R.I.P. those affected by the school shooting in CT

[FifaInspected]

I'll move forward knowing that these types of events aren't going anywhere and will most likely become more frequent and more hideous. It's unfortunately our new reality. I'll do whatever is necessary to protect my family best I can as no matter what laws are implemented the lunacy and acts of selfish violence will continue.

[Jackdog]

Your right,they do. That's my point. It's obvious gun laws mean nothing. That genie has been out of the bottle for decades.Innocent black and Hispanic kids have been getting killed in every city around the country. Do they not deserve the same level of outrage by Washington politicians and the national media as the CT shootings? What's the difference between a child being killed in a classroom or on their front porch? I see no difference. I do see selective outrage and hypocrisy by both. That's why I posted this. Those numbers surprised me.

Most of those kids were in gangs and that is a whole other argument. Most of them were killed because they made the decision to get wrapped up in the violence. I don't have the time to check but of those 60+ kids I would bet the percentage is low the number of them who were just standing around minding their own business If I am wrong on that than I apologize but a quick look yesterday showed a different picture than the article you posted presented.

I see a big difference between kids involved in gangs killed over the course of a year and 26 KIDS sitting in school wanting to learn getting gunned down. To suggest that wouldn't (or shouldn't) garner more media coverage (which btw I think is part of the issue) and more outrage is just naive at best.

Sorry brother you know I love you but we disagree on this situation and not that it matters, but I am not a liberal. I'm fine with disagreeing on a subject but this thread has descended into something else.

I tried to stay out of it but it sickens me having grown up in Connecticut, having friends with connections to this to come in here and read this thread. Then I open my email and see my college has started a fund for one of the teacher killed. Ms. Soto went to my college, saved her kids lives and some of them saw her shot in front of them. That's what I am thinking about, those kids having that image in their minds.

My only thought right now is how can we stop this and NOTHING should be off the table in that discussion. Its clear from this thread that many people don't feel that way and that kind of sucks if you ask me.

Like I said I should just stay out of this thread.

No you shouldn't, your opinion counts. I respect it,like you said we just don't completely see eye to eye. That's a good thing man. I lost a brother in 77. He was killed by a stray bullet while sitting on our front porch. He was 14. My parents have lost two sons to violent deaths. They will never recover. It was Detroit and there was no outrage. Like I said,Muhammad's article struck a nerve. Because of my career and upbringing I guess I see death in a different manner than most here. I do agree that nothing should be left off the table to stem all of the senseless killings that happen way to much in our country. I just don't agree that it should start with law abiding citizens. Thanks for your response Dan. I got nothing but love for ya brother!

[Jackdog]

I'll move forward knowing that these types of events aren't going anywhere and will most likely become more frequent and more hideous. It's unfortunately our new reality. I'll do whatever is necessary to protect my family best I can as no matter what laws are implemented the lunacy and acts of selfish violence will continue.

I hope your wrong man. But I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. With that I'm outta here. Later boys.

[FifaInspected]

I'll move forward knowing that these types of events aren't going anywhere and will most likely become more frequent and more hideous. It's unfortunately our new reality. I'll do whatever is necessary to protect my family best I can as no matter what laws are implemented the lunacy and acts of selfish violence will continue.

I hope your wrong man. But I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. With that I'm outta here. Later boys.

I hope I'm wrong too....

[Feanor]

At least he attempted, Feanor. Sheesh. As to your question of why he brought up "X" in a thread about the CT shootings, I could legitimately ask the same question about 'gun control' being brought up, but...well, I suppose that's "political". Yet it's perfectly acceptable, apparently, to keep throwing the same nonsensical, kneejerk, politically motivated overreactions out there, because "the intentions are good".

The answer has already been provided.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

[Teal]

If you give a kid a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Ironically, there are just as many "studies" that show the exact opposite correlation between gun control and violence. Chicago is one of the strictest gun control cities in America...go figure. All the studies in the world won't change the fact that when you disarm the law abiding populace, only the lawbreakers will be armed...and it won't matter which guns or magazines at illegal. The people that don't obey laws don't give a damn. Its a completely nonsensical and ass backwards idea. Completely. It is so ignorant and counter productive that I never cease to be amazed that anyone would even float it as a real "solution".

[Feanor]

America has a per capita annual rate of firearm homicide 100 times greater than the UK.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is 2.985 in 2009

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is 0.03 in 2009

And far outstrips other developed countries rates of overall gun deaths per 100,000 people, which includes a lot of suicides.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/12/wh ... n-the-usa/

Japan 0.07
South Korea 0.13
Hong Kong 0.19
Singapore 0.24
UK 0.25
Taiwan 0.42
Spain 0.63
India 0.93
Ireland 1.03
Australia 1.05
Germany 1.10
Greece 1.50
Italy 1.28
Norway 1.78
Israel 1.86
New Zealand 2.66
Austria 2.94
France 3.00
Switzerland 3.50
Finland 3.64
Canada 4.78
USA 10.2

If any form of gun control is nonsensical, then the NRA and its supporters better come up with some better ones for getting those numbers down from their current third world levels. Certainly better than just blaming the violent videogames which are also sold in all those other countries. Armed guards in schools might make parents feel safer (if they don't know there was one at Columbine and 13 people still got murdered, and they ignore the potential for the guard's weapon to be stolen and used against him and others like what happened at that NJ police station today) but it's not going to do anything to reduce the 99% of gun deaths that don't happen in schools.

[Teal]

I love it when people completely ignore ALL gun crime, and cherry pick 'homicides' in order to try to make a point:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... d-n1464528



It just doesn't wash, brother. And theoreticals are no reason to take away someone's natural and legal rights. Government would LOVE for that to happen though. We are given the constitutional right to be sufficiently armed to defend ourselves from an encroaching and overbearing government. I'll never understand why people are fine with the FOCUS of our second amendment rights dictating the terms of our armament.

[Teal]

To that end, I'm all for background checks. Other than that, the only gun control I'm in favor of is self-control. If you buy a gun, get proficient in the handling of it, and learn to hit the smallest targets you can. No man, no matter the title, should be allowed to tell another man what he can and cannot do, when his natural rights and his constitutional rights tell him very differently.

[Feanor]

I love it when people completely ignore ALL gun crime, and cherry pick 'homicides' in order to try to make a point:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... d-n1464528



It just doesn't wash, brother. And theoreticals are no reason to take away someone's natural and legal rights. Government would LOVE for that to happen though. We are given the constitutional right to be sufficiently armed to defend ourselves from an encroaching and overbearing government. I'll never understand why people are fine with the FOCUS of our second amendment rights dictating the terms of our armament.

Overall gun crime is also much higher in the US than in any other developed country. The level of firearm crime reported in that story for the UK is still eight times lower than rate of crimes committed with firearms in the US, adjusted for population. People focus on homicides because getting killed is worse than getting robbed.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

The extreme right wing delude themselves with the dream of using their pistols and rifles to overthrow a tyrannical government, but the reality is they would be no match for the military of a truly despotic regime. In the meantime innocent people will be slaughtered by the thousands every year with those pistols and rifles at their jobs, at their schools, in shopping malls, and on the streets.

To that end, I'm all for background checks. Other than that, the only gun control I'm in favor of is self-control. If you buy a gun, get proficient in the handling of it, and learn to hit the smallest targets you can. No man, no matter the title, should be allowed to tell another man what he can and cannot do, when his natural rights and his constitutional rights tell him very differently.

That's exactly what Adam Lanza did. Most of his targets were very small.

[Teal]

So just take them away from all those people who own them, but don't SHOOT ANYONE WITH THEM?????

Yeah, that'll CERTAINLY do the trick...

[Teal]

I love it when people completely ignore ALL gun crime, and cherry pick 'homicides' in order to try to make a point:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... d-n1464528



It just doesn't wash, brother. And theoreticals are no reason to take away someone's natural and legal rights. Government would LOVE for that to happen though. We are given the constitutional right to be sufficiently armed to defend ourselves from an encroaching and overbearing government. I'll never understand why people are fine with the FOCUS of our second amendment rights dictating the terms of our armament.

Overall gun crime is also much higher in the US than in any other developed country. The level of firearm crime reported in that story for the UK is still eight times lower than rate of crimes committed with firearms in the US, adjusted for population. People focus on homicides because getting killed is worse than getting robbed.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

The extreme right wing delude themselves with the dream of using their pistols and rifles to overthrow a tyrannical government, but the reality is they would be no match for the military of a truly despotic regime. In the meantime innocent people will be slaughtered by the thousands every year with those pistols and rifles at their jobs, at their schools, in shopping malls, and on the streets.

The military in this country are charged with 'preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States'...not some idiot government who declares themselves the Ultimate Power, so...you're probably overstating your case about overthrowing a tyrannical government. Actually, the near-breathless hyperbole is fairly wholly overstated. In any case, "Order 66" only exists in geek fantasy... The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms for specifically such a purpose...whether armchair generals think it'll work or not is irrelevant. And no kneejerk reaction that disarms law abiding people will ever stop Newtowns from happening...ever.

[Feanor]

I'm glad you admit your talk of defending yourself from an encroaching government with handguns and rifles was just silly hyperbole given we already have a well-regulated militia to do that job for us, and they have access to the most advanced firepower ever created. I'm not sure who the Jedi would be in this "Order 66" scenario of yours, but at least we got thru this discussion without anyone talking about false flags or inside jobs.

[Teal]

I love that you think that 'militias' means our official military. Guess it fits your intentions...just doesn't fit anything else...most importantly, the 2nd Amendment. And nice try at the reversal attempt, but no dice. You're the one who seems to think that our military would side with a tyrannical, overreaching government (Order 66). At best, it would splinter, and the piece that chooses to defend the country rather than the politicians would be MUCH bigger. Bet.

However, none of that is relevant to this discussion. The nutty 'blood in the streets' baloney is not relevant, because it's based, largely, in fantasy and kneejerk emotionalism.

If you honestly think that restricting guns from law abiding citizens will EVER somehow dissuade non-law abiding citizens, and cause them to act suddenly in a law abiding fashion, well...there's not enough aluminum foil for the size hat that would need to be created for that noggin.

Of course, it's all moot, because the moment anything so ridiculous and overreaching as Feinstein's gestapo ideology gets realized, is the moment that I become, for the first time in my life, a willful and rock-ribbed law breaker. However, that won't be happening any time soon. Politicians are scum, for the most part, but the majority know better than to touch something like this with a ten foot pole. But again, doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

[Feanor]

Previously law abiding citizens become criminals in the time it takes to pull a trigger thousands of times a year in this country. Adam Lanza was just the most recent to become infamous.

[Teal]

"Thousands of times a year"??? Man, alive, you do love your overstatements...good grief. As if thousands of Joe Schmoe's just wake up every year and think, "Man, I think I'll go kill a bunch of people today". Lord.

Again, so the answer is to pass a law that disarms law abiding citizens? How does that stop evil people from being evil? It's just the dumbest thing in the world to even talk about implementing. How has any level of Prohibition ever worked in this country? It hasn't, it won't, and this is just a certain sector of the population, (the same ones every time) who want to "do something". As much as I understand that, doing something counterproductive doesn't solve anything.

[Teal]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... john-fund#

[Feanor]

Mass shootings of random people make up a small percentage of the roughly 9,000 people killed every year with guns in the US. Adam Lanza's known worldwide because he went and shot up a school after shooting a family member. If he had stopped after killing his mother he would have been one of thousands of to let a confrontation with a friend of family member to get out of control and end in death.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offense ... urder.html

[Teal]

No...Adam Lanza is known worldwide because he wanted to be, and the media helped his wish become reality. That's what most of these mass killers want, and it's what a TMZ media gives them.

[pk500]

No...Adam Lanza is known worldwide because he wanted to be, and the media helped his wish become reality. That's what most of these mass killers want, and it's what a TMZ media gives them.

Come on, dude: You think Lanza wouldn't have been a household name if this crime occurred in 1972, when there were only three major TV networks, daily papers and radio?

People still remember the names Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Manson.

This crime would have been huge news in the Edward R. Murrow era, let alone the Internet era.

[Rodster]

Don't want to put words in Teal's mouth but I think what he wanted to say that in the current entertainment media which includes the so-called news media it encourages someone who is looking for an outlet to become instantly known around the world. The Conn shooter not only made headlines here but in Europe as well.

Today it's all about standing out good or bad. LeBron did his shtick with the infamous Decision. Today people play the media to their advantage and the media is a willing accomplice for ratings. I've seen more police chases on Fox News Channel than I could ever recall. It's one of the reasons why TV news is basically entertainment today and a way to boost ratings.

[Teal]

Nope, didn't out words in my mouth...you took em right out of it. Well put.

[pk500]

So Adam Lanza would have been less infamous if TMZ and "Entertainment Tonight" didn't exist? He would have been less motivated to kill?

That's some kind of Gumby-like stretch.

None of those outlets existed in 1976, yet David Berkowitz still went on his "Son of Sam" rampage in New York. None of those outlets existed in the 1960s, yet the Manson family received worldwide notoriety.

"The evil media" is a crutch for the bigger issues in this case: Easy availability of guns and America's horrible inability to recognize and treat its mentally ill.

[Rodster]

So Adam Lanza would have been less infamous if TMZ and "Entertainment Tonight" didn't exist? He would have been less motivated to kill?

That's some kind of Gumby-like stretch.

What i'm saying is it gives losers who get no attention in life the chance to get attention because their mugs will be on NBC Today, Good Morning America, CBS Morning News, Fox and Friends, ABC World News Tonight, CNN Headline News, FOX News Channel, USA Today, Drudge, BBC News, Twitter. Did I miss one?

Those who crave attention because they get none in life and feel life is not worth living are given an instant outlet for worldwide notoriety and become lifelong infamous with their crime. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing an up tick in these types of crimes and they are getting more horrific as time goes on.

[Teal]

Why do you think I only mean the modern day media? Hell, they sensationalized the Son of Sam and Helter Skelter, too. You seem to be operating under the delusion that the American media was once non sensationalist. That's laughable.