Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: (((((Shooting at Connecticut elementary school)))))
metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sun 12/16/12 05:27 PM
What makes some people think that better gun control would have somehow prevented that tragedy in Connecticut? The shooter didn't use guns that belonged to him. He took guns that belonged to his mother. If you want the 2nd Amendment eliminated, then just come out and say so. probably couldnt have stopped it, but might have been able to avoid as much suffering 'The chief medical examiner said the ammunition was the type designed to break up inside a victim's body and inflict the maximum amount of damage, tearing apart bone and tissue.' WHY does a civilian need this kind of ammo? the mom was a gun 'enthusiast',,,,according to reports so far I think the notion that noone should have guns of any type, and the notion that everyone should be able to have guns of every type are equally ridiculous I want people to use some common sense to come to a middle ground,,, The purpose of hollow point rounds is to stop an attacker dead. More expensive than other types of ammo, but more stopping power too. They are considered far safer for the general public since they do not penetrate the target and kill innocent bystanders. so, the point is to kill? not merely 'protect' as I said, what is the point of it being in a civilians hands? To the best of my knowledge, all bullets are made for the purpose of killing if that is what a shooter intends to do with the bullets. certain gun proponents I have spoken of have pointed out to me that is not their only point, but to protect is also the point last I checked killing wasnt the only way of protection so Im figuring that such a point is meant to imply that bullets are also made to merely 'harm' You just don't understand. no, I dont understand the mindset so set upon being able to KILL people in their tracks I hope I never will You don't understand that the hollow point bullets are much safer than standard ammo for innocent bystanders. kind of a nice distraction the point is,, 'safer for innocent bystanders' translates into 'more likely to kill my target with less effort and more suffering to it' Nice try at the distraction. You didn't understand how such bullets could be legal. I've explained the reality to you and you still want to make some false "killing and suffering" point that has nothing to do with anything. The bullet is designed to stop on impact. You either understand that or you do not. Apparently you do not so drop it.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 05:28 PM
kind of a nice distraction the point is,, 'safer for innocent bystanders' translates into 'more likely to kill my target with less effort and more suffering to it' Wow, you really don't understand. Members of law enforcement have been concerned about bullets passing through targeted suspects and hitting innocent bystanders. The purpose of the hollow-point bullet is to ensure that it travels no further than its intended target. I understand that you don't want civilians to use bullets to kill people, but you have to consider what happens when an armed civilian is in a life-or-death situation. The civilian aims at the largest target in order to be sure that the target is hit. If the target is an armed criminal, then the largest part of the criminal is the criminal's torso, which is where the criminal's vital organs are located.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 05:36 PM
Coming to light there was more than one shooter at the school. Possibly 3. Why didn't CNN report on one suspected shooter being caught in the woods near the incident? Because there wasn't more than one shooter. As events were unfolding, members of the media made all kinds of false reports. One early news report said that the shooter had killed his father, who was in New Jersey. That report turned out to be false. Another false report given was that the shooter's girlfriend was missing. Simply put, too many reporters were more concerned about being the first to report something than about giving accurate reports.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 05:38 PM
What makes some people think that better gun control would have somehow prevented that tragedy in Connecticut? The shooter didn't use guns that belonged to him. He took guns that belonged to his mother. If you want the 2nd Amendment eliminated, then just come out and say so. probably couldnt have stopped it, but might have been able to avoid as much suffering 'The chief medical examiner said the ammunition was the type designed to break up inside a victim's body and inflict the maximum amount of damage, tearing apart bone and tissue.' WHY does a civilian need this kind of ammo? the mom was a gun 'enthusiast',,,,according to reports so far I think the notion that noone should have guns of any type, and the notion that everyone should be able to have guns of every type are equally ridiculous I want people to use some common sense to come to a middle ground,,, The purpose of hollow point rounds is to stop an attacker dead. More expensive than other types of ammo, but more stopping power too. They are considered far safer for the general public since they do not penetrate the target and kill innocent bystanders. so, the point is to kill? not merely 'protect' as I said, what is the point of it being in a civilians hands? To the best of my knowledge, all bullets are made for the purpose of killing if that is what a shooter intends to do with the bullets. certain gun proponents I have spoken of have pointed out to me that is not their only point, but to protect is also the point last I checked killing wasnt the only way of protection so Im figuring that such a point is meant to imply that bullets are also made to merely 'harm' You just don't understand. no, I dont understand the mindset so set upon being able to KILL people in their tracks I hope I never will You don't understand that the hollow point bullets are much safer than standard ammo for innocent bystanders. kind of a nice distraction the point is,, 'safer for innocent bystanders' translates into 'more likely to kill my target with less effort and more suffering to it' Nice try at the distraction. You didn't understand how such bullets could be legal. I've explained the reality to you and you still want to make some false "killing and suffering" point that has nothing to do with anything. The bullet is designed to stop on impact. You either understand that or you do not. Apparently you do not so drop it. I wont drop it, it has nothing to do with what I dont understand I understand completely, you just choose to word it differently forced sterilization also decreases poverty rates, but that wouldnt make forced sterilization any less inhumane yeah, its a more definite kill for the shooter,, HOORAY! it just doesnt impress me as much as others as a 'plus' for civilians owning the ammo

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 05:38 PM
By golly. They are all packing AK's. How many can you pick out who are ex-cons and packing illegally? WTF is Holder? Guess the libs only want to disarm certain folks. You still have not done what was asked of you. Give evidence that the NBP have committed an act of violence. Possessing the above-depicted weapons is not in itself an act of violence. It's a crime if any or all of them are ex-cons. Those are the same types of weapons Libs want outlawed. VIOLENT crimes,,,, Jacksonville's Mikhail Muhammad and Tampa's Michelle Williams Claim A Race Riot is Coming to "Whitey with a river of blood. The New Black Panthers have no authority to call for riots, solicit murder, and promote the overthrow of the American government. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH it is time that we no longer stand idle in the face of domestic terrorism, ie the New Black Panthers. Call on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, to file Federal Charges against the Leaders of the New Black Panthers for violation of the following federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 2101 : US Code – Section 2101: Riots; 18 USC § 1959 – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity; 18 USC § 249 – Hate Crimes Act; 18 U.S.C. 2385; and 18 U.S.C. 2389 Recruiting For Services Against The United States. You still haven't provided evidence that the NBP committed an act of violence. Have any of them actually shot someone?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 05:39 PM
kind of a nice distraction the point is,, 'safer for innocent bystanders' translates into 'more likely to kill my target with less effort and more suffering to it' Wow, you really don't understand. Members of law enforcement have been concerned about bullets passing through targeted suspects and hitting innocent bystanders. The purpose of the hollow-point bullet is to ensure that it travels no further than its intended target. I understand that you don't want civilians to use bullets to kill people, but you have to consider what happens when an armed civilian is in a life-or-death situation. The civilian aims at the largest target in order to be sure that the target is hit. If the target is an armed criminal, then the largest part of the criminal is the criminal's torso, which is where the criminal's vital organs are located. none of this changes my mind someone who cant 'aim' well enough to hit the target will hit bystanders with any ammo they use hitting the target isnt really the focus, KILLING the target in its tracks is,,,,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 12/16/12 05:43 PM
By golly. They are all packing AK's. How many can you pick out who are ex-cons and packing illegally? WTF is Holder? Guess the libs only want to disarm certain folks. You still have not done what was asked of you. Give evidence that the NBP have committed an act of violence. Possessing the above-depicted weapons is not in itself an act of violence. It's a crime if any or all of them are ex-cons. Those are the same types of weapons Libs want outlawed. VIOLENT crimes,,,, Jacksonville's Mikhail Muhammad and Tampa's Michelle Williams Claim A Race Riot is Coming to "Whitey with a river of blood. The New Black Panthers have no authority to call for riots, solicit murder, and promote the overthrow of the American government. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH it is time that we no longer stand idle in the face of domestic terrorism, ie the New Black Panthers. Call on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, to file Federal Charges against the Leaders of the New Black Panthers for violation of the following federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 2101 : US Code – Section 2101: Riots; 18 USC § 1959 – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity; 18 USC § 249 – Hate Crimes Act; 18 U.S.C. 2385; and 18 U.S.C. 2389 Recruiting For Services Against The United States. You still haven't provided evidence that the NBP committed an act of violence. Have any of them actually shot someone? The evidence is in the laws the people want holder to enforce. Easy enough to understand.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 05:48 PM
I wont drop it, it has nothing to do with what I dont understand I understand completely, you just choose to word it differently forced sterilization also decreases poverty rates, but that wouldnt make forced sterilization any less inhumane yeah, its a more definite kill for the shooter,, HOORAY! it just doesnt impress me as much as others as a 'plus' for civilians owning the ammo Civilians don't want bullets traveling any further than their intended targets. Besides, in a kill-or-be-killed scenario involving an armed criminal, a civilian has every right to kill in self-defense. Nobody (that I know of) wants such a scenario to occur, but if it should occur, then such killing by the civilian is justified. Besides, during a crisis involving an armed criminal, a civilian may only be able to fire one shot, and that shot had better count.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 05:50 PM
You still haven't provided evidence that the NBP committed an act of violence. Have any of them actually shot someone? The evidence is in the laws the people want holder to enforce. Easy enough to understand. In other words, you do not have evidence that an actual act of violence (such as shooting someone) has occurred in the name of the NBP.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 05:51 PM
I wont drop it, it has nothing to do with what I dont understand I understand completely, you just choose to word it differently forced sterilization also decreases poverty rates, but that wouldnt make forced sterilization any less inhumane yeah, its a more definite kill for the shooter,, HOORAY! it just doesnt impress me as much as others as a 'plus' for civilians owning the ammo Civilians don't want bullets traveling any further than their intended targets. Besides, in a kill-or-be-killed scenario involving an armed criminal, a civilian has every right to kill in self-defense. Nobody (that I know of) wants such a scenario to occur, but if it should occur, then such killing by the civilian is justified. Besides, during a crisis involving an armed criminal, a civilian may only be able to fire one shot, and that shot had better count. yep, and a shot through the heart or head would pretty much be a way to do that too,,, a shot that disarms might work too but , if Killing is the only way,,, why not,,,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 12/16/12 05:51 PM
Besides, in a kill-or-be-killed scenario involving an armed criminal, a civilian has every right to kill in self-defense. WRONGGGGGG!! Any State that has anti-gun laws will imprison the shooter. Self defense or not.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 05:52 PM
Besides, in a kill-or-be-killed scenario involving an armed criminal, a civilian has every right to kill in self-defense. WRONGGGGGG!! Any State that has anti-gun laws will imprison the shooter. Self defense or not. what state has an 'anti gun' law?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 06:03 PM
I wont drop it, it has nothing to do with what I dont understand I understand completely, you just choose to word it differently forced sterilization also decreases poverty rates, but that wouldnt make forced sterilization any less inhumane yeah, its a more definite kill for the shooter,, HOORAY! it just doesnt impress me as much as others as a 'plus' for civilians owning the ammo Civilians don't want bullets traveling any further than their intended targets. Besides, in a kill-or-be-killed scenario involving an armed criminal, a civilian has every right to kill in self-defense. Nobody (that I know of) wants such a scenario to occur, but if it should occur, then such killing by the civilian is justified. Besides, during a crisis involving an armed criminal, a civilian may only be able to fire one shot, and that shot had better count. yep, and a shot through the heart or head would pretty much be a way to do that too,,, a shot that disarms might work too but , if Killing is the only way,,, why not,,, A shot that disarms? Wow, I didn't realize that all armed civilians had the shooting skills of the Lone Ranger. Seriously, an armed criminal is a moving target. If shooting to disarm were that simple, then law officers - who undergo required target practice - would be shooting to disarm. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, a civilian doesn't necessarily have the luxury of shooting to disarm, even if the civilian were a trained sharp-shooter. Besides, it is a stretch of the imagination to assume that the average gun owner has the ability to shoot to disarm.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 06:05 PM Edited by msharmony on Sun 12/16/12 06:06 PM
Seriously, an armed criminal is a moving target. If shooting to disarm were that simple, then law officers - who undergo required target practice - would be shooting to disarm. HUGE ASSUMPTION perhaps its because its easier to kill than to face litigation from a survivor? and perhaps gun owners SHOULD be required to have the training, ,just like licensed drivers have to have training,,,

Ras427 Joined Wed 08/08/12 Posts: 1516	Sun 12/16/12 06:15 PM
By golly. They are all packing AK's. How many can you pick out who are ex-cons and packing illegally? WTF is Holder? Guess the libs only want to disarm certain folks. You still have not done what was asked of you. Give evidence that the NBP have committed an act of violence. Possessing the above-depicted weapons is not in itself an act of violence. It's a crime if any or all of them are ex-cons. Those are the same types of weapons Libs want outlawed. It is shameful that this thread initially as a means to mourn has gone to the right to bare arms or regulation of assault weapons to Racism. No one has more weapons then White Americans. Your fear is not losing gun rights. Nor of criminals nor your distrust of goverment. Your fear is of Black people with guns. You dont fear racists with guns so long as they are white. Racism is clearly your motivation along with fear. The historical murders, lynchings, castrations and other crimes against Black Americans is well documented in the annals of our history. Noone in American history has been murdered and faced unpunished crimes more then Black Americans, many of those crime committed by law enforcment and sanctioned by goverment in many cases. But thats another subject altogether. I cant say id blame them for being armed. However, iv yet to here of a NBP member killing 20 6 year olds. History bares witness that thousands of defenceless Blacks were murdered at will during our nations shamefull pass. And still those who have been afforded immunity from the law still are armed. Noone in America is better armed then her racist elements. This fact should allow you to rest assured.

Ras427 Joined Wed 08/08/12 Posts: 1516	Sun 12/16/12 06:20 PM
Seriously, an armed criminal is a moving target. If shooting to disarm were that simple, then law officers - who undergo required target practice - would be shooting to disarm. HUGE ASSUMPTION perhaps its because its easier to kill than to face litigation from a survivor? and perhaps gun owners SHOULD be required to have the training, ,just like licensed drivers have to have training,,, Police are trained to "neutralize" the subject first, this is simply code word for kill. Yes they can shoot to wound and even disarm. However the "neutralize" policy is usually for certain "zones".

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 12/16/12 06:37 PM
Seriously, an armed criminal is a moving target. If shooting to disarm were that simple, then law officers - who undergo required target practice - would be shooting to disarm. HUGE ASSUMPTION perhaps its because its easier to kill than to face litigation from a survivor? and perhaps gun owners SHOULD be required to have the training, ,just like licensed drivers have to have training,,, And you are making the HUGE ASSUMPTION that an armed civilian has the ability to shoot to disarm. Civilian owners of firearms tend to have experience in the shooting of stationary targets under calm situations. An encounter with an armed criminal is not a calm situation.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 07:27 PM
Seriously, an armed criminal is a moving target. If shooting to disarm were that simple, then law officers - who undergo required target practice - would be shooting to disarm. HUGE ASSUMPTION perhaps its because its easier to kill than to face litigation from a survivor? and perhaps gun owners SHOULD be required to have the training, ,just like licensed drivers have to have training,,, And you are making the HUGE ASSUMPTION that an armed civilian has the ability to shoot to disarm. Civilian owners of firearms tend to have experience in the shooting of stationary targets under calm situations. An encounter with an armed criminal is not a calm situation. I dont assume that at all. If I thought that was the case, I wouldnt be nearly as put off about guns. ITs BECAUSE armed civilians are oft times not as big and bad as their weapon makes them think they are,, and have little control over their impulses that so many 'deaths' occur I do think, if they knew how and it was nearly as easy, they would merely disarm a person that made them feel 'threatened' as opposed to being motivated to just take their life immediately,,,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 12/16/12 09:50 PM
By golly. They are all packing AK's. How many can you pick out who are ex-cons and packing illegally? WTF is Holder? Guess the libs only want to disarm certain folks. You still have not done what was asked of you. Give evidence that the NBP have committed an act of violence. Possessing the above-depicted weapons is not in itself an act of violence. It's a crime if any or all of them are ex-cons. Those are the same types of weapons Libs want outlawed. It is shameful that this thread initially as a means to mourn has gone to the right to bare arms or regulation of assault weapons to Racism. No one has more weapons then White Americans. Your fear is not losing gun rights. Nor of criminals nor your distrust of goverment. Your fear is of Black people with guns. You dont fear racists with guns so long as they are white. Racism is clearly your motivation along with fear. The historical murders, lynchings, castrations and other crimes against Black Americans is well documented in the annals of our history. Noone in American history has been murdered and faced unpunished crimes more then Black Americans, many of those crime committed by law enforcment and sanctioned by goverment in many cases. But thats another subject altogether. I cant say id blame them for being armed. However, iv yet to here of a NBP member killing 20 6 year olds. History bares witness that thousands of defenceless Blacks were murdered at will during our nations shamefull pass. And still those who have been afforded immunity from the law still are armed. Noone in America is better armed then her racist elements. This fact should allow you to rest assured. So, let me see. You're defending the rights of hostile loons, a Muslim preacher and his Klan to pack possibly full-auto AK's?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/16/12 09:53 PM
By golly. They are all packing AK's. How many can you pick out who are ex-cons and packing illegally? WTF is Holder? Guess the libs only want to disarm certain folks. You still have not done what was asked of you. Give evidence that the NBP have committed an act of violence. Possessing the above-depicted weapons is not in itself an act of violence. It's a crime if any or all of them are ex-cons. Those are the same types of weapons Libs want outlawed. It is shameful that this thread initially as a means to mourn has gone to the right to bare arms or regulation of assault weapons to Racism. No one has more weapons then White Americans. Your fear is not losing gun rights. Nor of criminals nor your distrust of goverment. Your fear is of Black people with guns. You dont fear racists with guns so long as they are white. Racism is clearly your motivation along with fear. The historical murders, lynchings, castrations and other crimes against Black Americans is well documented in the annals of our history. Noone in American history has been murdered and faced unpunished crimes more then Black Americans, many of those crime committed by law enforcment and sanctioned by goverment in many cases. But thats another subject altogether. I cant say id blame them for being armed. However, iv yet to here of a NBP member killing 20 6 year olds. History bares witness that thousands of defenceless Blacks were murdered at will during our nations shamefull pass. And still those who have been afforded immunity from the law still are armed. Noone in America is better armed then her racist elements. This fact should allow you to rest assured. So, let me see. You're defending the rights of hostile loons, a Muslim preacher and his Klan to pack possibly full-auto AK's? what muslim preacher? are preachers any less entitled than pompous 'neighborhood watch' persons?