limiting these things like violent movies, violent video games and "large capacity" magazines (30 rounds is not large, 100 is) but you don't realize that doing each is stepping on the rights of the people.

You wonder how these criminals get firearms, like the guy that just killed the 2 firefighters, well the same would apply to your violent video games and violent movies. They would still obtain them illegally even if you had them limited.

This isn't a gun issue. This is an issue with the state of the human mind. If people had the same access to mental health doctors as they do to firearms, maybe these shootings might not have happened.

[hckyplayer8]

The Nazi Senator of California is proposing a buy back program (similar to the failed Australian one) where the govt would enforce a mandatory buy back of all semi auto weapons.

These people are evil and anti freedom as it gets.

They must be stopped.

[drummer182]

The Nazi Senator of California is proposing a buy back program (similar to the failed Australian one) where the govt would enforce a mandatory buy back of all semi auto weapons.

These people are evil and anti freedom as it gets.

They must be stopped.

Agreed but there's no stopping it in CA. Just about everyone there is like that. Same as NYC. There was a voluntary buy-back program today in LA already.

[hckyplayer8]

Agreed but there's no stopping it in CA. Just about everyone there is like that. Same as NYC. There was a voluntary buy-back program today in LA already.

I wanted to buy a AR but the market is too crazy right now.

Hopefully the Republican House holds strong and strikes down any of this garbage legislature.

Thinking about picking up a MP5 5A tomorrow.

[mmi16]

[Beck]

The Nazi Senator of California is proposing a buy back program (similar to the failed Australian one) where the govt would enforce a mandatory buy back of all semi auto weapons.

These people are evil and anti freedom as it gets.

They must be stopped.

Hmm....this is a very counterproductive way of thinking. I've known people who were so negative - hating the rest of the world because they don't share their opinions on certain subjects - this is not a good way to think and go about business in the world we live in.

It is better to draw wisdom from as many sources as you can - all places, states, countries, nationalities, lifestyles, and elements. If you draw wisdom from only one source, it becomes rigid and stale. To be able to think as a whole, you have to incorporate as many sources as possible into your thoughts. This may seem irrelevant to the subject, but trust me - this is very important for everybody to know. It helps a lot.

Agreed but there's no stopping it in CA. Just about everyone there is like that. Same as NYC. There was a voluntary buy-back program today in LA already.

It is not wise to generalize & shun an entire population of a region based on personal political views, what you hear in movies & TV shows, the news, etc. As a native Californian, I would like to say that we Californians are not "evil and anti-freedom nazis", as hckyplayer8 put it. We're human beings, just like you. Merely living our lives regardless of petty politics. I've never been to New York, but I would imagine that the same goes for the people living there and everywhere else in the world as well.

Back on the subject of the topic, please refer to my post at the beginning of this page. I believe it is important for us to discuss this and I would like feedback if possible.

[hckyplayer8]

Hmm....this is a very counterproductive way of thinking. I've known people who were so negative - hating the rest of the world because they don't share their opinions on certain subjects - this is not a good way to think and go about business in the world we live in.

It is better to draw wisdom from as many sources as you can - all places, states, countries, nationalities, lifestyles, and elements. If you draw wisdom from only one source, it becomes rigid and stale. To be able to think as a whole, you have to incorporate as many sources as possible into your thoughts. This may seem irrelevant to the subject, but trust me - this is very important for everybody to know. It helps a lot.
It is not wise to generalize & shun an entire population of a region based on personal political views, what you hear in movies & TV shows, the news, etc. As a native Californian, I would like to say that we Californians are not "evil and anti-freedom nazis", as hckyplayer8 put it. We're human beings, just like you. Merely living our lives regardless of petty politics. I've never been to New York, but I would imagine that the same goes for the people living there and everywhere else in the world as well.

Back on the subject of the topic, please refer to my post at the beginning of this page. I believe it is important for us to discuss this and I would like feedback if possible.

Incorrect. I hate them not because they are different; I hate them because they strive to impose their opinions on me.

They want to strip every state of their right to own these weapons.

Whereas the way things currently are; the states have the right to decide. Don't like it? Move. (and believe me if PA was anything like Cali I would have moved to Texas or Alaska a long time ago)

It wouldn't be the case under the new law and that is the difference between liberal Nazi's and Republicans.

This post has been edited by hckyplayer8: Dec 26 2012, 06:25 PM

[hckyplayer8]

Hackers have apparently turned the tables on the publisher and reporter of a online NY news article that posted the name and addresses of people who own permits to carry a handgun by publishing the home information and contact info of the publisher and reporter!

[mmi16]

Matters of Public Record work in many ways.

[drummer182]

I wanted to buy a AR but the market is too crazy right now.

Hopefully the Republican House holds strong and strikes down any of this garbage legislature.

Thinking about picking up a MP5 5A tomorrow.

Don't buy an AR now, the market is too full of idiots trying to take advantage of other people. They're trying to sell AR's for 2-3x what they're worth. And don't even get me started on PMAGs People are selling them for 50-100$ a piece! So ridiculous. All you have to do is wait till the beginning of the year and for distributors to get restocked.

Are you getting an HK one?

[drummer182]

Nothing like a Hello Kitty 50DE

[drummer182]

Incorrect. I hate them not because they are different; I hate them because they strive to impose their opinions on me.

They want to strip every state of their right to own these weapons.

Whereas the way things currently are; the states have the right to decide. Don't like it? Move. (and believe me if PA was anything like Cali I would have moved to Texas or Alaska a long time ago)

It wouldn't be the case under the new law and that is the difference between liberal Nazi's and Republicans.

That really is the difference. How is it that we don't try to push our beliefs on them, but they think it's perfectly fine to tread on ours? Hypocrites.

[hckyplayer8]

Don't buy an AR now, the market is too full of idiots trying to take advantage of other people. They're trying to sell AR's for 2-3x what they're worth. And don't even get me started on PMAGs People are selling them for 50-100$ a piece! So ridiculous. All you have to do is wait till the beginning of the year and for distributors to get restocked.

Are you getting an HK one?

Naturally. I don't settle for generic garbage.

[drummer182]

Naturally. I don't settle for generic garbage.

I like it

[Beck]

Incorrect. I hate them not because they are different; I hate them because they strive to impose their opinions on me.

They want to strip every state of their right to own these weapons.

Whereas the way things currently are; the states have the right to decide. Don't like it? Move. (and believe me if PA was anything like Cali I would have moved to Texas or Alaska a long time ago)

It wouldn't be the case under the new law and that is the difference between liberal Nazi's and Republicans.

The point I was trying to get across was that you shouldn't hate them because of opposing political beliefs, plus you're generalizing entire populations. I've never known of any anti-gun people angrily shouting and protesting against gun enthusiasts - not everybody is like that. And even people who do believe that, generally keep it to themselves, unless they are at a voting booth or the internet. There are many here who are apolitical on this issue - they don't want anything to do with guns, nor do they impose their beliefs on others. Why? Because they know better than that. I'm the same way, as you probably know. Don't judge an entire state full of people because the media shows the state on a map filled in with the color blue (or red).

That really is the difference. How is it that we don't try to push our beliefs on them, but they think it's perfectly fine to tread on ours? Hypocrites.

As I stated above, there are not any people (at least that I'm aware of) that oppose gun ownership specifically to stomp on your 'rights'. I think you have the wrong idea about people in general. By labeling hundreds of thousands to millions of people you don't know the slightest thing about, all because of what you see on the TV/movies/news, not only does a disservice to others, but even more-so to yourself. By doing that, you have severely limited your ability to positively interact with the rest of the world, and confined your mind to a small, narrow, enclosed space - preventing you from trying to understand how others think what they think and go about life the way they do. You can't learn anything that way. You're condemning yourself to unjustified negativity, hating the rest of the world and its people you don't even know for, well, no-good reasons. I'm not trying to convince you any one way or another - I don't come into this thread with an agenda to push unto anybody, or to stomp on others' lifestyles or beliefs. I'm only asking that you cease your hostility towards millions of people you don't know. No good will come from this way of thinking, I can guarantee you that.

I come to this thread and others like it for educational and insightful purposes. I like to discuss ongoing issues like these with people from every angle and viewpoint. I get a lot out of it - it's kind of fun for me, as odd as that may sound, and I'm constantly learning more. I bring educational resources, countless information, and even my own take on what I believe is happening. The other member I was talking with (stxprowl) seemed to be here for the same reasons as well.

This post has been edited by Beck: Dec 27 2012, 06:55 PM

[hckyplayer8]

The point I was trying to get across was that you shouldn't hate them because of opposing political beliefs, plus you're generalizing entire populations. I've never known of any anti-gun people angrily shouting and protesting against gun enthusiasts - not everybody is like that. And even people who do believe that, generally keep it to themselves, unless they are at a voting booth or the internet. There are many here who are apolitical on this issue - they don't want anything to do with guns, nor do they impose their beliefs on others. Why? Because they know better than that. I'm the same way, as you probably know. Don't judge an entire state full of people because the media shows the state on a map filled in with the color blue (or red).
As I stated above, there are not any people (at least that I'm aware of) that oppose gun ownership specifically to stomp on your 'rights'. I think you have the wrong idea about people in general. By labeling hundreds of thousands to millions of people you don't know the slightest thing about, all because of what you see on the TV/movies/news, not only does a disservice to others, but even more-so to yourself. By doing that, you have severely limited your ability to positively interact with the rest of the world, and narrowed your mind. You're condemning yourself to unjustified negativity, hating the rest of the world and its people you don't even know for, well, no-good reasons. I'm not trying to convince you any one way or another - I don't come into this thread with an agenda to push unto anybody, or to stomp on others' lifestyles or beliefs. I'm only asking that you cease your hostility towards millions of people you don't know. No good will come from this way of thinking, I can guarantee you that.

I come to this thread and others like it for educational and insightful purposes. I like to discuss ongoing issues like these with people from every angle and viewpoint. I get a lot out of it - it's kind of fun for me, as odd as that may sound. I bring educational resources, countless information, and even my own take on what I believe is happening. The other member I was talking with (stxprowl) seemed to be here for the same reasons as well.

Well your senator is doing so much to help her states image.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.


Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.


Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must here from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally...-your-reps.aspx

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-...n-ban-bill.aspx

Make no mistakes men and women; this is the biggest attack on our 2nd amendment rights since the 1994 ban.

These worthless Nazi hags will keep pushing until all civilian firearms are destroyed and we live under a tyrannical government.

Call your states representative and senator and have them oppose this Hitler movement.

[gloryboy1417]

Closing this thread due to it going against our T&C!!!

Our Terms and Conditions