More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

[Guest010619]

Standard answer when he doesn't get the one he wants, still none of your business.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I will accept these kinds of ugly things that come with a free and open society. I don't like it. But it is the cost of being free.

Whirly might be catching shit for this but I agree. I mean damn, Mexico has gun laws and the only fuckers got guns are the criminals, fuck that. We over reacted to 9/11 and we will probably over react to this, though the NRA is pretty good about fighting this kind of over reaction...I just wish after 9/11 the Press had been more like the NRA and gotten cooler heads to prevail.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

It's even worse when you know one of the families.


The ear to the ground says it was lined up by gov. Don't know if it's US or UN, but something's wrong. This is all they need to push gun laws.

HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikely, but dammitall not impossible.

Long live the Marinius van der Lubbe International Firebombing Society!

[Yssup Rider]

Go away cholo. you're not contributing to this discussion. Just being a poor downtrodden frito bandito. Well you might footl the gueros in here but I know you. Keep,your sob sob story to yourself , cholo. You are totally full of shit, with no leg to stand on ... Unless you steal one.

Dont get me started. I know better, and by now, you should know better too, puto! ,

[JD Barleycorn]

Tired of reading this. Same finger pointing, same name calling (I guess that didn't last very long), and same propaganda.

Some questions that have not been answered; had this guy been diagnosed as possibly dangerous? He lived with his mother and she was the owner of at least two of the guns. As a 20 year old he could not legally by a pistol. How did he get into the school? I understand that you had to be buzzed in and he was the son of a teacher. Did he frequent the school? How did they know him? Why let him in if he was dressed "in camofluage, body armor", and had guns on his person?

It is true that Israel school teachers are armed and more than that, they the unequivical support of the state to use lethal force if necessary.

For all of those who make the opened ended demand to do something, what do you want to do? Six shooters? The typical Missouri ruffian would carry five or six pistols. Remove large caliber ammunition from the public. I have a Keltec that holds 30 rounds of .22 magnum in a pistol. That .22,which is a favorite of professional killers at close range, is more than adequate to kill people. You also have to remember why the 2nd amendment exists, to allow the common citizen to resist a tyrannical government. Hard to do with a .410 shotgun.

More so, I think most people on this board own a gun or two. How many people shot someone today? No one... How many people on this board have every shot someone outside military service? Okay, how many people have ever used a firearm (whether it was fired or not) to protect their life or property? I'm holding my hand up. Anyone else? More people protect themselves with guns than take innocent human life. Just like most people use their car to get to and from work than use their car as a weapon.

I would also like to point out that from the very first post the accent was on the guns and not the gunman. Go back and look at the first few posts by Markie. He even put guns in bold print.

[Yssup Rider]

Fuck Kayla and duck the Mexican paranoids.


Stupid arguments will,always be stupid,


These,thought, are mean,seditious and anti-American.

[MrGiz]

What's the murder rate by guns, in Switzerland?

[essence]

CoG +100 (almost makes me want to change my sig)

LK -100, makes IB and yassup appear rational. No doubt LK thinks the UN was behind 9/11. Strange.


BTW, from what I have read there is no evidence he was autistic or on meds or needed medical help or anything.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

We still don't need the 10-15 round clips. Big clips benefit criminals more than their victims.

You hear of too many situations where a gunman with one or more 12-round clips kills 8, 10, or 15 people. But how often do you hear of a victim that was attacked by 10 crazed rapists or muggers and needed a 15 round clip to kill them all?

#1, it's a "magazine" .. #2 LE typically uses high-capacity magazines.

"clips" are to hold your hair back out of your face or seal a bag of chips.

As for "gun control" ... there will have to be a constitutional amendment revoking and/or modifying the 2nd amendment.

There may be tougher "new purchase" and/or "ammo" purchase laws on the Federal books and a crack down on "gun shows," but ELIMINATING them "on the street" for sale and in homes won't happen.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

I dunno LL. This guy killed 26 people in a few minutes. What if the first thing he does is shoot the security officers? In fact, wouldn't you expect that would be the first thing he would do?

Regarding hardware, all the doors at my kids' schools are, in large part, glass. They are locked but....an AR-15 or a Glock will solve that obstacle pretty quickly.

I'm not talking about a "security officer" ... I'm talking about police officerS with training and equipment that is consistent with the task, PLUS perimeter monitoring to prevent or warn of unauthorized intruders or visitors .... by the time someone gets to the door it's too late ....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Please point out - with specificity (post # and line) - where I DENIED anything about why the .38 was replaced by the .45. I said the opposite. I told you I learned all about that many years ago in the military. How do you stretch a denial out of that?

Also, can you cite a statistic that the .38 failed to stop "even most" of the Moros in the Phillippines? There is a BIG difference between the .38 not stopping most after one shot and the .38 not stopping "enough" after one shot.

If the .38 stops 85% of the attackers on the first shot and the .45 stops 95% on the first shot, you can justify replacing the .38, even though the .38 did actually stop most of the attackers with one shot. It just didn't stop enough with one shot.

And can you really extrapolate military tactics and weapons to civilian self-defense? First off all, where does it stop? The .45 ALSO did not stop everyone on the first shot - it just did better than the .38. So, do we go up to heavier weapons? Perhaps 50 caliber machine guns?

The Moros were Muslim fanatics. They were highly motivated guerrillas who used drugs to reduce the pain of being shot. They weren't afraid to die and you couldn't scare them off by flashing your gun.

But that's not true of 99% of your criminals. Burglars and rapists want EASY victims. They don't want to get shot, not even by a .38.

And most of the druggies in this country are using cocaine, pot, heroin, ecstasy or other recreational drugs. Those drugs won't make you insensate to being shot. Not even meth does that. Those drugs make people stupid, irrational, uncoodinated and semi-coherent, but they don't turn anyone into superhuman warriors. When they get shot they go down.

The bath salt stories are horrific, but they are few and far between. And several of the stories you cited of people being shot multiple times don't even involve drugs.

But again, we have to weigh the number of victims who survive because they get shot with a .38 instead of a .45 against the number who die because their killer survived the first shot from a .38. I think the smaller caliber works in favor of the victims surviving.

And again, I said above I can live with the .45 if it is a revolver. We still don't need the 10-15 round clips. Big clips benefit criminals more than their victims.

You hear of too many situations where a gunman with one or more 12-round clips kills 8, 10, or 15 people. But how often do you hear of a victim that was attacked by 10 crazed rapists or muggers and needed a 15 round clip to kill them all? Criminals work in small numbers or alone and a five or six shot revolver should be enough to stop them.


Can you cite some statistics that there are scores or hundreds of these stories? Can you cite some report or study that shows the stories are somehow "buried". Who buries them?

I read the same sick bath salt murder stories you did. I don't see any evidence of a massive outbreak of such attacks. I only see some anecdotes.

They survived all of those bullets - including from shotguns and AR-15 rifles - because they were wearing BODY ARMOR. You left out that detail, didn't you? A.45 wouldn't have made a difference.

Mătăsăreanu and Phillips were also using drugs to deaden their senses, weren't they, ExNYer? You left that part out, didn't you, ExNYer? Plus, you're trying to deflect away from the fact that Phillips was still hit eleven times before he was stopped and that Mătăsăreanu was shot twenty times before he was stopped and that LE was using mostly .9 mm pistols and not the less powerful .38 caliber you're touting. You left that out didn't you, ExNYer.

BTW, what say YOU provide statistics that show where a round fired from a .38 caliber pistol definitively stops drugged-up, insensate burglars, rapists, thieves and murderers 100% of the time thus guaranteeing that when one is using a .38 caliber pistol one's loved ones will be protected from such attackers. Statistically, larger caliber weapons are rated superior to the .38 caliber in such situations; YOU cite statistics that say otherwise.

BTW, here’s another story wherein a .38 caliber didn’t stop the attacker from injuring the shooter.


Reynaldo Reyes, shot and wounded during Chicopee robbery at Furnari Jewelers, to be arraigned from hospital bed

“CHICOPEE — A Holyoke man who was shot while allegedly attempting to rob a Chicopee jewelry store Monday is expected to be arraigned Wednesday from his hospital bed at Baystate Medical Center.

“Reynaldo Reyes, 27, of 372 Maple St., Apt. 3L, is facing charges of armed robbery while masked and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in connection with Monday's robbery at Furnari Jewelers, 1189 Memorial Drive, according to authorities.

“The owner of the jewelry store, Anthony J. Furnari, said he opened fire after Reyes and another suspect attacked him inside his business just before 4 p.m. Monday. Reyes sought treatment at Baystate Medical Center, where authorities initially identified him as a "person of interest" in the incident. The other suspect remains at large.

“Furnari, who suffered a broken nose and other non-life-threatening injuries during the robbery, fired his .38-caliber handgun multiple times as Reyes bounded over a store counter and made a beeline for the shopkeeper.

“According to Furnari and a store employee, Reyes and another man pulled clothing over their faces and ran across the store floor. "As he was launching toward me, I shot him – 'boom, boom, boom,'" Furnari told The Republican Tuesday.

“The suspects grabbed a velvet-covered board containing several gold chains and fled the store, said Furnari, who was unsure of the jewelry's value.”

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/reynaldo_reyes_shot_and_wounde .html

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The nation is in mourning and you're ranting and raving like a lunatic. Throughout this thread.

did you hug your kids tonight?

Shame on you.

And you fancy yourself the voice of reason and moderation, Assup? Fuck you and your ignorant pretentiousness, Assup! Ugotome10 has you pegged, Assup. Fuck you and your mock outrage, Assup!

[Randy4Candy]

It wouldn't hurt to enforce the laws we have. Of course, then we would have to spend money on the hiring and training more enforcers. Oops, that's going to cost money. Well, fu*k that,right? What about upping the level of training for people who either have or are buying firearms? Holy Shit!!! "that's going to cost me money and it's an unfair tax!" Arrrrggggghhhhhh, I can hear the moaning and gnashing of teeth as I type this. But, as all of you rugged individualists never miss an opportunity to point out, if you want something you have to be willing to pay for it.

The "Stand Your Ground Laws" were supposedly passed because existing laws didn't allow for persons to defend themselves on their property. Sure. Again, sorry, slipshod enforcement wins the day and law enforcement now has some real winners out there "helping" them - what a fu*cking joke - if it wasn't so pitifully sad. All those laws changed is that you may now follow someone off of your property, hunt them and kill them. Or, randomly pick someone who isn't "acting right" in public miles away from your "castle" and shoot them. Yippie-ki-yay! Now, that's what I call progress!!!

You know, there are a lot of people who obviously masturbate while reading Stand Your Ground laws, NRA lobbying tracts, anti-government blogs and all sorts of other conspiratorial nonsense. I guess the "feeling" of empowerment, while unreal, made up and only done for profit things are a powerful sexual stimulant. Sorta like going to see the ATF - only cheaper.

There is sort of a choice in this that is rather troubling: Regulate Weapons or Regulate People. Don't run off the tracks, Teawipes, we regulate people all of the time. ALL laws we have are attempts to regulate either people or their byproducts. Please return to the real world from the fantasy blogosphere. The end game of all of this pseudo-libertarian boolsheet is that no one will be free because without some form of agreed upon, collective, enforced restraint there will always be someone who is bigger, stronger, richer, meaner, better armed, more psychotic than any of us whom we have to fear and let take our "freedom" to be like them, just not as much, away. I look so forward to a society like that.

[Guest010619]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Go away cholo. you're not contributing to this discussion. Just being a poor downtrodden frito bandito. Well youmight footl the gueros in here but I know you. Keep,your sob sob story to yourself , cholo. You are totally full of shit, with no leg to stand on ... Unless you steal one.
Don't get me started. I know better, and by now, you should know better too, puto! ,

Your funny and pathetic. You have proved you lost your argument by resorting to such childish liberal vernacular. I laugh at you and those who think like you and you have no place at the table of intelligent discussion. Now go back to your sandbox in the corner and suck on your baby bottle.

When guns are outlawed only criminals and hypocrites will have guns.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...control-pistol
Adapted from Wikipedia.
Carl Thomas Rowan (August 11, 1925 - September 23, 2000) was an American government official, journalist and author. Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally (using the swimming pool). He was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family. He also said the pistol he used was exempt from the District's handgun prohibition law because it belonged to his older son, a former FBI agent. Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)."
Private gun ownership had been illegal in the District of Columbia since 1976 and the facts of the case were the talk of the town for many days.
Rowan was tried but the jury was deadlocked; the judge declared a mistrial and he was never retried. In his autobiography, Rowan said he still favors gun control, but admits being vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy.

So even Mr. Rowan feels its okay to shoot at unarmed teenagers. BTW, I do not lean to the right, or to the left, but I do 'Lean like a Cholo'. LOL

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mătăsăreanu and Phillips were also using drugs to deaden their senses, weren't they, ExNYer? You left that part out, didn't you, ExNYer? Plus, you're trying to deflect away from the fact that Phillips was still hit eleven times before he was stopped and that Mătăsăreanu was shot twenty times before he was stopped and that LE was using mostly .9 mm pistols and not the less powerful .38 caliber you're touting. You left that out didn't you, ExNYer.

No, actually, I didn't leave out anything - at least nothing that was relevant. I'm not going to repost the entire story.

First, regarding drugs, YOU failed to mention them, probably because all they took was a muscle relaxant, phenobarbital, supposedly for the purpose of calming their nerves. Pheno isn't bath salts and it won't make you into some crazed super human killer - which, I assume is why YOU left it out in the first place.

I did "deflect" anything about how many time they were shot.They were wearing body armor. That's how they survived all those shots - the bullets weren't doing much damage. It had nothing to do with drugs. Philips died when he shot himself in the head. He was wounded in both hands and the forearm. He put a gun under his chin - possibly to helpreload due to the wounded hands or possibly to commit suicide. No one knows for sure. AFTER he killed himself, the cops shot him in the back of the neck and several more times while he lay on the ground. But most of those 11 "hits" either occurred AFTER he was dead, were minor wounds to his hands, or were stopped by the body armor while he was still alive. The ONLY shot that counted was his own head shot. Pheno had NOTHING to do with keeping him going.

The same goes for Mătăsăreanu. He was hit 20 times in his unprotected legs by an AR-15. A SWAT cop shot underneath a car to get his legs. He bled to death in minutes.

The facts are the the cops shot at both men with a shotgun and with AR-15, not just 9 mm. And it did almost NOTHING until Philips killed himself and ONE copy finally emptied hit magazine into Matas legs.

Givings the cops 45s instead of 9 mm would have changed nothing.

It was the body armor that made the difference. And that is the part YOU left out.

Also, I've advocated reducing the calibers or the magazine sizes or both that are available to the public. I said nothing about the police or the military. The cops can keep their 45s, although I don't think they want them. They prefer the 9mm for a number of reasons.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

BTW, what say YOU provide statistics that show where a round fired from a .38 caliber pistol definitively stops drugged-up, insensate burglars, rapists, thieves and murderers 100% of the time thus guaranteeing that when one is using a .38 caliber pistol one's loved ones will be protected from such attackers.

Stupid, stupid, stupid argument. But exactly the type I expect from you.

There are NO weapons that are 100% effective - even against people that are NOT on drugs. Not even the .45 is 100% effective. So should we get rid of the 45, too? Perhaps in favor of 12 gauge sawed-off shotguns?. Where does it end?

These arguments involve tradeoffs. We demand better mileage in cars even though we know the lighter, smaller cars are less crash-worthy than bigger cars. But we make the tradeoff because we believe (rightly or wrongly) that there will be less deaths in the long run due to global warming. But no one takes seriously some raving idiot who demands a 100% safe car before he will agree to higher gas mileage.

Which is why no one takes you seriously on your demand for a 100% effective .38 gun..

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Statistically, larger caliber weapons are rated superior to the .38 caliber in such situations; YOU cite statistics that say otherwise.

Really? No fucking kidding? The next think I know you will be telling me a 12 inch knife cuts deeper than a 6 inch knife.

I never said a 45 was less effective in stopping someone than a 38, so stop asking for statistics to that effect.

I am saying there are tradeoffs that we have to make. Eliminate the big magazines and the big calibers. We will end up with less civilian deaths. But we will not get more crimes. Criminals aren't going to increase their activities because the general population now has only 38 revolvers instead of 45 automatics. Crooks don't want to get shot at all.

And you can still defend your home with a shotgun or a bolt action rifle with a small magazine. Crooks aren't going to mess with that stuff either.

ALSO, on the subject of DEFLECTION, you made some exaggerated assertions above about the .38 filing to stop MOST of the Moros and about SCORES or even HUNDREDS of bath salt stories being buried in the press.I asked for some kind of studies or statistics to back up either of these assertions. You were UNABLE to do either. So, I take it then that your assertions about the Moros and the bath salts stories are just bull shit you made up to try to win an argument. FAIL.

Instead, you demanded that I cite statistics to phony straw man argument (.38s are 100% effective) that you pulled out of your ass. You also demanded that I provide statistics that show smaller caliber weapons are more effective that larger caliber weapons. Another stupid strawman argument. I never said that, you are trying to put words in my mouth. You make these ridiculous strawman arguments to deflect from the fact that you have no good arguments as to why the tradeoffs to smaller calibers and smaller magazineswon't result in less civilian deaths overall. And by GOOD arguments, I mean arguments supported by surveys and statistics - not anecdotes about 7-11 shootouts and bank robberies.

[Whirlaway]